|
quote:FASHION - Yes. Do you not remember we are both born of Decay? This OP will mostly be limited to bodily adornment. Design is also part of fashion and discussion of it is encouraged. The important thing to remember, however, is that for the purposes of this thread both fashion and design are not practical. As soon as something serves a function beyond aesthetics, it no longer belongs in the discussion.  Women of the Hamar tribe, Ethiopia Fashion is an ancient art form that is ubiquitous in human cultures through history and geography.  2003 and 2013 NBA Draft Fashion is always changing. While most people would agree that the 2013 group looks "better" than the 2003 group, this perception is transient.  Caddis fly larvae adorning themselves with gold, turquoise, gems and pearls. In nature they use bits of organic matter. Bodily adornment is not limited to humans. Observations of this behaviour in animals raises questions about the origins of it in humans.  Still from Back to the Future 2 (1989.) Note the retro 80's-themed café in the background Fashion is constantly changing, and speculation may affect outcomes. Fashion trends can not be predicted scientifically.  Chinese foot binding. Despite being banned by the Chinese government in 1912, the last lotus shoe factory didn't close until 1999. While providing fulfilment and joy for many, fashion has also been used as a tool of oppression. Physical and emotional suffering for fashion is common. Everything stated in this OP is open for debate, and here are a few addition questions to get the discussion started: Is there an "end" to fashion (ie. a perfect aesthetic?) What effect, if any, do our future perceptions of fashion have on fashion trends? What is the root cause of fashion, and the purpose of aesthetics? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvsQjprz1x4 baw fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Feb 26, 2015 |
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 00:51 |
|
|
nah b
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyj3WpV4iEk
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
baw posted:
Attracting a mate, originally. And still mostly. Though I guess other reasons have branched off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
 "EEeee, these are pimp garments. I feel so free in this"  "Ah poo poo who invited somebody who can actually rock it."
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 15:15
|
|
baw posted:Everything stated in this OP is open for debate, and here are a few addition questions to get the discussion started: 1. Yes, in accordance with the historical progressive science of Marxism-Leninism-Kyoanism, anime is the end of fashion. 2. Very little. Most of it eventually becomes part of retro-styling, but the majority of fashion is driven by the desire to keep changing things up and move new designs onto the shelves, and the fad-backlash cycle as new designs/articles become popular, oversaturated, and then die off, creating something far too chaotic for visions of future fashions. 3. Fashion is the ascension of purposelessness and has no root cause. Like Amon-Re, it creates itself ever anew.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:1. Yes, in accordance with the historical progressive science of Marxism-Leninism-Kyoanism, anime is the end of fashion. I was going to argue, but then I remembered that JoJo exists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:3. Fashion is the ascension of purposelessness and has no root cause. Like Amon-Re, it creates itself ever anew. Not sure - fashion can be a very strong part of identity construction and community building. Ranging from the use of tribal tattoos (in the sense of tribal affiliation), rite of passage scarification, through to subculture and counterculture fashion types, we use fashion as way of creating an external dimension to who we are, and how we identify, and perhaps more importantly, how others identify us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 20:09
|
|
Pesmerga posted:Not sure - fashion can be a very strong part of identity construction and community building. Ranging from the use of tribal tattoos (in the sense of tribal affiliation), rite of passage scarification, through to subculture and counterculture fashion types, we use fashion as way of creating an external dimension to who we are, and how we identify, and perhaps more importantly, how others identify us. I was being facetious, but the purpose of aesthetics being aesthetics (that is, visual differentiation into categories) is nice and ourobourotic, so I'm pretending that was a serious statement now.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
baw posted:Is there an "end" to fashion (ie. a perfect aesthetic?) 1. Seems unlikely. If it were to happen it would have to go hand in hand with both a general stagnation / 'end' to human social/cultural development as well. 2. I really like looking at how people 20, 30 + years ago extrapolated the future from their contemporary fashion (or technology for that matter). It gives a good insight into which aspects of design were the most important, or viewed as the new basis from which all future developments would come. Modernist stuff in general is really good because the meaning behind everything was a conscious, critical part of the design — crafting every aspect of their utopian future was a big deal.  Constructivist sports clothing, designed by Varvara Stepanova in the 60s These were never produced, but were likely seriously considered by the designer to be for everyday use. Aesthetics aside, based on the ideas of (cheap?) mass-production, social participation, probably egalitarianism w/r/t everybody being able to have some wicked sick gym shorts. Today it's probably hard to find stuff that's as obvious as that. Modernism is/was all about creating something never-seen-before in the service of ideology, whereas postmodernist stuff reappropriates or pastiches what came before for sentimental or ironic reasons (or because the designer liked the way it looked). 3. I dunno, to show individual status and eventually membership of a tribe/social group/sports team. But even that is probably based on the aesthetics, rarity &/or labour needed to get whichever type of feathers the chief wears 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Attracting a mate, originally. And still mostly. Though I guess other reasons have branched off. This is true, frivolous decorative structures in biology are the result of the females of the community randomly evolving a preferences for something (bright red asses, for instance) and then selecting mates based on how bright and red their asses are. The same likely does apply to human fashion preferences, with the additional complication that the modifications do not evolve but instead but instead are achieved by attaching things to ourselves. Since we don't have to wait for evolution, these preferences can change dramatically in a short amount of time. It really raises a lot more questions though, since it probably isn't all be about reproduction, but it does explain the lengths that people go to in order to be fashionable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
I like slim fit pants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:
The 1960s were a hell of a time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
In a recent interview Adam Curtis talked about how everyone in Silicon Valley is very bland, wearing Northface instead of designer suits. This could be a callback to the comfy and egalitarian fashion of Star Trek jumpsuits (which itself is based on modernist utopian ideas).
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
McDowell posted:In a recent interview Adam Curtis talked about how everyone in Silicon Valley is very bland, wearing Northface instead of designer suits. This could be a callback to the comfy and egalitarian fashion of Star Trek jumpsuits (which itself is based on modernist utopian ideas). I assumed it was a way for them to display how laid-back and not at all businessmanlike they were.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:I assumed it was a way for them to display how laid-back and not at all businessmanlike they were. Just like Star Trek  - keep in mind TNG was a pop culture element during the early tech booms. Imagine if your boss dressed up like a Ferenghi.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
What's with all the GBS threads leaking into D&D lately
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
I'm a "fashionable man"
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:What's with all the GBS threads leaking into D&D lately You're GBS      Comme des Mar*istes, Rainer Ganahl
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
So is there always a clear divide between fashion as art (as above) and fashion as a facet of cultural and social everyday life?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:So is there always a clear divide between fashion as art (as above) and fashion as a facet of cultural and social everyday life? Pull up your pants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 22:54
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:So is there always a clear divide between fashion as art (as above) and fashion as a facet of cultural and social everyday life? No. There's really not that much of a divide- people emulate haute couture even when there isn't a spin-off line of daily clothes, haute couture takes inspiration from trends in daily clothes.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Fashion is the embodiment of modern society. Just as the economies of the developed world are built on the virtual world of the Internet and computer technology, and on the split-second trades of virtual stocks in a virtual fiat currency, we adorn ourselves with physically worthless objects that only gain meaning through the virtual reality of culture and social life. The greatest virtue is to sell nothing, for everything. America Inc. fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Feb 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
baw posted:
This whole great thread was worth this post alone. Look at that scaled gold flake and use of pearls for armor. That loving owns. ReidRansom posted:I was going to argue, but then I remembered that JoJo exists. Literally the best thing in life: watching 2D media infect the 3D world. http://jojo.wikia.com/wiki/Kishibe_Rohan_Meets_Gucci http://jojo.wikia.com/wiki/Jolyne,_Gucci_de_Tobu https://www.pinterest.com/pin/293226625710400257/ The dude who does JoJo is a loving master at clothing design and building. Armani fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Feb 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
baw posted:The important thing to remember, however, is that for the purposes of this thread both fashion and design are not practical. As soon as something serves a function beyond aesthetics, it no longer belongs in the discussion. Your premise renders this question invalid. If aesthetics fall under the category of "not practical," then by definition there cannot be a purpose. Of course fashion has practical purposes, among them being group identification, self esteem, personal pleasure, and artistic expression. Beep boop, unquantifiable, cannot compute!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Fashion!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
I think we should go back to encouraging military officers to commission their own uniforms. Can you imagine how cut George Washington must have looked? If he hadn't showed up at the Continental Congress in a fresh rear end uniform would there even have been a war? Caesar, strolling around Gaul in a purple cape. "Oh it's time to spar with wooden swords? Let me take off my cape."
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Caesar, strolling around Gaul in a purple cape. Yeah, I want a paludamentum. Caesar was a stylish motherfucker, except for the combover.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 04:44
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Your premise renders this question invalid. If aesthetics fall under the category of "not practical," then by definition there cannot be a purpose. Of course fashion has practical purposes, among them being group identification, self esteem, personal pleasure, and artistic expression. You seem mad. Anyways, one of the more interesting bits of fashion in politics was the series of attempts to encourage men to Westernize their clothing and women to keep wearing traditional clothing in Meiji through Showa-era Japan. In practice, everyone Westernized, but the conscious attempt to alter culture and redefine gender roles is something you don't see so much of in the days of memorandums.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Yo when are robes coming back
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:Yo when are robes coming back Don't pretend like you don't already wear robes in your Harry Potter fanclub, Grondoth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
Sometimes I like to wear a suit and tie to work, even though I don't have to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:Sometimes I like to wear a suit and tie to work, even though I don't have to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
Robes are fantastic, and any time I'm in my home office or just lounging about at the house, I'm usually in mine. Nixon sleeping in a suit wouldn't surprise me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
Why would anyone wear clothing when they don't have to? Clothes are strictly for outside things. I can't wait for robes to come back in fashion. It's like being naked, but warmer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Your premise renders this question invalid. If aesthetics fall under the category of "not practical," then by definition there cannot be a purpose. Of course fashion has practical purposes, among them being group identification, self esteem, personal pleasure, and artistic expression. That's a contradiction I was wondering about, and that's why I qualified it it with not having a function beyond aesthetics. That does bring up the question of what the function of aesthetics is (whether or not aesthetic appeal is "practical" is a matter of definitions) and, while attracting a mate may explain the first body adornment in humans, it seems to have moved beyond that. I think a big part of answering the question would come from answering another question, "what makes something fashionable?" Exclamation Marx touched on that question: Exclamation Marx posted:3. I dunno, to show individual status and eventually membership of a tribe/social group/sports team. But even that is probably based on the aesthetics, rarity &/or labour needed to get whichever type of feathers the chief wears That does provide something of an answer (at least in general) but also prompts several other questions. As we see in nature, setting yourself apart from other potential mating partners is an important biological imperative. Rarity and craftsmanship as elements of "high" fashion are probably one of the few generalities you could make about what usually makes something fashionable (his second posts shows counter-examples, but ironic fashion adds another layer of complexity. While not being made of rare materials, those clothes still represent something unique and original that causes the wearer to stand out.) Fashion is often a dichotomous struggle of both trying to conform with current trends while also striving to set oneself apart. Rarity of materials and skill needed to fashion them into decoration allow the wearer to set themselves apart from others. Tuxedos are the first thing that popped into my head; you have a strict framework of what constitutes a tuxedo, but there are massive differences of quality of materials and cut that make a great tuxedo stand out in a room full of mediocre ones. High prices replicate the exclusivity of an object's natural rarity; a chieftain may possess a headdress made from a rare panther skull while a CEO will possess a tuxedo made from the finest Zegna fabrics. However, both are still working within established societal frameworks. If rarity and craftsmanship are considered a given for something fashionable, it still only solves half of the puzzle because it doesn't explain the origins of the societal frameworks that the wearer has to operate within. Even if you can narrow it down to sex, is the appeal of a well-fitted suit something that originated in a genetic quirk from an influential class that then spread itself through a society? That might be a start, but the evolution of the cravat (which has a history spanning thousands of years) to the tie, for instance, doesn't seem explicable by a sudden genetic preference. There are other forces at work. While we can trace the history of the spread of the modern tie, the core physiological reasons for the attraction are less simple to answer. However, these questions are universal in determining what makes something fashionable. Shbobdb posted:Why would anyone wear clothing when they don't have to? Clothes are strictly for outside things. This also highlights something important; everyone makes fashion decisions whether they claim to be fashionable or not. Every thing that you put on your body is a conscious decision based on both practicality (I think that good quality, practical clothing is always fashionable but this breaks our rule of limiting the discussion to the impractical) or aesthetics, some people just put more thought into it than others. While you may want to go without adornment, social and legal standards compel you to make some kind of choices, even if only the minimum of thought is put into them. So then the question is, what goes through the head of a person when they are choosing what to wear, and what does that thought process say about the individual? All that aside, suffering has played (and still plays) an important part of fashion in many cultures throughout history. Pain and misery in order to attract a mate is something very common in the animal kingdom, but are modern people really still slaves to such primitive whims, or is there something more to it? Added to the OP baw fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Feb 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 12:31
|
|
|
What fashion does proper Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Third-Worldist science prescribe?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 13:22
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:What fashion does proper Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Third-Worldist science prescribe? Difficult to say, but maybe something like this:  From Fox News' message board. Fox News is the prominent right-wing news network in the US, and here they attempt to use fashion to make a statement about a person's character. More pictures are important, since this is a discussion about how things look.  The Chevrolet & Franck Sorbier catwalk at Paris Fashion week 2010. A 1978 Camaro is not practical by today's automotive standards, but still exhibits an important, and possibly timeless, aesthetic appeal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
Muscle Tracer posted:Beep boop, unquantifiable, cannot compute!! You lost, because you couldn't tell how retarded it was to post this sentence
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 00:51 |
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:You lost, because you couldn't tell how retarded it was to post this sentence oh no!!!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:49
|
|