How depressing....

N

nsweezie

Registered Guest
Long time lurker here....
Found a really depressing blog today-
http://recyclelacma.blogspot.com/2009/06/claire-mccardell-dress_01.html

I only had the heart to read a few of the posts before my blood started to boil thinking about all that lovely vintage ruined. I know that sometimes vintage is remade because it has flaws but this just bugs me. From what I could see all the items were in good condition and were most certainly NOT unwanted. To me what this man has done like drawing a moustache on the Mona Lisa because he thinks it is an improvement.
Sorry for the vent, but I needed to 'talk' to some people who would understand.
Louise
 
This is quite an interesting discussion;

http://lacma.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/raiding-and-recycling-the-collection/

It's about the 'value' we place on things. Does a vintage designer dress have the same value as an Impressionist painting? I think an artist can interpret his/her work in the way they want. What is art? Whether you like it or whether it offends or challenges is up to you to decide.

Vintage anything has been deconstructed by lots of people/designers/artists so designer fashion is not immune. Cutting up textiles and fabric for patchwork or into clothing albeit often when the body of the cloth is damaged is usually accepted but some people may not see that as a good way of recycling.
 
I can understand recycling and maybe even changing a few things to wear the item again, but UGH!! A witch hat and some car covers from beautiful pieces that would make a great deal of women mighty happy?? A WITCH hat?? CAR SEAT COVERS? Come on!!! This is beyond ridiculous especially when you pretend that you are salvaging unwanted items. This guy is definitely making a statement, a couple of them actually. He shows that he is ignorant in the value of vintage fashion since he has called them unwanted and that he thinks a couple of witch hats and brocade car covers are more desireable than a gorgeous dress...Hmmm... Someone is Coo-Coo for Coco Puffs!
 
There's been a lot of discussion about this issue - personally, at first I was horrified, but after much thinking I've come to the conclusion that although I do not approve of what he is doing, I do think he has raised some important issues and it's positive that these processes (museums deaccessioning etc) are considered and questioned.

The fact is, there are a lot of second hand clothes out there, and many of them are sold for way below their (retail or museum) value because of the venue (eg charity shop or auction) and what value do we place on these things? It's not possible (or desirable) that all vintage is priced highly and so what do we do with the pieces that are undervalued? Most people value according to the price they have paid for it. It's a complex issue but I'm grateful that it's been raised.

I suspect the blogger is intentionally generating debate and whilst behaving like a vandal, it's clear by his background that he appreciates the complexities. I just wish he didn't butcher the McCardell. Witches hats, indeed :censored2:

Nicole
 
It has been said of this "artist" that his intent was to show that the works that were deaccessioned are NOT valueless, and that he is satirizing, in a sense, the process. Hoping, in fact, that his bastardizations of these lovely pieces would raise a backlash. (Which it has, of course, but against him and not the general practice of de-accession.) However, that is not my take on it at all. There would have been other ways, other pieces to use, in order to make the same point.

As many of us have commented and agree with, it is one thing to utilize damaged pieces to remake or recycle into something else. It is entirely another (and a sin, IMHO) to take perfectly "good" pieces and destroy them to satisfy one's own sense of importance....
 
:jawdrop: nooooo, I'm all for recycling and reconstructiong, but not an item of beauty and class...sad...provocative or not art should create something better from an object, not turn a wearable, gorgeous dress into a costume peice - yuck!
 
I commented on the blog as well, but doubt if my comment will be approved and published on the blog. I agree with you guys. I only hope that if he was wanting to create a rise, it was a total spoof and he really never harmed the dress. But I am sure that is not the case. I think the other point about the dress is not just the label, but that its totally wearable today. A gal could walk out of the house in that dress and not look like an anachronism, nor "dated", it would just look like she has her own style. Or if it was at thrift, some gal who was trying to get back on her feet could have found a dress to accessorize with a cardi and wear to work.
 
Jeeez, that IS depressing!

I'm all with you guys. I'm not beyond altering dress to make it wearable - if it means a few changes to make it fit better, and I've shortened a few maxi-dresses to make them work-compatible, but a with hat or car seat covers? NO thanks! And surely not a Claire McCardell dress.

As for valuing a piece - no matter if I paid a lot or little for something, or if it is actually worth a lot or not - all my vintage clothes mean a lot for me, I care for them even if it's a "cheap" 1970s poly thing, I bought it because I liked it and thus it's worth a lot to me. And I sometimes spend more time on mending something than it was worth (that also goes for new clothes).

Karin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top