What do we have if we don't have our own integrity...

Christina's bird skull necklaces, that went into production for her jewelry line, Arms and Armory, three years ago.  For those of you who think it looks familiar, you probably have seen the copy (I won't name the designer here, but props if you can figure it out yourself) that has been floating around for the past year.

This is a very difficult subject for me to write about.  A couple of months ago, one of my favorite bloggers, and fellow DIY aficionados, Outi from OutsaPop, wrote about copying versus inspiration in design.  Outi, like us, has worked has a professional designer in the fashion industry for years, and anyone within the business will let you know that copying runs rampant in design.  And while I can't say that I haven't ever bought a pair of knockoff shoes at Forever 21, I certainly can't help but get a little aggravated over the subject matter.

As any of you who regularly read this blog knows, we ourselves often are inspired directly by looks from the runways when we are creating our outfits for Six Six Sick.  At the same time, we are making these outfits as DIYs for ourselves for non-commercial purposes, with no intent to actually sell or profit from them, and when we blog about the outfits we make, we cite all of the sources of inspiration.  I am a huge believer in DIY whenever this is possible (often it is not), and I don't believe that this ultimately cuts into a designer's sales since the end result never hits the market.

When we design commercially for our own lines, or design for other companies, we also are inspired by multiple sources, but always make sure that the designs are not directly lifted from another designer.  Being inspired is obviously vital to constant creation, but sometimes designers take the easy way out and find themselves copying something exactly from someone else.

Most often, the people who get in trouble for this are the mass retailers, like Forever 21, who are completely unafraid of the negative publicity, and undeterred  by potential lawsuits.  The only thing that they have changed is that recently, it seems like they've been looking to copy smaller designers, who have less means with which to fight back.  I've recently seen their knock offs from Obesity and Speed, Bless, and Rick Owens, to name a few of the surprising choices.  One of my friends told me that at a tradeshow, a Forever 21 designer came up, introduced herself, and asked if she could buy a single piece from one of the lines she was representing.  The purpose of the garment she wanted to order was obvious, and my friend politely declined.

While we can shake our heads at these large companies, ultimately I feel like they are business corporations without any creative heart or soul, and certainly without moral center.  On the other hand, when a small company or designer copies another small designer and sells that idea as their own, it actually makes me much angrier.  This designer MUST take accountability for their creative actions and decisions, and if they chose to blatantly plagiarize someone else's work, the moral onus is on themselves, rather than being masked by the cover of a larger, faceless organization.  Both Christina and I have had our work copied before, and most disappointingly, we find that it hasn't come from H&M or another megastore, but at the hands of other young designers in similar positions as ourselves. 

There are many faults with the fashion industry, too many to even begin mentioning here.  And when you work in it, there is little that you can control outside of your own actions.  As a designer, I feel like you have a responsibility to others and yourself to maintain your integrity.  What goes around comes around.  And at the end of the day, the designers who will be remembered aren't the ones who blindly imitate other people, but the ones who have a true individual voice of their own.  What do you think?

-Tiffany

CHANullification: Do's and Don'ts of Pre-Fall 2009

DO: I love the sleek modernity of this look, which seems a bit more Jil Sander than the rest of collection, but with just the right amount of high impact costume jewelry to keep it completely Chanel.  Plus, the headpiece is to die for.

So normally I try to hold off on doing collection commentaries (it's not like we need more opinions floating around the internet), especially of the negative variety, but I have to say, Chanel's Moscow inspired Pre-Fall collection has gotten under my skin. I've been trying to ignore it. A couple of weeks ago W.W.D. arrived at the showroom with the image of what looked like a costume from the Metropolitan Opera on the cover. I have to say, that when Ashley and I flipped to the spread, we let out a collective gasp and gag. I don't want to say that the clothing is ugly, and as always, I am a big fan of the accessories (chandelier sized headpieces and Faberge egg styled bags are made for would-be trannies like myself), but really the collection seemed completely lacking in any sort of modern appeal. I felt like I could smell the mothballs wafting from the pages. I know it's immaculately constructed, and I'm sure if I took a close look at the garments and got to touch them, I would probably swoon, but from the pictures, all the details looked fussy and overwrought, and seemed more old-fashioned than old-world (as I assume it was meant to appear). I tried to give the collection a second chance when I flipped through it on Style.com, and then decided to put it to rest.

Then, last night I came across this article on Cathy Horyn's blog, and was fascinated by the outpouring of lengthy, didactic responses elicited. In my mind, I imagine them all to be written by middle-aged high school Art History teachers, bored luxury shopkeepers whiling away time in their empty stores, chatty museum docents with no one to talk to, and effete elder men with extensive doll collections, who apparently spend their leisure hours spinning out essays in the comment section of the New York Times blogs.  Apparently I'm in good company.  This comment, which turned into a socio-political commentary rife with historical and cultural references, was particularly fascinating.

While I spent the better part of an hour reading them and still wasn't able to get through the bulk of it, the general opinion of the collection seemed mixed. While some cited Karl's legacy of timeless craftsmanship, and studious attention to Russian history, others felt similarly to myself, stating that the collection looked like a facsimile from some Russian Cultural Institute of National Costume (I don't know if this actually exists) with few traces of contemporary relevance and perspective. Many also irritably deemed the collection inappropriate in this state of current economic crisis. Anyhow, while I am still left cold by the show, I am at least stimulated by the dialogue that it sparked, and I am interested in hearing what others think of the collection...

DON'T: This look was apparently inspired by Russian Constructivism.  I think El Lissitzky would be insulted.  This gaudy, metalic-sheen take on his Suprematist paintings looks like it came from the poor-man's-Rei-Kawakubo style "wearable art" boutique down the block from my apartment.

DO: Ok, so this look isn't going to go down in the history books, but it's entirely cute and wearable, and I love the mushroom dome embroidery, mixed with the miss-matched scarf, which seems slightly more young and contemporary than the rest of the looks.

DON'T: This floor length coat has the same embroidery as the dress above, yet the added length, layers, and accessorizing not only make the look weightier and frumpier, but has the appearance of being stolen from the set of a theatrical adaptation of Doctor Zhivago.

-Tiffany