What are you really wearing?

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

Can I just ask why you think that? (And, not sure if actually bringing in specifics will bring anything helpful to this argument or not, but I remember a merz once heavily complimented an outfit of mine in which two of the central pieces were from Target and H&M.)

Because for me, all the different aspects that Merz notes as
minor importance is what actually makes a LUC design and
what makes it "sufficiently aesthetically-pleasing".
If H&M had to produce the design, it will become a different
garment.

In your example, your actually talking about H&M/Target designs,
so there's a difference, if that makes sense(?).

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

Then you should probably clarify,
or else it will stay misunderstood.

[Fuuma]

nah the H&M piece is a total knock-off.

But I do take lotek01's point concerning mens clothes vs. female clothes. Though in my mind that really just has to do with plain old aesthetics, not quality, as it's the same if both pieces are H&M. So if the piece looks good, and it's from H&M, then I don't see why it matters.

You work or used to work in the art world. Do you really think people purchase art entirely for the intrinsic qualities of the work or because of the aura, status and social distinction it provides? It's a process of self and social validation, a proclamation of taste and an emotional and very real association with a certain world. There is no reason to believe those factors don't play a part in fashion buying. I must say that, in general, women into clothes are in my experience much more practical and holistic; caring less about the exact provenance and details of a specific piece and more about the impression the overall outfit creates. It's a wiser approach but intellectual rewards and brand associations are not to be dismissed.

[swami]

What I think MERZ is saying is that the final function of a garment is to be aesthetically pleasing or beautiful, So whatever artistry and elaborate production process , including the use of luxurious materials goes into the creation of a garment it remains a fail if it does NOT perform said function of being aesthetically pleasing when worn.

At the end of the day, What really matters is how the clothing makes you feel. Give you confidence, swagger , Style , function as a front , Armor whatever. But this can all be achieved by the use of cheap OR expensive clothing. So this argument is really subjective it just depends where and at what point you are in your life the more you are able to spend on your clothing the less something cheaply made is going to make you feel that way BUT for someone else in a lower spending bracket a cheaply sourced thrift outfit can perform the same function just as well if not better. Since with a bigger spending power you can also easily tend to take things more for granted.

[Fuuma]

faust, mind adding a vomiting smiley for times like these?

That's part of the reason why people buy art. Sorry you didn't know. That's also part of the reason why you buy clothes. Even sadder you didn't know. You don't have to see it as hungry social climbing. Let's say a designer presents a coherent world that you appreciates and is evocative to you you'll tend to get additional pleasure out of his work due to those factors. Think Ann, poets and 19th century. The same piece presented by N(N) would different associations, making you see it in a different light. There's nothing nefarious about it if you don't make it that way, objects are meaningless in themselves and we construct the meaning; it's a testament to the power of our imagination and the communal accomplishments of the human race.

[Fuuma]

Fuuma, I would never disagree with what you just wrote (except maybe the comment about women vs men, but that's another discussion). And I don't think I was arguing anything to the contrary in my previous posts. Really, all I said was that there is nothing inherently wrong with wearing low-end brands if you can make them work (and that making them work is something that is possible).

I dunno, I just think many chicks do seamless high&low and I rarely see dudes doing it well or being interested in it. And yeah, I see cool people wearing Gap pieces sometimes. A good outfit is a good outfit. I must confess I do possess a certain degree of construction fetishism where I'll appreciate having, say, working cuffs or a canvassed jacket for reasons going above and beyond their practical uses. A certain secret quality found in the garment that only I know and that makes me feel good I guess.

[Fuuma]

To clarify what i have said earlier for the benefit of B-I.
Since we're using Luca's work as an example, it should be noted that a considerable amount of what he produces is rather unpalatable and uninteresting, yet no less technically accomplished than the pieces i laud as perfection. The same can be said for carol, grandma and anyone else we discuss around here. Although his methods are inextricable from their final result, the methods alone cannot overcome failure of form.

however, a successful idea of form - let's use rick or carol here - can often overcome the failure of craftsmanship or material in motivating the buyer. you're not going to buy something that looks like crap even if it was buried in Afghanistan and, to paraphrase johnny, moulded on the mummified ass of a dead aboriginal.

an exception to this is what fuuma mentioned - people who buy into things because of what they mean to convey to somebody else. be it his bespoke shoes or some rice rocketeer's spinning rims on his honda. the aesthetic value of these things is secondary to their signalling value, means of conveying association (or desire to associate) with a certain group, social strata, etc..

fuck all that shit, homes. i just like stuff that looks cool.

Looking cool is actually a perfect example of a positional good. It is limited in supply (for things or people to be cool most things must go from average to major FAIL), highly contextual and contested. In this way cool is pretty much like taste and would, in theory, have a similar distribution curve.

[lowrey]

What I think MERZ is saying is that the final function of a garment is to be aesthetically pleasing or beautiful, So whatever artistry and elaborate production process , including the use of luxurious materials goes into the creation of a garment it remains a fail if it does NOT perform said function of being aesthetically pleasing when worn.

of course looking good is a necessary feature for a garment, no one has said the opposite. seems like the arguments made are getting a bit twisted here

the original argument posted by Galois was that "who made your clothes is not important", which zamb and I disagreed with. I don't think anyone is saying that a name on a tag or some detailimg would offset poor design or something visually unappealing. I simply said that there are other factors that can have an effect on the overall appeal of a garment and particularly the decision to purchase something.

[Fuuma]

Sure, agree. But I think you'll find a particular person is a particular person, man or woman.

Oh I definitely agree, it was more of a general observation based on experience and not a general rule. As with all tings YMMV. The comments on associations though I'll fight tooth and nail against anyone who disagrees. It's always present.

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

To clarify what i have said earlier for the benefit of B-I.

Since we're using Luca's work as an example, it should be noted that a considerable amount of what he produces is rather unpalatable and uninteresting, yet no less technically accomplished than the pieces i laud as perfection. The same can be said for carol, grandma and anyone else we discuss around here. Although his methods are inextricable from their final result, the methods alone cannot overcome failure of form.

however, a successful idea of form - let's use rick or carol here - can often overcome the failure of craftsmanship or material in motivating the buyer. you're not going to buy something that looks like crap even if it was buried in Afghanistan and, to paraphrase johnny, moulded on the mummified ass of a dead aboriginal.

an exception to this is what fuuma mentioned - people who buy into things because of what they mean to convey to somebody else. be it his bespoke shoes or some rice rocketeer's spinning rims on his honda. the aesthetic value of these things is secondary to their signalling value, means of conveying association (or desire to associate) with a certain group, social strata, etc..

fuck all that shit, homes. i just like stuff that looks cool.

Thank you. It seems like I did understand you the first time.
I think it's too rigid to think of form in this hierarchal sense.
The work, be it successful or not, is not made
through isolating factors, but through connections.

[zamb]

Very Great discussion,
I dont have the time to contribute as much as i want as i have a deadline to meet this evening,
but just to refer to Merz's comment regarding visual form,
there was a time in my life, growing up, when we were poor, we had to made uniforms for school, we went to school for five days and we got two suits of uniforms, one for monday and tuesday, and one for wednesday- friday, in such a situation, the fabric had to be durable and the seams had to be well sewn, even if it were not visually appealing.
I ended up designing military clothing, and how the clothing looks was very much less important that how it felt and performed, because the need to perform in these garments under various, often extreme conditions, was the main objective of the clothes.........

I dont know if its because I actually make clothes, but I cannot stand clothing that is badly made, and is of poor fabrics, because for me, this IS a part of the look of the clothes, the aesthetic appeal is partially based on what fabrics made the garments, how visually appealing the seams are and so forth,
I think my eye and my mind has been developedv to a level where, something, just doesnt look good if its not well made and feels good regardless of what price it is..............

[Avantster]

Thank you. It seems like I did understand you the first time.
I think it's too rigid to think of form in this hierarchical sense.
The work, be it successful or not, is not made
through isolating factors, but through connections.

Agreed, there is much to be said about relationships or 'connections' whether being between the inorganic, organic, intellectual, and yes also the social. Form itself is the relationship of basic elements (lines, shapes, three dimensional volume) that produces a coherent image, but we are talking about clothing and cannot ignore it's complex web of connections to the human body.

I don't think Fuuma is arguing for the superiority of social significations over form and/or aesthetic value, simply that we live in society and therefore can never really escape from social significations.

[BECOMING-INTENSE]

Agreed, there is much to be said about relationships or 'connections' whether being between the inorganic, organic, intellectual, and yes also the social. Form itself is the relationship of basic elements (lines, shapes, three dimensional volume) that produces a coherent image, but we are talking about clothing and cannot ignore it's complex web of connections to the human body.

Thank you.

I don't think Fuuma is arguing for the superiority of social significations over form and/or aesthetic value, simply that we live in society and therefore can never really escape from social significations.

Now, I don't know if this was directed at me,
but I did assure Fuuma last time we discussed
significations, as for subjectivity and language,
that there's no attempt of breaking with signification.
Though I did tell him to take his stratified self outside
language for a bit.

[the breaks]

What i really wear:

Uniqlo: ~6 (tees)
Muji: ~6 (tees)
Zara: ~4 (tees)
H&M: ~4 (tees)
n(n): 4 (tees)
tg76: 3 (tees)
Dior: 3 (jeans)
drkshdw: 3 (jeans, hoodie)
Acne: 2 (jeans, tee)

Tee shirt and jeans all day every day...

[nictan]

dior: 2 (jeans)
undercover: 2(pants) 4-5(tees)
uniqlo: 3-4(plain tees)
and a whole lot of thrift stuff. hahaa