Fashion

[Hiero]

Does fashion exist i dont see how two obejest being near each other can look good.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Your question might be one of aesthetics I suppose.

Do you not believe that sometimes clothes look good together and are thus fashionable in a sense, although its subjective its subjective to the point that most people realise it and it kind of becomes objecitve.

[cubist]

fashion exists to atrract another group of peope in to the capitalist classed society, fashion is promoted to represent status, it shows you have money! and it shoes you apparently care about how you look, realisticlly fashion is disected across several boundaries, you have fashion inside fashion if you like,

[SittingBull47]

cephas, i agree.

Fashion is all about the latest clothes, styles, ideas. The yuppies that love fashion will do anything to look like the rich models on the sterile runway.

[Xvall]

Fashion is idiotic. It will likely be abolished, not even by any sort of force. It will just wither away in a socialistic society, alongside 'professional wrestling' and 'Jesus'.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I do not believe there is anything 'wrong' with fashion. Just because you have a personal dislike of fashion dosent mean in a communist society or post-revoltuionary society fashion will not exist.

Fashion is generally a way of individuals to look good. Looking good is not an evil, unjustifiable thing, fashion doesent have to be multinational driven by the way.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Giest, everything we don't like will 'wither away' under socialism, Lenin said so.

[honest intellectual]

Either neonate is devoid of aesthetic sense or else I misunderstand him. Basically I don't understand what this thread is about, but fashion is my pet topic, as well as my job, so let me rant.

Cephas, SittingBull, Drake, sitting comfortably, are we? Here we go....

The only people who oppose fashion are the overyanged bores who are corrupted by an excess of morals and politicise everything. But that's ad hominem, let me explain. There are no politics and morality to beauty. Beauty is truth and you cannot get rid of it because you want to build a workers' republic. and these fuckers are "so utterly superficial they don't understand the philosophy of the superficial"

Fashion is an art form and therefore will not wither away. Fashion is as much a part of the human condition as is music. I mean, people have to wear clothes, right? And people will invariably want to look good, n'est pas? (Don't try to fucking argue with that one, people always have and always will want to look good. You can't abolish beauty to build a fucking workers' republic.) And there will always be an accepted standard of what looks good an what looks bad? Maybe, when you say fashion will wither away, you mean that the variations and trends will cease. If so, you're still wrong. Beauty is an inconstant thing. The standards of beauty have never stood still. They come from some mysterious part of the human soul and change whimsically. SittingBull said, though I doubt he knew what he meant, "Fashion is all about the latest clothes, styles, ideas." That is exactly it: people want to sculpt themselves to the latest styles. Fashion and rock 'n' roll are perfect arts: they mean nothing and the die young.

Fashion is the 'art of self'. We all have a whole bunch of shit dumped on us by that *****, Nature. We're assigned a gender, a race, a face, a family, all this stuff we don't get to choose. Well, I say fuck that. I say fuck nature, let each man invent himself. Choose your gender, choose your nose and your boobs and your eyes and ears, choose who you are. We have the ability to do that (to some extent at least). I say make yourself into an objet d'art, adorn yourself with artifice. Fuck nature.

[Red Flag]

In nature, most of the time, the female of a species looks to mate with the best possible canidate, and vice versa.. female peacocks are attracked to the peacock with the most beautiful and plentiful feathers and etc .. I think to a certain extent the want to look good is an evolution of this.

my opinion anyway

[BuyOurEverything]

I interpereted neonate's post not as a judgment of fashion, but as a question as to how it can exist? What makes certain clothes look good together and others not? I would say, judging from historical fashions, it is entirely subjective and generally, whatever the people with more social status (kings, celebrities) wear, looks good.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I reckon their are two types of fashion: Aesthetic fashion (Clothes you wear to look good) and hobby fashion (Clothes you wear because they're in fashion)

Fashion is not a hobby or an interest to me, merely an aesthetic concern.
Aesthetic fashion is probably a lot more (Or a lot less) varied than 'hobby fashion'

There are other considerations, mainly the limitations of your wardrobe. Almost everybody has an idea of a set of clothing that will suit them perfectly, but most people won't have the items they desire.
This sort of 'perfectly dressed self' is completely independant of whatever current fashion is.

-NoX

[cubist]

honest,

a fool believes fashion is theyre to allow humans to invent themselves, it my psycologically please you when you wear versace or armani or D & G clothing but if your fat your still fat, if your ugly your still ugly, the media wants you to believe that wearing these labels is good, its like religion just another opiate to releive the pain of living in the shitty society. nature didn't make you fat nature didn't make you ugly the media told you whats thin and whats attractive. the clothes you wear doesn't change what you are.


YOU CAN'T ABOLISH BEAUTY who said anyting about abolishing beauty, communism/socialism doesn't remove attractive people, it may try and reduce vanity but those blessed by nature will still be better looking than those less fortunate

fashion is for arses like your self.

ps let me know when you choose your boobs, nose lips, ears hair genitals so i can laugh at the mess you make

[Xvall]

You can't strike an argument toward us and then say that we can't argue with you on it. That's a lot like me saying, "Why don't you agree with creationism? Does not creationism exist? It does, don't try to argue with me on that."

(Will add more later)

[honest intellectual]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 11:47 AM
honest,

a fool believes fashion is theyre [sic] to allow humans to invent themselves, it my [sic] psycologically please you when you wear versace or armani or D & G clothing but if your [sic] fat your [sic] still fat, if your [sic] ugly your [sic] still ugly, the media wants you to believe that wearing these labels is good, its [sic] like religion just another opiate to releive [sic] the pain of living in the shitty society. the media told you whats [sic] thin and whats [sic] attractive. the clothes you wear doesn't [sic]change what you are.


YOU CAN'T ABOLISH BEAUTY who said anyting [sic] about abolishing beauty, communism/socialism doesn't remove attractive people, it may try and reduce vanity but those blessed by nature will still be better looking than those less fortunate


Fashion is only one part of creating oneself. It is mostly true that clothes alone cannot make ugly people non-ugly, but it can make pretty people look more pretty. I'm assuming that you probably know little about the area; you would be astonished by how much the right clothes make-up, hair etc. can change someone's beauty. The people who you think are beautiful aren't beautiful through exceptional genetics and a lot of the people who you think are plain could be as attractive as 'the beautiful people'. That's the fact of the matter.

Regardez:

Ugly:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/SHOWBIZ/News/06/02/showbuzz/sarah.jessica.parker.jpg
Not ugly:
http://www.aftonbladet.se/kvinna/0308/26/sarah-200036-351900.jpg

Fashion is not about how much money one spends on clothes and never has been. That's just you overpoliticing the issue. When I said you can't abolish beauty, I think what I meant (not entirely certain, I did drink a lot of rum) was that people will always strive to be beautiful, so fashion will always exist. Also, may I ask, what exactly do you expect people to wear?


nature didn't make you fat nature didn't make you ugly

those blessed by nature will still be better looking than those less fortunate
I thought I'd juxtapose those two quotes, just for kicks.

[Xvall]

Alrighty. Not only do I feel as though beauty is entirely subjective, but I feel that at the current moment, 'fashion' is far from an art.

Fashion, like 'beauty' is subjective. Not everyone thinks that the dress on the cover of the magazine is 'good', nor does everyone thinks that people who don't wear (article of clothing) are less fashionable than a person who was wearing that article of clothing. If 'beauty' is caused only by clothing and cosmetics than it is a sad society that we are living in. It would also mean that until this past century, 'beauty' didn't exist.

Right now, the fashion industry isn't bend on making art or fashionable clothing, they just care about money. They alone determine 'fashion'. They tell you what it is. No one votes on it, a consensus was not taken. They can assemble a dress out of a garbage can, and people will wear it. They just tell you what to wear, and people for some reason agree with it, regardless of what it is. What they are doing now is about as artistic as people who paint only for money.

What of the blind? Is beauty based on sight? Is it so that those unable to see can never understand 'beauty' as much as a person who can? Isn't beauty in poetry, and verse as well?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 17 2004, 12:31 AM


What of the blind? Is beauty based on sight? Is it so that those unable to see can never understand 'beauty' as much as a person who can? Isn't beauty in poetry, and verse as well?

What of the blind? Is that a rhetorical question?

Beauty is quite obviously based on site, I cant believe you asked that.

If you cant see something that has to be understood by sight such as a painting you will never understand its beauty.

Poetry is beauty but has nothing to do with fasion i.e. this argument.

Who said fashion is subjective, who said beauty is subjective, prove that and we might have a real philosophical argument going.

[cubist]

context mr intellectual context it was nature didn't make you fat/ugly the media said you are! also you was not directed at you i don't know what you look like,

i see what you mean but i find the beauty the most monotonous and minimal of things in my life. i am important as me, not as how i look but who i am. all the money and fashion in the world can still make you look like a frump after all

[SittingBull47]

Originally posted by Drake [email protected] 15 2004, 10:06 PM
Fashion is idiotic. It will likely be abolished, not even by any sort of force. It will just wither away in a socialistic society, alongside 'professional wrestling' and 'Jesus'.
i fail to see how Jesus will be destroyed in a socialist society. Organized religion, hopefully, but not the symbol himself.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 01:51 PM
context mr intellectual context it was nature didn't make you fat/ugly the media said you are! also you was not directed at you i don't know what you look like,

i see what you mean but i find the beauty the most monotonous and minimal of things in my life. i am important as me, not as how i look but who i am. all the money and fashion in the world can still make you look like a frump after all
Um the media are people, the people in media decide what is fashionable but only insofar as it is taken up and accepted by society to be so. They do not pressure fashion on people, people take up the fashion they like and then are pressurised financially into buying what seems fashionable in general which is a reflection of societys view of beauty.

Beauty is the one of the most important parts of my life, but I place a lot of aith in aestheitcs.

[cubist]

so you are saying the media, doesn't premote fashion to encourage you to buy it hahahahahahaha,

you saying the media doens't premote thin people as the ideal women and muscle as the ideal man.

let me think of

CK,hilfiger, citroen, peugeot, D&G, diet coke, nivea, and every other capitalist company that use the media to promote theyre products and use slim beautiful people and sex to premote those products, sex is on the upmost side of beauty the thougth of being attractive to get laid!

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 05:02 PM
so you are saying the media, doesn't premote fashion to encourage you to buy it hahahahahahaha,

you saying the media doens't premote thin people as the ideal women and muscle as the ideal man.

let me think of

CK,hilfiger, citroen, peugeot, D&G, diet coke, nivea, and every other capitalist company that use the media to promote theyre products and use slim beautiful people and sex to premote those products, sex is on the upmost side of beauty the thougth of being attractive to get laid!
Did you even read my post in its context?


Um the media are people, the people in media decide what is fashionable but only insofar as it is taken up and accepted by society to be so. They do not pressure fashion on people, people take up the fashion they like and then are pressurised financially into buying what seems fashionable in general which is a reflection of societys view of beauty.

[Rasta Sapian]

yes, there is such a thing as fashion, there probebly shouldn't but there is, promoting vanity and the bourguosie posh fashion high life. The clothes are designed for beautiful, or what society deems beutiful people.

I only buy clothes when I need them, and usually at a thrift shop, and I think I have a pretty good fashion sence :) if grunge is still in style anyway :P

peace yall

[cubist]

yes geist

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by ce[email protected] 18 2004, 12:46 PM
yes geist

Wow, shit reply.

[Lefty]

Fashion exists-
1. As a form of self-expression- Hence all the t-shirts that say things like "Somewhere a village is missing it's idiot" or something like that. Wearing different clothes tells people about who you are without you actually communicating to them personally.

2. As a way to attract people- People love a snappily-dressed person. I find someone who dresses nicely (i.e. in an aesthetically pleasing manner, which has nothing to do with the cost of the clothing) more attractive than someone who dresses in cardboard. Also, I am more likely to accept a business proposal from a guy in a nice suit with good hygiene than a guy in a trenchcoat and long, lank, greasy hair that you can smell from a mile away.

[cubist]

wow shit reply mildy hypocritical,

there was no counter argument to answer other than yes giest, ergo you got yes geist,

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 03:06 PM
wow shit reply mildy hypocritical,

there was no counter argument to answer other than yes giest, ergo you got yes geist,

There was no counterargument because you failed to understand my previous counterargument. I can cannot continue a conterargument when you dont take me in context.

[Snark]

When I think of fashion, I don't think merely clothes or personal appearance. Fashion, to me, is the highly media-driven, consumerist phenomenon of brands, appearance, and social acceptance. I am a fairly well-dressed person, but I am not fashionable in the sense that I do not wear big-name brands and do not tailor my appearance to what is "in fashion". I buy what I find to be comfortable, functional, and good-looking, but I do not particularly care if I'm wearing that month's fashionable brand or style. A fashionable person tailors appearance, clothing, accessories, and whatnot to whatever the current trend is, driven by infantile notions of "popularity" and social acceptance. I find that "fashion" is a function more of conformism (dat a word?), consumerism, and media hype than of actual good looks and functionality.

[alternative ulster]

Most of the time a new fashion is not fundamentally exspensive nor is it the product of a big name. However, when the market finds something alternative it exploits it. They foolkids into thinking they are expressing themselves while they are buying whats being sold by some clever buisnessmen who are attempting ,and succeding it seems, to cash in on the "alternative" culture. When these self=proclaimed "alternative" kids realize that they are no longer original and come up with some new style the same buisnessmen are there and ready and the cycle continues.

[Saddie-sad]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 03:09 PM
cephas, i agree.

Fashion is all about the latest clothes, styles, ideas. The yuppies that love fashion will do anything to look like the rich models on the sterile runway.

cephas, i agree.

Fashion is all about the latest clothes, styles, ideas. The yuppies that love fashion will do anything to look like the rich models on the sterile runway.

I'd disagree, this will sound horribly cliche and dumb but I see fashion as what you make it. I don't wear the fashion that is mainstream at my school. I wear what I like and it looks good. Fashion just isn't clothing either, it's the whole package. Clean (very important...hygene is my best friend!) and then hair, clothing, and you have to be able to pull it off. Not everyone is horribly into fashion but they still look good and have their own thing going on. I'm kind of materialistic when it comes to fashion, maybe even a capitalist. But I like fashion I like going shopping and making clothing and designing it. It's kind of fufilling for me, it's almost like art.

[Lefty]

Alternative Ulster hit the nail square on the head repeatedly and with much force with his post. The current indie-rock, "trucker hat, tight shirt, dirty jeans" trend amuses me greatly simply because of how incredibly obvious it is that the companies are exploiting a concept for money. Many of the more preppy kids at my school used to dress in nothing but Abercrombie, and now they have Strokes t-shirts and fashionably distressed jeans and other such shit. My friends have a running joke- when one of the aforementioned individuals walks by, we go "Aw shit, it's the IRS!"

"IRS"= "indie rock sensibilities." (Did I spell "sensibilities" right? I always mispell that damn word.)

[pandora]

As a punk rock kid in New York we would watch as the fashion houses would come down to the Lower East Side and steal things we made up to look cool and show them on the run ways the next day and sell them to the highest bidder.

It seemed a bunch of crap that made up for rich people having no imagination because they had nothing to say. The minute something became fashion it became stupid. Instead of wearing a statement of what one thinks and writing it with a majick marker on their shirt people wore a brand name that destroyed their idenity and dehumanized them to a marketing tool.

Now I find I am forced to wear clothes from goodwill that look "fashionable" for work, it really pisses me off that the culture has so hemogynized [sp] that we are forced to look a certain way to prove STATUS EVEN IF WE DO NOT POSSESS THAT STATUS OR BE FIRED. I constantly have to worry about tangles in my hair which used to be blue

I feel the MORALITY POLICE have so Hemogyonized our culture that people can't look different anymore, or they will not BE ABLE TO EAT OR PAY RENT the means will be aborted. Scary shit, no disaffection is allowed, all appearence carefully POLICED>

[Lefty]

It's homogenized, buddy. It means to make everything the same. Hemo has something to do with blood, I think. Hemoglobin, maybe? Dunno. Anyway, point well taken.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well I see no problem with hemogeny as such especially sine real genius and individuality is so rare we may as well be as homogenous as possible.

[Lefty]

That made no sense.

[TC]

Fashion isn't about class or status, its about taste. Fashion is a way of expressing a certain personality by an aesthetic.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 03:09 AM
That made no sense.
Why not? Explain?

Society in general is homegenous except for rare cases of genius, I cant see the problem in general society being as homogenous as possible in order to facilatate aesthetic genius?