Quotes About Fashion and Clothes

[Acéphale]

Poor naked man, unable to grow the cock’s comb or the peacock’s feathers out of his own body has been constrained to grow them out of his mind.

- James Laver

[MJRH]

(relevant here as a critique of the relentless discourse on quality)

when he says that "universalizing ... fashion necessarily cheapens its value in the specific case and forces an abnormally rapid change of fashion", the "value" that Sapir addresses is socioeconomic status: "look at me, a Vuitton handbag." and the problem with that is that pretty soon folks catch on, Vuitton's been popularized, and someone fakes the handbag. so, no more status for the fashionable, because "look at me, Vuitton" → "look at me, fake Vuitton." no way to easily tell the difference. devaluation.

usually, when the problem of 'quality' arises on sz, it is less about socioeconomic status and more about adherence to a specific viewpoint, mentality, or, er, zeitgeist. so to draw a similar analogy to the Vuitton handbag, "look at me Rick Owens" → "look at me, AllS****s". no way to easily tell the difference. devaluation...

...but on a different plane. because if i have managed to coherently communicate the division i draw between "value" as seen in the above quote—elitism on the part of the wealthy—and "value" as i understand it on sz—elitism in defense of rigorous cultural snobbery—then what is at stake is an ethos as opposed to cultural status, soul as opposed to frippery.

which leads me to ask laika, or anyone else: is it morally reprehensible for me to use material value as a form or symbol for the defense of a spiritual value i hold dear? if i consciously factor in an item of clothing's exclusivity in order to continue to signify whatever ideals i hold dear, is it as ugly as someone buying the latest handbag or hip fashion to signify their wealth, if wealth is an ideal they hold dear? (i know what my answer to this is, but it's an interesting question to ask yourself.)

whew, "relentless discourse" is right. i just read back on what i wrote and noticed i used that emptiest of words, "soul," without thinking about it. and who gets to define frippery or peacocks? in the case of luxury, feelings of appreciation can be hard to dissociate from feelings of privilege.

on a completely different note, here is photographic evidence of Acéphale's dire warning:

[laika]

which leads me to ask laika, or anyone else: is it morally reprehensible for me to use material value as a form or symbol for the defense of a spiritual value i hold dear? if i consciously factor in an item of clothing's exclusivity in order to continue to signify whatever ideals i hold dear, is it as ugly as someone buying the latest handbag or hip fashion to signify their wealth, if wealth is an ideal they hold dear? (i know what my answer to this is, but it's an interesting question to ask yourself.)

good stuff, thanks for posting.

I think when Sapir refers to "material value," he is talking about something like exchange value. So, it would probably be ok by him if you cherish a material object because it signifies something immaterial (like your "spiritual") to you. What would not be ok is prizing a material object because it's expensive or rare. I think I had the "best quality leathers" thread in mind when I posted....an instance where "quality" seems to take precedence over form, implying a "vulgar" understanding/valuation of fashion thereby. Faust can probably complicate and extend my rather reductive reading of quality here with his Piersig stuff though...

[Faust]

So, does Mr. Sapir enjoy his H&M goodies? It seems to me that he is talking about very conventional and broad definitions (all clothes are fashion).

Kinda agree with MJRH although I take issue with the term 'snobbery.' I prefer 'elitism.' the way I see it, snobbery comes from ignorance. Elitism comes from meritocracy. I am all for elitism.

I think by and large Sapir's point is irrelevant. Perhaps with the exception of Hermes, I don't really see people in fashion having this idea that quality sets their things apart. It's either status (logos) or image (wearing the 'right' designer, from the 'right' season from the 'right' trend). Not that we don't have the above here (with the incessant lazy "what's best" questions, as laika points out).

[Ahimsa]

…"fashion world is controlled by, dominated by, and full of people that have no education. That is the simple answer. "

-Colin McDowell

[525252]

…"fashion world is controlled by, dominated by, and full of people that have no education. That is the simple answer. "

-Colin McDowell

ahhhhhh

I honestly think fashion studies should/will rise to a prominent academic standing as linguistics (semiotics) did

[MJRH]

Kinda agree with MJRH although I take issue with the term 'snobbery.' I prefer 'elitism.' the way I see it, snobbery comes from ignorance. Elitism comes from meritocracy. I am all for elitism.

actually i think i typed elitist first, then changed it to snob to beat anyone else to the punch wish i'd thought of putting it that way.

so we all agree here. i was kinda confused to see you post that, laika, but i see i was just misreading that quote. hey, i just noticed value and vague are one letter off...

ps. Faust, maybe for next April Fool's you should swap the forum names Culture and Shopping and Personal Style and see what happens

[Faust]

Haha, not a bad idea!

[laika]

So, does Mr. Sapir enjoy his H&M goodies? It seems to me that he is talking about very conventional and broad definitions (all clothes are fashion).

Kinda agree with MJRH although I take issue with the term 'snobbery.' I prefer 'elitism.' the way I see it, snobbery comes from ignorance. Elitism comes from meritocracy. I am all for elitism.

I think by and large Sapir's point is irrelevant. Perhaps with the exception of Hermes, I don't really see people in fashion having this idea that quality sets their things apart. It's either status (logos) or image (wearing the 'right' designer, from the 'right' season from the 'right' trend). Not that we don't have the above here (with the incessant lazy "what's best" questions, as laika points out).

But people talk about quality constantly around here...often using it as a justification for buying an expensive designer item. Witness all the talk about this zipper or leather vs that; or what is made where; or the declining quality of Ann, Y's, whatever. Isn't this a case of missing the point, as Sapir points out? Or is "quality" something more than
"material value?"

[michael_kard]

I think MJRH's points have a lot to do with Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory and 'fashion cycles'. I think one of the main problems of this latger-than-life outlook is that it identifies value with exchange value, presenting garments as commodities that are selected as easily as they are discarded, rather than considering their personal use and appreciation outside of the context of exchange.

ahhhhhh

I honestly think fashion studies should/will rise to a prominent academic standing as linguistics (semiotics) did

No!! In all seriousness, enough with treating fashion like cultural text. Volumes such as 'Clothing as Material Culture', 'Body Dressing' and 'The Art of Clothing: A Pacific Experience' offer a much fresher, material-oriented approach that doesn't exhaust itself in symbols and narratives.

[michael_kard]

But people talk about quality constantly around here...often using it as a justification for buying an expensive designer item. Witness all the talk about this zipper or leather vs that; or what is made where; or the declining quality of Ann, Y's, whatever. Isn't this a case of missing the point, as Sapir points out? Or is "quality" something more than
"material value?"

I think it's 'unfair' to reduce quality to an irrelevant inscriber of high fashion status. As we all know, it also has a tangible impact on the way clothes perform. If that's not the point, then what is?

[Faust]

But people talk about quality constantly around here...often using it as a justification for buying an expensive designer item. Witness all the talk about this zipper or leather vs that; or what is made where; or the declining quality of Ann, Y's, whatever. Isn't this a case of missing the point, as Sapir points out? Or is "quality" something more than
"material value?"

Here, yeah. But I think not in fashion in general. Anyway, I am missing some context and definitions here. :) if you are seeking to apply this to SZ, then perhaps you could.

[MJRH]

^i disagree with laika's above post!

Material Value is the coincidence of cost and status. it would cover a real Prada bag as well as a fake, or custom couture made for a princess. i guess in the context of this forum, it would be Rick leathers, Poell boots, the usual suspects. material value is the "bad one," what people who want to be seen to be seen obsess over, but is also an inevitable factor in all clothing. it's what i believe Sapir is speaking against.

Craft is the coincidence of durability and artisanship. leather flight jackets, Japanese denim, brands like Engineered Garments; here, Guidi boots, a lot of Continues work... the adjective "timeless" is often bandied.

Ethos is NOVEL spiritual or symbolic value, novel being key because the designer has striven to convey an idea or ethos hitherto unseen. Margiela and Poell are exemplary. even designers like say Branquinho or Demeulemeester would count because the worlds they have built are novel, even though they don't drastically change once they're there.

although Craft and Ethos are interrelated, Craft never encompasses novelty: there is no interest in producing new ideas; the Ethos is artisanship itself.

But people talk about craft constantly around here...often using it as a justification for buying an expensive designer item. Witness all the talk about this zipper or leather vs that; or what is made where; or the declining craft of Ann, Y's, whatever. Isn't this a case of missing the point, as Sapir points out? Or is "craft" something more than "material value?"

it's not missing the point! (please let me know if i've changed your text inappropriately.) in this case "quality" is not the expensiveness of the item in question—although, in fashion, cost is always a phantom hovering behind even the purest of loves

yes, Craft is an annoying crutch used to justify Material Value (cf any instance of "RiRi" in the leathers thread) but it can't just be discarded, and i believe it's distinct from what Sapir is arguing: Sapir doesn't like it when Material Value is completely unhinged from Craft and Ethos, such as when a brand or designer gets "hot" and their Material Value is artificially inflated by a drastic amount. however, discussions on here rarely center explicitly around Material Value (as i've defined it above). they center around Craft, which is less faddish, but the annoying cases use Craft as a pretext for attaining status, like in those lovely cases where certain individua attempt to buy their way into the WAYWT thread.

edit: holy shit that was long, sorry

[525252]

No!! In all seriousness, enough with treating fashion like cultural text. Volumes such as 'Clothing as Material Culture', 'Body Dressing' and 'The Art of Clothing: A Pacific Experience' offer a much fresher, material-oriented approach that doesn't exhaust itself in symbols and narratives.

But I mean it in a much broader (maybe philosophical than sociological?) sense!- I mean its pretty ridiculous to have the study of specifically (clothing) fashion "rise to prominence" haha
I'm thinking fashion in relevance to Deleuzian difference/repetition

[Faust]

It seems pretty obvious that there was no "conceptual"* fashion until Vivienne Westwood, so it makes sense that all they talked about was fabrics. Let's say it took the fashion press 10 years to catch up with Viv, another 5 with Gaultier, etc. So until roughly 82, I could see how there was no conceptual talk, and probably not much until the Japanese invasion followed by ze Belgians and the minimalist wehrmacht.

*not exactly the right term; here i mean fashion as something as a cultural phenomenon and not as a bourgeois preoccupation.