random fashion thoughts

[Fuuma]

As long as you understand that finding individuality through "lifestyles" (i.e. self expression through consumption) is a lure, you can wear full designer, a mix of designers, dumpster finds, etc, if you look good then you've done it.

[Picasso]

I hate the pricing on 11, it's not justified

[apathy!]

It's hilarious when manufacturers of hello kitty iphone covers claim to let you express your individuality.

[DudleyGray]

An open question.


Do you think it's important to have a "personal style" or do you prefer to showcase a designer's aesthetic?

I think this is comparable to people who obsess over a tattoo's meaning and design as opposed to epople who let a tattoo artist use their body as a canvas.

I think personal style is overarching. Even the decision to showcase a designer's aesthetic is a personal style decision that can reveal something about that person, like their aesthetic preferences and their ideas on how they do things.

[Fuuma]

It's hilarious when manufacturers of hello kitty iphone covers claim to let you express your individuality.

Old massified consumption was aiming at social class but the advent of the new, self-expressing, individualistic, defined by lifestyle consumer is indeed better served by having a lot of mass produced choices to express his rebell spirit through buying Boris leathers and hipster artisan apple pies. Old consumer was in a way less of an asshole though cause he didn't define himself AS A CONSUMER and didn't have those ridiculous individualistic urges. Now everyone is a rebel, I mean fucking corporate idol Steve Jobs was a rebel cause he made gadgets.

[apathy!]

I think personal style is overarching. Even the decision to showcase a designer's aesthetic is a personal style decision that can reveal something about that person, like their aesthetic preferences and their ideas on how they do things.

Very true. Agree completely.

Old massified consumption was aiming at social class but the advent of the new, self-expressing, individualistic, defined by lifestyle consumer is indeed better served by having a lot of mass produced choices to express his rebell spirit through buying Boris leathers and hipster artisan apple pies. Old consumer was in a way less of an asshole though cause he didn't define himself AS A CONSUMER and didn't have those ridiculous individualistic urges. Now everyone is a rebel, I mean fucking corporate idol Steve Jobs was a rebel cause he made gadgets.

Yeah I feel like this new age consumerism is more insidious and cynical. Part of the reason why I don't understand why people buy into a designer's "story" rather than just liking designs for aesthetic reasons.

[Faust]

Yeah I feel like this new age consumerism is more insidious and cynical. Part of the reason why I don't understand why people buy into a designer's "story" rather than just liking designs for aesthetic reasons.

Same reason they like songs not only for how they sound but what the lyrics say. Aesthetics without substance are banal at best and immoral at worst.

[Chinorlz]

I'm tired of seeing "completely hand sewn" when it is obvious that machines were used. Sewn by hand means a person, a needle (or two) and thread. If you have a machine, this is indeed sewn by a person, but it is not completely hand sewn!

I'm sick of the fake hype. Keep it real and don't fake the funk.

[550BC]

I'm tired of seeing "completely hand sewn" when it is obvious that machines were used. Sewn by hand means a person, a needle (or two) and thread. If you have a machine, this is indeed sewn by a person, but it is not completely hand sewn!

I'm sick of the fake hype. Keep it real and don't fake the funk.

[apathy!]

Same reason they like songs not only for how they sound but what the lyrics say. Aesthetics without substance are banal at best and immoral at worst.

Fair enough. What designs/designers can you show me that transcend aesthetics?

[LelandJ]

thanks. modified credits on original post. i am curious, how do they keep the site running? i've first visited it around 2003. being up for more than a decade must have cost some good money.

I can't imagine it costing more than $130 a year for godaddy fees.

[andrew]

Same reason they like songs not only for how they sound but what the lyrics say. Aesthetics without substance are banal at best and immoral at worst.

I'd like to chime in here only because a friend said almost the exact same thing the other day in a similar discussion we were having. My retort was that while I do prefer music I enjoy, can released to and find the lyrics to be insightful, I by no means dislike everything that isn't all three. Have you never heard music you enjoy despite disagreeing or perhaps even not understanding the meaning, or likewise found the lyrics delegates from the song beautiful but sung horribly to terrible music?

[daou0782]

Fair enough. What designs/designers can you show me that transcend aesthetics?

I think here aesthetics is used pejoratively. I would argue aesthetics is transcendence by definition. Aesthetics is how he experience and relate to the world. A small part of our being in the world is through reason and can be measured and put into words, but to a larger extent it cannot. This is aesthetics.

[daou0782]

An open question.


Do you think it's important to have a "personal style" or do you prefer to showcase a designer's aesthetic?

I think this question can be approached at least from two different angles: one ideological and one pragmatic.

Ideologically, I think this is a matter of personal preference. It is like believing in the myth of progress. When I have this discussion with friends, I propose the following hypothetical scenario: A Ugandan thrift shop in the year 2070. Young people scourge the racks finding "vintage" pieces from names that mean nothing to them: McQueen, Miyake, Margiela. Their worlds long gone, dissolved in time. How could one possibly "showcase a designer's aesthetic" when it's all stripped back to raw fabric?

This is a good segue into the pragmatic approach. For briefness sake, let's say it's all about form, geometry. On a spectrum, some pieces are intricate, showcasing a designer's "hand" or "signature," and are very difficult to mix outside that specific designer's world. Let's call these "strong" pieces. On the other end, some pieces are very nondescript, generic, basic. It could be hard to tell who their designer was. These pieces lends themselves to be mixed and matched with pieces from other designers. Let's call these pieces "soft" pieces.

So called "brand synergy" is when strong pieces are found from different designers that can be matched together. For the orthodox--those who think the designer's aesthetic is to be showcased without deviation--this would be faux-pas. But for those who are interested in developing "personal style," success comes form the sophistication and tastefulness with which they can achieve synergy.

To wrap it up, perhaps "showcasing the designer's aesthetic" is a top down model of fashion where only the designer has the right to say what goes whereas the "personal style" is a bottom up model where, more than passive consumers, buyers/patrons also participate by giving raise to trends or memes collectively. Of course, the more accurate description of reality would be a dialectic between both models. The beauty of fashion is how in its inclusiveness it offers a space for everyone.

[Shucks]

^ best of sz. great post.