or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Disgusting treatment at Louis Vuitton
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Disgusting treatment at Louis Vuitton - Page 7

post #91 of 122
Quote:
Some may feign shock ("shocked. shocked, I say."), but I think we can safely say that pretty much anyone who spends much of his time at this forum is interested in showing off a bit through dress. There are tasteful, and not so tasteful, ways of doing that.
I'm not so sure we are all showing off to the public-maybe just to ourselves. Nobody around me knows anything about labels or why Oxxford is "better" than Brooks Bros or cares very much one way or the other. As to the forum, I haven't yet found a post designed to impress (other than the late, lamented Kalra and his steel empire) rather than to educate or advise. What's impressive about posts here is the amount of knowledge and detail, especially about construction, not pricing.
post #92 of 122
I've long believed that what clothes you wear -- and how you wear them -- is an extension of your personal philosophy. It's not a question of money, but the choices you make. Even those of modest means -- and I fall into this category -- can make a statement about who they are by what they wear. Unfortunately most people don't have a personal philosophy -- or at least a coherent personal philosophy -- and that's why you see bling-bling (I hate even typing those words, much less saying them aloud) so dominant today. Many have nothing to say so they say it with the shallowness of labels. That probably didn't make too much sense. I've been trying to formulate a coherent essay about clothing and philosophy for a long time -- not that anyone would publish it. Most magazines long ago abandoned the notion that clothes are important enough to actually think about. Today it's all about the buying, not the exploration. Or perhaps I'm over-intellectualizing this. I've been accused of too-much thinking about mundane matters plenty of times.
post #93 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I've long believed that what clothes you wear -- and how you wear them -- is an extension of your personal philosophy. It's not a question of money, but the choices you make. Even those of modest means -- and I fall into this category -- can make a statement about who they are by what they wear. Unfortunately most people don't have a personal philosophy -- or at least a coherent personal philosophy -- and that's why you see bling-bling (I hate even typing those words, much less saying them aloud) so dominant today. Many have nothing to say so they say it with the shallowness of labels. That probably didn't make too much sense. I've been trying to formulate a coherent essay about clothing and philosophy for a long time -- not that anyone would publish it. Most magazines long ago abandoned the notion that clothes are important enough to actually think about. Today it's all about the buying, not the exploration. Or perhaps I'm over-intellectualizing this. I've been accused of too-much thinking about mundane matters plenty of times.
To be frank, I think your disdain for "bling bling" (which I am not too fond of myself), goes too far and is really a brand of elitism which tries to distinguish yourself as being superior to others. Not only are you over intellectualizing the matter, it really looks as if you are writing this as part of a petition for your admission into some type of old money club or something. Have you perhaps considered why Chavs dress the way they do? Have you considered why Louis Vuitton and Bentley has risen to a point where they are so idolized by the mass population? I am fortunate enough to not know from my own perspective why, but when you consider that for centuries the "bling bling" market were on the outside of the priviledged world looking in, you can at least appreciate why such vehement brand recognition is present in today's society. A LV handbag is like a point of arrival, an assertion of ones success, that not only the rich old lady who married into money can have one. In the 60s, Mods started dressing like the elite classes to assert their own position as not being inferior. You have to look past how sad it is to be sporting the Burberry novachek and the classic LV monogram. There is something beyond the initial blatant materialism and vapidiness of it all. I do not participate in any of that, however, I can at least understand those my age who choose to wear such things. The LV monogram is a much more visible statement which publically states that one has reached a certain point of success. Initially I think it's dumb, but then I stop to think where it's comming from and I keep my fortunate, "well cultivated" mouth shut.
post #94 of 122
Quote:
To be frank, I think your disdain for "bling bling" (which I am not too fond of myself), goes too far and is really a brand of elitism which tries to distinguish yourself as being superior to others. Not only are you over intellectualizing the matter, it really looks as if you are writing this as part of a petition for your admission into some type of old money club or something.
If you think that then you clearly haven't understood a single thing I've written in this thread.
Quote:
There is something beyond the initial blatant materialism and vapidiness of it all.
That sounds like the same BS every university professor tried to pass by me when I called into question what they were arguing. Sure, they said, it's obvious there isn't much to what I'm saying but you have to look beyond the fact that there isn't much to what I'm saying. That tells me more about a person then anything else they will ever say. It's post-modernism at its worst -- vapidity masquerading as depth. If that makes me elitist then so be it.
post #95 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHV,31 Dec. 2004, 5:59
To be frank, I think your disdain for "bling bling" (which I am not too fond of myself), goes too far and is really a brand of elitism which tries to distinguish yourself as being superior to others. Not only are you over intellectualizing the matter, it really looks as if you are writing this as part of a petition for your admission into some type of old money club or something.
If you think that then you clearly haven't understood a single thing I've written in this thread.
Quote:
There is something beyond the initial blatant materialism and vapidiness of it all.
That sounds like the same BS every university professor tried to pass by me when I called into question what they were arguing. Sure, they said, it's obvious there isn't much to what I'm saying but you have to look beyond the fact that there isn't much to what I'm saying. That tells me more about a person then anything else they will ever say. It's post-modernism at its worst -- vapidity masquerading as depth. If that makes me elitist then so be it.
I am not trying to make an absolutist argument here. I am not trying to say that I like "bling bling", nor do I think that people should be spending money on garish displays of commercialism. However, I realize that there is a larger cause for such stupidities. Instead of rationalizing a position, I'm merely trying to provide a more objective (problematic I know) perspective on the issue, and stating what I think it is that is behind the entire phenomenon. Your judgement is entirely value laden and ignores the things which I think I quite legitimately point out. I agree with you that "Chav" wear is unseemly, but unlike you, I at least try and understand why it is there and do not demonize the whole idea completely.
post #96 of 122
Quote:
Your judgement is entirely value laden and ignores the things which I think I quite legitimately point out.
There is no such thing as a judgement that is not entirely value laden. To suggest otherwise is to lose sight of what a judgement is: it is the discrimination in favour of one value, or set of values, in favour of another value, or set of values. The idea that judgements cannot be entirely value laden is yet another sympton of a culture that is afraid to discriminate between ideas and values, declaring all of them to be of equal worth. There is a certain level of subjectivity in every human judgement -- unless you were Ayn Rand I suppose -- but that shouldn't stop us from declaring those values. I've done that clearly. I'm not ignoring what you say, I just disagree with what you're saying as my posts in this thread have hopefully suggested.
post #97 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Quote:
(PHV @ 31 Dec. 2004, 6:28) Your judgement is entirely value laden and ignores the things which I think I quite legitimately point out.
There is no such thing as a judgement that is not entirely value laden. To suggest otherwise is to lose sight of what a judgement is: it is the discrimination in favour of one value, or set of values, in favour of another value, or set of values. The idea that judgements cannot be entirely value laden is yet another sympton of a culture that is afraid to discriminate between ideas and values, declaring all of them to be of equal worth. There is a certain level of subjectivity in every human judgement -- unless you were Ayn Rand I suppose -- but that shouldn't stop us from declaring those values. I've done that clearly. I'm not ignoring what you say, I just disagree with what you're saying as my posts in this thread have hopefully suggested.
I am aware of the problematic issues of judgement. And I hope you can forgive that I cannot completely agree with you. One thing I realized when I was about 17, was that it was alright to take a position on something whether it be moral or what have you, but to also be able to appreciate another perspective on the issue, and to not ignore it completely in your judgement. I simply felt that you are granting nothing to the other perspective, which I believe has a very legitmate basis, though I disagree with it.
post #98 of 122
Quote:
I am aware of the problematic issues of judgement. And I hope you can forgive that I cannot completely agree with you. One thing I realized when I was about 17, was that it was alright to take a position on something whether it be moral or what have you, but to also be able to appreciate another perspective on the issue, and to not ignore it completely in your judgement. I simply felt that you are granting nothing to the other perspective, which I believe has a very legitmate basis, though I disagree with it.
You don't need my forgiveness for disagreeing with me. Since I brought up Rand I can quote her, "Check your premise." You're assuming that I have ignored another perspective on the issue. I would maintain that I could have only formed my perspective by analysing it and others. You're right on one aspect, I am granting nothing to the other perspective. If I disagree with it, why would I give it anything? As I said, I'm discriminating in favour of one value over another -- a desire for quality and workmanship over mere label whoring, conspicuous consumption and status seeking. I know you've tried to flesh out bling-bling with a deeper meaning but I don't buy it. You're attempting to build a philosophical construct for something that doesn't have any foundation to begin with. Bling-bling is the desire for material goods for the simple reason that they carry the gloss of wealth and status, not because they're pieces of art. If I find the other to have no value, why would I give it space? I know this sounds arrogant (there's that elitism.) but to quote Rand one more time, in the compromise between food and poison, poison always wins. I'm not interested in cognitive dissonance -- the layman's version, not the pyschological definition. Holy cow...I need a drink.
post #99 of 122
perspective, boys, give yourselves some perspective... "You can either buy clothes or buy pictures," she said. "It's that simple. No one who is not very rich can do both. Pay no attention to your clothes and no attention at all to the mode, and buy your clothes for comfort and durability, and you will have all the clothes money to buy pictures." "But even if I never bought any more clothing ever," I said, "I wouldn't have enough money to buy the Picassos that I want." "No. He's out of your range. You have to buy the people of your own age..." excerpt of G. Stein's instruction to E. Hemingway in Paris
post #100 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Quote:
(PHV @ 31 Dec. 2004, 6:52) I am aware of the problematic issues of judgement. And I hope you can forgive that I cannot completely agree with you. One thing I realized when I was about 17, was that it was alright to take a position on something whether it be moral or what have you, but to also be able to appreciate another perspective on the issue, and to not ignore it completely in your judgement. I simply felt that you are granting nothing to the other perspective, which I believe has a very legitmate basis, though I disagree with it.
You don't need my forgiveness for disagreeing with me. Since I brought up Rand I can quote her, "Check your premise." You're assuming that I have ignored another perspective on the issue. I would maintain that I could have only formed my perspective by analysing it and others. You're right on one aspect, I am granting nothing to the other perspective. If I disagree with it, why would I give it anything? As I said, I'm discriminating in favour of one value over another -- a desire for quality and workmanship over mere label whoring, conspicuous consumption and status seeking. I know you've tried to flesh out bling-bling with a deeper meaning but I don't buy it. You're attempting to build a philosophical construct for something that doesn't have any foundation to begin with. Bling-bling is the desire for material goods for the simple reason that they carry the gloss of wealth and status, not because they're pieces of art. If I find the other to have no value, why would I give it space? I know this sounds arrogant (there's that elitism.) but to quote Rand one more time, in the compromise between food and poison, poison always wins. I'm not interested in cognitive dissonance -- the layman's version, not the pyschological definition. Holy cow...I need a drink.
You're an egotist?
post #101 of 122
Quote:
That sounds like the same BS every university professor tried to pass by me when I called into question what they were arguing. Sure, they said, it's obvious there isn't much to what I'm saying but you have to look beyond the fact that there isn't much to what I'm saying. That tells me more about a person then anything else they will ever say. It's post-modernism at its worst -- vapidity masquerading as depth. If that makes me elitist then so be it.
"Vapidity masquerading as depth" -- I love that quote, although I think it's quite ironic that I'm hearing it in the context of an argument over tastes in clothing.  
post #102 of 122
Quote:
"Vapidity masquerading as depth" -- I love that quote, although I think it's quite ironic that I'm hearing it in the context of an argument over tastes in clothing.
You shouldn't think of it as ironic. As I said, clothing can be an art form. If you value it as such, then you are wearing art, not clothing.
post #103 of 122
Quote:
You're an egotist?
Guilty as charged.
post #104 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Quote:
(PHV @ 31 Dec. 2004, 7:51) You're an egotist?
Guilty as charged.
I've always wanted to delve deeper into Rand after I read the Fountainhead. Why does she get so much flack at universities? If you mention her name in the same sentence as philosophy, you are sneered at, and no one grants her any respect as an author.
post #105 of 122
Because universities are radically liberal. I believe that much of this is due to self-selection over time, rather than a concerted effort. Being a professor (with tenure) is a cushy job and provides a nice pulpit. While such a position is likely to be equally appealing to liberals and conservatives, my hunch is that the capitalists would rather be earning capital, and those who are anti-capitalist, since they don't want to be earning capital, can preach its "flaws". And the bastard childdren are people like Krugman (and previously Keynes) who passes himself off as an economist. EDIT: And, for the sake of topicality - while I have nothing against LV the brand, I am not a fan of LVMH the company. Of course, I will defend to the death their right to do it (destroy the history, art and emotional content of brands, that is), I don't have to like it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Disgusting treatment at Louis Vuitton