Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Clearly this is a metaphor for something.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                                 

Trapdoor Fashion Show

what it says
  (+10, -2)(+10, -2)
(+10, -2)
  [vote for,
against]

I can't be the only one that finds fashion shows annoying. Not the clothes, or the c-list celebs in the front row, or the silly walks. I quite like those. What I don't like is the looks on the models' faces - that sort of plastic posed cooler-than-thou thing. You know.

As my revenge - the Trapdoor Fashion Show. The catwalk is arrayed with trapdoors that randomly open, swallowing up the unfortunate models whole. Unless they have their wits about them.

That might make for a different set of facial expressions...

bumhat, Dec 10 2007

all you really need to know http://tribes.tribe...0-8630-9cd9044728cc
about the fashion industry [pertinax, Dec 12 2007]

Lookin' shmoo' http://upload.wikim...5/57/Trapdoor15.png
[theleopard, Dec 13 2007]

http://en.wikipedia...iki/It's_a_Knockout [pertinax, Dec 14 2007]

[link]






       I have always wondered why models for the world's finest clothes and cosmetics always look as if they'd really rather be out somewhere shooting cats. For the money, they could raise a smile.
MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 10 2007
  

       Fashion shows are intrinsically unimpressive because they show clothes (some good, some not) on models who would look pretty good in anything. It's difficult to disentangle the contribution to the overall aesthetic effect from the model from that of the clothes. I'd like to see "added value" fashion shows, which would start with a selection of mediocre models. Then, if they looked really fantastic in some of the clothes, you'd know that this was due to the merits of the clothes rather than the model.
hippo, Dec 11 2007
  

       As long as they fall into pots of treacle, it gets my vote +
xenzag, Dec 11 2007
  

       Pots of treacle, hell - they need to fall into pots of Prozac.   

       I don't give a damn about the young ladies looking sophisticated - which they don't - or wearing what are purported to be the day's hottest fashions - which they aren't. They look bored, bitchy and ragged. And that's just the clothes.   

       I would like to see a fashion show featuring women who are shaped like they aren't afraid of the mayonnaise, wearing clothes they would actually dare to be caught in in public.
elhigh, Dec 11 2007
  

       Fashion is the art of brainwashing the proud   

       - "The thrilling conversation you've been waiting for", by Harvey Danger
globaltourniquet, Dec 11 2007
  

       No, //brainwashing// is over-diagnosed. Fashion is about decisions that are rational at the margin (given a somewhat selfish definition of 'rational'), and only stupid in the aggregate. Dr Seuss explains it best (like so many things). See link.   

       In fact, fashion might be the ideal paradigmatic counter-example to the entire 'efficient market hypothesis' {marks self for deletion - theory, advocacy, etc.}
pertinax, Dec 12 2007
  

       "Sylvester McMonkey McBean:" a sage for the ages. Also one of my favorite voices to do when reading for kids.
elhigh, Dec 12 2007
  

       //young ladies looking sophisticated - which they don't// - I teach fashion students, amongst other disciplines, and "my girls" (and boys) do a lot of modelling work. I can assure you they are far from being stupid, unhappy or unsophisticated. They are in fact fantastic, full of energy, make brilliant garments and love their work!
xenzag, Dec 12 2007
  

       But do they ever smile when modelling? Or is there an industry-mandated sulk?
MaxwellBuchanan, Dec 12 2007
  

       I think there's an industry-mandated body shape that would give me the sulks to maintain. I know it gives me the cold-robbies to look at it.   

       How about randomly-placed sandwiches instead of trapdoors? Or just give everybody in the audience something to nosh on, and let the models try to look cool and superior while missing out on some tasty barbecue.
baconbrain, Dec 12 2007
  

       //love their work!//   

       I'm happy for them, [xenzag], but I'd like to make a distinction between clothing and fashion.   

       If you dress yourself in clothes that suit your mood, personality, colouring, body-shape and environment, and go through your day feeling attractive and being decorative, that's great, but it's not fashion.   

       It takes two to make a fashion, namely, a fashion leader and a fashion follower.   

       The clothing only becomes a fashion when someone else (less confident than yourself) wears something similar, not because it suits them but because you're wearing it. That's what makes fashion fashion.   

       Hence, fashion is a cause of macro-stupidity in fields far removed from catwalks (politics, financial markets, etc.), and to be against fashion is not necessarily to be an enemy of clothing designers or models per se. Just wanted to make that clear.
pertinax, Dec 13 2007
  

       //It takes two to make a fashion, namely, a fashion leader and a fashion follower.// I think this is a simplistic generalisation of a highly complex set of inter-reacting/feedbacking relationships between marketing/image makers, designers, manufacturers, outlets, consumers, media, and society in general.
xenzag, Dec 13 2007
  

       //this is a simplistic generalisation//   

       Conceded - would you be happier with 'more than one, including...', in place of 'two, namely...'?
pertinax, Dec 13 2007
  

       I was hoping this was going to be Berk, skull and his plastecine friends putting on a fashion show for the man upstairs.   

       "Don't you open that Trapdoor!
'Cos there's something down there!"
theleopard, Dec 13 2007
  

       I'm not speaking against your students, [xenzag], I'm speaking against the somehow de rigeur pouty, slouchy, disinterested air professional models wear when doing their thing on the catwalk. I hate it. How can it be considered fashionable for the model to look so unhappy, so uncomfortable?   

       Some of them are trying to look confident or defiant, and a few of them actually achieve that, but while wearing gigantic angel wings or 17 yards of taffeta? What the hell am I supposed to think? Between the models and the avante-garde fashions, I want to drop the whole schmear into an oubliette.
elhigh, Dec 13 2007
  

       At the risk of causing further annoyance to [xenzag], I think the reason for that //pouty, slouchy, disinterested air// is readily found in the leader/follower relationship I described above: As a fashion follower is needy and aspirational, so a fashion leader must look needed and aspired-to. They *have* to have an 'I don't need you, you need me' look if they are to maintain and reinforce that relationship.
pertinax, Dec 13 2007
  

       I'd love to watch 'em fall into vats of chocolate syrup, or donuts, and be required to eat their way out.   

       At a certain point, a world entirely without fashion would lead to us all dressing like Kim Jong Il. Oddly, so would a world entirely possessed by it where our clothing would be so unique it would cease to matter to us, like fingerprints. Somewhere, some happy blend of unhappy envy or happy non-conformity vs. nervous conformity must be necessary for our own comfort.
RayfordSteele, Dec 13 2007
  

       I thought maybe the trapdoors would be in the fashions.
bungston, Dec 13 2007
  

       Back on topic, I think the problem with the idea itself is that it's too one-sided. I don't think scared-looking and randomly humiliated models would be a great improvement on cool-looking models, and the whole image is a bit too close to sadistic pornography for my taste.   

       As an alternative, I suggest giving the models a fighting chance, with slapstick games in the "It's a knockout" tradition, so that they can alternate scared and tense expressions with hopeful and triumphant ones. The costumes wouldn't be any sillier.   

       Also, if you made them dance the hokey-cokey and introduce one another in Unwinese, they'd have to smile then.
pertinax, Dec 14 2007
  

       [GlobalTourn], You listen to harvey danger?! Good on you my friend, good on you.
Night, Dec 14 2007
  

       Or better still, how about a trapdoor red carpet ? It would make the Oscars SOOO much more fun...
bumhat, Dec 14 2007
  

       //As an alternative, I suggest giving the models a fighting chance//   

       They could have trapdoors like the ones found in Takeshi's Castle. A series of trapdoors; all safe, except for 1 special trapdoor which has a monster waiting to pounce underneath.
pyggy potamus, Dec 15 2007
  

       Surely they wouldn't be "randomly humiliated" - they'd be trained from a young age. The result would be an air of wariness rather than boredom, the sense of a spring coiled and ready. The trapdoors would open, _but they wouldn't fall in_.
david_scothern, Dec 15 2007
  

       I think this is just shooting the messenger. I don't want to sound homophobic, but I guess it is a little, but for cause, so let me explain. I think the women's fashion industry is run primarily by two groups of people, gay men and straight women.   

       The problem is neiher of these two groups like women. We need fashion designers for women who are either straight men or gay women. They may be rare, but I'm sure they are out there. I have no problem with homosexuality except when people who don't like women dress women. It would be like asking me, a non-coffee drinker, to make coffee in the morning.   

       I think if this happened then we would start to see models that looked like women, not children and fashion that women and that straight men like.
MisterQED, Dec 15 2007
  

       //neiher of these two groups like women//   

       This is contradicted by my workplace experience - but then, I've never worked in fashion.
pertinax, Dec 15 2007
  

       [Night] Harvey Danger - Good music, great lyric.
globaltourniquet, Dec 16 2007
  

       We are with MisterQED on this one.   

       Women's clothes are frequently awful, impractical, expensive and embarrasing.   

       They have no pockets; they do not fulfill the basic requirements of providing warmth and protection against wind and rain, or environmental hazards. Ditto shoes.   

       A man wearing even an average business suit and good shoes is MUCH better equipped for "the unexpected" than the average woman.   

       There are several puzzling issues:   

       1) Women inflict (We use the work advisedly) "fashion" on themselves and one another.   

       2) Attractive women will still look attractive to men even in odd, mismatched scruffy clothes. In fact this may add to their attractiveness as they are not presenting a "managed" appearance.   

       3) Handbags ! Handbags ! Don't start us on handbags !!
8th of 7, Dec 16 2007
  

       //1) [...] one another.//
//2) [...] attractive to men //
  

       Put these two together, 8th, to solve the puzzle; it's primarily about which of them has the higher status, and only incidentally about being attractive to us. And if you have high enough status, then *other people* will deal with wind, rain and environmental hazards for you.
pertinax, Dec 16 2007
  

       Yes, it's sooooo depressing .....   

       You wouldn't belive how hard it is for a good-looking collective emotionless cybernetic entity with their own Cube to get a girlfriend. Although, having said that, it's not too difficult in Hartlepool; they seem to have lower standards there .......
8th of 7, Dec 16 2007
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle