Where to start...

[Mail-Moth]

^ We're so good at being pointless

[BSR]

I don't know about the French/US dichotomy, but it's really funny how our topic has moved to a pure philosophical territory :

-'new ideas' remains something vague until one has provided a good account for the origin of ideas. Do you think that ideas come from experience (empiricism: Hume etc) or are there a priori ideas (idealism: Plato etc)? It's not a trivial matter since if ideas arise from our experience of the external world, then new ideas are only re-conceptions. Conversely if one is committed to a strong interpretation of 'new', one has to endorse as well some form of idealism...

-Re beauty the question is not different from the general definition of 'perception': is the color red in the object or in the mind? Again, quite a story...

-@Zam: you should re-read Kant, it is not because we have a special access to our own thoughts (introspective knowledge) that there is a substance called the self (cf Critic of Pure reason, paralogisms).

[Faust]

I think corsair means that the US is individualistic in nature, whereas France is collective.

Well - take industrial music as an example. Somebody had to do it first. Sure, there was other rock music, but nothing like that. So, someone had to have the idea of using musical instruments to resemble sounds and the monotonous pace of industrial machinery. That's what I mean about the both being influenced by previous ideas but also having enough originality to create something new.

Where it comes from - well, I am completely on board with Robert Pirsig on this. It's part reason and part intuition. The reason is the priori (accumulation of knowledge you use as a base and reason as your instrument), if we are to use the terminology you suggest, and the intuition is the empiricism (basing your ideas on something that is out there and using your feeling for that). You need both to achieve what he calls Quality (let's call it the point of realization, for the purposes of our discussion). He likens it to a moving train. All the cars in the train are reason - accumulated knowledge. But they are useless if you don't have the locomotive - the intuition.

He offers several examples - the most striking one is your countryman Poincare. Poincare said that he did not know where his famous conjecture came from - he was beating his head against the wall for months. One morning he got up, had a cup of coffee, and the thing just sprang into his mind.

The example I like to use is Fellini. He says in a documentary that it's hard for him to claim ownership of his films - that he feels that many ideas for his films sort of just come to him, that he'd be uncomfortable to call them his own. Obviously, he knows the history of film and its methodology, but they are useless, mere tools, without the ideas that come into his head.

[beardown]

I think this idea that nothing is original is a rather modern, foolish one.

You hear it all the time but in the scope of history, do we believe that DaVinci copied his ideas of a flying machine? The world is full of innovators and inventors.

Progress is slow...it always has been but ultimately progress is what spurs a lot of people in the world.
Culture has just changed to the point where it's so acceptable to fall in line that it's rather encouraged and sparks these constant conversations where people explore the idea that 'everything is a derivative of something else.'

And it's true that in this day and age where it's so commonplace for intellectual theft and borrowing that people tend to lean on it instead of moving in a new direction or thinking independently.

I think philosophy should play at least a small role in who people are, what they wear, what they participate in. It's a much more interesting idea than just falling over something in a department store that 'grabs' you.

[Faust]

I think this idea that nothing is original is a rather postmodern, foolish one.

fixed i do agree to an extent. i think "new" has obvious merit, but i also think that it has become harder to "make it new" when it comes to culture (much easier with technology). i think we are seeing it in fashion right now - in a way it was so much easier to make something new in yohji's time and ann's time. the cultural milieu prepared it for them. now it's harder because they already blazed the trail. harder, but not impossible.

[zamb]

fixed i do agree to an extent. i think "new" has obvious merit, but i also think that it has become harder to "make it new" when it comes to culture (much easier with technology). i think we are seeing it in fashion right now - in a way it was so much easier to make something new in yohji's time and ann's time. the cultural milieu prepared it for them. now it's harder because they already blazed the trail. harder, but not impossible.

I don't think it was any easier then, than it is now. I agree with you that the culture prepared them, there was a certain way of doing things then that fostered or equipped people to innovate, but now the depth of knowledge in fashion needed to create good and new things isn't being taught, and the areas of the industry where this can be learned are the areas that are being frowned upon.......

people nowadays want instant success, they want the glory without the hard work and dedication that's required to develop something good.
Also with the rise of technology the world has become smaller and influences for afar seem so near, everyone is being exposed and influenced by the same things............as a result the output becomes the same..................the ones who will ultimately innovate, are the ones who will tune out the external influences and listen to the "inner self".................that's where true originality exist, within the uniqueness of the self

[zamb]

-@Zam: you should re-read Kant, it is not because we have a special access to our own thoughts (introspective knowledge) that there is a substance called the self (cf Critic of Pure reason, paralogisms).

B,

I think that as my business grows and my family responsibilities come to the fore, I have been reading less and less, and I feel bad because my intellectual curiosity has suffered some. I have tons of books I've bought and want it read, I gotta find a way though...............we'll see

[eat me]

[QUOTE=zamb;298540<...>people nowadays want instant success, they want the glory without the hard work and dedication that's required to develop something good.<...>[/QUOTE]

Perhaps it is what's expected of them, in order not to be forgotten after a glance.

[BeauIXI]

In all honesty, where does one draw the line between consuming and consummating? In a world where buying an Acura makes you "an Acura person", and the clothing you wear becomes an external recording device for your own subjective "individualism", this discussion becomes pretty exhausting, though I do agree with Zamb- the hard work and dedication is truly what makes you able to pull something off. I'd say it really is like a consummation, more than anything. A relationship between wearer and garment (or look, style, whatever) that allows a proper resonance between the two attributes- style and clothing, thought and extension (there you go BSR ). But I feel as though we must forget that a prior self has established the style of wardrobe, or of life- a genealogy of jawns (sorry). Can you truly recall life before your most definitive article of clothing? Mine is the one that's caused me the most pain. Maybe it's that visceral feeling of bloody contempt that connects me to it, who knows. Maybe it's a feeling of ascetic supremacy, a holiness attached to a pair of boots- I feel I have a transcendental right to wear them.

Damn, that one was meant to be just another short and pointless joke. I guess it got a little serious, sorry fellows.

[Faust]

/\ that was pretty awesome, actually.

[CChanni]

Sorry for bumping an old thread. I recently discovered this forum. I read through this thread and found it really interesting. Someone compared people here like art collectors. If pieces are meant to convey an idea or value, does it mean that you're "wearing" an idea, or representing something? I'm in the process of trying to figure out if this is the right place for me to lurk, or if it's how I want to look.

[Faust]

"Figuring out how I want to look" sounds strange to me. There is a degree of visceral impact and immediate attraction to clothes. If you don't have it, then it's already probably not for you.

[cowsareforeating]

would it be appropriate to say that the visceral reaction to the clothes themselves is what "should" draw one in, in the first place? and that analysis is only for fine tuning later on?

[Faust]

Should is a troublesome word. I don't want to dictate style guidelines. I think you often have a gut reaction to the things you love. The rest comes later. Not that you cannot grow to love things, but it's not the same.

[Dane]

Wear what you like...that's my motto.

I share a love of many of the items spoken of on SZ, but do I wear it head to toe? No. I'm sure many of the members would be horrified to see what I wear much of the time.

I will say that some designers that I didn't quite...understand...I now have a better appreciation for since joining SZ. In the end though, no forum will dictate my style...only help me branch out.