Your Style Philosophy

[Faust]

/\ I got ya. It sounded like you were going for one of those "everything is bullshit" theories :-)

Of course it's not fixed. Also, ruli, we are not prescribing here what one should wear or how they should live - just want to make sure it's clear.

[Faust]

But do you feel like a punk rocker one day and a cowgirl the next day, and a trophy wife the day after?

I can kind of understand when you are affected by moods - you can be in a light mood one day, a darker mood another day, but I don't see much justification in wearing Tory Burch ballet flats with a Rick Owens jacket.

[cowsareforeating]

^ the juxtaposition of being a marketing victim/pure consumer and buying into the tory burch image vs. the intellectual acknowledgement of certain design principles and one designer's "extreme" vision of beauty?

no.

but what if instead of this whole deal with rationally selecting clothes, you viscerally pick them? What if you like Rick, but hey, you also happen to like Balmain? A stooges with overly distressed biker jeans? May not be HoF material but it isn't too farfetched...


I feel it is hard to judge the intent of the outfit without knowing the rationale or lack thereof behind it...

[eleven crows]

i don't like to overthink the whole affair. does it look good and will i wear it? if it gits these particular categories then chances are it fits in with the rest of my threads.

as for particular style i wouldn't really know. no jeans and no leather jackets. maybe i'm just a boring guy who likes expensive clothes...

[cowsareforeating]

as for particular style i wouldn't really know. no jeans and no leather jackets. maybe i'm just a boring guy who likes expensive clothes...

funny. i think that but what i wear most are jeans and leather jackets.

[zamb]

I've always liked the idea of looking "grand" and I have a certain view of how I want to project myself into the world,
As I have gotten older and more aware of life, my existence and the realities that shape the society in which I life, those things influence the way I dress. there is a certain aggressive formality that I want to project, a kind of odd and angry tension between the traditional western standards and a view I have of how things should be, what should be questioned, and an avenue into new possibilities

It is for this reason, I cut Collars that look better standing up than down, wear suits that would be utterly inappropriate in the "traditional" social environments, not to shock, or offend, but to express a certain difference of perspective of how I view the world and my own existence

i have always been interested in the same things,

Blazers and jackets,
Dark Colored Slim jeans
Dress shirt
Tees with little or no print
Elegant but simple shoes

What I wear now are only absurd variations of the things i've always word



2007



2009

http://my.imageshack.us/v_images.php

2010



2011


slight changes but still the same...........


And yes, we do have a true self, but I wont get into that, cause anytime I get into these discussions all hell breaks loose, and I wanna keep my sword sheathed

[MJRH]

.... if we look at designers and their work, sometimes we notice they stop evolving, they get stuck in a certain loop, that though technically perfect, lacks a creative input. and i was thinking now whether we could apply the same thought to those who wear the clothes, to a wearer ....

I say nay! Designers create, wearers express. Creation is expression, but at its best, it's expression on new, unheard-of terms. Expressing oneself doesn't mandate a constant reinvention, but creation, if it's to be exciting, relevant, inspiring, will avoid loops. Like zamb, I wear the same style today I did years before, and feel no need to change. But unlike a wardrobe, in putting together a fashion show, there is ideally an implication of, "look at this, this is new, this is doing something different." Though perhaps some feel that way about wardrobes, too...

At the heart of this question, too--rilu, tell me if I'm reading too deep?--is an insinuation that dynamism is preferable to stasis. I really can't see why one would be preferable to the other (except in the case of creation), perhaps someone on this side of the argument could explain?

[BSR]

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

/\ 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.

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)

/\ I got ya. It sounded like you were going for one of those "everything is bullshit" theories :-)

Of course it's not fixed. Also, ruli, we are not prescribing here what one should wear or how they should live - just want to make sure it's clear.

selfzeitgeist strikes again

[Faust]

I see what you mean, Ruli. Well, the simple answer is the question in the past tense is because we are in the now and we are talking about a period until now. We don't know what future holds. I am sure many of us will evolve, maybe myself included. But that's a maybe. :-)

[christianef]

/\ 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.

quoiiiiiiiiii gnr wrote some of the best songs ever. why does a core have to be lousy sounding and political - doing tons of drugs, having amazing hair, banging out dreamy rock ballads and plowing through mounds of groupies like nobody`s business is way more cool.

[Patroklus]

Glam was pioneered by Marc Bolan and David Bowie as a dandy revolution to the gray polyester boxes being worn by a socially conservative British middle class. It wasn't dissimilar from punk at all; the uniform came with a social ideology.

I can't vouch for what came after them.

[Faust]

quoiiiiiiiiii gnr wrote some of the best songs ever. why does a core have to be lousy sounding and political - doing tons of drugs, having amazing hair, banging out dreamy rock ballads and plowing through mounds of groupies like nobody`s business is way more cool.

/\ sounds like guns and roses to me.

[MJRH]

So, if one stops changing their style, why can't we say they got stuck? Why would we expect only from designers to evolve and allow ourselves the comfort of stagnation?

Because "stuck" and "stagnation" imply an absence of choice wherein the designer/wearer are incapable of moving on--but if they don't wish to move on, it's an abuse of language to use either of those words, as you can't be "stuck" or "stagnating" in a place you always wanted to be. Bringing back the analogy of music, would a jazz musician be "stuck" if he chose to play only jazz and not, say, hair metal or some other genre for the rest of his life? No, because he's made a conscious decision to stick to jazz.

As for the expectation of designers to evolve, I think that's because this forum is largely concerned with the avant-garde, and pushing boundaries can't be done in comfort. But note, getting stuck is only an issue if pushing boundaries is a concern, and I for one am not interested in pushing boundaries with my own wardrobe, even if I am interested in designers who do so on the runway. I think we all appreciate Guidi's aesthetic (animal ethics aside), for example, which certainly hasn't evolved at a great rate, though nor can it really be said to have stagnated...

To sum up my views: to overemphasize a converging image of one's style, or fashion as self-discovery, is every bit as ridiculous as overemphasizing the need for constant evolution.

[cjbreed]

hey hey wait a minute here guns and roses was not a hair metal band.

[Pumpfish]

I don't buy the stagnation/evolution argument, as it seems to limit examination of change to just the creator or artist. Audiences change, media change, "taste", appreciation changes.

Also, stagnation/evolution is a false dichotomy. If everything moves we should really look to acceleration or slowing in an artist's development.