Approaches to fashion

[525252]

yep i wish the same, though let's not call it masturbation shall we? Its a bit of a witch hunt, all this accusing of faux philosophy pseudo wank etc. It really only amounts to name calling "hipster" and somehow reeks of insecurity.

maybe his point that the signifiers assigned to words by fashion editors are absolutely arbitrary and exist for the sole purpose of spurring fashion consumption

Lets break this up for the sake of an interesting conversation :)

signifiers assigned to words by fashion editors
I don't think fashion editors alone hold this power anymore, their "status" has been reduced with the rise of accessible resources. Anybody can announce "Margiela is conceptual!" and the listener's response may be a passive agreement or a rejection. Intended signifiers are now vulnerable to cynicism and criticism, so rhetoric no longer works that way. (it works in other ways now)

absolutely arbitrary
then how do we have a word to describe the "spirit of a time" and how do we relate it to clothing?

exist for the sole purpose of spurring fashion consumption
do you say nice things about CdG for that sole purpose too?

[shah]

Interesting discussions. I would say just that it all makes for nice footnotes in relevant disciplines but holds no real weight on its own to warrant extensive analysis. So about as useful as futurology.

[Faust]

Merz, get the fuck out of here if you hate it so much, really. I am tired of your bullshit, your reminiscing, your twisting my words, your petty jealousy of my "privileged position," your misunderstood genius pining for recognition behind your computer screen or whatever it is that makes you write continuous bile. You are just another asshole of no importance with a sharp tongue, moaning about the decline of western civilization.

One more personal attack on me and I am going to ban you. Then you can really say that I'm some kind of a dictator that you make me out to be. This is your final warning - I am done babysitting you.

[MJRH]

2) Maybe I've read all the wrong books but I simply don't see that fashion has enough substance to offer to those disciplines. I think that's the crux of what I am trying to say. How many Valerie Steeles are out there?

this seems to epitomize the disagreement between parties here. if you're saying that Steele has the wherewithal to extract enough 'substance' from fashion to offer a proper critique, doesn't that imply that others can find in fashion the substance to do so?—or, in other words, isn't it just as much about what you bring to a subject as what the subject has to offer you? which is what liaka and rilu and others argued well for also.

sidenote: Faust, you often say you wish less active members would contribute more. coming from more of a passive than active szer, this site is significantly more compelling with merz's contributions than without.

[Faust]

have to wonder where you've gotten the impression that i think myself important somehow. i'm a complete outsider to all of this stuff, and most happily so.

do not see how my criticism of you translates into envy, nor do i think that threatening to ban me like this is a very good idea. i've said praise to your forum numerous times, but you seem increasingly incapable of accepting dissent here with the years. pretty disconcerting.

I don't want to belabor my point too much (nor am I itching to ban you, since you have always contributed intelligently to the forum), but I will just point out the difference between criticizing the forum and taking swipes at me. I (along with many others) have build up this place as an alternative to the facile world of fashion and though, as you point out yourself, the vision has been diluted somewhat (this I simply cannot control because of the sheer size of this site now), you imply that it's all my fault and that I have become a mere facilitator of sales. This is at best ridiculous (and a lie) and at worst insulting.

faust now speaks of fashion as something that elevates ordinary clothing via narrative channeled through it by the designer. the scenario this presents you with is that he, as holder of privileged access to the narrative, shall convey it to you through his elevated interpretation. the way i see it though, fashion doesn't elevate anything, it just perpetuates itself and doesn't like being looked at too closely. because at the end of the day its a sales pitch.

And, by the way, I have always spoke of fashion "as something that elevates ordinary clothing via narrative channeled through it by the designer." Is fashion at its best not exactly this? And isn't it what you are saying yourself when you sing the praises of Carpe Diem?

[Faust]

this seems to epitomize the disagreement between parties here. if you're saying that Steele has the wherewithal to extract enough 'substance' from fashion to offer a proper critique, doesn't that imply that others can find in fashion the substance to do so?—or, in other words, isn't it just as much about what you bring to a subject as what the subject has to offer you? which is what liaka and rilu and others argued well for also.

But Steele is not a fashion critic. Her books don't offer critiques - they paint pictures. She's first and foremost a museum curator. She also writes like a human being, which helps

Of course it's what you bring to the table, it's just so far I haven't see much that's worth eating. And I'm not saying I've tasted everything.

Another thing I find through my admittedly limited exposure to fashion academia (but some exposure nonetheless) is that quite a few professors are pushed into fashion from other disciplines, because there is a lot of interest from the public to learn about fashion and thus it becomes an excellent money-maker for the university.

[laika]

Faust...I think since you are basically synonymous with this forum you need to be prepared to take some criticism (even if you disagree with it or feel that it's misguided) a little more gamely and graciously? It's a responsibility that comes with the "privileged" position you now find yourself in. Things are otherwise going to get very bland around here very fast...an indigestible element (a bit of discomfort) keeps us alive.

[MJRH]

But Steele is not a fashion critic. Her books don't offer critiques - they paint pictures. She's first and foremost a museum curator. She also writes like a human being, which helps

"painting pictures" is precisely what i think we're all arguing that fashion is valuable for (semiology). it's probably a problem of definition between us, rather than ideology; painting pictures is as critical as critique, sometimes. transparent writing also helps you paint, of course!

as for laika's last post, i would just like to say... This.

[Faust]

I'm trying, laika! I know I am move involved in the forum than owners of other forums, but it is a collective effort. I've always said so.

[laika]

Ok. Also, I wold really appreciate it (again) if you would stop this indiscriminate bashing of intellectuals. I am starting to think that either you really are insecure or you have some terrible trauma in your past with critical-analytical thinking.

Roland Barthes, masturbatory? Really?
The guy demonstrated how the study of fashion (or other phenomena) could be made rigorous and almost scientifically rational through the use of the semiotic method. He also explains--with his typical humility and charm--how he set out to do a study of "live" fashion but had to resort to fashion as written, because the former proved too difficult for him! It's a humble and great failure and an insight that many people have built on, and not only people who study fashion. It may be dry reading, but it's hardly "masturbatory" or pretentious or inauthentic or pseudo or faux or highfalutin or whatever other mud you have in your arsenal.

[shah]

"painting pictures" is precisely what i think we're all arguing that fashion is valuable for (semiology)...painting pictures is as critical as critique, sometimes. transparent writing also helps you paint, of course!

demonstrated how the study of fashion (or other phenomena) could be made rigorous and almost scientifically rational through the use of the semiotic method. He also explains--with his typical humility and charm--how he set out to do a study of "live" fashion but had to resort to fashion as written, because the former proved too difficult for him! It's a humble and great failure and an insight that many people have built on, and not only people who study fashion.

maybe i just don't understand something, but how does any of this, which reads as generalities to me, translate into academic discourse on such a seemingly vacuous subject (other than, as I mentioned earlier, footnotes in discussions on whatever anthro/socio/psycho topics) ?
how can "scientifically rational" study enter the fray ???

[safeword123]

i must say in a way i agree with faust, that fashion can be discussed and examined intelligently (something i certainly would not have had recoganized/realized before had not i spent time reading sz ). but as a legitimate academic field of study, i am still unsure. however, i wonder if part of my hesitation comes from what Givhan said recently in a panel discussion at Parsons that "it has to do with the history of the way that fashion was covered"?

"It’s considered something that’s for and about women” and therefore unimportant, she continued, adding that the conflation of fashion and celebrity in recent years has added to this perception. “I think all of those things kind of conspired to keep fashion from being given the same kind of respect.”

http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/fashion_criticism_panel.php

[laika]

I'm sorry, Shah, but you've completely lost me. Why is fashion "vacuous?" What are these noble and worthy topics that fashion might serve as a mere footnote to?

[shah]

I'm sorry, Shah, but you've completely lost me. Why is fashion "vacuous?" What are these noble and worthy topics that fashion might serve as a mere footnote to?

ok let's ignore that for a second, since i'm asking the questions here and i'm the one who's lost

i mean at its very basic level isn't it irrational, luxurious, consumptive behavior on the part of those with an interest somewhere along the gradient of aesthetics ? i don't think there's anything noble about them but, for example, anthropology, design (more generally), psychology, and sociology can all incorporate habillement in their discourse. how can it be addressed as a topic on its own ? it would seem like just self-reflective metanalysis which i think holds no weight.

this is why i'm asking--out of curiosity, because i don't know, not because i don't think it can/should.

[Faust]

i must say in a way i agree with faust, that fashion can be discussed and examined intelligently (something i certainly would not have had recoganized/realized before had not i spent time reading sz ). but as a legitimate academic field of study, i am still unsure. however, i wonder if part of my hesitation comes from what Givhan said recently in a panel discussion at Parsons that "it has to do with the history of the way that fashion was covered"?

"It’s considered something that’s for and about women” and therefore unimportant, she continued, adding that the conflation of fashion and celebrity in recent years has added to this perception. “I think all of those things kind of conspired to keep fashion from being given the same kind of respect.”

http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/f...cism_panel.php

I actually meant to ask Laika is she went to that. Did anyone from SZ go? I only found out about it the day after :(