What are you wearing today?

[Mail-Moth]

actually, you did. Might want to think twice before using that word again on here, it can be quite controversial.

Mmh, I believe I was the first one to write it this time :

Simply put, what looks acceptable and authentic(didn't write that word) ...

What a shitstorm, guys.

I'll be with Casem and Genevieve on this one, I think : this sort of zombie hunt is already rather sterile IRL, but it is completely pointless on the internet. Beyond that, you simply can't avoid being authentic, as you simply can't avoid being yourself every second that goes by.

I can understand Beardown when he says :

I simply believe that there is an intellectual side to art, style and creativity that separates things with depth from the empty facades that are so common in 'fashion.' Clearly that's not the most popular opinion but it's mine.

I only think that the two things - art and the discourse one will elaborate from it, whether it be the artist himself or a critique - are in fact disconnected.
Therefore all facades are "empty" to begin with, in a sense that they're forms - and the many ways of appreciating them depend on who's talking as on who's supposed to ear. What is admittedly deep here may as well be seen as an unbearable pose somewhere else - or simply as samples of good taste according to a given sociological niche.

There's a moment when just talking about clothes, and incidentally making up unimportant charades about them, might be more than enough to make the man happy.

[zamb]

I beg your pardon? Christ, Zamb, did you even read my second post in this argument?

And, for the record, Spinoza defined his terms, but understood that substance had infinite attributes but that we only understood (or are limited) to two, and that we could only perceive these through their respective modes. In other words, any 'absolute' definitions are strictly our own. Ontologically as well as socially and aesthetically. This kinda' ties in nicely with our previous argument, doesn't it?

Man I was only make fun at you!
kind of like a joke without laughing for greater impact............anyways. i just woke up for a middle of the night snack, so Ill take up my sword to Spinoza and all the rest I the morning, seems i got a big battle on many fronts going on here, but I'll leave it alone for now.........I gotta sleep too you know

[kuugaia]

^^ But the shitstorms are what make it worth coming around here for.

maybe instead of cool, we should from now on only use the word suave

Lol.

[upsilonkng]

I just hope for the rich kid and the kids from the ghetto that they don't get stuck listening to RATM, that's really as far from authentic or cool as possible.
I loved Eternal's outfit and I've only been to Atelier's once like 5 years ago. At the time I thought most of that shit was cheese dick.. still think most of it is minus the totally awesome shit which even in a good store is a small percentage.

[Mail-Moth]

^ I really wonder why RATM would not be cool and authentic. After all, there are people to consider Die Antwoord as such. Or Blackie Lawless - but maybe I am pushing things a bit far.

[semper]

I'll be with Casem and Genevieve on this one, I think : this sort of zombie hunt is already rather sterile IRL, but it is completely pointless on the internet. Beyond that, you simply can't avoid being authentic, as you simply can't avoid being yourself every second that goes by.
(...)
I only think that the two things - art and the discourse one will elaborate from it, whether it be the artist himself or a critique - are in fact disconnected.
Therefore all facades are "empty" to begin with, in a sense that they're forms - and the many ways of appreciating them depend on who's talking as on who's supposed to ear. What is admittedly deep here may as well be seen as an unbearable pose somewhere else - or simply as samples of good taste according to a given sociological niche.

There's a moment when just talking about clothes, and incidentally making up unimportant charades about them, might be more than enough to make the man happy.

Great analysis, very accurate and simple.
I read two things: the consequence of your first point: 'there's no point discussing / philosophising about it' (it's all a matter of taste), whereas the second means: the talk about it is what gives it meaning (it's all a matter of taste)

That's what you call putting SZ into perspective. It's useless and it's important.

[Shucks]

maybe instead of cool, we should from now on only use the word suave

the living definition of authentic and rich and suave all in one...

[docus]

Just to add a quick thought to all this, with my psychoanalytic psychotherapist's hat on - this is very simplified, and may not seem releavnt, but perhaps it is of some interest nonetheless. There are people who live their lives in a pathologically inauthentic state. D.W. Winnicott refers to this as a 'false self' - a simulated self, which lacks any real spontaneity. Winnicott argues that inauthenticity is a psychological defence, built to prevent others from getting close to the more lively, authentic part of themselves, which they feel they have to guard very closely. Usually this arises from an experience of early abuse, where the individual's 'true self' was badly intruded upon, leaving the individual feeling they daren't reveal it any more, for fear that it will be lost. Essentilly, the true self is repressed, leaving a pseudo-personality in its place - a personality geared up to complying with interpersonal demands - e.g. pacifying an abuser in order to reduce the risk of further abuse. In time these defences can become so rigid that all traces of the true self are lost to the individual's conscious awareness. However, they often feel that something is 'missing', or that they are lacking in spontaneity. Some people have false self structures that are so severe and misaligned with reality that they become psychotic. It's worth noting that Winnicott argues life's disappointments create some degree of false self in everyone, but of course hopefully not to that degree of severity. In fact, a more benign and transient false self can be a useful and adative tool for navigating certain social demands, so long as the true self is not lost.

[Mail-Moth]

This is certainly seducing, but how do those people you're talking about know that their current self is not the true one, but only a defensive construction ?

Or to state it differently : would Arlequin without his mask and costume still be Arlequin ?

[docus]

MM - usually they don't consciously know their false self is not their true one, but they come looking for help with a feeling that something is missing or isn't right - they feel thay are not living fully, that they are lacking in spontaneity. Often this happens after some sort of crisis, when their false self was unable to meet the demands of a new situation, for example at work or in a relationship, and the person feels they could have done better if only they had been able to 'be themselves' - which is something they see others appearing to manage, but which they themselves can barely imagine, so ingrained is the defence. It is usually only through exploration of the person's past that they can come to understand why this has come about, and then the question of what to actually do about it is a whole other thread...

[semper]

Docus, I'm sorry, but I don't think mrs/mr Winnicot' talk on authenticity is very useful. She/he must have established the concept as a work term, useful to depart from in her/his studies, without questioning it any further.

And while we're at it. it's funny how authenticity comes up again, while it wasn't the focus of discussion initially.
The fact that you can both argue that it doesn't exist and that it always exists, is an alarm bell for me, that we're barking up the wrong tree.
I think casem is hinting at something useful in his comparison of the designer and the wearer. If the wearer is the one that breaths life into the art of the maker, then valuing that is a process between wearers. Like what we do on sz, but much more so irl.

My conclusion is, that whether someone carries off a certain style, is always a dialogue with others. Always, by definition. Whether something looks good on you, 'not contrived ' etc, has to do with the question whether what you wear bears a good relationship with the shape of your face, of your body, with how you talk, how you move, and last but not least with what you talk about. This can only be judged by the beholder. You can only judge yourself in this by looking in a mirror, in other words by looking at yourself as another person.
What is perceived as 'authenticity' is the skill to play with people's expectations. People will like & approve it while they couldn't have come up with it themselves. Some will say you're 'authentic'.

To me, here lies the great strength of Mail-Moth's fits.

The idea that we "wear what we like", "don't care about what others think", is misleading. The very tiny selection of people that do appreciate - even if they don't share - our way of clothing is what brings it to life, and our disregarding of all the others merely means that our style is in accordance with our way of living. But it's outside the definition.

How come I always get warmed up in these discussions when most people get tired of it..

[Dropt]

^ I really wonder why RATM would not be cool and authentic. After all, there are people to consider Die Antwoord as such. Or Blackie Lawless - but maybe I am pushing things a bit far.

Or Justin Biebier.

[semper]

1. It implies nothing of the sort. You cannot tell me that a person who grew up poor, arrested and beaten by cops for standing on the corner, not being able to feed himself because minimum wage is not a living wage and a rich kid from the suburbs who never worked a single day in his life listen to Rage Against the Machine for the same reasons. One is not playing a role, because he can relate to that music, another one listens because it's a famous band. No way in hell he can relate to that music. Same with clothes.

I know you're a romantic, Faust, but this is very much living the slogan.

First of all, every designer who wants to start a business, will have to think about his potential clientèle, and all sz-designers, without exception, have chosen to target an up-market clientèle. We are all part of this, and we are all playing a role: we could buy Versace or Gucci but we choose not to because we don't like the philosophy of ostentatious affluence behind it. Instead, we dress ourselves in garments with unfinished hems or in sober, even monkish attire, in sombre colours or garments that allude to other eras, which all implies: I could buy anything but my clothes only show it at a second glance.

Secondly, someone without the means or the entourage is much more likely to look for 'loud' clothes with brand names on it, to show that he can finally afford something; to raise his status.

When I was in India, a country where upward mobility is what's on most people's minds, I wisely chose not to bring any of my grey, frayed clothes, because it would have conveyed the wrong message to the people I had to work with. I decided it could have been disrespectful to their country's relative poverty.
The fact that these clothes reflect me, my life when I'm at home meant nothing there.

[Johnny]

Semper's point is a good one. It's a very simple but very overlooked fact that the target customer for Ann, for CCP, for Julius, for Yohji, for carpe diem is, whatever else he or she may be, an affluent one. There may be exceptions touted about kids saving up for months, not eating, ramen diets etc (and of course the "I buy it at less than retail" argument is invalid in this context), but this is self-evidently the case.
So, I suppose, that must mean that it's not the same for clothes as it is for music.

[Johnny]

Although having said that, this certainly backs up Faust's point on the music part at least

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2011/apr/14/gwynneth-paltrow-hip-hop-shock?INTCMP=SRCH