Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › Random fashion thoughts - Part II (A New Hope)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Random fashion thoughts - Part II (A New Hope) - Page 1135

post #17011 of 17126
Quote:
Originally Posted by dieworkwear View Post

Nobody wears an actual headdress in hip hop culture. Putting a Native American man with a headdress on a Western styled sweater is exactly the kind of thing she exempts for.

I don't think this exemption is fine, because it turns an entire culture into a mascot and a generalization. I think it's one thing to depict a person, but there is a difference between depiction of people and perpetuating a stereotype to the point of canonizing it. It turns Native peoples to a fictional character.

I'm not sure I agree that Scafidi would exempt putting a Native American man with a headdress on a Western styled sweater. Is it really that much different from Chief Wahoo or the Redskins or even my beloved Braves? I don't think so, and don't think that Scafidi's original 3 "S's" really apply to this, as that was more for a culture's objects and creations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dieworkwear View Post


By definition, you can't criticize the cartoon on the RL sweater because it's not a sentient being. It's like criticizing a rock. Or I don't know. A cartoon.

Nobody criticized the photographer. The critique was on the subject, Pharrell, who put on the headdress

I mean, yes, isn't it obvious that the critique is directed towards the designer (Ralph, Hiroki) and not the actual cartoon?
post #17012 of 17126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post
 

If your question was: why do you find the Visvim lame, well I think it smells of ridiculous Indian cosplay so it isn't cool. I'm not pissed at you if you own the moccasins though.
 

Nah, not for me, the running inspired sole always threw me off. I've noticed you criticize them in the past and I enjoy the discourse always. I think some other crepe sole or leather sole mocs could be cool, maybe clarks or something. Maybe that would maybe be even more cosplay than what visvim sells, I dunno.

 

I'll have to actually look at what you wrote and suggested to read at some point when I have a minute. Non-Places, a book you suggested a while ago was one of my more favorite recent reads. 

 

I will say though fumma, its interesting to see how your style and suggested styles have changed. I remember recently reading some old Julius thread on sz from a  couple years ago. You seemed to be way into some styles, or similar styles, that you're quick to dump on now. 

post #17013 of 17126
Quote:
Originally Posted by g transistor View Post

I don't think this exemption is fine, because it turns an entire culture into a mascot and a generalization. I think it's one thing to depict a person, but there is a difference between depiction of people and perpetuating a stereotype to the point of canonizing it. It turns Native peoples to a fictional character. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

I'm not sure I agree that Scafidi would exempt putting a Native American man with a headdress on a Western styled sweater. Is it really that much different from Chief Wahoo or the Redskins or even my beloved Braves? I don't think so, and don't think that Scafidi's original 3 "S's" really apply to this, as that was more for a culture's objects and creations.
I mean, yes, isn't it obvious that the critique is directed towards the designer (Ralph, Hiroki) and not the actual cartoon?[

I think we had this debate before. My feelings on it are:

1. There are ways to depict Native Americans in more or less respectful ways. A depiction of someone and their culture isn't inherently demeaning. Chief Wahoo isn't at all anything like the RL depictions.

2. That said, depicting Native Americans in anything comes with a bunch of loaded baggage because they often rely on "naturalistic" and "anti-modern" ideas. Meaning, we buy things with Native American prints, depictions, and whatever else because they stand for a kind of vague "noble savage" idea. And there's a lot of loaded political and social meaning in that.

But if you take that position, you can't even buy things from actual Native American communities -- weavings, pottery, art, jewelry, etc. And that seems counter intuitive. It would be weird to take a premise if the conclusion it leads you to is something nonsensical to the original premise's intent.

I actually don't know what Scafidi's position would be on RL usage of Native American imagery. Specifically the ones with headdresses (which I still don't think is racist). I was going to write a post once about RL's use of NA symbols and whatnot, and was going to interview some NA scholars and organizers. Was also going to reach out to Scafidi since I like her position on these things. But things got busy.
post #17014 of 17126


me rn
post #17015 of 17126

I feel conflicted about liking Junya 2016 . I've been wanting to get this shirt:

 

 

 

I've had a couple Yohji things (Chinese style jacket and samurai pants) that I just couldn't wear because I never felt quite right in them -- and these things were somewhat detached from their original sources via designer fashion. But then I've got some batik polynesian print shirt and Mexican poncho thing that I'm totally fine with (surfer gear). Fuuma looks cool and somehow natural in his dashiki shirt and I woudn't necessary assume he was maliciously or cluelessly appropriating. 

 

btw, I heard the term "politically correct" originated from Mao's Little Red Book. American leftists in the 60s started using it ironically referencing toeing the party line, but then it was adopted by academics (e.g. Allan Bloom) and even later the public at large -- just no longer ironically.

post #17016 of 17126

I know that Junya SS16 collection was a contentious one, some great pieces in that season though.

post #17017 of 17126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post
I just couldn't wear because I never felt quite right in them -- and these things were somewhat detached from their original sources via designer fashion. 

 

well that's the funniest aspect of all this - the idea that X many degrees of academic and editorial processing can launder and separate and sanitize these objects and elements and render them "appropriate" for occidental consumption. which is of course more critical nonsense and only works if you care what a critic writes. 

 

but then you'd have to listen to somebody who objectifies, grists, and makes content out of other people's content. ha. 

post #17018 of 17126
Quote:
Originally Posted by dieworkwear View Post

I think we had this debate before. My feelings on it are:

1. There are ways to depict Native Americans in more or less respectful ways. A depiction of someone and their culture isn't inherently demeaning. Chief Wahoo isn't at all anything like the RL depictions.

2. That said, depicting Native Americans in anything comes with a bunch of loaded baggage because they often rely on "naturalistic" and "anti-modern" ideas. Meaning, we buy things with Native American prints, depictions, and whatever else because they stand for a kind of vague "noble savage" idea. And there's a lot of loaded political and social meaning in that.

But if you take that position, you can't even buy things from actual Native American communities -- weavings, pottery, art, jewelry, etc. And that seems counter intuitive. It would be weird to take a premise if the conclusion it leads you to is something nonsensical to the original premise's intent.

I actually don't know what Scafidi's position would be on RL usage of Native American imagery. Specifically the ones with headdresses (which I still don't think is racist). I was going to write a post once about RL's use of NA symbols and whatnot, and was going to interview some NA scholars and organizers. Was also going to reach out to Scafidi since I like her position on these things. But things got busy.

Yeah, I think we have, but I think it's good to bring up in this context again, because I don't think double00 is completely wrong in saying that there isn't much difference between Ralph using the depiction of a Native American and Pharrell wearing a headdress for a photoshop. Both are problematic.

1. Chief Wahoo is obviously a very far out there example, but take the Redskins: take away the name and you're left with essentially the same thing that Ralph does. You are fictionalizing a diverse groups of people (especially with a history of oppression and still are) into mere iconography. The point is not that depiction of people on clothing is inherently demeaning; it's when you transform it into a Hollister eagle or Polo rider emblem that makes it turn.

It's not that I think you can't buy anything from Native American communities, I have lots of NA patterned and inspired stuff, and I think that's where Scafidi's article is useful.

I would be interested if you ever ended up doing an article or post or something about that. I think, for the most part, we agree. I think where we diverge is that I think that putting a Native American chief on clothing over and over is different than using Native patterns. Like you said, there are ways to depict people in more or less respectful ways, and the way that Ralph and fashion in general has used it, it's heavily disrespectful.
post #17019 of 17126
The junya shirts from ss16 are all super cool and he may never do something as nice again and u should definitely get it 😬

I find the way he combines the various patchwork patterns pretty amazing. Maybe the hair in the runway shows was controversial but the rest of it is just fabric!

RCET: Is PC-ness a blowback / guilt trip response to white priviledge?
post #17020 of 17126
Quote:
Originally Posted by penanceroyaltea View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The junya shirts from ss16 are all super cool and he may never do something as nice again and u should definitely get it 😬

I find the way he combines the various patchwork patterns pretty amazing. Maybe the hair in the runway shows was controversial but the rest of it is just fabric!

RCET: Is PC-ness a blowback / guilt trip response to white privilege?

In today's terms, political correctness is just a conservative term to cover all sorts of things the right feels the left has been pushing. Frankly, it's too big of a topic, which is why the term is so politically loaded and hard to address. Because there are very real things in there, but then some XYZ ridiculous story will catch a headline, and then the right will say "THAT'S POLITICAL CORRECTNESS!"

The reason why I think it's pointless to talk about it in broad terms is because it's not connected to real issues. It becomes vague "the lefties are crazy" or "society is being too caught in identity politics" or "this is just about common courtesy" or "this is trivial" or whatever else. IMO, it's basically impossible to talk about super broad social issues, but political correctness is the worst of all because the term itself is just a loaded political attack on the left. You have to narrow it down to something concrete and say "OK, does this make sense?" For fashion, I think there are important issues. It's not just about respect or triviality. It can be very connected to the marketplace, and money is connected to power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post

I've had a couple Yohji things (Chinese style jacket and samurai pants) that I just couldn't wear because I never felt quite right in them -- and these things were somewhat detached from their original sources via designer fashion. But then I've got some batik polynesian print shirt and Mexican poncho thing that I'm totally fine with (surfer gear). Fuuma looks cool and somehow natural in his dashiki shirt and I woudn't necessary assume he was maliciously or cluelessly appropriating. 

Yea, I think that's where the CA stuff in fashion gets to be more nuanced. It's good, I think, if designers take things from other cultures. It helps elevate and make those cultural symbols not only more visible and broadly relevant in the market, but it makes it easier for other people to adopt. And in doing so, maybe they end up buying things from the original cultural producers. Which is why I think the Scafidi point is good. So long as you respect sacredness of certain items (being that clothes are a special class of items tied to identity) and you don't crowd out the market for the people you're essentially leaching from (source and similarity), then it seems like cultural borrowing can only be good. Both in terms of creating a richer and more cosmopolitan culture, as well as generating money for marginalized groups (which, IMO, is the crux of this issue -- it's not just about respect, it's about political economy, money, and power).

Batik prints seem fine. Dashikis are a weird thing because, as I understand them, they're just traditional West African garb. At the same time, in the US, they've been used in Black communities to signal Black empowerment. And white people wearing them kind of subverts that and makes it a "fashion thing." The whole point of a black person wearing a dashiki was to reclaim cultural identity that has been lost through slavery.

That aspect seems to be less important now than it was in the '60s and '70s. Even in Oakland, home of the Black Panthers, I don't think I've ever seen a Black person wear a dashiki outside of a cultural center.
Edited by dieworkwear - 3/20/17 at 7:02pm
post #17021 of 17126
There are only two things I can't stand in this world: People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch
post #17022 of 17126
Lol Regis.
post #17023 of 17126
Quote:
Originally Posted by penanceroyaltea View Post

That's not a very typical (read cute) k pop star

SlushyFondCamel.gif

i'm gonna be a bad boy i gotta be a bad boy
post #17024 of 17126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragechester View Post

Nah, not for me, the running inspired sole always threw me off. I've noticed you criticize them in the past and I enjoy the discourse always. I think some other crepe sole or leather sole mocs could be cool, maybe clarks or something. Maybe that would maybe be even more cosplay than what visvim sells, I dunno.

I'll have to actually look at what you wrote and suggested to read at some point when I have a minute. Non-Places, a book you suggested a while ago was one of my more favorite recent reads. 

I will say though fumma, its interesting to see how your style and suggested styles have changed. I remember recently reading some old Julius thread on sz from a  couple years ago. You seemed to be way into some styles, or similar styles, that you're quick to dump on now. 

Yeah, non-places is a very interesting read. As for my style, yeah I dress different than 10 yrs ago (duh!) and, if you're talking about Gothninja, I just think the moment of great dynamism in creation (shows and garments) has passed. I don't wear clothes so I can be judged for all eternity as being well dressed, I wear clothes that make sense to me and that I enjoy wearing in the present.

As for my advice, as I've said several times, it is to be taken very lightly as any prohibition I present, I'd break in an hearbeat if I had a good idea how to style the item.

As for Visvim I think it is particularly overpriced and lame as a whole but I've seen individual pieces that are cool.
post #17025 of 17126
Quote:
Originally Posted by double00 View Post

well that's the funniest aspect of all this - the idea that X many degrees of academic and editorial processing can launder and separate and sanitize these objects and elements and render them "appropriate" for occidental consumption. which is of course more critical nonsense and only works if you care what a critic writes. 

but then you'd have to listen to somebody who objectifies, grists, and makes content out of other people's content. ha. 

This makes absolutely no sense regarding what dieworkwear presented. What you have according to tenants of cultural appropriation, is a judgment call to make when using representations/items from cultures in a weak power relation with yours. Respect for their religious iconography, simply taking versus building on the design etc. As you've seen I am not necessarily for it but there is no point in dumbing out the argument to the extreme with some mental vomit about "critics" (in their ivory towers I am sure) and by extension I guess any creation being about using existing content to create new content.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Streetwear and Denim
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › Random fashion thoughts - Part II (A New Hope)