Random fashion thoughts - Page 6189
Styleforum Top Picks
Depending on the number of people and the restaurants POS system, this can be a real pain in the ass.
I think the real lesson here is always dine alone.
When I go out with my boys, we all split it evenly no matter who got what. If it's someones birthday they obviously don't pay for anything that night.
I'm one of the few who don't smoke, but among those who do, when someone suggests to go out for a cig, they'll usually take one from a single persons pack, and no one cries about it, they'll light each others cigarettes too.
When one has had a particularly good week doing whatever it is that they do, we often have to do the whole bullshit of not letting them pay the whole bill.
Going to get a lot of flack for this, but no one in my close group of friends is American by birth, all of us were born in Russia and I think that has a lot to do with it. From what i've read and heard, Chinese people are very similar.
Meanwhile, i've got some American friends who will hem and haw if you ask them for a smoke when they have a fresh pack, or go crazy making sure they don't overpay on a split bill by a dollar.
Meh, it's a cultural thing.
@Mr. Moo and @sinnedk probably understand what i'm talking about.
I don't go out to eat with big groups super often but I do go to bars. With certain friends, I'll get the first round of drinks and then they just won't reciprocate. It's bad enough with a $10-$12 drink, but no way am I picking up a $150 restaurant tab. Obviously not everyone is like this.
I used to smoke, too, though, and there was definitely sort of a brotherhood among other friends that smoked.
Unrelated, but a portion of a larger post here, some plagiarized points to ponder:
- in creating an object, does its maker retain an overriding privilege to its interpretation?
Unless the designed object develops some objectively comprehensible different meaning, I would say: yes, the maker has that right. Dumb example: some 19th century drawing of a politician with his slaves could have been originally meant to display some qualities of said politician, but would be interpreted in a much broader context today.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
- must the relationship necessarily be between the designer and the consumer?
Thats one way to define consumer, I would say.
- a small man suffering from an inflated opinion of his own critical authority had said that its the narrative that ennobles the ordinary in clothing, elevating it to fashion.
- that narrative as a PR measure, brilliantly wielded by some and ineffective in less capable hands. critics like to cling to this because it supposedly grants them some participation in the process.
- plenty of buyers will give practically anything a chance when good words of endorsement have been written in this blog or that. for a season or two. but the kind of consumer will proceed on to whatever the next thing is just as quickly. in a world of pop-up shops, why are people surprised to see what amounts to pop-up labels?
I agree. Critics also take the narrative and run with it, because its easy. In-depth criticism of almost anything requires a lot of time and work and if you want to write something fast a narrative provides you a guidance to structure your criticism. Are people really surprised about pop-up labels?
- reducing one's own relationship as 'wanting to be a a part of the designer's imagined universe' is pretty pervasive. those engaging in the sort of consumption (or afflicted with it?) are used to having things fully formed and ready for consumption. and, if one's goal is to be consumed as much as possible, it is helpful to have the sort of image that comes out the other end of popular consciousness after it digests you.
that last part of your post is the most interesting in my opinion. I believe that most designers do not have a clear cut vision of the way consumers should use their products. I think the whole notion of "This is not meant to be worn that way" may apply to traditional clothing (CM) and provides the consumer with the security of doing things right, but goes inherently against the idea of a dynamic design process. The consumer is not just following an instruction manual, but takes that process a step further.
Runway shows kind of force a designer to project an image of how they want their clothing to be worn, but historically that is a reaction to shows from huge department stores, which basically denied designers their own identity. I don't think any designer envisions its show/lookbook as a way to dictate how their clothing needs to be worn.
Also, I think everyone who likes thinking about these questions would thoroughly enjoy reading Sontags Against Interpretation!
Americans also eat children and are assholes in general. I think its ok, though, as long as its only american children.