The WAYWT Discussion Thread - Page 4996

You do realize you're contradicting yourself within the same sentence, right?

^I think what hes getting at is that some sf approved outfits that might get 50 thumbs would weird a lot of "nomal" (i.e. lame) people out. imagine wearing full goth ninj in kansas..

 

Also I like the effort that went into the photo I have come to hate vans personally. That being said had the same pair 4-5 years ago.  Think the first thing you should cop is a better bag since its something you'll be wearing 4-5 days a week if you're in school.

I'm sorry, isn't "they" in this instance supposed to mean "normal" people? And aren't "normal" people the ones who make up most of the general public?

I love people who think they judge that way. NO ONE FUCKING DOES THAT YOU DUMBASS!! You're influenced by context, your own biases, the stupid white thing they wear over their clothes, the look of the hospital. If some guy came out of a dumpster and started giving you amazing oncology advice you'd call the police about some drunk hobo harassing you. This shit is so obvious to anyone working in the social sciences or anyone over, say, 13, that I am sad you haven't learned it yet. Such is the way of the world, you can change the signs but not the fact that we use signs to navigate existence.

Now use your critical thinking skills:
1) "Context" influences how your message is received
2) Your messages aren't received well due to context
3) If you want your messages to be received well you should therefore consider context (say establishing credibility, changing your tone etc.)

Now if you don't really care and are just writing for your own enjoyment, congratulations!

I guess what I'm saying is that in the theoretical dream world fashion is subjective, but we don't live in the theoretical dream world. Even the most outrageous, wild outfits that get posted here still fall within a narrow range of clothing types based on clothing assumptions. There's lots of different objective world views mixing here - the forum identity, our specific cultural identity and identity as a distinct individual in our wider time and place. Sure, for all intents and purposes fashion here is pretty subjective - because such world views exist they preclude anything really wild from popping up here - but such an understanding kind of suggests that, within the context of this site, there are certain objective rules.

I've also always struggled to reconcile fashions theoretical objectivity with the idea of aesthetics - although I guess you could say that our notion of aesthetics is itself subjective and shaped by own specific experiences.

also it goes without saying that whatever is posted is someone's opinion, and that if you are really truly happy with what you wear that you not getting a ton of thumbs up here doesn't really matter, but if we have to spend all of our time pointing out this obvious disclaimer than nothing can ever happen here.

I think fashion is more easily considered with leisure theory as opposed to aesthetic/trying to look good.  look at a lot of comme collections that people worship although it leaves them looking like hobos/hunchbacks.

i think the idea is that they find looking like a hobo aesthetically pleasing, no?

Rabbit hole at 12 o'clock.

i'd rather talk about rationalism and aesthetics than look at a bunch of awkward looking dudes in mall brand clothes.

Aesthetics aren't stuck in 1623 and the golden mean, if you understand fashion as something that can be a simple reflection of a social context or as a set of norms to be kept alive by being applied you might not explain comme but if you understand it can also be a practice aimed at challenging existing aesthetic norms then it starts to make a lot of sense. Truth is it is not that forward and the challenge to existing aesthetic norms it presents reflects what goes on in disciplines with a more serious theoretical backing like the fine arts. This is why Comme finds a public instead of creating one, something that would be much harder.

a lot of this has been covered, but i think the pants in the first pic need to be way skinnier for the look you're going for, and the boots in the second are just ugly.

spoiler that shit

I know you would, and honestly, so would I, so carry on.

i think that when your aethestic is parodied in a ben stiller early 2000s comedy (although i guess we was more directly mocking john galliano) you aren't that fashion forward.