Your Style Philosophy

[laika]

^just a very determined guy with a continuous chain of short lived sz accounts, a propensity for brevity, and some challenged english.

afaik

[Mail-Moth]

Could be him... Damn, he's making progress.

[Johnny]

right thanks, although i had to google afaik too.

will he get banned?

[Mail-Moth]

According to local folklore, the numeric entity known as Zboss only exists here to reach the required score of one hundred posts that gives right to sell in the classifieds.

No living man or woman has rememberance of any of its avatars living past the twentieth, though.

Nobody knows what will happen the day it reaches the hundredth. Some say the collapse of SZ, some others believe that the cosmic war opposing Faust and Pnod will end with the victory of the latter, throwing us, along with the whole creation, in an age of deconstructivist darkness.

But we french people have a more rational mind : we simply think that when the day comes, classifieds will be flooded with RO rip-offs, pleasantly advertised in random engrish.

[Faust]

Mortal, it's a good question. I would say that acquiring items from the same designer is more of a result of the understanding of his/her work. Not sure if it helps more. Of course in case of designers who create an aesthetic universe, like Ann and Cdiem (among others), it seems like acquiring more seems natural. Ann goes with Ann, Rick goes with Rick, CDiem goes with CDiem, and so on... I suppose you get to own a more complete representation of what they do, but I am not sure if it results with more understanding.

[Faust]

bump.

[kuugaia]

I thought this would be better suited in here, posting from the Matohu SS12 collection thread.



I found this part especially interesting to read:

When we say "good definition," what defines what? For definition to occur, something must define and something must be defined. Sometimes one color defines another. Sometimes color defines shape, or shape defines material, in all their complex and subtle combinations. But is there some sort of common essence in all this? That which defines, and that which is defined. Probably this can be restated as that which encloses, and that which is enclosed. The soft and perishable, such as food or flowers, is enclosed by a receptacle that clearly shows off its distinct characteristics. Things that mature sowly, over a long span of time, set off the beauty of evanescent life. This contrast transforms chance encounter into something resolutely natural. That vase sets off this flower, and the flower brings out new appeal in the vase. It is then that the relationship between "definer" and "defined" disappears, and the beauty of a single "definition" quietly emerges.

This passage, although used to explain her inspiration, can really be interpreted into somebody's sense of style. It really struck resonance with me for that very reason. I think that when you take a good look at your wardrobe, as individual pieces, you will really see a different picture compared to when you look at it as a whole. It is clear that the designers we respect and buy from here all have a very strong vision attached to their clothing (such as Ann). But how exactly is it that we can mix Ann's romanticism with Julius's post-apocalyptic zombie war clothing? Do they really share the same inspiration watering hole that makes it possible to mix their clothing? That's where I started thinking about the above passage, about the 'definition' of our styles.

Clearly as consumers, we won't develop a wardrobe that is as coherent as, say, a designer's collection or vision. I think this is attributed to many reasons, with the most prominent of those being the fact that we like more things than we should - therefore buying more than we should/need. But when I look at my wardrobe...I see what? MA+, LUC, Julius, Uniqlo, Ann, Rick, Dior, Devoa, DD, IS, CCP, BBS, and so on. Much of you would be similar, or with an even more diversified range of designers. How on earth does this work? I think some of the answers really can be found in the passage written above. A wardrobe with over 9000 different designers can work by simply matching pieces that define each other well.

If we look at an anatomically cut and sharp tailored blazer from Devoa as a piece individually, and then look at a pair of Damir Doma formless and draping shorts as a piece individually - it wouldn't work in our heads initially. The visions of the designers are almost at opposites of each other. Daisuke's work being geared to the human anatomy, and how to body moves. Damir's work, at times, completely disregarding the shape of the human body underneath. But arguably, mixing them together does work. It works through the ability of the pieces to compliment each other, to define each other. "It is then that the relationship between "definer" and "defined" disappears, and the beauty of a single "definition" quietly emerges." And with that, we can start define our 'personal style' as our perception of what well defines what.

This was more of a random fashion/style thought.

[Johnny]

Nice post Chil. And Kolor for summer coming looks fantastic.

[Faust]

Nice post Chil. And Kolor for summer coming looks fantastic.

Does it? I thought it quite boring (I like some of the garments sometimes). And they had deck shoes. Deck shoes, for fuck's sake. But I can post all the photos I took in the showroom if you promise not to put tory burch slippers in your avatar anymore.

[Johnny]

I changed it already! Yeah that would be good thanks. I took that view based on the preview pics on H Lorenzo. I didn't notice the deck shoes. It was the jackets and trousers I liked.

[Faust]

Bump.

[Pumpfish]

I seek the intersection of originality, wearability and craft. I dislike the cult of brands and labels, but I will use them as a shortcut to finding what I like.

Oh, and footwear that deviates much from the shape of the foot is fugly.

[galia]

I suppose because of this weird notion that people have a "true self" and therefore once they have found it and can dress accordingly, the goal has been acheived. complete bull obviously, there is no such thing

[Faust]

/\ You must live in a sad world. But, as a cynical postmodernist, you should know that your position is relative. I have a true self. You don't. I like it better that I have a core. But I wish you a fulfilling life.

Ruli, I merely posed the question in past tense - didn't mean much by it. And we are not prescribing here - you can experiment all you want and what you wear might not reflect your personality at all.

I don't know if the music analogy is apt, but let's run with it. I was just discussing this with a certain designer and will shortly publish part of our conversation (the main article will come out in SZ mag, issue 2). Basically, the kind of music you listen to is not an end in itself, it's merely a representation of a certain worldview or an emotional state. Classical music can be as thunderous as punk rock. What I don't understand is how someone can listen to punk rock and hair metal. One has a core, the other one is kitsch.

[galia]

Oh I most certainly do have a core, I just don't think it's fixed for all eternity. I believe this core evolves, hopefully for the better. I also don't believe that my perceprion of it is necessarily accurate, nor do I wish to romanticise the importance of self constuction in terms of image. I'm actually not cynical at all. I don't believe I have a "true self", but I do believe I have a soul.

this true self talk is just self agrandizement in most cases (not a personnal attack btw, just a theoretical remark), or at the least self representation. I don't think it holds any pure truth, simply a biographical and narcissistic one. (again narcissistic is not meant as a derogaroty term, simply as a neutral and natural phenomenon of the human psyche)