Originally posted by Faust
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
WTF
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Fenix View PostAbsolutely, however, content drives discussion among Millennials. They interact differently and want to be engaged differently than GenXer's.
We are the old people.Selling CCP, Harnden, Raf, Rick etc.
http://www.stylezeitgeist.com/forums...me-other-stuff
Comment
-
-
No it's not. Perceived membership and beliefs & behaviors can be arbitrarily defined but age location in history cannot. Turnings are identified based on age location in history relative to historical incidents the American body politic deems to be points of upheaval.
Individuals age 1-18 would clearly have a different perception of a major war than individuals 18-85 -- that defines both perceived membership and some aspects of beliefs & behaviors.
The point of generational theory is to show how we engage in collective historiography and how that process feeds back into the memetic components of our culture. It may not be accurate in a 'vibes, namaste' or bored French psychoanalytic context and it probably shouldn't be used to define specific generations as broad swaths of assholes but historical cyclicity is pretty hard to deny on a demographic level.Last edited by Arkady; 02-24-2016, 10:52 AM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Nickefuge View PostHow come Vêtements are allowed to use DHL’s logo?Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde
StyleZeitgeist Magazine
Comment
-
-
i think it's probably because it passes as art (if so, art has an even looser definition than i thought), which would allow them to use it and even make money off it. nadia plesner used the louis logo a few years back and sold her art on shirts that made money (albeit for a charity), and lvmh sued her for it. art in general has had a history of appropriating corporate trademarks and making money of it, even when the trademarks are probably presented in a less than stellar light. everyone from warhol to aqua got away with it.
i don't know if it comes under the sc definition of parody, but it's definitely somewhere in the giant mess of fair use laws that the us uses.
Comment
-
-
The fact that the designers behind Vetements can willingly create bullshit and expect it to sell in the first place is a problem in itself (way before the fact that people buy into it) On another note: Nathan For You is probably the funniest, fucked-up show that I've seenOriginally posted by FaustHOBBY?! HOBBY?!?!?!?!?! You are on SZ, buddy - it ain't no hobby, it's passion, religion, and unbounded cosmic love rolled into one.
Comment
-
-
-
Originally posted by Arkady View PostYeah that's exactly it -- it's cemented more if the logo is somehow altered or derived in order to communicate a "spirit of satire."
Also regarding vetements, complete the look
Comment
-
Comment