Approaches to fashion

[Faust]

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.

Let's not turn this into a psychoanalytical session, shall we? I could also speculate that your rigorous defense of academia is insecurity.

I am not questioning Barthes's motives. I am questioning his delivery and its impact on the conversation about fashion at large.

[laika]

^So what does that have to with "masturbatory" then?

You are most welcome to speculate as you wish about me. For what it's worth, it's less a defense than a passion (not for academia though)

Shah, thank you for clarifying, I'll be back!

[Fuuma]

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 ???

I'm not sure I understand the question so you may need to clarify but the subject itself may or may not be trivial however it is its social importance that makes it a worthy (or not) subject of inquiry. There is nothing illogical, to use an extreme example, about an atheist studying religious belief. Outside of it's social importance the subject itself would be considered absolutely pointless by said researcher.

[Fuuma]

Let's not turn this into a psychoanalytical session, shall we? I could also speculate that your rigorous defense of academia is insecurity.

I am not questioning Barthes's motives. I am questioning his delivery and its impact on the conversation about fashion at large.

Barthes wasn't out to engage fashion people, he was out to demonstrate how a certain organized method of inquiry could be used in a specific field. You cannot say that structuralism did not have an important impact on many disciplines.

I'm not trying to be your analyst hence don't have a motive or some childhood trauma to bring as an explanation for this but I have to back Laika; you very often display signs of very basic anti-intellectualism and have done so for years, which is puzzling considered you are obviously interested in important works of literature, the arts, design, etc. and seem to have no patience for popular culture.

[shah]

I'm not sure I understand the question so you may need to clarify but the subject itself may or may not be trivial however it is its social importance that makes it a worthy (or not) subject of inquiry. There is nothing illogical, to use an extreme example, about an atheist studying religious belief. Outside of it's social importance the subject itself would be considered absolutely pointless by said researcher.

that's sorta what i'm getting at. what is the great social importance of fashion as its own subject, rather than a small part of other topics, that would warrant such investigations by those that don't care about fashion otherwise (fashiests, to stick with your example) ?

[Fuuma]

that's sorta what i'm getting at. what is the great social importance of fashion as its own subject, rather than a small part of other topics, that would warrant such investigations by those that don't care about fashion otherwise (fashiests, to stick with your example) ?

Errr, well most investigation is done through a discipline and methodology into a topic, fashion is a topic, not a discipline. Your question sounds like "Hey Yoruba tribes aren't a suitable topic" yeah they are, but they're investigated through anthropology, linguistics, art history etc.

[shah]

that's why i said it would make for a nice footnote in different topics of study (anthro, socio, psycho, etc) and i think that's different than what has been proposed so far here.

i guess i don't understand what it means to approach fashion from an academic perspective. sure you can do that with anything you like (provided you find funding somewhere). at the most basic level doesn't it just become gratification through luxurious consumption ?

i am just curious as to what valuable grain of knowledge it will add to humanity which is ultimately, in my opinion, the goal of any academic endeavor (or should be...)

[Fuuma]

that's why i said it would make for a nice footnote in different topics of study (anthro, socio, psycho, etc) and i think that's different than what has been proposed so far here.

i guess i don't understand what it means to approach fashion from an academic perspective. sure you can do that with anything you like (provided you find funding somewhere). at the most basic level doesn't it just become gratification through luxurious consumption ?

i am just curious as to what valuable grain of knowledge it will add to humanity which is ultimately, in my opinion, the goal of any academic endeavor (or should be...)

NONONO!!!

Fashion is a topic of inquiry, like horseriding or whatever. The discipline used is anthro, etc. and they have various, often competing, methodologies available.

If you study television or the British economy using say, cultural studies or behavioral economics can you say "the British economy" is a footnote of economics or whatever and does it even make sense? Nope, it's the object of study, not the discipline and that's it. Maybe nothing conclusive will come out of it, I dunno.

[fncyths]

[Faust]

Barthes wasn't out to engage fashion people, he was out to demonstrate how a certain organized method of inquiry could be used in a specific field. You cannot say that structuralism did not have an important impact on many disciplines.

I'm not trying to be your analyst hence don't have a motive or some childhood trauma to bring as an explanation for this but I have to back Laika; you very often display signs of very basic anti-intellectualism and have done so for years, which is puzzling considered you are obviously interested in important works of literature, the arts, design, etc. and seem to have no patience for popular culture.

Come on, you know very well that my anti-intellectualism is very advanced!

Kidding aside, you nailed it in a way, I am interested in IMPORTANT intellectual work.

[Fuuma]

Come on, you know very well that my anti-intellectualism is very advanced!

Kidding aside, you nailed it in a way, I am interested in IMPORTANT intellectual work.

It's great you're interested but no one gets a prize for participation, if you don't want tackle great THEORETICAL work or questions because you like great work of arts (novels, paintings) but not things like sociology and philosophy (Heidegger or Barthes are at least as important to the XXth century as ANY novelist including Proust) it is your loss. There is no way you'll be able to properly demonstrate their lack of importance though as you would need the proper structure of some of said theoretical works to do that.

Note: I'm not attacking novels or whatever, just saying you don't afford philosophy or sociology or whatever the same position as you do novels or paintings. It is puzzling and an highly untenable position. Maybe I should go into an anti-intellectual tirade and expound in Daniele Steele when someone names on of 'em highfalutin novels?

[Faust]

Fuuma, give me some credit - I am talking about the people whose work I've read* :-)

*(or at least attempted to read but fell asleep due to their crap writing!)

[Fuuma]

Fuuma, give me some credit - I am talking about the people whose work I've read* :-)

*(or at least attempted to read but fell asleep due to their crap writing!)

My problem is that you attack global edifices (i.e. academic writing is crap) instead of "author x for thing x". Now there are many illegitimate fields (i.e. being a terrorism specialist is absurd) but I'm pretty sure philosophy or whatever are as legitimate as the novel.

Quality of writing varies wildly: i.e. Kant is very methodical and boring but Nietzsche isn't. Bataille is a hoot while Sartre is tedious etc.

[shah]

fuuma the examples you gave have importance themselves (tv sucks but it carries great weight with it in societies esp. ones where people are glued to it, and british economy is not insignificant either). i'm asking if there even exists such an intrinsic (though this is a bad word to use because everything requires a context) property that can be said of "fashion" for such discussion to be of any value. and then ...

Maybe nothing conclusive will come out of it, I dunno.

i think this is the most conclusive answer for me.

[shah]

i.e. being a terrorism specialist is absurd

if by this you didn't mean specializing in terrorism but rather your specialty being on terrorism/ists, i know one. an anthropologist who has a dual appointment including one at université de paris :-D