Creepy Sartorial Images - Page 169

Inheriting a powder blue version of that car may soften a family member's death somewhat in the future.

he may have all sorts of balls, but those are nonetheless creepy images of a sartorial nature.

He certainly looks like he's trying to show us his balls in the second picture...

 

Almost every picture I see of James, I think he's trying very hard, too hard, and failing. However, I find this to be far more interesting than not trying at all, and at least I can almost always learn something from his fits, even if it may not be what he thinks he's teaching.

If it weren't for those awful faux antiqued shoes, I'd wear this myself..

If Tom Ford had more hair.

He looks like RSS lost son..

I think he looks great. Not my style, but so what?

nobody else seems to see his outfit as contrived? how about the fact that the car he is sitting on is colour coordinated to his clothing and accents it perfectly. It looks good on paper (that is each individual piece is good) but together it looks like a gimmick. This is a common occurrence of people who are 'dressed by the internets'.

Are you sure you don't mean 'dressed FOR the internets'.

In any case - I'm the first to admit his looks are over the top, but more often than not in a very self expressive way, I like his style mostly because he does it COMPLETELY and without watering it down.

Too much? Absolutely! That's why it works (for him).

What's the difference? People dress according to ("by") the rules of whomever they wish to impress. Taking the fact of the statement for granted, the internet is that which dressed him, and that for which he is dressed.

You make a very good point!

 

I´m just gonna leave this here. Enjoy

 

 

Those pics I posted of James are definitely creepy. But I like his style. He owns a lot of very expensive clothing but he pulls a lot of it off well. He's an interior designer.

I wasn't speaking about him when I meant 'dressed by the internets', but merely trying to use that to illustrate the gimmicky sense given off by his style (i.e x + y +z = fashion where x y and z are all praised on the internet). He is 'dressed for the internet' yes, but it comes off just as gimmicky as 'dressed by'.


edit: but the more I think of it, the more they are the same. I mean dressed by the internet is essentially dressed for the internet in that you want to impress a specific demographic. Isn't that really what he's doing? The only difference is he's exploiting it and becoming recognized for doing so.

Why you hating on Versace for H&M?