But when there is a patron, is not the patron the artist, since the original idea is created by him, and the artist a mere technical adviser, as the interpreter of the idea? In that case we agree that art is a collaborative process and that the weltanschauung of the artist [patron] is blended with that of the technician, who while, no doubt, using some artistic license to promote their singular worldview, is strictly limited by the desire of the artist [patron] for the completed work to have some, if not perfect, fidelity to the original idea. Hence, the origin of the frustration of all artists who at first willingly accept the role of technician at the expense of their political freedom or freedom to express themselves, who later have second thoughts and chafe at the idea of political oppression by a rival artist bereft of technique but blessed with financial wealth. Of course the patron is never benevolent, he is a rival artist, but with far less talent and skill. As indicated earlier, there is a third party to this conspiracy of political expression; the one that ultimately promotes the art. How and when the art is displayed can be yet another form of political oppression or instead, a shill like aggrandizement of the political statement. The viewer of the art also plays his part, although he is usually far less informed than artist, technician [if present], and the promoter, often mistaking pure political propaganda for entertainment. And in the case of one that might view the clothing of others, possibly an unwilling participant in this conspiracy. With bespoke clothing, the offices of artist and promoter are combined in the patron, and if the patron has any tendency towards narcissism, he may also the viewer in a what might be viewed as a very closely held circle jerk. The only restraint preventing a full expression of the patron's political views is the lack of ability to find a tailor/technician/rival artist who would share a similar one that would work on a commission that the patron is capable of providing. Again, the "artist" or tailor is rendered a mere technician, and a possible source of contention for the patron. The "love of clothing" is really a form of narcissism, since it is an attempt by the patron to promote his weltanschauung to a largely unwilling audience of the public. So, there is unlikely to be anything more likely to express one's weltanschauung or world view, than how one dresses, lacking an ability to communicate with the public on a mass scale. Even houses, furnishings, and automobiles are limited to a fraction of the dwell time for a political statement or weltanschauung put on display by clothing that is universally present wherever the patron as promoter attends. So, the way people dress is pure politics restrained only by their ability to find a proper expression of their weltanschauung to wear. This is why discussions about clothing and other political displays such as houses, automobiles, etc, are so passionate and likely to raise ire or worse. And probably none more so than clothing which is by definition personal and artistic or political expression. Cheers!