Writes Vanessa Friedman in the NYT.
That offended me a little. I understand she's feeling the pressure to get back to big fashion — very expensive clothes and gala dress-up events — but that doesn't mean that these other things we do while wearing clothing are hollow and empty and deserving of words like "anonymity" and "anomie."
If fashion matters, it should matter when we're doing the things that are the most substantial aspects of our life — going to work, engaging in political expression, doing our walking-around errands, and recreating in public spaces. What do we wear when we're out in the street? And even if we're keeping it simple, how do we feel? There's no reason to think that if we're wearing jeans and a t-shirt or leggings and a sweater we're in a state of anomie.
Friedman is concerned about the business of fashion — and it seems that consumer psychology is more of a means to an end. What will bring shoppers back to the physical stores?
It’s going to be the irrational, emotional pull of a … something. The gut punch of recognition that comes from seeing a new way to cast your self. One that signals: “Yes, I have changed. Yes, things are different. Now we emerge in a new world.”Perhaps she's posited anomie because it seems to be something that can be solved through shopping for new clothes.
It’s on fashion to define that something, because that something is going to be how history remembers whatever happens next. It will do what clothes always do, which is symbolize a moment, and give it visual shape. What that shape will be is the existential question facing designers right now.I think she's saying "existential" because designers are faced with a threat to their existence, but it halfway feels as though she's talking about philosophical existentialism, because she's posited the problem of anomie in the consumer.
Posts
51 comments:
Existential is another word of the moment. Like systemic.
When all of the idiots with money have expressed their superior fitness through a display of virtue, they will return to expressing their superior fitness through a display of useless objects on their persons.
What trivial, ignorant rot.
Wealthy ladies always dressed "high" no matter the circumstances, under vastly worse conditions. They may well have dressed differently, but not more cheaply.
That is human nature. The alpha women always do this.
Brought to you by the industry -- including the Times' virtue-signaling T Magazine staff -- so vainglorious that they traveled to Milan with full knowledge of the pandemic exploding there and brought it back to NYC, killing thousands just so they wouldn't miss Fashion Week.
Ann left something out in her list of "things that are the most substantial aspects of our life"
The fashion dilemma is how to virtue signal and at the same time express fun and elan and joie de vivre. Sackcloth (Sakscloth?) with ash streaks in pastels? Chanel in bottles with a whiff of smoke color as if from looted stores? I think I would look to see how Melania and Ivanka were dressing - not because I do high fashion but still we all follow it at a distance.
There must be a style sheet at the NYT which requires a certain quota of buzz-words in each piece, in order to sound like a character in a Woody Allen movie (not one of the early, funny ones).
"It is a truth that may be hard to imagine in a world devastated by (the overreaction to) illness and (consequently created) economic insecurity, riven by (accusations of) racism and (gratuitous) unrest, but we will get dressed again."
Fixed it for her.
I always wear bermudas. Airplanes, work, shopping.
My fashion problem at the moment is that Cabelas seems to have discontinued their 5" inseam trail shorts.
From the quoted article:
"It’s going to be the irrational, emotional pull of a … something. The gut punch of recognition that comes from seeing a new way to cast your self. One that signals: “Yes, I have changed. Yes, things are different. Now we emerge in a new world.”
O Brave New Abnormal!
Talk about preconceived ideas..I just had to look up this woman.I was not disappointed. Thin as Ann Coulter, hair severely pulled back to expose her big ears and always dressed in an outfit designed to showcase her emaciated body and unctuous expression.Naturally Melania and Ivanka get the nasty put down that only TRUE fashionistas can see they are sooooo lacking in style and class.
Oh dear. So much thinking! Looking around, I foresee a rush on Maoist uniforms while the higher-toned fashionistas make a strong move to Fidelesque military undress.
Titania McGrath said her favorite adjectives were relentless, brisk, and moist. That phase coming soon.
"It’s on fashion to define that something, because that something is going to be how history remembers whatever happens next. It will do what clothes always do, which is symbolize a moment, and give it visual shape. What that shape will be is the existential question facing designers right now."
Did Jack Tandy write this?
It’s like reading a breathless bodice-ripper.
What will bring shoppers back to the physical stores?
Well it will help if the stores are open for business despite the governors and mayors and their desire to go on playing “Little Adolph” under the guise of public health as long as possible. It will help even more if the store has not been burned out by rioters.
I think one of our challenges today, and a prime component of "cancel culture," is that every word we say is delivered to all audiences, when it is in fact intended only for a small, particular audience. It's tone deaf, to say the least, to be lamenting the fashion industry while we have rioting and COVID and murder hornets. But high fashion designers and their wealthy customers are people too, and have their own depressions from all this, and have just as much right as others to share their feelings and emotions. The problem is not that the author talked about fashion and the emotions of its partners and customers, but that she proposed it for a national topic of conversation right now, with so much pain and turmoil going on.
Years ago, in a college Poli Sci class, a national political consultant showed us some marketing tools that had been used at intra-Republican meetings. It was a video of a male rhinoceros mounting a female one. The dramatic voice over read, in perfect radio voice, "THIS is what the Democrats are doing to our country." It was hilarious within its intended audience of core party members, people whose hobby (and sometimes profession) is preaching their own party's virtues and denouncing the other party's vices. But you couldn't run that today. Anything shown to an audience of more than 10 (or 2, in Washington, DC) is going to be secretly recorded and disseminated more broadly, where people then pretend that it was intentionally publicized and intended for the broad national audience to begin with.
Similarly, prior to FB, if you wanted to make a political rant, you went to a bar, or bowling, or had friends over for BBQ, and you said it privately, in a small group of folks who you knew probably wouldn't be offended by the message. Plus, it wasn't recorded and you could see people's immediate reaction and adjust your delivery to minimize group friction and disharmony. But now people rant on FB to all, in short memes, and it's presumed and acted upon as if you had intentionally published an op-ed in the local paper.
Now, there's plenty of upside to this loss of private-group messaging. It's harder to hide racism, sexism, and other beknighted thoughts and words. But the lack of more-or-less private social groups and communication mediums makes it that much harder to engage in dialog of interest to the group, but which might be perceived as insensitive or offensive by those outside the group.
I recognize that we're talking here about an opinion piece in the New York Times, which is hardly a small, private communication to an in-group, but at the same time, it's in the Style section which is normally read by those most interested in the fashion world, and not nearly as much by others who have no interest in fashion at all.
Friedman is concerned about the business of fashion
oh! and here i was only concerned about the business of the United States
my stylist friends in states that STILL don't allow haircuts will be relieved to hear that the FASHION business is back on track...
While they sit around NOT working, and NOT getting unemployment
I look forward to the next big runway fashion show in Covid-stricken Milan.
I'm imagining models wearing high-fashion versions of everything from N95 masks and face shields (and perhaps little else) to sleek, tailored hazmat suits.
It might actually be more interesting to see what the fashion-savvy audience will be wearing, and how close they'll be sitting.
The emptiness of the left is always a shock but never a surprise to me.
Fashion and nice clothes have never impressed me. Who needs more than jeans and a button down or T-shirt? I've known too many people who were dirt-broke but spent money on clothes, and it never enhanced their station in life. Actual accomplishment did. Maybe in some circles the suit makes the man, but if so I'm glad they're not part of my Venn diagram.
"Ann left something out in her list of "things that are the most substantial aspects of our life""
My list is just tracking the things Friedman had just listed. It's not intended as a comprehensive list of what matters in life.
Oh, there is so, so much fashion can do.
Simple things like patterns that say,"I'm white. It's my fault". Or entire fashion lines mandated to be black hoodies and masks.
Then there's the even more woke opportunities.
Perhaps fashion that spontaneously combusts at random times. Or that inflates so that you can not drive your car, as a substitute for blocking freeways. A microchip and speakers that screech in ear-splitting volume whenever someone questions something you said. Fiber optic lights to spell out slogans. After all who would not want to be at an upscale back yard bar-b-que in a dress flashing Off The Pigs.
Of course it would be simpler if this clown just gave up her job to a POC.
"word of the moment" = whatever sounds smart to the masses who kinda sorta know what it means, maybe
Brings me back to my adolescent youth. I still remember the Daily Show supercut of about a dozen TV anchors remarking on Cheney's VP selection, each of them saying it brought "gravitas" to the ticket. That was back in the still-sorta-early Jon Stewart days, when he actually showed interest in mocking the liberal media on occasion - though Fox and Republicans still bore the brunt of his jabs.
"Ann left something out in her list of "things that are the most substantial aspects of our life""
Ann:
"My list is just tracking the things Friedman had just listed. It's not intended as a comprehensive list of what matters in life."
My apologies.
Friedman left something out in her list of "things that are the most substantial aspects of our life".
Some might even call it a microaggression.
"How would getting dressed have saved George Floyd?"
It's not intended as a comprehensive list of what matters in life.
It doesn't matter how you construct a perpetual motion machine. It won't work.
If there's no subordinate clause, "matter" is empty, on holiday. E.g. black lives matter.
It matters what a black guy does in life. Meaningful. Black lives matter. Empty.
Cant checker gives this article five and a half "Bah Humbugs."
Ah yes. The days of Trophy Wives dressed for display are back along with the other pillars of Conspicuous Consumption. Let the clothes be designed and let them be worn according to the laws of Thorstein Veblen. And the Stock Market she goeth up and up.
“We will get dressed again”
So brave. Profound, really. Almost as good as “stay home and be a hero”.
And on D-Day no less.
"Friedman left something out in her list of "things that are the most substantial aspects of our life"."
I meant that the everyday life is more important than the gala events. We're living every day. Life isn't the special occasions. It's perfectly real and important when you are just going to work, going shopping, walking in the park, and going down to the demonstration.
Street clothes are the most interesting part of fashion, I think. I miss Bill Cunningham in the NYT. It's that daily, on the street, presentation of individuality that is the best part of fashion. Ball gowns and over-dressed showing off are just a sideshow to the real life of fashion.
CBS News
@CBSNews 17h
With cities across America burning and black communities in pain, many white people have continued
writing about something else, like clothing
as if nothing is wrong — and it is not going unnoticed
https://cbsn.ws/3cCpv3F
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a woman in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of new duds.
Arizona is open for business with precautions. Instead of buying household stuff on line, my wife and I are patronizing local stores.
However, I have been buying clothes on line for several years now. High Fashion is not my thing.
Only a woman could write like that....
Almost as good as “stay home and be a hero”.
And on D-Day no less.
5th Ranger Battalions spearheaded the 2–16th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division, on the beach at Omaha. This is where the famous Ranger slogan comes from, when Major Max F. Schneider, commanding the 5th Ranger Battalion, met with General Norman Cota. When Schneider was asked his unit by Cota, someone yelled out "5th Rangers!", to which Cota replied, "Well then Goddammit, stay home and be a hero!"
Gen Cota also said:
Gentlemen, we are being killed on the beaches. Let us go home and be killed there."
Gen George Tayor said:
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s go home and be heroes."
[no, they did NOT say those things; may GOD bless their souls, and the souls of their men]
The Western world has only just begun the process of replacing its social elite.
As this process continues, many members of the elite will double down on ideas and ways of thinking that severed their connection with the common people in the first place. This will further erode their moral authority.
This process of replacement has happened before. It can get spectacularly out of hand, as it did in France in the 1790s. I'm sure fashion and all of its superfluous "meanings" was very important to the aristocracy in France right before the revolution. They found out how unimportant fashion really was in a dramatic way.
I hope the process of replacing our out of touch elites goes more smoothly. The elections in November will tell us a lot, methinks.
Hey, in the Utopia the left has planned for us, we'll all wear uniforms. How about those cute Mao pajamas?
Starting Monday I can go back to work at ny white collar job. Plan to wear t-shirt and mask.
How about those cute Mao pajamas?
Hillary already has a full set.
Oh, the drama!
The good news is that our materialistic society can’t sustain the current level of overheated virtuous emoting for any length of time. Those who are worried that the Red Guards are coming, need not worry. As usual, all this is really about buying Black people off on the cheap, with emotional trinkets and empty fetishes.
Very soon we’ll be treated to the hilarious irony of seeing street vendors in Uganda hawking remaindered BLM t-shirts along with the shirts of losing Super Bowl teams.
Newspaper fashion reporters are whores for the fashion industry, just as surely as automotive "journalists" are whores for the car industry.
At a minimum, if they don't say something nice about the merchandise they likely won't get invited to fashion shows. And how then can they have something to write about? (Just as automotive "journalists" are dependent on car manufacturers to loan them cars to "test.").
And the newspaper wouldn't care for it either, as everyone understands that product sections (i.e. automotive, travel, fashion, real estate) don't maintain any real boundaries between advertising and editorial content; rather, the function of the "news" articles is to support the advertising.
So, yes, I'm sure it's very important to this "reporter" that people start to care more about fashion again. Just as it's important to the reporter's employer that advertisers start buying space again.
(And, yes, both reporter and employer may well suspect that many of us just. don't. care.)
This article is the epitome of white supremacy. Elite styles are largely for others to envy. Jeans and tee shirts work better. No uniforms needed.
but it halfway feels as though she's talking about philosophical existentialism,
L'Enfer, c'est la mode.
Diversity breeds adversity. #SocialContagion #ImmigrationReform #GlobalSpreaders #SocialJustice #BLM #HateLovesAbortion #PlannedParent #PC
At one time style sections didn't feel the need to elevate their status. They were frothy entertainment, and reading them was the mental equivalent of eating cotton candy. They were not in the same league as the editorials or the op-eds.
But now every good leftist writer is a marcher in the cause of justice, so even the style sections are politicized. These writers use a lot buzzwords to say absolutely nothing of substance. Once venerable papers are all propaganda and filler.
You have a higher tolerance for this bullshit than I. Kudos to you, I guess.
Imagine there is no New York Times. It's easy if you can.
“Fashion and nice clothes have never impressed me. Who needs more than jeans and a button down or T-shirt? I've known too many people who were dirt-broke but spent money on clothes, and it never enhanced their station in life. Actual accomplishment did. Maybe in some circles the suit makes the man, but if so I'm glad they're not part of my Venn diagram.”
I have never gone in for T shirts. Wear polo shirts instead. Still single color though. But I will ditto the rest of your wardrobe.
It’s been most of a decade since I left the practice of law. I worked in a tiny satellite office of a decently large firm (200 attys then, 3-400 now, after some mergers). Most days, dress was jeans and buttoned down shirts, over either tennis shoes or hiking boots. I actually showed up a time or two in my ski clothes (having been skiing earlier in the day). But we wore nice suits when visiting our other offices, or seeing their clients. My billing rate was almost $400/hour, and my boss’s was $500 or so. You wore the suit because clients, for the most part (excluding those in Silicon Valley), wouldn’t pay those billing rates if you didn’t. Then, when visiting clients, if they were dressed, you stayed dressed. But if they were in jeans, you lost the coat, and often the tie.
But things are changing. Friend was at his daughter’s graduation about a decade ago, and sitting in the row behind him were Bill and Melinda Gates (one of his sister’s kids was graduating). Dressed like you always see him - navy sport coat, dark slacks, and open collared button down shirt. His wife wasn’t dressed that much more expensively. No doubt they had probably arrived in their custom 767. But you couldn’t tell it from their dress. And he comes from a generation that still wears sport coats. More modern tech billionaires don’t even do that for the most part. You now see billionaires out in public wearing T-shirts and jeans.
A hundred years ago, it was easy to tell social class through dress. It wasn’t just the material their clothes were made of, but their cut and what they were wearing. Even the hats were different. You could tell the sophistication of the women by how many years out of date their dresses were from what was in style in Paris. Now, knockoffs of Paris (and Milan) fashions hit the streets very quickly after
the originals are unveiled. We are talking weeks, instead of years. So, you have a lot of down dressing, with NYC hedge fund manages hanging out in bars in Jackson Hole, dressed almost identically to the cowboys and ski bums they are drinking with.
"Capital D Dressed. It is both history and human nature."
Institutionalized racism is so de-classe; Institutionalized Classism is so normal.
The quote is not Existential; it is Bad Faith.
So is "dressing down."
What will the fashionistas do, now that mass looting has finally democratized the fashion world?
The anti-fashionistas can be just as annoying to me. At a former work place, they would have jean days. You had to pay a fine--it went to a charity--if you didn't wear jeans that day. I didn't own any, still don't.
Post a Comment