Democratization of fashion?

[crtk001]

hmmmm. Democracy can be bastardised and is more often than not, but what do you mean by that it is bastardisation? And also that fashion is undemocratic? (isn't almost everything undemocratic?) By principle, fashion looks democratic because trends become popular by a sort of voting system (sales). What can we benefit from redefining democracy? A plethora of misinterpretations. I think it is not hard to understand the concept of democracy, rather we have difficulty in applying the concept to everyday life.

I was referring very specifically to democracy as in the democratization of fashion. I think to tackle how we define and understand democracy in the political sense is a different topic where the lines and issues are much more blurred than in fashion.

Trends and sales is sort of chicken and the egg is it not? Small groups do trend research and trend casting and through which give talks to industry people and designers on what will be big in a season or two, I've been to several of these talks, they're just weird. So in a way a very select group of people by observing shopping and cultural habits create trend ideas, sell them to industry people, who then make it mass marketed. Who in that dictated the trend new trend? Those who shopped the last one, or the ones who figured out what they'd buy next? Highlighter colours I'm sure the mass amount of people didn't think of just doing themselves until these forecasters came up with it, and it became the trend on the runway, and sold to the mass.

...As I'm typing I see you posted again. Technically as a corporate creation there is no NEED for fashion to be democratic or widespread. The issue is that fashion deters this line between luxury and necessity (just the need for clothing). So were do we place it? For high fashion it is a very creative field like art, in which there is critique (or should be) and there is the artist who creates and some work is judged to be of higher value than others. Not everyone is a creative and has the foresight or ability to create. Democracy in fashion is placed simply in the markets, the misunderstanding and misuse of the word "democracy". Democracy in this sense is used to represent the idea of equality as in, it is equally accessible to all people. However democracy doesn't intend to describe markets. USA is democratic and capitalist, one being the political structure and the other the economic. So fashion as you put it in sense of trends and how those come about can be democratic, thats the creative structure, but the market is purely capitalist too. So democracy is not an alternative to capitalism, marxism is. And this is kind of what I've been trying to explain about fashion and marxism, thank you for helping me finally find the proper way to explain it.

[525252]

hey crtk, always appreciate your posts, i'm going to pick apart your last one for the sake of discussion.

Technically as a corporate creation there is no NEED for fashion to be democratic or widespread.

Yes there is a NEED. If we're thinking in terms of capitalism, it thrives if there is a basis of "accessibility", I would even say some interpretation of democracy is necessary for it to function. How can one access the mass without it? I put "accessibility" in inverted commas because what is being made accessible is questionable since there is also a contradicting necessity for exclusivity.

For high fashion it is a very creative field like art, in which there is critique (or should be) and there is the artist who creates and some work is judged to be of higher value than others.

If you can justify fashion as a creative field (which is not difficult nor wrong) then can we not say any other productive field such as industrial design is too? Does my high fashion cardigan need to critique anything, really? There are artistic producers within any field but I would say art is the only one where it is a given.

Not everyone is a creative and has the foresight or ability to create.

Exactly, but they're still out there creating stuff aren't they?

Democracy in fashion is placed simply in the markets, the misunderstanding and misuse of the word "democracy".

To say your understanding of democracy is more correct is akin to saying "some people are more equal than others". There is no correct understanding of democracy, it changes all the time. There are only interpretations and those we can judge as misinterpretations.

Ok, I was just about to re-write this in a more palatable paragraph, but seeing as I've already done all this I'll leave it as is. (sorry!) Anyway-

Fashion as it is now is democratic in a sense. A Marxist reiteration of fashion is democratic in another sense. To suggest "democracy as an alternative to Capitalism" is entirely a confusion to me as Capitalism functions in the name of democracy. The problem is that Marxism does too. Having said all that, I agree with you almost entirely but I am not sure why, I feel another question is in order to clear things up:

What about Capitalism has failed such that it needs an alternative?

By all means, I sense the failure of Capitalism, but I'd very much like to hear other people's thoughts.

[crtk001]

hey crtk, always appreciate your posts, i'm going to pick apart your last one for the sake of discussion.

Always love yours too!

Yes there is a NEED. If we're thinking in terms of capitalism, it thrives if there is a basis of "accessibility", I would even say some interpretation of democracy is necessary for it to function. How can one access the mass without it? I put "accessibility" in inverted commas because what is being made accessible is questionable since there is also a contradicting necessity for exclusivity.

Seems contradictory, the larger the market the more capital you get, but there's capital to be made in the niche model too (*cough* SZ). The appeal and exclusivity allows for way higher prices to help subsidize it and a nice addicted following helps. Obviously the bigger you make your market and the lowest denominator you can stoop to helps, but it's not really necessary. It's also a model that helps perpetuate capitalism because it puts so much importance on the individual which capitalism is really about.

If you can justify fashion as a creative field (which is not difficult nor wrong) then can we not say any other productive field such as industrial design is too? Does my high fashion cardigan need to critique anything, really? There are artistic producers within any field but I would say art is the only one where it is a given.

Did not mean fashion needs to BE a critique, but that fashion needs to be critiqued. The great leaders of the fashion church with their Kantian, God-Appointed gift of critique which declares what is fashion and what is not.

Exactly, but they're still out there creating stuff aren't they?

Some do, but they really offer nothing interesting to talk about.

To suggest "democracy as an alternative to Capitalism" is entirely a confusion to me as Capitalism functions in the name of democracy.

I said it isn't, "democracy is not an alternative to capitalism". Its confusing and nonsensical, but seems to be a mistake some people are making when they talk about the democratization of fashion. At the beginning of a lot of my serious thinking on fashion its how I took the democratization of fashion. Now just trying to point out that to say that means there's a problem in how you understand democracy since capitalism is a function of it....hope that made sense...

What about Capitalism has failed such that it needs an alternative?

By all means, I sense the failure of Capitalism, but I'd very much like to hear other people's thoughts.

The falsehood of "Representative Democracy" and the collapse of Capitalism I think are, as I slightly eluded to, a failure of individualism. That a nation can be built by millions of complete individuals. The communal mind is missing and the understanding of democracy as complete equality, the habits of advertising and capitalism all push towards the individual. Lets not forget the golden rule. In some of my other work I have argued that the complete apex, the utopia of democratic states is complete individualism, anarchy.

And I don't really feel like making any major statements on that now or really here per-say.