Aesthetics and Semiotics in fashion and culture

^ i think you mean "style not fashion"

what do you think oswald spengler would say about all this?

itt: conversation dies instantly when moved to appropriate locale


No more interesting as we'd simply shift to parroting new wealth, no?

posted.

I'll bite. Initial thoughts:

1. Workwear/Heritage is just a convienient label to describe a broad range of styles. All fashion feeds on the past. A black leather bikers jacket is just as much heritage as a Navy inspired coat. Style neither excludes fashion nor does fashion always equal style. Oddly those who shout most loudly about 'style not fashion' frequently wear very contemporary takes on garments from the past.

2. No, but it should be done with humour, wit or irreverance. Dressing exactly like a lookbook from any designer is dull.

3. Yes.

4. No we can't be objective, and yes possibly we are.

5. If you're aware you're doing it why not?

6. We're all victim to it.

7. You can't, anymore than you can with small production runs.

I'm not going to contribute anything to this thread. Instead I want to point out how much I love the sociological geekery on sw/d. Feels good not being the only one. Hugs!

and maybe another issue is whether extrinsic associations of an item of clothing (what kind of people wear it, what kind of lifestyle it expresses, what ideology it represents, etc., things that matter from what Fumma's calls the 'expressionalist angle') should count for *anything at all* when judging a fit, especially in a context such as WAYWT. I suspect a lot of people come to this forum (and to that thread) with the sole aim of learning how to "dress well": how to match this item with that item, what color combinations work, how should a short/fat/tall/skinny guy dress, when does a shirt fit too tight, and so on. They are looking for aethetical evaluations of the relatively pure* kind ("do i look good? if not, how should i improve?"), not lifestyle advice about which subculture they should identify with - and their fit shouldn't be trashed simply because you disapprove of whatever it happens to remind you of. (And such trashing is rarely helpful/interesting since most of the time the trashers themselves belong to lifestyles which the trashees antecedently look down on with equal contempt.) I'm not advocating an exclusive focus on formalism and aesthetics (I'm not completely sure if it's possible to separate intrinsic and extrinsic evaluations entirely - do I dislike drop-crotch pants because of the look or because of the people? i'd like to think it's the former, but how do i know?). I'm only saying that I find cultural warfare a lot less interesting than pure discussions about the intrinsic/aesthetic qualities of an item of clothing. There may even be an interesting science in the vicinity (color analysis may be an example although many people regard it as bullshit, perhaps with good reason, but at least it is a bona fide attempt to formulate interesting and useful generalizations about what works with what and test them against particular observations).

* 'pure' not in the sense of being instinctual and completely uninformed by theory. an theoretically informed aesthetic judgment can be 'pure' so long as it is informed by *aesthetic theory* alone.

Here is my input and personal view on my style and the credo I live by, "I like to wear dope shit"

homie you did not use enough words to express this thought. moar words. (10)

How is this even possible? What do you think aesthetic theory is informed by?

10char

I like the post by kwoyeu but I come from a different angle. Not only do I think it's impossible to separate our visceral impressions from our cultural judgements regarding an outfit..... I wouldn't want it to. I think I'd be bored silly if it was all about color coordination and fabric pilling. Fashion is much more interesting to me as an entry point to a more personal inquiry.

1) I think the problem here is there are people who have hijacked this aesthetic to cater to their machismo bullshit because it gives them a sense of masculinity by living within a construct they consider "style but not fashion." Fashion repulses these types because they fear becoming the skinny jean/tight clothes wearing feminine boyish individual who is into "fashion." I think they try to draw this artificial line between their style and fashion in order to safeguard themselves from their own insecurities that stem from their interest in fashion and design. So, to actually answer the question I'd say so, but I don't see much room for growth in the aesthetic. I see too much carbon copies and nothing truly distinguishable between various "heritage" stuff. In fact it leads me to my next point. 2) Uh, I wouldn't say so, but it depends. I greatly detest Ralph lauren/Jcrew/ wearing douchebags because they have no taste, and are simply striving for adulthood too fast. I think they are trying to distinguish themselves from the masses by wearing clothes they believe will cause others to perceive them as adults or someone who deserves respect. Its almost like they I see them as wannabe ivory tower intellectual elites sometimes. However, I think it could be developed into something interesting. I don't see many taking the Schneider route. All I see is chinos and very plain shirts. Would be nice to see it become more distinct, and culturally influenced; at least have some kind of vision. 3) depends on the individual, and whether or not they are doing it for a sense of individuality or merely to be accepted. The latter usually means the person will question whether or not the item is popular or whether it falls under prominent social norms. Hence why my school is filled with UGGs 4) I dont care 5) irrelevant to me 6) dont care 7) elitism is fine