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

[Carlisle Blues]

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.

.

The article of clothing is for one to wear. The work of art is created for one to admire and appreciate.

Now if the work of art is made into an article of clothing then I fall back to my position regarding YSL.

Monetary reward is a non issue.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

The article of clothing is for one to wear. The work of art is created for one to admire and appreciate.

Are the two necessarily separate? Is nonfunctionality a necessary condition for objects to be deemed works of art?


.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

Are the two necessarily separate? Is nonfunctionality a necessary condition for objects to be deemed works of art?


.

In their purest form yes they are mutually exclusive. They both have a function; one is to be used as protection and covering of the skin and the other to be aesthetically pleasing.

 

[Foofoogal]

I once sold a Mexican jacket to a Mexican restaurant. They framed it and hung it as Art.
lol

I definitely see clothing as Art. I bought a ribbon dress that no way in this life would it fit me but it is so gorgeous.
I take it out every now and then and enjoy my Art.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

.



Again, why don't we mind that our cars have the manufacturers' names and logos emblazoned on them? Our cars envelop us just like our clothes do. When inside our cars, we can be seen --and judged-- by others from the outside. Still, we don't complain that our armor has "Nissan" written on it.


(Our ancestors did seem to mind. Their carriages and wagons were unlogo'd.)

.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

.



Again, why don't we mind that our cars have the manufacturers' names and logos emblazoned on them? Our cars envelop us just like our clothes do. When inside our cars, we can be seen --and judged-- by others from the outside. Still, we don't complain that our armor has "Nissan" written on it.


(Our ancestors did seem to mind. Their carriages and wagons were unlogo'd.)

.

From a practical stand point the model name being obvious makes it easy to identify the vehicle should there be an accident. There are very practical and legal reasons for the model name being so readily available.

....and of course people want to be identified with a model that represents wealth and style.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

From a practical stand point the model name being obvious makes it easy to identify the vehicle should there be an accident. There are very practical and legal reasons for the model name being so readily available.

Yes, that makes sense. Begs the question: is it illegal for an owner to remove the logo and name from his/her own car?

....and of course people want to be identified with a model that represents wealth and style.

True, and this applies to all 'vanity' products, unique or not. Clothes, paintings, etc.



.

 

[miserabelle]

Cars are more of a status thing really though aren't they? Clothes are too - but you can see the expense/style of the outfit by the cut, tailoring and fabric of a garment... it's the cheaper clothes (or the cheaper ranges of fashion houses) that have the logo on them, and that's not really something that we want to be seen with so much these days.
x

 

[Marc Chevalier]

... but you can see the expense/style of the outfit by the cut, tailoring and fabric of a garment.

These days, not so much ... especially with men's clothes. The male public's eye isn't really trained to spot the differences.


.

 

[jamespowers]

.



Again, why don't we mind that our cars have the manufacturers' names and logos emblazoned on them? Our cars envelop us just like our clothes do. When inside our cars, we can be seen --and judged-- by others from the outside. Still, we don't complain that our armor has "Nissan" written on it.


(Our ancestors did seem to mind. Their carriages and wagons were unlogo'd.)

.

The logos help identify which ones we shouldn't buy based on their recall history.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

The logos help identify which ones we shouldn't buy based on their recall history.

lol :eusa_doh: Sad but true!


.

 

[reetpleat]

I really don't understand why names and logos make people so upset. I don't buy my clothing for them, but a lot of the casual stuff i buy that fits, is decent quality and good style for me has Af, or Gap on it. i don't care.

I am not trying to impress anyone. Nor am I worried about unimpressing anyone. I just wear the shirt and waste no more time thought or energy on it than that.

Why do people go around looking for things to offend them so they can spend more of their lives being upset and complaining about it.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

.




In the 1980s, Guess, Inc. started making its own creative versions of the classic, leather-sleeved varsity jacket. The Guess jackets were a stylized interpretation; at the time, no one else was following Guess's lead. Did the jackets have the word "GUESS?" emblazoned all over the place? You bet. The font design, the size, the color, and even the texture of the lettering: all part of the jacket's overall design.


Why should we condemn Guess, Inc. for this? The company and its designers created the product ... why shouldn't they seek some credit for their work? And if consumers don't like wearing a logo, they can vote with their wallets and not buy the item.


.

 

[jamespowers]

.




In the 1980s, Guess, Inc. started making its own creative versions of the classic, leather-sleeved varsity jacket. The Guess jackets were a stylized interpretation; at the time, no one else was following Guess's lead. Did the jackets have the word "GUESS?" emblazoned all over the place? You bet. The font design, the size, the color, and even the texture of the lettering: all part of the jacket's overall design.


Why should we condemn Guess, Inc. for this? The company and its designers created the product ... why shouldn't they seek some credit for their work? And if consumers don't like wearing a logo, they can vote with their wallets and not buy the item.


.

Hmmmmm..... I'll have to see if I still have those laying around.

 

[Paisley]

I really don't understand why names and logos make people so upset. I don't buy my clothing for them, but a lot of the casual stuff i buy that fits, is decent quality and good style for me has Af, or Gap on it. i don't care.

I am not trying to impress anyone. Nor am I worried about unimpressing anyone. I just wear the shirt and waste no more time thought or energy on it than that.

Why do people go around looking for things to offend them so they can spend more of their lives being upset and complaining about it.

That's my take on it, too. I don't want to be a walking billboard, but if my tennis shoes have the maker's name stitched on them in small letters, or my purse has a metal doo-dad with the maker's name stamped on it, big deal.

 

[Foofoogal]

There is good and bad clothing. Generally the better have logos on them. Fine with me. I just don't want to wear a clothing item one time and have it shrink, fade or generally look like %&^$
I could care less if they have a name on them. Consistency is everything and brings me back to purchasing their product.

Liz, Etienne Aigner and even Chaps are names I would be proud to even do a TV spot for. I am happy with their product.
I should hope I get loyal customers as these names. Reputation is everything.

Sure got off on this thread..lol

I will always say though if I had to pick one name in 35 years of products I have been using http://www.revereware.com/ would be it.
Cookware but I still have some from 1979 I use daily. Over a century so must be doing something right. They deserve to have a giant logo on their pots but don't.

With more and more junk being produced a logo helps find quality IMHO.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I will always say though if I had to pick one name in 35 years of products I have been using http://www.revereware.com/ would be it.
Cookware but I still have some from 1979 I use daily. Over a century so must be doing something right. They deserve to have a giant logo on their pots but don't.

Agreed on this 100 percent -- there's a difference, I think, between respecting a trademark as a sign of quality, and going around plastered with logos like a NASCAR driver. At least they get paid to wear ads.

As far as Levis go, everyone I knew growing up would cut that big label off the back -- it never would have occurred to them to leave it on, because tags were *supposed* to be cut off. (Except for mattresses, under penalty of law.) Wearing a logo on your jacket meant you made the varsity or worked at a gas station -- you were far more likely in my town to see a patch reading "Esso" than you were one reading "Ralph Lauren."

 

[Lady Day]

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

Riiiiiight. Its totally the same thing. For a work of art whose original purpose is to be hung on a wall and looked at by viewers, as opposed to an article of clothing whose original purpose is to be worn as clothing with someone's name/logo/tag streaked across its front. Gotcha.

You can split that hair all you want to but you know exactly what Im talking about.

LD

 

[Lady Day]

That's my take on it, too. I don't want to be a walking billboard, but if my tennis shoes have the maker's name stitched on them in small letters, or my purse has a metal doo-dad with the maker's name stamped on it, big deal.

And there in lies the difference. When the 'signature' becomes as large or as much an obstruction of whatever it is on, then it is not a part of the 'art' as some have suggested. It morphs into an advertising device, one that the wearer has paid to for. One you can not help but be forced to see rather than acquire as to its maker.

When I see a painting whose style I recognize, I will look for a sig to see if its someone I know. I would apply that same logic to clothing. I dont want to see who made it before I have had a chance to wonder/inquire who made it.

Signatures are often subtle, branding of merchandise often is not.

LD

 

[Foofoogal]

fftopic:

(Except for mattresses, under penalty of law.)

Funny story. When my baby sister was newly married ( and young) her and her new hubby got in a knock out drag out because he pulled this label off of their new pillows. She thought they would go to jail.
I laughed for days about that. Finally convinced her that since she now owned them quite ok to take off those tags. lol