What annoys me about your last two posts is you keep dropping generalities such as how the fashion/style dialectic is "worthwhile" or "the meat of the matter of what dressing a certain way is all about" without really explaining why. Could you expand on your reasoning for a bit?
Im sorry it was not my intent to be annoying but rather to point out what I read as a negative generality that was drawn about posters in MC . The discussion is only "worthwhile " if you disagree with attitudes that give rise to statements like " anyone who wears a suit has a stick up his ass" or " anyone who wears an $80 teeshirt and $300 jeans is an airheaded child of privilage pretending to be a worldwise street urchin .
I really would like to avoid being confrontational or long winded so I hope it you will accept that I define fashion as being the groupthink , media/marketing driven socially dependent aspect of the way we dress whereas style is the personal , self expressive artistic ,if you will ,aspect . Imo the way in which the interplay of of these two forces effect the clothes we wear and how we wear them is a subject of great interest and style forum is one place where you would think that dialogue would be encouraged rather than derided
The style vs fashion debate always comes down to people who invent their own definitions of those words. See above.
Where I come from being specific about the manner in which you are using generalized terms like fashion and style is considered clarification not invention . I also felt it was clear that that I saw the relationship as cooperative rather than oppositional
For any good discussion all parties need to agree on definitions of terms first right?
That goes for about anything. I think the general use of fashion/style as what is out there/what is personal is pretty accepted.
My only philosophical interest would be in the personal aspect since that is where the intention and creation take place. What's "out there" is just tools right?