• Welcome to the Styleforum Approved contest! This is a contest where everyone wins: in fact, every participant will get a (highly coveted) “Styleforum approved” bracelet to flaunt to your oblivious friends. The only thing you have to do is show appreciation for a member of the forum or an affiliate vendor.
  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

The Official Dieworkwear Appreciation Thread

dieworkwear

Mahatma Jawndi
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
17,417
Reaction score
40,583
I used to drink tea, then realized most of the tea bags release billions of microplastics when boiling them.

Is loose leaf the way to go then?
One of the reasons why people prefer loose leaf tea is because the tea leaves are usually of higher quality. When you make tea, you pick the leaves and then roast them. This is like roasting coffee beans -- it's a way to achieve a certain flavor.

However, in the roasting process, there are going to be bits that flake off the main leaves. These bits are then usually gathered up and put into tea bags. They're typically of lower quality.

Additionally, when you brew tea, it's hard to control for the extraction process when you have such fine particles. With full tea leaves, you get a much better flavor. With the fine, dusty particles in tea bags, it's easy to over-extract and get a bitter tasting cup.
 

Dadacantona

Active Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
37
Reaction score
25
Great piece. I‘ve been thinking more about spending less lately and I was feeling pretty introspective until I got to the image of the tweed jacket/Shetland combo and I started searching for that exact colour sweater to compliment my other 25 shetlands.
 

WayneLyndon

Active Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
26
Reaction score
21
@dieworkwear thank you again for very insightful article. As always, it was pleasant to read. In fact, I think your blog is the most worthwhile blog about fashion right now.

Regarding your article, I would like to add to, perhaps expand your thoughts even further away.

As I'm typing this in this summery evening in northern Europe, I'm thinking what actually do you and me have in common. You know, this Scandinavian state and the US. We could argue that our societies are based on the same protestant christian values, but as we perhaps could agree on, that would be quite far-fetched. Historically speaking, we have very little in common, culturally and historically.

But what we do have in common today, is of course the cultural effects of capitalism: globalization and Internet has global consumer culture, fusing the vast lands of Europe and US together (and of course, rest of the world too, if not every part of it yet). Sometimes, in my darkest hour, I even feel this eery feeling that I'm actually an American, just speaking this funny language and having this ocean between us.

So you and me have in common social media culture and it effects, consumerism. Our cultures around the world are merging into one big consumer bubble.

Capitalism seem to have to base level rules:

1) The market has to grow

2) The market has to be free

The latter notion of course pointing to the first one, that the markets can keep growing. If we can agree on number two here, it means also market place for ALL kind of products: cheap, crappy, expensive, great.

The problem with a lot of writings on ecology, sustainability or ethics of producing or consuming always throws the responsibility to the individual. As it's individuals responsibility to change the course and his consuming habits. To a point, of course it is. But when looking from further distance, perhaps using a little mathematics, the numbers of A) growing markets (with the good and the bad products) B) growing number of people on the planet and C) growing markets of given sector (here in StyleForum, clothes) creates a problem.

As I typed in my last longish post few weeks ago, I presented the idea that because the sheer number of menswear producers emerged between 2010-2020 is so great, that the bankruptcy of Brooks Brothers means almost nothing.

Everything keeps on growing exponentially.

The problem with blaming the individual or the culture is:

Globally speaking, we have actually billions of people around the world eagerly waiting for their opportunity to be part in this consumer culture. Because of the two rules that market have to grow and market has to be free, the door is open for very, very crappy products you don't see here on StyleForum, but millions of people out there are buying and using. Like an Afghan fella once told me: Europe isn't the center of the universe; between Europe and China there are millions of people creating shops and products and thus consuming them.

We don't hear about those products here but they are there all right. They might be crappy, dangerous to use, toxic and ecologically hazardous but the markets keep growing nevertheless.

The first rule of capitalism (here in my post only, of course) is to create demand and growth. Social media, Instagram and so on are making it so, creating constant demands for people.

Constant new demands bombarding means constant new urges and needs. Global culture of combative market means we have to constantly alert if we want to survive on economy level. This leads to alienation: instead of having real meanings in our lives, we outsource meanings into the crap we buy. We mold ourselves so we can work in the system better and harder.

Sounds crazy? check these two videos and take notes if you see anything in common between them:

1)
2)
Alienation is what Easton Ellis was focusing on his book: getting contact to the world, meanings, humanity and whatever are driving forces of the community you're on.

I have this joke about men who are always describing things they own in technical sense. You know, for instance here people describe the clothes whether full canvassed, with what fabric etc. the clothes are made from. Or watches about with what kind of engine it has on. No, wait, is it exactly like Patrick Bateman describes everything? The joke is, I had to tell few of my friends that when going for a date, never to explain to a woman the finer details of your watch, SHE WON'T CARE, AND I DON'T CARE. People are connecting, no-one actually needs the fucking information of your fucking crappy item you just bought. If you'd to keep describing your stuff in this technical manner I would say you have entered into a stage of neurosis which means you're too close of the thing and you need to get distance between.

I would argue that alienation and capitalism are driving forces of never-ending consuming, not some organic culture made by the people and controlled by the people. We're consuming stuff because we don't have anything else to do in life.

My last two points:

A) You write in StyleForum @dieworkwear . Don't you think this forum is the epitome of the consumer culture I'm describing above? Tons of people buying INSANE amount of clothes, more often to get compliments from people they don't know, online? This is the joke here, but it contains a lot of truth in it.

I've been lurking here for couple of years and have noticed that the Classic Menswear bubble has actually very quick fashion turnaround (remember the green cord-suits and other has-to-get-pieces) plus the game is on constantly. Those sport shirts you buy this summer, who the hell wears them the next, since next summer you'll learn what to buy then (and you probably will inform me what to buy then I trust).

Where in gods name is the 'timelessness'?

If StyleForum didn't exist at all, do you think ecologygally speaking the planet would be better or worse off? Regarding the demands, needs and wants created by this very forum?

Don't you think even your, indeed as great as it is, blog is very much part of this hysterical consumerism? I have scrolled and read back your post for the past years. Don't you have always new shit to write about? What to buy next? Black boots? Zipper boots? Chelsea boots? That look of having a too bright baseball cap advertising something with tailored clothing?

Don't you ever feel to be a part of the problem and that the world in this sense would be better off without your blog? I don't mean this personally, since I love to read your thoughts, but if you start thinking this way, it'll lead to that sentence above.

B) If the point is to change the culture of consuming (but attaching more meanings to the clothes you buy etc), don't you think this very forum represents the amount of people symbolizing a flyes piss on the ocean? Could be even argued, that on the level of the world, the men(!) here in Styleforum consist the 'elite' 0,0001% who have the means to buy and show the clothes and have time even to discuss about them (and not like... working and worrying about the next meal).

I tend to call this kind of writing as 'call for' -writing: the named community is looking for the good feeling apparently lost at some point. A cleansing perhaps, an ethical standup. So we can consume peacefully again. I would argue, each and every one these kinds of exercises will morph into some sort of product you can buy for your peace of mind. And there will be another cycle of factory (the factory has to be build, think about the elements and workers around it) - products transported around the world (think about different parts coming from around the world, transported via ships and trucks) - shops created (decorated, build etc) - stuff sold (people here on StyleForum) - and thus; the market has expanded.

It has been said, that in here where we got the Green party, the utopia of the party is that we can keep going on like this, consuming like ever but everything will be 'green' somehow. So that we can keep on the same, nothing has to actually change.

I often feel that for American, capitalism is something like air you breathe, you don't notice it, you don't criticize it, you take is as granted. I use American as I read the writings of an American and I think that's one of the main characters of American writing. I'm quite sure this culture is all around us, as in China etc.

As stated in the blogpost, even products made of waste don't mean anything if they're thrown away. And why they're thrown away? Like I first stated, me here in Scandinavia and you there in the US (I presume) have not much in common culturally. And still speak the same tongue of consuming clothes (read: I understand your blogposts and even when my native language is not English I understand the subtexts and cultural references). I say it is capitalism, not culture nor human behaviorism.

Thought on this?

PS: the point of view I'm here presenting regarding the American line of thinking: I would add that I feel that the view of pointing out the responsibility of an individual or said community AND dismissing the role of capitalism as the primus motor are on the conservative side of thinking in American ethos, no?
 
Last edited:

dieworkwear

Mahatma Jawndi
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
17,417
Reaction score
40,583
@dieworkwear thank you again for very insightful article. As always, it was pleasant to read. In fact, I think your blog is the most worthwhile blog about fashion right now.

Regarding your article, I would like to add to, perhaps expand your thoughts even further away.

As I'm typing this in this summery evening in northern Europe, I'm thinking what actually do you and me have in common. You know, this Scandinavian state and the US. We could argue that our societies are based on the same protestant christian values, but as we perhaps could agree on, that would be quite far-fetched. Historically speaking, we have very little in common, culturally and historically.

But what we do have in common today, is of course the cultural effects of capitalism: globalization and Internet has global consumer culture, fusing the vast lands of Europe and US together (and of course, rest of the world too, if not every part of it yet). Sometimes, in my darkest hour, I even feel this eery feeling that I'm actually an American, just speaking this funny language and having this ocean between us.

So you and me have in common social media culture and it effects, consumerism. Our cultures around the world are merging into one big consumer bubble.

Capitalism seem to have to base level rules:

1) The market has to grow

2) The market has to be free

The latter notion of course pointing to the first one, that the markets can keep growing. If we can agree on number two here, it means also market place for ALL kind of products: cheap, crappy, expensive, great.

The problem with a lot of writings on ecology, sustainability or ethics of producing or consuming always throws the responsibility to the individual. As it's individuals responsibility to change the course and his consuming habits. To a point, of course it is. But when looking from further distance, perhaps using a little mathematics, the numbers of A) growing markets (with the good and the bad products) B) growing number of people on the planet and C) growing markets of given sector (here in StyleForum, clothes) creates a problem.

As I typed in my last longish post few weeks ago, I presented the idea that because the sheer number of menswear producers emerged between 2010-2020 is so great, that the bankruptcy of Brooks Brothers means almost nothing.

Everything keeps on growing exponentially.

The problem with blaming the individual or the culture is:

Globally speaking, we have actually billions of people around the world eagerly waiting for their opportunity to be part in this consumer culture. Because of the two rules that market have to grow and market has to be free, the door is open for very, very crappy products you don't see here on StyleForum, but millions of people out there are buying and using. Like an Afghan fella once told me: Europe isn't the center of the universe; between Europe and China there are millions of people creating shops and products and thus consuming them.

We don't hear about those products here but they are there all right. They might be crappy, dangerous to use, toxic and ecologically hazardous but the markets keep growing nevertheless.

The first rule of capitalism (here in my post only, of course) is to create demand and growth. Social media, Instagram and so on are making it so, creating constant demands for people.

Constant new demands bombarding means constant new urges and needs. Global culture of combative market means we have to constantly alert if we wan't to survive on economy level. This leads to alienation: instead of having real meanings in our lives, we outsource meaning into the crap we buy. We mold ourselves so we can work in the system better and harder.

Sounds crazy? check these two videos and take notes if you see anything in common between them:

1)
2)
Alienation is what Easton Ellis was focusing on his book: getting contact to the world, meanings, humanity and whatever are driving forces of the community you're on.

I have this joke about men who are always describing things they own in technical sense. You know, for instance here people describe the clothes whether full canvassed, with what fabric etc. the clothes are made from. Or watches about with what kind of engine it has on. No, wait, is it exactly like Patrick Bateman describes everything? The joke is, I had to tell few of my friends that when going for a date, never to explain to a woman the finer details of your watch, SHE WON'T CARE, AND I DON'T CARE. People are connecting, no-one actually needs the fucking information of your fucking crappy item you just bought. If you'd to keep describing your stuff in this technical manner I would say you have entered into a stage of neurosis which means you're too close of the thing and you need to get distance between.

I would argue that alienation and capitalism are driving forces of never-ending consuming, not some organic culture made by the people and controlled by the people. We're consuming stuff because we don't have anything else to do in life.

My last two points:

A) You write in StyleForum @dieworkwear . Don't you think this forum is the epitome of the consumer culture I'm describing above? Tons of people buying INSANE amount of clothes, more often to get compliments from people they don't know, online? This is the joke here, but it contains a lot of truth in it.

I've been lurking here for couple of years and have noticed that the Classic Menswear bubble has actually very quick fashion turnaround (remember the green cord-suits and other has-to-get-pieces) plus the game is on constantly. Those sport shirts you buy this summer, who the hell wears them the next, since next summer you'll learn what to buy then (and you probably will inform me what to buy then I trust).

Where in gods name is the 'timelessness'?

If StyleForum didn't exist at all, do you think ecologygally speaking the planet would be better or worse off? Regarding the demands, needs and wants created by this very forum?

Don't you think even your, indeed as great as it is, blog is very much part of this hysterical consumerism? I have scrolled and read back your post for the past years. Don't you have always new shit to write about? What to buy next? Black boots? Zipper boots? Chelsea boots? That look of having a too bright baseball cap advertising something with tailored clothing?

Don't you ever feel to be a part of the problem and that the world in this sense would be better off without your blog? I don't mean this personally, since I love to read your thoughts, but if you start thinking this way, it'll lead to that sentence above.

B) If the point is to change the culture of consuming (but attaching more meanings to the clothes you buy etc), don't you think this very forum represents the amount of people symbolizing a flyes piss on the ocean? Could be even argued, that on the level of the world, the men(!) here in Styleforum consist the 'elite' 0,0001% who have the means to buy and show the clothes and have time even to discuss about them (and not like... working and worrying about the next meal).

I tend to call this kind of writing as 'call for' -writing: the named community is looking for the good feeling apparently lost at some point. A cleansing perhaps, an ethical standup. So we can consume peacefully again. I would argue, each and every one these kinds of exercises will morph into some sort of product you can buy for your peace of mind. And there will be another cycle of factory (the factory has to be build, think about the elements and workers around it) - products transported around the world (think about different parts coming from around the world, transported via ships and trucks) - shops created (decorated, build etc) - stuff sold (people here on StyleForum) - and thus; the market has expanded.

It has been said, that in here where we got the Green party, the utopia of the party is that we can keep going on like this, consuming like ever but everything will be 'green' somehow. So that we can keep on the same, nothing has to actually change.

I often feel that for American, capitalism is something like air you breathe, you don't notice it, you don't criticize it, you take is as granted. I use American as I read the writings of an American and I think that's one of the main characters of American writing. I'm quite sure this culture is all around us, as in China etc.

As stated in the blogpost, even products made of waste don't mean anything if they're thrown away. And why they're thrown away? Like I first stated, me here in Scandinavia and you there in the US (I presume) have not much in common culturally. And still speak the same tongue of consuming clothes (read: I understand your blogposts and even when my native language is not English I understand the subtexts and cultural references). I say it is capitalism, not culture nor human behaviorism.

Thought on this?

PS: the point of view I'm here presenting regarding the American line of thinking: I would add that I feel that the view of pointing out the responsibility of an individual or said community AND dismissing the role of capitalism as the primus motor are on the conservative side of thinking in American ethos, no?
Lots to unpack here. I don't have a problem with consumerism or capitalism (that word feels like it's used a bit loosely these days, but to the degree it means anything, I don't have a problem with markets). I think products and material objects can play a meaningful role in our lives.

I agree that sustainability faces some challenges given the number of people in the world.

I don't think my post was really about anti-consumerism. I was hoping to convey that how much you connect with an object is more important than its build quality. I don't think everyone can give their lives over to some kind of ascetic minimalism. Nor would it necessarily be desirable. Some of the things we deem to be frivolous are things that people make to survive. So long as people buy stuff that brings them joy, I don't really see a problem with consuming.
 

WayneLyndon

Active Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
26
Reaction score
21
Just to clarify, I took your article as indifferend regarding the actual phenomenon of consumerism itself.

But I take your reply as it is, thank you.
 

K. Nights

Senior Member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
980
Reaction score
579
Like I first stated, me here in Scandinavia and you there in the US (I presume) have not much in common culturally
A bit off topic, but have you actually been to the US? In my experience, this statement is not true at all. I find that Europeans often overestimate how much "different" they are culturally to the United States because they consume so much American media and assume it reflects reality
 

WayneLyndon

Active Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
26
Reaction score
21
I understand what you’re saying. The term Europian in the sense American use it is always misleading as Europeans see we differ historically and culturally from each other radically (Europian countries I mean). Like here we have different history with different nations, the US is something new, something of an idea.

I have visited US once, New York that is. I refer culture as something large, the ethics and worldview shaping our everyday life. And in that sense, the historical construct of the Idea of USA differs from the whole what we call here the Europe. The baselevel of thinking is different I think, because of history.

But I think you’re right in your last sentence and I echo it on my own post. That is sometimes I feel I am an American living here far away from the actual continent.
 

dieworkwear

Mahatma Jawndi
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
17,417
Reaction score
40,583
Just to clarify, I took your article as indifferend regarding the actual phenomenon of consumerism itself.

But I take your reply as it is, thank you.
Maybe not indifference, but I don't know if I have much to add to that conversation. I feel like critiques of capitalism are often loose and fast, as the term "capitalism" is kind of a huge thing. It's easier and often more precise to talk about very small things in a system, as you can get meaningful traction. Issues of alienation, overconsumption, etc feel like really worn and at-times superficial topics at this point. I'm not sure if I have anything new to add to that conversation.

I think some of the issues you raised have maybe a bit more to do with modernity/ post-modernity, than they do with capitalism. Also markets, and other systems have markets. Although these things are also related. Again, kind of big topics.
 

WayneLyndon

Active Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
26
Reaction score
21
Ok, I respect that, and you have to narrow a post somehow.

Don't you think it helps to remove to lense further out and see the bigger picture? I mean if you look at something on so close, everything there seems meaningful. When you zoom out, you see that context where it lands and see connections you didn't get at first? Like a nest of ants. If that what you know it means everything for you. When you zoom out you see other animals, people and the world. The perspective changes.

I get that these points have been made from the 1960's, and it lands under that frustrating post-modernity topic. Those cliches, catch-phrases. I'm not that young to think these words are cool or even relevant.

But you wrote about a topic that is connected with it. If the fashion industry is responsible (arguably) about 10% of the what-emissions, don't you think it's actually part of a bigger picture? If you raise a question, are you not willing to find 'truth' about it, or what is it about actually? Exactly because I respect your views on this matter, and you do have nice insight like your latest, I would expect you're willing to go to even further. I just wanted to pick your brains a little.

I don't know the answer to any of this, but I'm definitely not searching for catharsis or peace of mind either.

PS. like the word 'artisanal' is been thrown a lot these days. Does it actually mean anything else than a catch-phrase of something you can buy the next 2-5 years? Something that will soon be put out like a sticker, soon even into the cheap furniture of what Ikea sells?

"Buy this Artisanal pen, it has been made by an blind one-armed Japanese man living in the bottom of ocean using 2000-years-old- yoga-breathing-technics."

I'm a bit cynical.
 
Last edited:

dieworkwear

Mahatma Jawndi
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
17,417
Reaction score
40,583
Ok, I respect that, and you have to narrow a post somehow.

Don't you think it helps to remove to lense further out and see the bigger picture? I mean if you look at something on so close, everything there seems meaningful. When you zoom out, you see that context where it lands and see connections you didn't get at first? Like a nest of ants. If that what you know it means everything for you. When you zoom out you see other animals, people and the world. The perspective changes.

I get that these points have been made from the 1960's, and it lands under that frustrating post-modernity topic. Those cliches, catch-phrases. I'm not that young to think these words are cool or even relevant.

But you wrote about a topic that is connected with it. If the fashion industry is responsible (arguably) about 10% of the what-emissions, don't you think it's actually part of a bigger picture? If you raise a question, are you not willing to find 'truth' about it, or what is it about actually? Exactly because I respect your views on this matter, and you do have nice insight like your latest, I would expect you're willing to go to men further. I just wanted to pick your brains a little.

I don't know the answer to any of this, but I'm definitely not searching for catharsis either.
Some reactions to your original post:

My impression is that you're saying the capitalist system encourages and even depends on over-consumption. And that there are too many people in the world who are eager to get into the system. And that such consumption has other negative effects, beyond environmental, such as alienation.

To the first, I don't think capitalism is just about over-consumption. For one, we can regulate things, no? In traditional political econ literature, we think of markets and government as being on two different sides (regulation vs. deregulation, constrained versus free). But capitalism is a result of policies and structure. This is one of the great findings of Karl Polyani's book The Great Transformation, which looked at the emergence of what he called market societies. He looked at how even free markets are planned.

If we think of government and the economy as going hand-in-hand -- even in "free economies" -- then we can think of ways we can better regulate the market. Since you're in Northern Europe, you can probably appreciate how different Northern European capitalism looks from American capitalism. To the degree capitalism means anything, it just means that prices signal something (rather than having controlled prices).

To the second point, that there are too many people on the planet, I agree. I think sustainability runs into a problem given how many people there are in the world. But this is like when Jane Goodall brought up the same point and people wondered what was she implying. I'm not sure what can be done unless we want to kill billions of people. We are where we are. And many people who produce things depend on frivolous consumption so that they can afford food, medicine, and shelter. I think this is often posed as one of the evils of capitalism, but I don't think that's fair. Trade and markets exist in other systems (socialism, communism, etc).

Regarding alienation, I think the destruction of communities has more to do with liberalism (in the old 17th century sense of the word). Capitalism is part of liberalism, but so are other economic orders. There's a great debate in philosophy between liberals and communitarians. Very roughly, liberals are people who prize the individual (John Rawls' Theory of Justice is basically about how the individual should be protected from the group, which is about minority protection). Communitarians note that the individual wouldn't exist without the community. It's a very difficult debate to resolve, as I think most people are part liberals and part communitarians.

In the US, this tension plays out in all sorts of ways. Communitarians want to impose some kind of group norm or identity (in the US, this is often a white Christian identity). Liberals want to allow for greater inclusion and protection of minorities. Communitarians counter that if you allow for everything, you give up group cohesion and identity, and then you can't get things even liberals desire, such as high voter turnout.

I don't think alienation is a result of capitalism, but rather liberalism (and I say that as a liberal).
In questioning and destroying traditional structures, such as church, people are left to create their own communities and identity. David Foster Wallace often wrestled with these issues in his writings, but generally landed on the conclusion that you just have to work harder to make human connections.

I don't think we're alienated because we consume, but because of the ways in which liberalism has played out. I also don't think there's anything wrong with consuming. Material objects can have a very meaningful role in our lives. I think capitalism is a big system and there are many different varities. It's possible to regulate the parts you don't like (there have been some great books on the different kinds of capitalism, such as Varieties of Capitalism by Hall & Sosckie, and The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism by Esping-Andersen). I agree there are too many people in the world, but the solutions to that problem are worse than the problems it presents.
 

WayneLyndon

Active Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
26
Reaction score
21
Thank our for your long response.

I understood what you wrote and here I think we come to the crux of the matter, to the difference between European and American thinking.

I agree on everything you wrote as it is.

But for the note, I think capitalism isn't the markets. Nationstates in Europe merged from already existing societies as you know. Therefore the societal hierarchies were already there when the 'market' formed with new class-systems. We may think there are rules how play in the society, but a capitalist is in my mind a person, who bend those imaginary rules for his advantage. A bit like a privileged member of the upper class in the hasbeen era.

An American might read this as an individual bending the rules of the ruler into advantage of the people. I think it means more like competitor violating the very rules he has agreed to play with. Finding the upper hand where he can kind of way.

I just read a book about Aristoteles Onassis. He was apparently a complete ass, who used his wealth to bend the rules so that in the 1950's, when the whaling season was three months long, he sneaked around so that he killed whales few months before and few moths after the season. He killed something like hundreds or thousands of whales outside the season and of course sold the oil extracted from the whales to Dutch companies (and thus twisting the market place where other whalers didn't bend the laws of the whale-hunting season).

In this sense I think a successful capitalist is always violating the rules other people are following. Line of thought leading all the way to BLM which I don't care much about, but can see this: some people thinking they have to follow set of rules by the police for instance when other people are doing whatever they want). I see that in behind every successful corporation we'll find ton of rule-twisting and law-abiding that most people would not be able or allowed to. Like it's a game of connections and wealth-based gravitas. Of course in the end all the rules are on the heads of the people, right? But still, we have some governmental bodies enforcing the rules stricter for some. I think this is what you in US call corruption of the pure marketplace and therefore got D. Trump as a president (who ironically looks like rule-twisting capitalist himself).

Capitalism as a phenomenon seems to be some sort of religion; again not markets. People sacrificing himself for his work, giving everything in his life (that's the reference of the videos I linked) for the profit. That is also the reference for alienation.

So this was my point of entry.

See, here I think the topic actually is the different reading of history and politics. Which is what I wanted to see, meaning how can we approach the topic you raised in the blogpost and what can actually be done about it.

I'm a former entrepreneur myself by the way if that means anything here.
 

mossrockss

Distinguished Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
2,848
Reaction score
6,280
I think the personal attachment/emotional endurance as you call it aspect of clothes or anything, really, is probably under-represented in styleforum culture, though I think there are tons of people who get it and practice it and maybe it just doesn't get discussed. I own and wear all the tailored jackets I bought over the past 5 years because they make me look better, but also because I am emotionally invested in them. They're almost all Eidos and I have an emotional investment in that brand for various reasons.

Another example of this in action: the Omega Moon Watch. It's a great watch in its own right, but the story of the Speedmaster Professional being NASA flight-qualified, going to the moon is what really makes it for most people. Sure it's a nice, expensive watch, and you can enjoy it for simply aesthetic and jewelry-related reasons, but that story takes it to the next level.

My brother bought for me as a gift the Bulova alternate moon watch—a modern remake of a prototype Bulova made for evaluation by NASA then gave (supposedly) to astronaut Dave Scott, who wore it on the moon, which made it the only privately owned watch worn on the moon, thus when he sold it in 2015 it went for $1.6m, because all other watches that went to the moon were government-issued and therefore are in archives, vaults and the Smithsonian or whatever. The Bulova is 1/10th the price of the Omega Moon Watch. I still want one of those. But the much less expensive Bulova has its own cool story, too, and is much less expensive. In other words, just the price and inherent "quality" isn't necessarily what makes it a big deal. That investment in the story gives it an extra oomph. (Plus, in my case, it was a gift from my brother, so there's that additional value; and thankfully, it isn't ugly but has a certain aesthetic appeal as well).
 

am55

Distinguished Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
3,284
Reaction score
2,401
I've been lurking here for couple of years and have noticed that the Classic Menswear bubble has actually very quick fashion turnaround (remember the green cord-suits and other has-to-get-pieces) plus the game is on constantly. Those sport shirts you buy this summer, who the hell wears them the next, since next summer you'll learn what to buy then (and you probably will inform me what to buy then I trust).

Where in gods name is the 'timelessness'?
The issue is that you view only the tip of the iceberg if you look at daily forum activity. 99% of people will come in, lurk, absorb just enough to solve their problem ("my job requires suits, what do I buy") and then disappear again.

The people who are active by definition are continuing to consume in a non-"timeless" manner, but the timeless branding, the references to the 1940s, the Pitti instagrams, are all part of their niche in-group culture and shouldn't be read literally.

It's kind of the guys going around in Hawaiian shirts with assault rifles and tacticool gear. So far there haven't been mass civil war style shootouts between them, the cops, or the other protesters. The whole thing is, incredibly, a form of fashion and signs of belonging to a group.

Sneak edit: this is how the tacticool guy's inspiration actually looks like.
 
Last edited:

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by

Featured Sponsor

Face Masks: Pick Your Favorite (Choose 2)

  • Disposable surgical mask

  • White cotton mask

  • Linen-lined mask

  • "Sartorial" mask made of suiting fabric

  • Patterned mask (checks, stripes, fun print, etc.)

  • Solid color silk mask

  • "Sartorial" mask made of tie fabric

  • Sports mask made of synthetic fabric

  • Denim mask

  • Face shield


Results are only viewable after voting.

Related Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
442,580
Messages
9,558,774
Members
199,964
Latest member
dadsprinting
Top