/fa/ - Fashion

>>7113430
vanity sizing doesn't exist. the impression you're getting is actually caused by two things.

first, sizes are developed by each label individually to fit their customer profile. for costing purposes your median size should also be the size that sells the most, because it's the size you grade around and that affects your fabric consumption when it comes time to cut; say you produce xs - xl, with m being your median size, but when it goes to market you sell mostly ls and xls and nearly nothing below m, that means that you're wasting money producing garments that your customers don't want, losing money by failing to produce sizes they will buy, and wasting even more money with inefficient fabric cutting.

secondly, it's caused by the business models that mass market labels are using these days. they don't actually produce patterns, they just develop specs, which they send to their various contractors overseas, who then have the patterns done locally, resulting in what is ostensibly the same pant or jacket varying wildly depending on whether it was produced in madagascar or the dominican republic, and after all that is said and done they still don't meet those specs because the laborers are being paid dirt and just aren't very skilled. hypothetically qc inspects every x garment to make sure it's within specs and if they find enough samples are off then they should reprocess the batch (and maybe fire some people), but that costs money, and people want jeans for $19.95, it just can't be done.

>>6915506
i culdnt parse down that far but tbh i dont understand ppl having multiples of extremely similar garments
like i could own a huge amount of black pants but they would have 2 b extremely diff
black wide leg trousers
black drop crotch
black skirted
cropped
wool
leather
combo fabrics
etc

i remember seeing my friend's closet once and it was like he was a cartoon character, nothing but a ton of jeans and tshirts and they were all the same fit and same fabrics with modest differences in wash and all his shoes were different variants of chuck taylors

>>6529251
no, you got the point, miranda priestly is supposed to be kind of vulnerable. she's an antagonist.

i'm into fashion for the design objects.

>>6529248
it's also reductionist, and it isn't true of all things everywhere.

I don't even know what this is or who it's by I just want it.

moreover;

>I don't see any "depth" in fashion presentations beyond commentary on the form and function of clothing.

how does this lack depth? i think you're falling prey to the fallacy of artist's statements here, attributing a lack of depth to something because it isn't "about" something else. how is fashion exploring form any shallower than cubism or... any of the 20th century movements which focused on form?