Yes, and Ben is right, why no mention of the tragic reality show Pugh "starred" in. It almost like he's been desperate for the notoriety since graduation. In fact, come to think of it, 12 young creative types holed up together in one big space, you'd almost think !wowwow! was the offspring of fashion house. Oh, yeah, but wait, they squatted.

Look lets not turn this into a bitch session about Gareth Pugh, he is talented and has a level of creativity that has not been seen on a lower level within the fashion industry for quite a while, not only that but to his credit he is also technically skilled from what i can see, what I was interested in was why his social life and the lifes of other 20 somethings that have chosen to remove themselves from the cycle of working to live is seen as being so important.
I have come across a few things that have been posted on here, the Claire Chivers threads for example and was surprised at the playground level of bitchiness, is this something we really want other creatives to observe and replicate?

Oh and anyone that chooses to say something along the lines of yes but what you said to Chris Summerfield etc etc shouldn't. Have you read what he posts. Surely I'm allowed.

No, of course not, we don't want to make creatives bitchy, now, do we?

Its got more to do with the fact that I want some sort of answer from someone at S/S and if everyone starts slating GP et al that will give them too much of an easy route to question those comments and not discuss the root of this project.

Cool. I whole-heartedly agree, ShowStudio should give us a answer, please - why the fascination with !wowwow! et al? In what way does this warrant as pushing fashion/photography/design forward? Why don't you feature other young British or London-based designers?

I think Gareth Pugh is quite talented. I think the costume versus clothing argument is tired also. However I do think that he's not the only lad who's come from up north, and it's not cutting edge using sovereign rings as an 'ironic' inspiration.

Yes he was on a reality TV show. Yes it was Gay.

I think the problem is for me, that Showstudio have gone down the same path that Dazed and i-D now have with this 'I live in a fucking squat and wear evil clown make up to go buy tea bags' and I'm so sick of it. I agree with Will completely (as per fucking usual) with the fact that this 'movement' is so far from a liking to Punk.

There's a difference between people taking offence to something, and people seeing something for what it really is - in this case a load of children calling themselves artists listening to rave music and dressing like fucking clowns. The grand showcase for all this effort is Supersuper - I mean come on, does that not say enough?

Like I said before, THIS IS WHY FASHION WILL NEVER BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY IN LONDON.

It's a shame that I didn't get round to answering this when it was first asked, as it will now seem like I am trying to defend us against all your criticisms (implied or otherwise). Which...I don't really have to do. I can't think of another editor that would have to come out in their own magazine and defend their editorial. Plus, SHOWstudio's free to view -no cover charge- and if you don't like it, you've not lost a penny!

But you FORUMsters have become important contributors to SHOWstudio yourselves and as such, deserve some respect and an answer (that is, those of you who respect that by allowing you to post whatever you like on our 'front cover', as it were, we are offering up our prime space and taking quite a risk). Also, it's a pleasure to participate in a thread about the work, for a change.

So if you allow me to try and wade through the above and get to the nub, is your question 'why Gareth?' Well, before I tackle such a question, please try and see it from our position: we have asked a creative who is heavily, heavily in demand (with scant resources I might add) to give us a month of his precious time, gratis. So out of respect to his considerable contribution, I should say that it is against my better judgement that I will discuss a valued contributor personally.

So, for hopefully the last time on this matter, I will say:

I stand by the work of all the contributors who we have asked to create work uniquely for us on SHOWstudio 100%, Gareth Pugh included. Ask yourselves whether you would be demanding to know 'why McQueen, why Emin or why Vivienne Westwood?' Those are all people whose aesthetic was contested at the start of their careers and are now associated with a well-publicised lifestyle as much as their work. Is your issue, therefore, more 'why an "untested" designer at the start of their career?'

Given its non-print nature, SHOWstudio is the ideal place for Gareth's work. His design is inextricably bound up with issues of performance and movement, which are key to our live, motion-image remit. There are really only a few designers at present who are capable of/interested in staging the 'spectacles' we are perhaps most interested in fashion (as evinced by the generally rather lacklustre catwalk presentations of the past 5 years, some obvious abberations notwithstanding). In that sense, Gareth's shows (which we will soon post) are a real breath of fresh air to the schedule and rich material for a company like ours.

Whether you personally enjoy or would want to wear his 'neo-punk Baroque' aesthetic (or whatever) or if you approve of the parties he throws is really not the issue here. It might be if we were a magazine and all we did was document/report things that happen outside ourselves, but the most important thing about SHOWstudio is the success of the collaborative, live performance work since that is what is genuinely new about what we are doing. You're right, it's only one small scene in London, but it's hardly our agenda to go chasing subcultures (would that we had the resources!). We would gladly represent other international ones, but only if they were related to a genuinely interesting designer or artist at their centre.

That a young designer like Gareth is prepared to go out on such an extreme (though considered) limb when the industry around him is so stultifyingly homogenised and conservative at the moment is a godsend and we would be fools not to take the opportunity to celebrate this unusual moment with him on SHOWstudio. Of course giving over such a precious platform to a designer at the beginning of their career is a risk if all you are interested in is building a faultless collection of 'definitive' designers' work. But that's the job of a museum collection, not a living project like SHOWstudio. Equally, I think an argument that could be legitimately levelled at us is that in the past, we have only given over this amount of space to tried-and-tested, establishment figures. We can't on one hand say we're experimental and not take a punt on something from time to time because it's fun and potentially ephemeral. What else is fashion?

Ok Penny, sure I see where you are coming from.

And you know I like you, so please don't think I'm in any way being an arse in questioning this, I think everything at all levels needs to be to some extent.

Personally I think that Gareth Pugh hit the nail on the head at the right time. As somebody previously mentioned he did go on 'that' show and has been 'trying' to get this kind of press for a long time. His contempories also have. He perhaps to some extent is now one of the darling boys of this collection of people, which I guess to many an extent is why you are doing this feature.

I read a piece in vogue a while back you had written about him, however it featured many more young designers, most of whom I thought seemed way more interesting from a fashion point of view, in the sense of who they were and especially their clothing.

I think there has to be an aspirational theme to fashion projects, and Michael was correct in saying that generally whats the point in seeing a slight evolution of his myspace page. Of all the incredible young designers, I beg the question - Why him? Is it because of his 'so hot right now' status, or is it because all the editorial in London seems to follow in this same direction now?

To start with I feel your comment about an editor 'coming out' so to speak was a little belittleing. Any editor who is questioned in such a way in fact has a duty to answer, and in almost all but very sensitive subjects do. If the editor where I work was questioned on her practices she would have every duty to, and in cases where she has been, has answered. And equally we work in an industry where the nature of what we write etc is highly regarded, so the status of S/S in this situation is not questioned.
As for your answers, I appreciate greatly that you took the time to do so, especially in the case of discussing a contributer specifically and personally but I feel you may have missed the point of my question.
It was not 'Why Gareth?', as stated he is definately worthy of the attention to a certain degree and it is exciting for an up and coming designer to be treated in a way that allows people access to his process, but what I wanted to know was why 'Gareths life"?. In the case of the polaroids etc. it is not so much the content of the polaroids, it is his choice what is in them and what he chooses to post, but why did YOU as an editor or contributer to this site feel that we as the viewers needed to see into his life in such a way?