/fa/ - Fashion

>>11373091
I just don't understand the idea behind "art theft".

Why should someone creating a pattern preclude everyone else from producing it? The argument is usually just that then it wouldn't incentivize anyone to create new patterns, but that's hardly realistic.

Firstly, the original author would still be rewarded in sales by being the first to produce the pattern, so regardless of protection, it is exclusive for a time. But more importantly, do you really think they produced the pattern just to make money being the sole seller of it? It's almost always just because they had a vision and found that the existing tools weren't enough to achieve it, so they had to invent something new.

So why should others be precluded from following their own vision because of some arbirtrary ethic of attributing proper authorship? Any use of the tools, patterns, methods, history predating the 20th century are unjustly 'stealing' other's work likewise.

To me it's just a warped mentality. The only line drawn between someone ripping off existing work (like Jacob Hetzer) and someone heavily appropriating or citing (everyone else) is just if they do it poorly, with no insight, in other words, if they're a hack or not.

>>11294406
Yea I feel you, they're not dumb at all really, it might not be as deep as chalayan but they're not any more shallow for being meta than bernadette corp was.

but the reason you get "memed by vetements" is mostly because their absurd pricing is part of their deconstruction. it's intentionally arbitrarily overpriced and underproduced to generate the hype that makes people shell out for it.

it's not like their 'look' is that unique, you can find a lot of previous pieces/collections in other designers, like their ss16 collection came from a very similar engagement with americana as many takahiro miyashita collections