Mercibeaucoup AW09

[casem]

Great post Laika . While I think there is something to be said for consistency in one's style, the idea that we can (and should) each create a totally individual style without context or reference is a distinctly Western idea, and a bit naive. I don't believe in a "true" or "fixed" self and so I don't see how such a thing can manifest itself in the way we dress. Thus, I suppose I give someone who experiments and changes their style often more slack than say Merz might, as I don't see one way of dressing or another as being more or less authentic.

That's not what I meant. These are kids we're discussing here, so the need to "belong," to something is completely understandable, even if it might not be relevant to adults who have developed something they call a personal or "individual," style. There's also a cultural difference to consider, concerning the importance of the individual in Japan as opposed to here. My point was just that hanging out with people who share like-minded appreciation for certain things can be a meaningful experience. Meaning is partially constructed through community, no?

You and Faust attach a tremendous amount of importance to the notion that sartorial style is some sort of deep, "spiritual," reflection of a person's innermost, individual self. It's a fine point of view, but not the only one...there are other, legitimate reasons for the way people choose clothes and how they wear them.

[fenrost]

this is weird.

my housemate's gf is one of them, maybe not to that extreme yet.

over the years her choice of clothing has evolve into this so called "FRUiTS", it started of as ugg boots, colorful leggings, oversized ushanka, and gradually more and more toy-like fit. she is really comfortable wearing like that out on the street. never really bothered me because it fits her persona.


good discussion in this thread.

[Faust]

Great post Laika . While I think there is something to be said for consistency in one's style, the idea that we can (and should) each create a totally individual style without context or reference is a distinctly Western idea, and a bit naive. I don't believe in a "true" or "fixed" self and so I don't see how such a thing can manifest itself in the way we dress. Thus, I suppose I give someone who experiments and changes their style often more slack than say Merz might, as I don't see one way of dressing or another as being more or less authentic.

Who does? But there is a difference in developing your style as you mature and, ahem, your meaning changes , and trying on styles without any personal foundation behind it.

[cabl3]

That's not what I meant. These are kids we're discussing here, so the need to "belong," to something is completely understandable, even if it might not be relevant to adults who have developed something they call a personal or "individual," style. There's also a cultural difference to consider, concerning the importance of the individual in Japan as opposed to here. My point was just that hanging out with people who share like-minded appreciation for certain things can be a meaningful experience. Meaning is partially constructed through community, no?

I think that is very true, though I think the argument that some are trying to make here is the difference between "naturally" falling into or belonging to a community due to genuinely liking said aesthetic; or buying into it simply for the sake of being a part of something. (With "x" aesthetic so happening to be something that we could see ourselves liking.) Otherwise, to state that any kind of gathering or community automatically constitutes something a fraud or bought out fashion with no style would completely nullify any reasons we have for being a part of this forum.

I think this may apply here, and it's been said many times; good taste can't be bought.

Great post Laika . While I think there is something to be said for consistency in one's style, the idea that we can (and should) each create a totally individual style without context or reference is a distinctly Western idea, and a bit naive. I don't believe in a "true" or "fixed" self and so I don't see how such a thing can manifest itself in the way we dress. Thus, I suppose I give someone who experiments and changes their style often more slack than say Merz might, as I don't see one way of dressing or another as being more or less authentic.

Its an understatement to say that people do different things for different reasons, amongst them a choice of style; yet, you have to admit that what you choose to clothe yourself with does reflect, if even at a very primal level, certain characteristics about your way of being (but that can be a whole other beast and I'm not gonna get into it right now). I mainly believe so because fashion is often associated with vanity and narcissism, but that statement is flawed, does that mean a dude wearing a faded baggy polo shirt, stonewashed High Sierra jeans and crocs is automatically a better, more humble human than someone decked out in clothing/designers they love?

I see now that, style or what you choose to wear can have a truly deep and spiritual connection with your inner person only if you yourself give it that meaning. Thus, it becomes something very personal and not a thing that can automatically be perceived by others; and that is where the difference lies with these kids. What's to say that some of these kids can't actually feel a deep connection to these clothes just as some of us might for Rick, Carol or Ann? In any given case Mercibeaucoup is not any less authentic than any other designer. (Though it may seem so because of the greater group of kids that usually buys it?)

[casem]

Well, certain religions purport this idea (minus Buddhism). I'll let Merz respond, but it seems to me he believes he has some sort of fixed identity that he stays true to regardless of outside influence. And while it's fine that he has created such an unchangin identity, I would suggest that identity is just as imagined as the identity the Harajuku kids have created.

Back to the brand under discussion, I guess the question that would make it more or less legitimate is: did Mercibeaucoup make this style and sell it to the kids as a prepackaged identity, or is Mercibeaucoup reflecting a style that the kids created. My guess is the latter, which would make these clothes an authentic representation of an identity that a youth tribe created (didn't we all love it when Raf did the same?).

Sorry, I wrote that really quick as I am on the run, hope it's coherent an sorry to play SZ pop psychologist .

Who does? But there is a difference in developing your style as you mature and, ahem, your meaning changes , and trying on styles without any personal foundation behind it.

[Faust]

This is really good - thanks casem and cabl3 for your responses.

[Fuuma]

No, that's not what I meant. I meant that they adopt styles without the spiritual or the meaningful.

While I wouldn't disagree that they abandon the initial (western) meaning as illustrated by punks without the rebellion and fuck you attitude, they certainly recreate a cultural space of their own. There is something to be said against the superflating of subcultures and abandonment of the critique of "mainstream" society but considering what we've done with it we can hardly blame them. They merely throw our own contradictions in our faces by abandoning the central things that we left tied on the railroad tracks of commerce. What is an unsaid but highly implicit respite of a few years of concern for systemic change before becoming another cog is merely made explicit in their case; dressing crazy is what the kiddies do when they're students before entering the workforce and no one pretends otherwise.

[Fuuma]

That's not what I meant. These are kids we're discussing here, so the need to "belong," to something is completely understandable, even if it might not be relevant to adults who have developed something they call a personal or "individual," style. There's also a cultural difference to consider, concerning the importance of the individual in Japan as opposed to here. My point was just that hanging out with people who share like-minded appreciation for certain things can be a meaningful experience. Meaning is partially constructed through community, no?

You and Faust attach a tremendous amount of importance to the notion that sartorial style is some sort of deep, "spiritual," reflection of a person's innermost, individual self. It's a fine point of view, but not the only one...there are other, legitimate reasons for the way people choose clothes and how they wear them.

Teenagers might be exploring identities or as some cynics like to say "trend hoping" but would you really say that it is, for example, harder to guess the political opinions, favourite authors, dress style and consumption habits or a 40 y/o sociology professor than those of a young fan of hardcore punk? Habitus and all that...

[BeauIXI]

I don't know what to say. I do not think I hate it, since it appears to be coherent and even pretty successful - if overgrown childs garments is what it's suppose to evoke. There's something monstrous and disturbing in it that reminds me of the giant stuffed toys in Akira. I can imagine the kind of popcorn movie where those outfits would be perfect for a street gang of teenage junkies - just give one of those guys a baseball bat and you'll see what I mean.

But out of a screen and in any real situation other than those implying cosplaying - whatever the reason :) - well... let's try to keep an open mind, heh ?

Thinking the same thing.

I would wear the ridiculous teddy bear sneakers just as quickly as I would wear a pair of Rick trainers. For the same reasons, at least.

To me, personally, this just speaks the absolute insanity and purity of Japanese popular culture. Unrestrained, and whatnot, Your kawaii phenomenon becomes younger and more full blown, the cutesy outer shell mixed with the sexual, pedophiliac undertones. The runway is a good place to display the general deep down desire to dress up in diapers and have someone spank you, mixed with the hip, fashionista outburst of outrageous kiddish fashion.

What is an unsaid but highly implicit respite of a few years of concern for systemic change before becoming another cog is merely made explicit in their case; dressing crazy is what the kiddies do when they're students before entering the workforce and no one pretends otherwise.

I say Rick taps into a "kiddie" place when he distills punk and goth style into his own architectural stylings. I'm not going to say that this collection is personally appealing, as in, I'm not going to adorn my body and wardrobe with kittens, pajamas and teddy bears, but I do approve of the mad ideas and concepts that arise from looking at this collection and being somewhat pleased with it.

[Faust]

While I wouldn't disagree that they abandon the initial (western) meaning as illustrated by punks without the rebellion and fuck you attitude, they certainly recreate a cultural space of their own. There is something to be said against the superflating of subcultures and abandonment of the critique of "mainstream" society but considering what we've done with it we can hardly blame them. They merely throw our own contradictions in our faces by abandoning the central things that we left tied on the railroad tracks of commerce. What is an unsaid but highly implicit respite of a few years of concern for systemic change before becoming another cog is merely made explicit in their case; dressing crazy is what the kiddies do when they're students before entering the workforce and no one pretends otherwise.

Hah! That's for sure.