Oct 19, 2010 | Fashion
Seen on the likes of uber-fashion blogger Susie Bubble of Style Bubble, and subsequently covered on TLo.com, Cooperative Designs‘ S/S 2010 crocheted tribal legwarmers leg-accessory thingies have been making the rounds on the blogosphere for some time. They’re a pretty distinct look.
Photo from Style Bubble.
That’s why when images of the Lovin Malandrino S/S 2011 show popped up in my inbox, I did a double-take.
Featured on POSHGLAM last month, here’s what they had to say:
Though Malandrino was inspired by Roger Capron, a French ceramist, her pieces were definite original works of art. Leather macramé was the fabric of choice and the most amazing use of it was the over-the-knee gladiator sandals.
Okay so they’re leather, and stylistically they’re a bit different from the Collective Designs version. But do you see an “inspired” design here??
I do!
As a fashion designer it’s so hard not to be referential. To be less PC about it, it’s so hard NOT to knock anyone else off.;-)
The art of creating beautiful, wearable pieces to clothe the body has been around for thousands, if not millions of years. Everything by now has been done before. Everything is a knockoff in some way, in some element. Many people cite hte safety pin as being the most widely-used knockoff – originally invented by the Romans, not only is it now a functional staple in your standard sewing kit, but it’s also been “re-imagined” by everyone from Givenchy to Subversive. And no one’s screaming copyright infringement.
The reason why we laud the designers we do, and await their collections season after season, and are not up in arms about “we’ve seen this from ______ (insert other brand name here) already!!” is because there is copying afoot, but it’s cloaked styled in such a way, reappropriated in such a manner, that it’s not immediately obvious. That is the hallmark of a truly gifted designer – someone who’s able to take that “inspiration” and recycle it into something that doesn’t tip anyone off to its origins.
Me, I believe in giving credit where credit’s due, and if you’ve created an “inspired” piece that’s obvious upon looking and has enough similarities that you go AHA! (when it comes to defining how similar a piece can be to be called a “knockoff,” in Judge Rehnquist’s words, “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it” or the more popular “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it IS a duck!”)…then you need to say “inspired by” at the very least to lay it all out there and be honest about it.
And I truly oppose large, established fashion houses ripping off from the little guys. You fashion houses are supposed to be the most forward-thinking and setting the trends! Don’t look back, don’t do what has already been done. In fact, I oppose designer copying among each other in general (except when it’s a mass-market brand).
Forever 21 distilling Catherine Malandrino to their store shelves?! No problem! H&M being “inspired” by Gucci in their designs? Bring it on! But Erin Wasson blatantly ripping off Bliss Lau’s body chains or Pamela Love stealing Arms and Armory’s bird skull pendant? NO! This is high-fashion (+high-price), non-mass-market, independent designer lifting from smaller, independent designers. In my book, this is a big no-no! If you’re bringing fashion to the masses, it stands to reason that you would lift from the established, forward-thinkers. Mass market fashion is not, by definition, forward-thinking and in fact, knocking off is expected from them. Everyone deserves a shot at having more affordable “high-fashion Style” brought to them. I just think companies should credit the original – and not create EXACT copies, just “similar to” pieces – and even pay a percentage of their sales to the creators of the original item.
In an ideal world!! 😉
So what’s your take on all this? When, if ever, is copying or creating an “inspired by” creation okay? Does Catherine Malandrino skate on by? Or is this just a case of two separate fashion houses producing two separate accessories during the same year that just have a number of similarities by pure coincidence? Are there enough differences in these legwarmers that it’s no longer “inspired”? Or does it “LOOK LIKE A DUCK WALK LIKE A DUCK AND TALK LIKE A DUCK?!”
xoxox
Carly
~If you liked this post, please share it!~
Leave Comment
Oct 1, 2010 | Media
PBS journalist Johanna Blakely posted an opinion piece the other day on how copyright protection with literally “cramp our style.” It’s a fascinating article, and one I COMPLETELY agree with. (And the crux of why I began Chic Steals in the first place!) My take on this:
The fashion industry must have knockoffs or else it won’t survive.
Nothing is truly new or original anymore, it’s all been done. To claim copyright to a design (i.e., allow big, powerful companies with lawyers and tons of $ to claim copyright to a design) will only cause the industry to stagnate and truly destroy any innovation whatsoever. It will prevent the formation of new businesses, the rise of new designers, and everything will be a mess of copyrights and infringement lawsuits and settlement payments to companies that are ALREADY rich.
Fashion is aspirational and there always need to be designers that distill the pieces from the fashion-forward mega-brands and bring them to the public at an affordable price.
Copying or “being inspired by” is completely necessary to the industry – and to consumers. An exact copy – logos and everything? Stitching and all? Same materials, same size, same design – created by rubbing off the original? Wrong. There’s a fine line between “inspiration” and “copy.” “Copiers” will never be as revered as those who devise the trends and are always pushing the boundaries: the forward-thinkers of fashion. But they’re equally as necessary to the dissemination of fashion to the public and the health of the industry as a whole.
It’s like I always say – if you’re going to copy, PAY HOMAGE and say “inspired by.” If you’re a company beyond a certain size and doing a certain volume a year, don’t rip off from the little guys. You’re supposed to be the innovators. Innovate. Don’t hide behind a mistaken and self-righteous “I did it first, so there! It’s mine!” And I’m looking at YOU, Ms. von Furstenberg. Bah.
Thanks, Jenn, for the link! You are always so on top of things:-)
xoxox
Carly
~If you liked this post, please share it!~
Leave Comment
May 18, 2010 | Fashion, Media
You guys have probably seen this already, but there is an in-depth series on “Dumbing Down American Design” on EcoSalon.
In a special four-part Dumbing Down American Design miniseries, EcoSalon takes a closer look at American design and considers different perspectives from leaders in the design and fashion world.
Has our quest for convenience forever altered fashion?
If we are to invest in sustainable design, doesn’t it start with the designer knowing something about fit? The pattern maker knowing something about quality pattern making? The retailer knowing something about which clothes to purchase based on construction versus fad? And ultimately, as consumers driving demand, what is our responsibility?
Over the next four weeks, we’ll provide insight into these questions.
Click below to read the series if you are interested in this topic:
Part 4 not yet posted…
And though this is not about American design per se and more about the manufacturing business in general (at least for wholesalers in the UK), there is a rather sensationalist series called “Blood, Sweat, and T-Shirts” that aired on British television awhile back. In this reality television series, six Brits visit Delhi and Hariana, working at a clothing workshop that sews pieces for undisclosed “high street brands,” and picking cotton in the fields for the textile mills. It’s The Real World meets the real world…of fashion. See what these priveleged, unskilled, ethnocentric, drama-queen twentysomethings deal with in another country, working on Indian terms to bring cheap fashion overseas to Western consumers: (Warning: NSFW language… and I’m sorry but I can’t find the series without the subtitles, and I can’t find any more than 5 eps…please let me know if you know where to find the rest of this series!)
So – thoughts? Please share your reactions in the comments!
xoxxo
Carly
top img from EcoSalon.com
Leave Comment
Apr 25, 2010 | From You, Media
I received this question in my formspring.me box:
Have you seen the release of the unretouched photos of Brittany Spears for the new Candies ads? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1265676/Britney-Spears-releases-airbrushed-images-digitally-altered-versions.html). What do you think of them?
This is the 4/14/2010 Daily Mail Reporter article she is referring to:
“Britney Spears bravely agrees to release un-airbrushed images of herself next to the digitally-altered versions
“Celebrities, and the industry around them, are often accused of producing images that affect young people’s body image.
“Which is why it’s so refreshing to see one of the world’s most famous pop stars allowing all of their imperfections to be highlighted.
“Britney Spears has allowed the pre-airbrushed images from a shoot she took part in for fashion firm Candie’s to be used ALONGSIDE the digitally-altered ones, so people can see the difference.
The 29-year-old singer made the extraordinary move in order to highlight the pressure exerted on women to look perfect.
“In the first shot, she is seen facing the camera with her arms behind her back. Imperfections that can be clearly seen in the un-airbrushed shot include blemishes on her calf, her larger thighs and, if you look really closely, you can see her feet have dry skin on them.
“The airbrushed pictures, however, tell a different story with a slimmed-down waist and flawless, skinny legs.
“Meanwhile, in the second picture, she is seen from the back – in the un-airbrushed shot she has areas of cellulite on the back of her thighs, a tattoo on her lower back (sometimes called a ‘tramp stamp’) is clearly visible and her backside is a little out of shape.
“However, in the altered photo all of these imperfections have been wiped out – and she appears to have a pert rear, unrealistically smooth skin, slimmer legs and the tattoo has vanished.
Shaping up: The pop star’s whole body has been trimmed down with the use of a computer, even down to removing a tattoo on her back.
“A source told the Daily Mirror newspaper: ‘Britney is proud of her body – imperfections and all.’
“Of the experience, the singer told press: ‘I had so much fun shooting the Candies for Kohl’s campaign. My favorite set-up was against the gigantic wall of pink cotton candy.’
“And she added: ‘I got to wear the cutest clothes and they are perfect for summer!'”
Source
So…here’s my 2cents since you asked…
I think it’s pretty obvious from Britney’s history that she is not particularly savvy when it comes to press and PR…and thus, it is most certainly stretching the truth to write that she “made the extraordinary move in order to highlight the pressure exerted on women to look perfect.” I’m willing to bet that it wasn’t her idea in the first place, and she likely did not care one way or the other, as Britney Spears has never seemed overly concerned with women’s issues in the first place. (Unlike Jessica Simpson, for example.)
Excessive Photoshopping and “realism” in magazines and advertising is currently a hot debate topic…perhaps in part kicked off by that unretouched photo of Lizzie Miller in Glamour Magazine last September (photo above)…and it’s patently obvious that Candie’s wanted to be a part of it. (Don’t get me started on why they decided to use Britney Spears as poster girl for the Candie’s brand in the first place…I find it a strange and almost PR-blind decision, but whathaveyou.) It’s sort of winceworthy that they chose to highlight Britney’s imperfections in releasing these photos…we’ve all seen the numerous tabloid photos of her over the years and so the public (I believe) is generally aware that Ms. Spears looks quite different in reality than when she is plastered with makeup, posed, and Photoshopped in a Candie’s ad or on her own album covers. (Had this been pulled with someone like, say, Victoria Beckham, I think there would be much more of an “ohmygosh!” reaction. Come on – we all know Britney has cellulite and acne and less-than-doll-like thighs. The jig is up, Candie’s, in case you didn’t realize.) Plus the company is only drawing attention to how much they have Photoshopped and digitally manipulated her in this ad (and therefore, we can assume, in all her ads for them up to now) so I’m not sure this is casting them in a good light by them saying “Look at our spokeswoman, Britney!! Isn’t she such a dog in real life?? But she’s proud of it, so yay!” Eye-roll-worthy…to me, it’s just someone else manipulating Britney’s image to get something out of it.
I think she looks great in the BEFORE photos (especially as a woman who’s had kids and is entering her 30’s)…though to be perfectly and utterly honest, what I expect when I open a magazine is something more like the AFTER photos, which (though not reality for all intents and purposes) display a visually appealing perfection, and offer no extraneous flaws that could detract from the brand message. (Except for Ms. Spears and her history, but we’ll leave that for another day.:-)
And on another note, as
the Photoshopping vs. what is real? debate rages on (with Jessica Simpson appearing without makeup on the cover of the latest issue of Marie Claire, for instance)…Health Magazine decided on this for their cover for the April 2010 issue:
Do you know who this is?
I didn’t…I was like, “I think I’ve seen her somewhere before..gosh she kinda looks like…no, wait, this lady looks much older…who is this??”
And I’ve seen two of her movies, too. Does this look like the Zooey Deschanel you know? (You know, the cute one, lately from the covers of Lucky Magazine and those sweet and sort of innocent-looking Cotton ads.)
I think you can tell that they definitely laid off the Photoshopping for this cover…and as a result I couldn’t recognize her. Or maybe I just haven’t seen her smiling enough. Or maybe her hair/makeup looks very unlike her. Or maybe I’m just an idiot.
Zooey fans, weigh in! Oh, and Britney fans too – and anyone who wants to talk about Photoshopping people for magazine ads/covers…would love to hear your input too!
Thanks for your thought-provoking question!
xoxox
Carly
Leave Comment
Feb 26, 2010 | From You
From formspring.me:
could you please post the tutorial for the zip harness thing?x
Leave Comment
