Vintage Desecration - Things Altered/Repurposed, and a Vintage Treasure Lost Forever.

[Lady Day]

Vintage or no, I have *always* hated clothing with the makers name/logo etc plastered right across it.

Let me get this straight, I pay $$$ for your item for the privilege of being your walking billboard?
Lamo

LD

 

[TSWebster]

Vintage or no, I have *always* hated clothing with the makers name/logo etc plastered right across it.

Let me get this straight, I pay $$$ for your item for the privilege of being your walking billboard?
Lamo

LD

I could not agree with this any more strongly. And yet people continue to think I'm odd for not wanting to be a walking sign.

 

[Foofoogal]

My initial response is to try and get some paint remover and take off the words at least.
I do know that people have been doing this for years but much more now. Many an old oil lamp has been changed and many a gorgeous vase has been drilled to make into a lamp. :eusa_doh:
Near me recently there was/is a company coming in and buying up all the old silver like dinnerware. I fear soon it will be impossible to find old sterling silver tableware as it will all of been melted down. So sad.
http://www.auctionbytes.com/forum/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=12417
Good post on how to preserve silver if you still have some.

 

[Panache]

Desecration or alteration?

(Panache in his best Rod Sterling voice)


"Sumitted for review to the good ladies and gentlemen of the Fedora Lounge...

Picture one tailcoat of good quality, purchased in a vintage clothing store in the mid eighties for use at formal events. Now picture 20 years later and an owner with a developing interest in highland attire. Taking the coat to a tailor he has the coat's tails shortened, epaulets added, all the buttons replaced, and additional buttons placed to the back to turn his vintage tailcoat into a Prince Charlie style formal kilt jacket."

"Though not turned into a faddish costume, the jacket has been altered and will never work as a standard tailcoat again. The question posed for you to decide is does his action count as a desecrated or alteration?

Or perhaps this jacket floats in the nebulous realm between transgression and utilization, and item modified in its appearance but retaining true to its original purpose and intent. A respectfully and thoughtfully modified vintage piece of apparel given a new direction that is displayed proudly in a shadowy corner of an eclectic little shop located on a twilight street here in...

The Fedora Lounge"




Cheers

Jamie

 

[Foofoogal]

fftopic: I don't know but you sure make me want to go back to Scotland for some skink soup.
Yummy stuff.

 

[bunnyb.gal]

Vintage or no, I have *always* hated clothing with the makers name/logo etc plastered right across it.

Let me get this straight, I pay $$$ for your item for the privilege of being your walking billboard?
Lamo

LD

Also in complete agreement. The more prominent the logo, the less likely I am to buy. It just screams tacky, and conspicuous consumption. If an item is a quality one, it should speak for itself.

Don't even get me started on football kit...

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Let me get this straight, I pay $$$ for your item for the privilege of being your walking billboard?

People pay $$$ for a signed painting for the privilege of having their wall become some artist's billboard?


.

 

[dhermann1]

Also in complete agreement. The more prominent the logo, the less likely I am to buy. It just screams tacky, and conspicuous consumption. If an item is a quality one, it should speak for itself.
Don't even get me started on football kit...

I've mentioned this before, but I'm always reminded of it.
I saw a New Yorker cartoon back about 1970, showing a very John Houseman-esque gentleman speaking to a cute little shop girl, saying "One supposes that if my parents wanted Yves Saint Laurent's initials on my clothes, they would have named me Yves Saint Laurent".
That just about sums it up.
As far as the highland kit is concerned, I think that if the original item is common enough, as this was, that it's not such a bad thing. It's only when an item starts to get a certain rarety that it becomes an issue for me.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

.



I'll play devil's advocate.


Wasn't Yves Saint Laurent an artist? And didn't his designers (who represented him) create works of art too? If so, then why shouldn't he have 'signed' those works? After all, Andy Warhol signed stuff that his people made; so did Salvador Dali.


More food for thought: if you wear a t-shirt that shows an image of a painting (any painting), should the artist's signature not appear on the image?


.


.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

I've mentioned this before, but I'm always reminded of it.
I saw a New Yorker cartoon back about 1970, showing a very John Houseman-esque gentleman speaking to a cute little shop girl, saying "One supposes that if my parents wanted Yves Saint Laurent's initials on my clothes, they would have named me Yves Saint Laurent".
That just about sums it up.

John, I have always had a problem with that. When I see a man wearing another person's initials on his clothing I have no choice but to ask myself who they are trying to impress?

Not only am I not impressed but I get the feeling they may have other issues going on.

 

[cptjeff]

.



I'll play devil's advocate.


Wasn't Yves Saint Laurent an artist? And didn't his designers (who represented him) create works of art too? If so, then why shouldn't he have 'signed' those works? After all, Andy Warhol signed stuff that his people made; so did Salvador Dali.


More food for thought: if you wear a t-shirt that shows an image of a painting (any painting), should the artist's signature not appear on the image?


.


.

They do sign it. On the tag.

The trouble arises when the signature, as it were, detracts from the art itself. DA Vinci did not spell out his name over Mona Lisa's forehead.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

They do sign it. On the tag.

Which no one can see when the clothing is being worn. On the other hand, everyone can see the artist's signature when a painting is mounted on a wall.

Da Vinci did not spell out his name over Mona Lisa's forehead.

But does the classic (small) Polo Ralph Lauren chest logo really detract from the polo shirt itself? Any more so than an artist's signature detracts from his/her painting or sculpture?


.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

But does the classic (small) Polo Ralph Lauren chest logo really detract from the polo shirt itself? Any more so than an artist's signature detracts from his/her painting or sculpture?


.

Yep

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Yep.

How so?


.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

How so?


.

I simply find logos, initials and likenesses on the garment truly take away from the garment or the person wearing it. Moreover there is nothing unique about the article of clothing it is mass produced.

A signature on a work of art is customary and the art itself is unique and should be identified as the artist's creation. The signature becomes part of the work of art and even if it is mass produced it is still considered a representation of a unique creation.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

... the art itself is unique and should be identified as the artist's creation. The signature becomes part of the work of art and even if it is mass produced it is still considered a representation of a unique creation.

In the beginning, there was one, unique Polo Ralph Lauren polo shirt: call it the company's original "sample." Could this not be considered a work of wearable art, and therefore worthy of the designer's signature? If so, then why can't the many copies (akin to, say, Dali's lithos) sport the signature as well?


In your opinion, should carmakers not display their names and logos on the outside of their cars? Isn't that free advertising? (And don't we, in fact, "wear" our cars -- especially in Southern California?)


.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

In the beginning, there was one, unique Polo Ralph Lauren polo shirt: call it the company's original "sample." Could this not be considered a work of wearable art, and therefore worthy of the designer's signature? If so, then why can't the many copies (akin to, say, Dali's lithos) sport the signature as well?



.

I think not Marc the very purpose of the "sample" was for a garment to be worn and merchandised by a great many people. To my eye it is it not part of the design, but, a mere sterilzed form of identification.


I do support the artist's signatures being represented on copies as the signatures themselves are unique and become part of the art.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I think not Marc the very purpose of the "sample" was for a garment to be worn and merchandised by a great many people. To my eye it is it not part of the design, but, a mere sterilized form of identification.

I don't think that Andy Warhol's (or, for that matter, Keith Haring's) approach to art was that much different from Ralph Lauren's approach to polo shirts ... except that his products are cheaper than theirs.


Certain Japanese collectors seem to feel this way, too. They pay enormous sums for very rare, vintage pieces of U.S. workwear that are widely --though not always exactly-- copied by Levi's and J. Crew today. These collectors view the rare vintage pieces as "original" in their way. They're seen and respected as works of wearable mass art.


.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

I don't think that Andy Warhol's (or, for that matter, Keith Haring's) approach to art was that much different from Ralph Lauren's approach to polo shirts...except that his art is cheaper.


.

Neither do I.......however the reason for it's creation is different.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Neither do I.......however the reason for its creation is different.

I'm not so sure of that. Warhol and Haring (to say nothing of Dali) exulted in mass production. They also became very rich from it.


One more thing. For over a century, Levi Strauss's jeans have had a large advertising patch attached to the back of their waistband. In the days when suspenders (and not belts) held up those jeans, the tag could be easily seen by everyone. (Miners didn't wear concealing jackets all the time!) And yet, no one here is complaining about the Levi's patch that, even today, so prominently advertises the brand.


.