I’m only posting a screen shot of this because I don’t want to stir the pot with the original poster and their fans who are agreeing wholeheartedly, but… I legitimately do not understand this. Honest question: is this a parody of some sort? Because… that is just a word in the Barbie font on generic articles of clothing. There are so many designers that use the Barbie font for their name, I am pretty sure they are all ripping off Barbie, not this girl. Like isn’t that the whole point of using the Barbie font? To rip off Barbie? This has been a mega trend in the past handful of years.
Yeah, I don’t really see it, either. If the actual articles of clothing themselves were closer to the ones shes selling I could see where she’s coming from, but just being in the same font and on pink clothing doesn’t seem like a rip off to me.
I guess her “clothing line” is like a large sized crop top and a mini skirt, which I guess this sort of is. But even then, it’s a pretty generic item of clothing that is massively popular currently because it was massively popular throughout the 80s and 90s. Like every designer is using it. I have no idea who this person is, but I am really surprised that they are getting a bunch of “OH NO HOW DARE THEY RIP OFF YOUR RIP OFF!” comments and it’s just very perplexing to me. How can so many people be such dummies?This isn’t the first time this designer has rippednikkilipstickoff & has ripped off other independent designers as well.
But how is this even a ripoff? I can see that the first one might be, but this is literally just that they are both using the Barbie font on a crop top, which many (many many many) designers have done lately. They are simply both dipping from the same very shallow, very popular, well.
If you’d refer back to the original post before you might have realized that the I’m a mess shirt was also lifted before. it just seems mighty strange that hes been accused in the past of jacking other peoples designs to sell at outlandishly inflated prices. Refer to this click through link to an open letter article posed about his past transgressions against other fellow designers/Artists .
Yes, I get that the “I’m a Mess Shirt” was a ripoff and I believe you that they have ripped off designers in the past. But I still do not see how, in any way, that doesn’t involve including “just like Barbie did”, this is a ripoff of an indie designer.
I live in a cave and I do not know who either of these people are, like even a little bit, but all I am seeing are 2 Barbie knockoff dresses and one caps-lock, literal crying, accusation that they were the inventor of the Barbie knockoff and a bunch of reblogs saying “how dare they knock off Barbie too!”. If this Jeremy Scott dress is another in a long line of ripoffs, it’s obviously a ripoff of Barbie, not those “Babe” shirts.
There’s already been like four designers who decided to do lines inspired by the 70s for S/S 15. Coincidental inspiration happens. I’m pretty sure both Jeremy Scott and this nikkilipstick person both happened to be inspired by Barbie at the same time. She needs to calm down.
Comtesse de la Châtre (Marie Charlotte Louise Perrette Aglaé Bontemps, 1762–1848)
Élisabeth Louise Vigée Le Brun
(French, Paris 1755–1842 Paris)Date: 1789Medium: Oil on canvasDimensions: 45 x 34 1/2 in. (114.3 x 87.6 cm)Classification: PaintingsWhen this portrait was painted in 1789, the sitter, daughter of Louis XV’s “premier valet de chambre,” was the wife of the comte de la Châtre. She later married François Arnail de Jaucourt. For daily wear and for portraits, Vigée Le Brun favored white muslin dresses in this style for what she saw as their timeless, classical simplicity.
Part 1 of 3.
I don’t usually ask this but please make sure to click the links provided below to see the other parts of this costume. Those links are either in bold (if you are on my blog format) or underlined (for those of us who like the dashboard function best). There were so many photos that I could not find the space to post them all and I promise that they are more than worth it!
I had a discussion with a guest the other day who said that fashion was not art. That it was merely “an article of clothing and that there was no skill put forth into the construction of the garment. It simply is or was.”
I set aside the fact that I am currently in my third year studying the construction of costuming and that I am interning in an 18th century Millinery shop (which requires the daily use of my thimble and the technical bits of my brain) and I had to focus on the word use. Was. Was? I can understand why one would assume that the fashion we wear each day might not seem like great works of art but the was had me intrigued.
I had pushed the conversation to the back of my mind but when I came across this gown on the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s database my very first thought was Worth was an amazing artist. Then the conversation came back to me again and I started to think about the designers who have spoken to me. Whether it was from behind the panes of glass at an exhibition, from the pages of a book, or even from an online database. look at the great designers, like Emile Pingat and Charles Worth (who tie for my favorite Victorian masters), to the freedom and beauty of Lucile (who in my opinion largely dominates the Edwardian era, only occasionally bowing to Callot Soeurs, Paquin, and Doucet). Were they not artists?
I have always thought of them as artists, but then I began to wonder about the definition of “art”. The Google definition of art is as follows: The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. I most certainly think that costume and fashion fall under that definition.
Then I thought that perhaps those who say that fashion is not art have not had the opportunity to see beyond the pieces of cloth that we just adorn our body with.
This gown is the most perfect demonstration of art, look at the detail of the day bodice balanced by the repetition of the pattern in the evening bodice. Not only that, but observe the gathers, the pintucks, the fringe and the sheer amount of technical detail that went into this piece. They are breathtaking. The skill and mastery that went into this gown demonstrates an almost genius-like comprehension on how texture and manipulation can be used in skilled hands to produce a profound artwork painted in a myriad of textiles and lace. It shows how the proper use of construction and decoration can emphasize the the beauty of the female silhouette. For example, look at how the lines of piping directly control the fall of the train. This gown does not softly whisper to me, it reverberates in joyous celebration as a representation of the complexity that was the Victorian Era.
Each one of those stitches are equivalent to the stroke of a paintbrush or to the hammer of the chisel.
It is my strong belief that Fashion deserves the recognition of being an integral part of the art world. If you were to be so cruel as to ask me to choose the side of art or fashion, I could not make the choice, for they are the same. I would tell you to keep your Great Masters. You may even have my beloved Gentileschi back, because, to me this gown is and always will be a masterpiece.