You can "Derelicte" my balls.
January 18, 2010 4:06 PM Subscribe

Vivienne Westwood unveils homeless chic at Milan Fashion Week in a Zoolander joke brought to life. Fashion blog Project Rungay says, "Darlings, you just can't make this shit up." From The Times Online: "Some carried bedrolls. Another emerged from his cardboard box with a sleeping bag, slung it around his neck and quickly walked away." And there were shopping carts...
posted by artychoke (86 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

There it is! Magnum!
posted by Servo5678 at 4:10 PM on January 18, 2010 [5 favorites]

*burns down western civilization*
posted by DU at 4:10 PM on January 18, 2010 [13 favorites]

The shopping cart was the highlight for me.
posted by gomichild at 4:14 PM on January 18, 2010

This will only be okay if she later comes out with a piano key necktie. I'm not kidding. If she does that, then I'm officially okay with this.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:16 PM on January 18, 2010 [1 favorite]

The Realist was doign spoofs of this very thing waaaaaaaaay back in the day.

I guess given enough time people just run out of ideas
posted by edgeways at 4:20 PM on January 18, 2010

Man, and I thought my personal style was never going to be co-opted by the fashion mainstream.
posted by idiopath at 4:21 PM on January 18, 2010 [2 favorites]

That's the most tasteless thing I've heard about in fashion shows since I heard of one with a Communist Russia theme. Because people dying by the millions is just so hot, and there's a snazzy red flag that makes a great accessory.
posted by orange swan at 4:21 PM on January 18, 2010

This is the only one that's even close to any homeless guy I've ever seen
posted by Think_Long at 4:21 PM on January 18, 2010

I'm going to do a runway show inspired by fashion designers. All of the garments will be constructed entirely of douche bags.
posted by Consonants Without Vowels at 4:22 PM on January 18, 2010 [29 favorites]

Didn't someone pull a stunt like this in the mid-'90s, only with "grunge?"
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:22 PM on January 18, 2010

Homeless Person: [sweating] Yeah, uh...Hi, my name is Larry. I'm here to see Ms. Westwood.
Ms. Westwood's Assistant: Well, I hate to break it to you, Larry, but if Ms. Westwood ever wants to see a homeless person, she will observe him through a powerful telescope.
posted by you just lost the game at 4:28 PM on January 18, 2010 [3 favorites]

There's something wrong with the state of society when someone flushes 1 million bucks to make a line of useless shit like this while others starve in the earthquaken streets.
posted by Liquidwolf at 4:28 PM on January 18, 2010 [6 favorites]

What, Westwood has always been appalling and tasteless. It's just now she's designing to different definitions of those words.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 4:28 PM on January 18, 2010

Did any of the clothes have holes punched out of them?
posted by armage at 4:34 PM on January 18, 2010 [1 favorite]

Derelicte!
posted by jokeefe at 4:35 PM on January 18, 2010 [1 favorite]

Oh, haute couture. Why do you persist?
posted by Thorzdad at 4:35 PM on January 18, 2010

I don't get fashion. Can someone who gets fashion explain why it is I never see people actually wearing the fashion designs you see on the runways- the crazily improbable or architectural unsounds ones? Even the well-to-do who could afford couture apparently just wear really nice dresses or suits or hats, not ones that look bizarrely disproportionate or gimmicky.

Is this something where the runways are purely for avant-garde bullshit, but the actual money is in more generic clothes like you actually see on store racks? I mean, by comparison auto shows have "futuristic" designs but usually a) they're not completely impractical, and b) the most appealing lines and curves do end up getting adopted into car design within the next few years.
posted by hincandenza at 4:38 PM on January 18, 2010 [6 favorites]

Worst part is: she'll stay in business. Obviously some pieces will never sell, meaning other pieces will have to sell for much more than they're worth (obviously!).
In other words: people will buy it!

Humanity never ceases to disappoint.

(and technically Westwood is not, never has been, and shall be haute couture)
posted by Neekee at 4:42 PM on January 18, 2010 [1 favorite]

Does the the new clothing line also have an accompanying fragrance/cologne? A or scented toilet water, perhaps?
posted by R. Mutt at 4:46 PM on January 18, 2010

I don't get fashion. Can someone who gets fashion explain why it is I never see people actually wearing the fashion designs you see on the runways- the crazily improbable or architectural unsounds ones? Even the well-to-do who could afford couture apparently just wear really nice dresses or suits or hats, not ones that look bizarrely disproportionate or gimmicky.

The runway shows are about concepts, fabrics, style and colors, not about the actual pieces of clothing that the models wear there. If it helps, think of the clothing that shows up on a runway as an abstract idea, which will eventually be turned into something wearable by the time it hits the racks.

Each season, designers try to create a buzz about their lines with the media, buyers and salespeople by showing off their take on various themes. So when the clothing lines are introduced on the runway, each designer talks about how their clothing this season is inspired by X. This helps the stores that carry their lines get an idea of how they will be able to sell them, and also helps the designers themselves pitch their lines to new outlets.

But once the shows are over, most of the clothing are turned into pieces that will be wearable but still maintain certain themes that showed up on the runway. So a long flowing blue silk sarong may be turned into a silk blue evening dress, a wild-looking pair of pumps might turn into something a little less outrageous, but still with the same style and color scheme. Etc.
posted by zarq at 4:52 PM on January 18, 2010 [18 favorites]

Tasteless, sure, I'll accept that, but then again, I'll take Westwood any day over Britney Spears and all the other celebucrap that passes as fashion and "design" out there. They won't be doing a museum show of Spears' perfume bottles some day.

But anyway -- yeah, hincandenza, the point of the runway show is to push out all the way to the edge, it's going to get watered down by the time it filters down to the designers' own shops, thence to the mass market, thence to the cheapy cheap knockoffs.

Unless of course you are Lady Gaga. Then all bets are off.

Taking the fashion-is-art-art-is-fashion read on this...the thing about conceptual capital-A Art that I find so ridiculous is that you don't actually see the trickledown effect you do in the fashion world. Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst annoy the hell out of me. (hello? hellooooo? and what about the one with all the maggots, or the human skull to which Hirst apparently took a Bedazzler?). No one says they're full of shit. Oh no, it's all "oooh, look how edgy! oooh, Tracey Emin's bed's in an art gallery with condoms scattered around it.")

So fashion designers are playing a historically defined role here -- you do the crazy shit that grabs headlines on the runway, and then you sell off the watered down version to make money later on. (What's the watered down version of a Damien Hirst piece? leaving your dead goldfish to rot in the bowl?)

Westwood specifically has been doing the shock value thing for ages. Problem is, bondage gear and safety pins don't get a rise out of the public anymore, so this is...

a. blatant attempt to be crazy von shockingpants
b. Westwood being oblivious to the offensiveness of what she's doing
c. a little of both, who knows?
posted by bitter-girl.com at 4:53 PM on January 18, 2010 [3 favorites]

That's hilarious.

That's the most tasteless thing I've heard about in fashion shows since I heard of one with a Communist Russia theme. Because people dying by the millions is just so hot, and there's a snazzy red flag that makes a great accessory.

I heard about the complaints about that. Come on. I thought it was especially ridiculous given how often the U.K. flag is used in fashion, given the colonial history associated with it.

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with wearing clothes that integrate the Union Jack, but the soviet union was around for a long time, and it wasn't like it was run by Stalin the entire time.

(In contrast to the Nazis, which were only around for a short while and run by Hitler the entire time.)
posted by delmoi at 4:54 PM on January 18, 2010 [1 favorite]

every single one of these pieces looks like it's already around in some form, yes it's a horrendously tasteless theme...but the clothes are fairly unremarkable.
posted by doobiedoo at 4:55 PM on January 18, 2010

I don't get fashion. Can someone who gets fashion explain why it is I never see people actually wearing the fashion designs you see on the runways- the crazily improbable or architectural unsounds ones? Even the well-to-do who could afford couture apparently just wear really nice dresses or suits or hats, not ones that look bizarrely disproportionate or gimmicky.

Well, an important point is that people do runway shows with normal clothes too. It's just that those shows don't get as much play in the media, especially the non-fashion media.
posted by delmoi at 4:56 PM on January 18, 2010 [3 favorites]

Re: Westwood. I suppose it was only a matter of time. This is an industry that is infamously lousy at introspection, and rarely demonstrates an understanding of (or cares, really,) how poorly it treats its customers. It's sad, really.
posted by zarq at 4:58 PM on January 18, 2010

... and Damien Hirst annoy the hell out of me ... No one says they're full of shit....

Pretty much every artist I know thinks Hirst is full of shit, even if they are jealous of his career/$$$.
posted by R. Mutt at 5:03 PM on January 18, 2010 [2 favorites]

I don't know, I kind of like some of them.
posted by Mike Buechel at 5:07 PM on January 18, 2010 [1 favorite]

Also noted at least one "urban sombrero" in there.
posted by hermitosis at 5:07 PM on January 18, 2010 [4 favorites]

bitter-girl.com: "No one says they're full of shit."

I cannot think of the last time anyone mentioned either of them to say anything other than "they are full of shit". Maybe we hang out in different crowds.
posted by idiopath at 5:09 PM on January 18, 2010 [4 favorites]

You can Derelicte my balls!
posted by Artw at 5:11 PM on January 18, 2010

Derelicte my balls. I don't understand fashion that makes you look utterly ridiculous. I can understand producing clothes that make one look sexy, dangerous, cool, or perhaps quirky/weird/individual. But just ridiculous? What's the appeal.
posted by snoktruix at 5:12 PM on January 18, 2010

...is the title, oh dear.
posted by Artw at 5:12 PM on January 18, 2010

>Can someone who gets fashion explain why it is I never see people actually wearing the fashion designs you see on the runways- the crazily improbable or architectural unsounds ones?

>>Once the shows are over, most of the clothing are turned into pieces that will be wearable but still maintain certain themes that showed up on the runway.

This video - a monologue by Meryl Streep from The Devil Wears Prada - nicely summarizes the process that design goes through from runway to retail.
posted by lunasol at 5:16 PM on January 18, 2010 [2 favorites]

I never see people actually wearing the fashion designs you see on the runways-

its not about buying and wearing these clothes, they don't expect that. That's not the high fashion biz. It's just a (usually shitty) artistic statement by the designer, saying "Look at this crap! Now talk about me!"
posted by Liquidwolf at 5:16 PM on January 18, 2010 [1 favorite]

Maybe, idiopath, maybe. I try very hard NOT to hang out with people who take that shit seriously. (I share my studio with a painter, it's fun to play "who's trying too hard" in the art world, or bitch and moan about how a formerly decent art magazine is now nothing but one big plastic figurines ad).

Another thing about Hirst (et al -- Koons comes to mind) that really irritates me, R. Mutt, is that they aren't even doing most of the work on their own pieces outside the initial concept. I recently read some interviews with the taxidermist who does a lot of Hirst's figures -- I have a lot more respect for her than I do for him. In that same way, in the fashion world, I have a lot more respect for the people I KNOW can sew/can do the work rather than just immediately pass it off to the underlings (see: every celebrity "fashion" line ever). Westwood used to actually make her own stuff before she got big...

Another wacky-fashion person...Alexander McQueen. The man knows how to build a jacket from the ground up, he was an apprentice at a long-established Savile Row shop before he started doing kooky armadillo shoes (as worn by Lady Gaga in the Bad Romance video...). That isn't easy. Westwood's done great structured stuff before, too, and no doubt will again.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 5:21 PM on January 18, 2010

What the hell is with this one? Looks like a cartoon character.
posted by mannequito at 5:31 PM on January 18, 2010

Seems like someone cries "Derelicte!" every fashion week. McQueen FW09 comes to mind.
posted by oinopaponton at 5:31 PM on January 18, 2010

Missed that one, oinopaponton -- the clothes don't squick me as much as the Jocelyne Wildenstein makeup does.

/cold shivers down spine
posted by bitter-girl.com at 5:35 PM on January 18, 2010

Another thing about Hirst (et al -- Koons comes to mind) that really irritates me, R. Mutt, is that they aren't even doing most of the work on their own pieces outside the initial concept.

I'm guessing "R.Mutt" will have a different opinion.
posted by Falconetti at 5:39 PM on January 18, 2010 [4 favorites]

I'm guessing "R.Mutt" will have a different opinion....

Unbelievable! The worst ones were all those bastard Renaissance painters, with their "studios", "pigment procurers" and "brush boys"...
posted by R. Mutt at 6:03 PM on January 18, 2010 [2 favorites]

Oh, fuck! I'm fashionable again!
posted by Pecinpah at 6:12 PM on January 18, 2010 [1 favorite]

Darlings, you just can't make this shit up.

Isn't that exactly what Zoolander did?
posted by shakespeherian at 6:22 PM on January 18, 2010

Someone should do anorexia chic.

Oh, wait...
posted by elder18 at 6:25 PM on January 18, 2010 [3 favorites]

My favorite homeless gentleman, unfortunately no longer around, was one day wearing an uncharacteristically thick pile of disparate garments. When I asked him what was up with that, he began to show me the labels on each garment. He had like 30 items and each one had a label that said: "made in ..." some seemingly improbable country, and each country was different and more improbable than the next. He was making some kind of statement, I'm not sure if it was pro or anti globalization.
posted by StickyCarpet at 6:28 PM on January 18, 2010 [5 favorites]

Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst annoy the hell out of me. (hello? hellooooo? and what about the one with all the maggots, or the human skull to which Hirst apparently took a Bedazzler?). No one says they're full of shit.

Metafilter at least doesn't have much trouble with saying Hirst is full of shit. Here is a link to a thread from September last year related to Hirst. He lasted exactly one comment before he was called out by afu with 20 favorites. The rest of the thread didn't swing back in Hirst's direction if I recall.

I don't want to be that guy who is always saying, "Modern art is bullshit," but Damian Hirst makes it really realy hard.
posted by afu at 9:32 AM on September 4, 2009 [20 favorites +]

posted by Babblesort at 6:32 PM on January 18, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'll quote my favourite fashion designer response to a woman coming out of the changing cubicle wearing high-waisted, short-legged, twist-structured, jodhpurs-inspired pants (purple chamois too), bemoaning the fact that they were uncomfortable and ill-fitting and looked quite ridiculous.
He arched one eyebrow and spat out, "I guess you're just not ready", twisted on his heel and strode away from her. Apoplexy ensued.
posted by tellurian at 6:33 PM on January 18, 2010 [1 favorite]

and each country was different and more improbable than the next

What was the weirdest one, do you remember? "Made in Nauru"?
posted by DecemberBoy at 6:37 PM on January 18, 2010

I'm with Mike. I liked a lot of that. And yes zoolander was funny, but why can't homeless people be inspirations for fashion. It seems to me that just moves them into some 'untouchable' caste that does way more harm than good.
posted by vronsky at 6:37 PM on January 18, 2010

I just remembered that Tim Kreider came up with this idea as a joke (in March of 2001, so pre-Zoolander), as a commentary on the ridiculousness of fashion.
posted by DecemberBoy at 6:42 PM on January 18, 2010 [2 favorites]

If those homeless guys ever decide to change careers, I think they've got a bright future ahead of them in the rent boy industry.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:46 PM on January 18, 2010

Gah. All those models are so plastic-fake looking. Expressionless, ceramic shiny smooth lifeless faces. The Old Navy "modelquins" look more like humans than these overly-made-up men do.
posted by caution live frogs at 6:56 PM on January 18, 2010

In 20 years, we will all be hobos in giraffe hoof shoes with our own personal orbits. These fashion shows are all meant to be fair warnings so that we can adapt in time. I'm sure it will all seem very practical when we wear them.
posted by mccarty.tim at 7:00 PM on January 18, 2010

The orbits will seem very practical, not the homeless people we will become.
posted by mccarty.tim at 7:02 PM on January 18, 2010

Westwood conceded that she herself had no experience of being homeless. “The nearest I have come to it is going home and finding I don’t have my door key,” she said. “I mean, what a disaster that is, dying to get in your house and you can’t. And what if it wasn’t there any more?”

what
posted by jquinby at 7:42 PM on January 18, 2010

Ever feel like you've been cheated?
posted by 3.2.3 at 8:46 PM on January 18, 2010 [1 favorite]

This is really no more absurd than heroin chic, or grunge, or the myriad women's collections over the years that could best be described as dust bowl chic (I can't think of one to link right now, but it seems like almost every time I open a Vogue, there's some spread that looks like production stills from "Carnivale," except with girls that actually look starving), or the guy some years back that did those oversized puffy burka things, or the fact that fashion designers have been playing on the whole romantic streetwalker trope for about as long as nice young ladies have been able to show their ankles in public and probably before. And as several folks have pointed out above, this is hardly the first time some real-life take on derelicte has hit the runway. Vivienne Westwood rather likes to be controversial (although, these days, she's not exactly cutting edge anymore) and I suspect she's kind of a flake (despite that, her ballgowns make me want to play dress up like you wouldn't believe). The outrage factor buys her free press in a time when few people, even the wealthy, are all that inclined to run out and spend ten grand on a sweater that looks like your stepmother's new-age Western inspired upholstery. And honestly, the collection is wildly uneven. She can do better.
posted by thivaia at 9:45 PM on January 18, 2010

Imaginary video response:

A loop of the NY Cares coat drive commercial, with the audio replaced by the Kinks' "Dedicated Follower of Fashion."

Roll your own.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 10:23 PM on January 18, 2010

Remember that scene in Zoolander where the models frolic about in gasoline and then set themselves on fire? Wouldn't it be great if that were the joke Westwood brought to life but with designers instead of models? Harper's last month had an article that mentioned the wages paid to garment workers in third world countries with a range of 22 cents in Bangladesh to somewhere around 80 cents in China.
posted by Tashtego at 10:43 PM on January 18, 2010

Looking at the first link I suspect her husband Andreas had a hand in this. It looks more like his stuff than hers.
posted by oneirodynia at 11:05 PM on January 18, 2010

As for the argument that fashion is capital-A Art, I ask you to imagine that you are a professor for an MFA program, and have been asked to critique Westwood's project. What is her approach? Does it draw from historical, political, or aesthetic subtexts? How well does her execution embody or comment on issues surrounding homelessness? What could she do to improve the project?

And most importantly: Has she more or less reduced homelessness to a matter of layering?
posted by evidenceofabsence at 11:15 PM on January 18, 2010 [1 favorite]

I am the vile spew of the wretched masses! I am... well, you know what I am.
posted by Mocata at 3:36 AM on January 19, 2010

I only wanted to say that I call dibs on "crazy von shockingpants" as a sockpuppet user name.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:48 AM on January 19, 2010

” The theme, said Westwood, had been the suggestion of her Austrian husband, Andreas Kronthaler, who was in turn inspired by a lawyer friend who works for a homelessness charity.

The volunteer gig is good for me-- keeps me grounded-- and one thing's for sure, it's never boring. Here's the thing, Andreas, some of these guys have a pretty interesting "look." You wouldn't believe... I remember this one guy came strolling in without any pants on; just some bright purple socks, and a sports coat, shirt, even a tie, and for a brief moment...I kinda envied him his insouciance. Can you imagine walking around town without any pants on? I asked him what happened but he just keep demanding donuts. We gave him some pants, but whenever I see him I always remember those purple socks.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:15 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

It just reminds me of this.
posted by littleredspiders at 6:27 AM on January 19, 2010

I'm sorry I'm not into fashion as much as some people but are there actual people that are willing to part with hard earned cash to buy this crap?
posted by Mastercheddaar at 6:46 AM on January 19, 2010

Marisa, you can use "crazy von shockingpants," that's cool. It all fits in to my real-life names for just about anything. Format is adjective + von + [something]pants, or one of a few variants:

crazy von shockingpants
weirdo mcweirdostein
etc etc etc

Unbelievable! The worst ones were all those bastard Renaissance painters, with their "studios", "pigment procurers" and "brush boys"...

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I knew that was going to be the comeback, and it's not like (going back to the fashion for a minute) we all think Karl Lagerfeld is tied to a chair in his wee Paris sweatshop, stitching his little heart late into the night while his "iPod nanny" swaps in new tunes every few hours. It's one thing to outsource some of the grunt work to studio assistants, it's another to not know how to do the work yourself at all.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 7:09 AM on January 19, 2010

I swear some designer already did the homeless-chic thing, as in actually explicitly inspired by homelessness, years and years before Zoolander, but I'm racking my brains ("Concentrate, Derelicte") and I can't recall who or when.
posted by Metroid Baby at 7:13 AM on January 19, 2010

I'm sorry I'm not into fashion as much as some people but are there actual people that are willing to part with hard earned cash to buy this crap?

As with most things in life, some high-end items are worth the money and some aren't. It helps to look at a more expensive purchase as an investment.

For example, I buy Kenneth Cole briefcases, because they withstand a lot of abuse and the company will replace the case entirely (at least once, although my current bag has been replaced with a new model 4x now) with no questions asked if, say a handle falls off a bag or a lock breaks. They're more expensive than many alternatives, but worth it. I have friends who shell out a lot of money for classic-style Coach bags for similar reasons. They're extremely durable and well made.

I tend to buy my work clothes and shoes from a more expensive store than say, Old Navy (an inexpensive clothing store here in the US,) because I know they will last longer. I'm not buying expensive Armani suits, though.
posted by zarq at 7:24 AM on January 19, 2010

It's so hard to tell what's social commentary on the recession, the plight of the homeless, and the alleged "heartlessness" of capitalist clothing retailers for destroying unsold clothes in the middle of a harsh winter, and what's just... stupid.

Totally on the fence here.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 7:29 AM on January 19, 2010

I don't understand fashion that makes you look utterly ridiculous. I can understand producing clothes that make one look sexy, dangerous, cool, or perhaps quirky/weird/individual. But just ridiculous? What's the appeal.

Well, something that looks "quirky" and "cool" on the young and beautiful tends to look ridiculous on... me. Some people can make any style work.

That being said, even atrocious theme aside, there's some really odd stuff here.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have an appointment with the Prime Minister of Malaysia.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 7:36 AM on January 19, 2010

What is her approach? Does it draw from historical, political, or aesthetic subtexts? How well does her execution embody or comment on issues surrounding homelessness?

I'll preface this by saying that I'm not a Westwood fan at all, and I don't really like this collection.

If you take the time to learn a bit about the history of fashion in the 20th century, and then go look at current and recent collections, it's really obvious when designers are evoking certain eras. Right now, and for the past year or two, the undercurrent in almost every concept-y collection has been Great Depression/current recession (check out Marc Jacobs' Spring 09 collection for better execution than Westwood). This is a political/historical reaction to the recession that's going on right now. Unlike in the '80s, much of the '90s, and the early 2000s, when luxury fashion kind of fit more organically into people's expectations and incomes, the industry is really precarious right now (longtime super high-fashion couturier Christian Lacroix just filed for bankruptcy). Industry leaders are very aware of this. Some go for pared-down, classic dresses and suits, some go for over-the-top in-your-face blaze-out-like-a-phoenix flashiness, and some go for ironic homelessness. That's probably what Westwood's playing with here.
posted by oinopaponton at 7:44 AM on January 19, 2010

Westwood conceded that she herself had no experience of being homeless. “The nearest I have come to it is going home and finding I don’t have my door key,” she said. “I mean, what a disaster that is, dying to get in your house and you can’t. And what if it wasn’t there any more?”

It strikes me that one can go far in the fashion industry with pretentiousness and obscene insensitivity.
posted by ob at 7:54 AM on January 19, 2010

the soviet union was around for a long time, and it wasn't like it was run by Stalin the entire time.

(In contrast to the Nazis, which were only around for a short while and run by Hitler the entire time.)

I will never understand why people to whom it is perfectly obvious that Nazism was a monstrous regime so easily dismiss the USSR.
posted by prefpara at 7:56 AM on January 19, 2010

Why is couture taken seriously, covered slavishly by mainstream press, and soaked in money while people who dress up as anime characters are considered kind of a running gag, mocked and patronized, and required to scrounge for hotel space in which to have their conventions? Because I honestly don't see the difference. Except maybe with the cosplayers, there's usually an external reference. They're trying to look like something and you can assess whether or not they do.
posted by Naberius at 8:10 AM on January 19, 2010

Naberius: "Why is couture taken seriously"

Taking couture seriously? It is meant to be over the top, to not be anything a person would actually wear except for the sake of wearing something ridiculous. People take couture seriously in exactly the same way Kiss fans take the makeup and jets of fire seriously. The extravagant stupidity is the whole point.
posted by idiopath at 9:38 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

Its kind of so bad its good. I very much doubt Vivienne Westwood has watched ZooLander btw. I think the whole thing becomes even more bizzare if you take it out of that context. My favorite bit from the article was this:

At the end of the show — part of Milan’s menswear fashion week — Westwood was wheeled out on a paramedic’s stretcher from which she received the audience’s applause.

Was this part of the show or did she really need medical attention? The whole thing is so bizzare that it really could be either of those options. It makes her sound like Hedonismbot
posted by munchbunch at 9:58 AM on January 19, 2010

Not here to snark, but just wanted to tell a story that my mom loved to tell me when I was a kid. It was in the 70s when she was staying with my aunt in New York. She clearly remembers walking down the street on chilly winter day and from far up the block saw a GORGEOUS, striking, super tall woman just stompin' the shit out of the pavement like she was walking a Paris runway. My mom said she just couldn't get over the amazing jacket/cape this women had on that just billowed about as if she hired someone to follow her around constantly with a wind machine positioned just right. My mom couldn't take her eyes off of this person as they came closer and closer and thought, "Wow, she must be one of those models living in New York."

The ending to this story isn't just that my mom realized this mystery woman was in fact a man once she got closer, but that in fact this person was a homeless person and the technicolor dreamcoat they so dramatically tossed about like it was an haute couture piece was in fact a quilted electric blanket. The electric cord dangling from it gave it away.

It doesn't stop there. This story actually came with a moral that my mom wanted to convey to me: "It doesn't matter what you wear, as long as you're confident and know how to work it, people will think it's amazing."
posted by kkokkodalk at 10:55 AM on January 19, 2010 [4 favorites]

What we need is a Lord Gaga and everyone would be okay with this.
posted by spec80 at 11:01 AM on January 19, 2010

I like that it upends the trajectory of fashion design:
Runway -> Boutique Store -> National Clothingline -> Dumpster -> Homeless,
by making a gesture towards putting the homeless in it from the beginning. It reminds me of 'downcycling,' or designing a product for use well beyond its intended first purpose. The first purpose of a clothing design is to get people to buy it; creating something that is comfortable and durable is a distant second to sales. Why not design for the homeless, if the clothing can also fulfill its other functions?

(yes, I know this probably isn't at all what she's doing here.)
posted by kaibutsu at 11:02 AM on January 19, 2010

Did Heroin Chic ever directly reference shooting up smack?
posted by Artw at 11:04 AM on January 19, 2010

I kind of like it.
posted by Nattie at 11:13 AM on January 19, 2010

All I can do is quote one of the comments to the first link:

Did the press release end with the line, 'Let them eat cake.'??

You really don't get a more appropriate time to use the phrase than this.

On the other hand, here's what Westwood herself had to say about the line:

“I’m saying to people as well, buy less clothes. Only buy things when you really need them and really like them. Wear them and wear them.”

Really, that's all you are saying to people?
posted by wet-raspberry at 11:29 AM on January 19, 2010

"You don't see any handsome homeless."
posted by space2k at 12:04 PM on January 19, 2010

Seattle, 1993: Homeless Catch On To "Grunge" Trend
posted by vytae at 2:06 PM on January 19, 2010

« Older If You Could: Collaborate... | ASCIImeo, Videos in text.... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

You can "Derelicte" my balls. January 18, 2010 4:06 PM Subscribe

You can "Derelicte" my balls.
January 18, 2010 4:06 PM Subscribe