The WAYWT Discussion Thread - Page 5392

The pant-roll is just like any of the many idiosyncrasies in #menswear (I kind of want to shoot myself for writing something with a hashtag in earnest but whatever I suppose): it'll look flair-y or contrived if you don't dig that look; otherwise it'll seem as "smart" and "casual" as #menswear enthusiasts sincerely believe these things to be. Really this isn't any different than your average Joe looking at a photo of someone Rick'd out and thinking something along the lines of "wow, that is overdone and far too self-serious." A lot of my friends like the #menswear stuff, and I don't really begrudge them for it. It's a popular look right now, and it's really nothing more than inoffensive appreciation for (though frequently a fixation on) a glorified "adult" costume. The funny thing is that, as much as we on SF might mock #menswear enthusiasts' belief in buzzwords like "classic," "clever," "flair," "casual," etc., we do something similar with the terms we (explicitly and implicitly) throw around with varying degrees of irony: "slutty," "outré," "romantic," "dark," "baller," "clean" (or, conversely, "messy-in-a-cool-notcontrived-way"). I think what I'm trying to get at is the fact that this backlash against #menswear reminds me of seventh graders arguing about taste in music as if there's a "right answer," or a superior way to appreciate aesthetics. This isn't to say that one shouldn't say "I don't like that," or "X bothers me about that aesthetic"; but it's the air of superiority—as if there is some inherent value in one's entirely contingent taste—that forecloses plurality in taste. And that's kind of a shame.

odyn vovk
robert geller
drkshdw
moma