What are you wearing today?

[kunk75]

some of the coolest most authentic people I know would be laughed off this site in a matter of moments if they posted a waywt

[interest1]

That's exactly where my point lies. Because who's gonna feel "cool"... if nobody sees?
Feeling like "cool shit", hence, continges on "others". Not necessarily even getting their approval; often, just getting notice will suffice, apparently. It's a very self-conscious state of being.

Authenticity (aka being true to yourself, no matter how you dress), on the other hand, is an unwitting thing. It's organic. Nobody walks around and "feels authentic", lol. When you feel comfortable in your skin, all self-consciousness ceases – along with the need for any external validation.

[Lane]

there are different ways one can have gone through "hard times," and not all of them I'd say are tied to wealth. I don't think wealth necessarily is a good barometer for people who lived a tough/easy life. Maybe, the rich kid is just as authentic, but you might be discounting his experiences because of his privileged background.

Comfort with yourself. If you truly feel comfortable wearing a garment, and feel some alignment towards it for whatever reason; that's what I think is important. You yourself will know if you are being fake, and simply buying into something because of an empty goal such as being "cool."


I believe its far too difficult to try and guess someones personality or past with simply a photo. At the same time though I don't doubt there are fashionistas out there who buy things because they will feel "cool" but I think its done to please others in order to obtain acceptance.

[beardown]

I'm not trying to attack anyone, Beardown I generally like your posts, but this authenticity business is an easy critical bandwagon to jump on but fairly meaningless when you investigate it further.

Casem,

Don't take this the wrong way...I'm more than willing to engage in discourse for the sake of communication but I believe you're completely missing the point. You did it in the 'ethics and aesthetics' discussion as well....taking one little angle that seemed to bother you and ignoring the bigger picture of what was actually being discussed.

Why all this talk about authenticity? That's a term that I don't believe I've used in the process of discussing any of this. It almost seems you want to boil it down to the most digestible denominator and in doing so, you skip over the most important parts of what is discussed and goes on here from my point of view.

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.

Disclaimer: That's not a reference to Eternal's fit. That's a reference to the broader scope of this microcosm we're participating in. Please, no torches or pitchforks.

[casem]

I dunno, I thought the points I made were getting to the heart of the matter, agree to disagree I guess.

Look, I'm not saying you can't be critical or strive for a deeper understanding of things. I wouldn't have studied music for the majority of my life if I didn't think there was something worthwhile about deeper investigation. I don't have a problem with critique, something like 'this would look better if you do that, "those shoes break the line of those pants", "that may be a cool outfit but in x context it's a bit cliche" etc. etc. What knots my panties, however, is when people make judgments about expression of self, the life experience required to wear/appreciate a garment, and authenticity.

Anyway, this got me thinking about something potentially interesting and hopefully less contentious. Feel free to move to another thread, unless we like our digression in WAYWT where they always tend to occur.

I was thinking about how I have a differing critical approach toward the wearer vs. the designer. I tend to view the wearer as the public who receives the work. Like the listener of a piece of music or a viewer of art, I wouldn't want to tell them how to experience the work. Sure, some people would have a deeper understanding of the work based on cultural/historical/technical understanding, others may have a more visceral reaction, but I would never make a qualitative judgment as to who is right to receive the work or what kind of life experience is required to understand it properly. I would, however, take a more critical eye toward the artist and expect them to have an understanding of what they do, have something to say and the technical means to say it. This is where it gets tricky as fashion doesn't have a life outside of the wearer. So, is the wearer actively engaged in the creation of the work? And should they then be held to a similar critical standard as the designer? To extend the musical metaphor, is the wearer the listening audience or the performing musician playing the composer's work (or is that the model?). Anyway, I'm not really sure but thought it was interesting.

(P.S. I'm done with the authenticity debate, I've said my peace. I wish Fuuma and the French syndicate would weigh in though!)

[Faust]

How can you say so? Rich kid from the suburbs might feel as much hate towards the system himself. Maybe he is not only concerned by his own life, but do feel closely connected to a certain ideology. There is a reason why there is seriously wealthy people for example in Scandinavia that still are socialists. Not because it would benefit them personally, but it's because what they believe in.

We have kids on trust fund going artists here, 40 year old (+) people who wore something completely different 5 years ago, stylist wearing streetwear gone CCP and so on. Who is anyone to judge who is in it for the right reason? Who is more authentic or not? After all, it's more of a subjective matter. If not, then I'm curious to see the different factors that leave to authenticity when it comes to buying the clothes discussed here.

What is important is the relationship between the wearer and his clothes. I'm more suspicious every time I see someone buy stuff and then sell a lot of it after a while.

So much for being authentic.

Never. If you haven't lived it, you won't feel it. There is a huge difference between sympathy and empathy.

As for the rest of your post - I've already said the same thing in my reply to Ochre.

[endorphinz]

[obvious observation]
searching for,or trying to create,authenticity are oxymorons. Authenticity,by definition,dwells inside us all ;some just do a better job of unmasking it.
[/obvious observation]

seems like the same discussion pops up every few months

[genevieveryoko]

Why all this talk about authenticity? That's a term that I don't believe I've used in the process of discussing any of this.

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

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...

Were you just speedreading, or did I do something wrong? What I meant, in a nutshell, was:

- why be bothered by somebody trying to fake it because it'll never be the same as the real thing

and additionally,

- why bother trying to convince someone that their style lacks depth. if they don't get it they'll probably never get it, it's just one of those things that can't be taught

please don't tell me this doesn't make sense

Beardown is the last person to give a fuck about being cool. Being authentic is a different matter. I would not put those two words next to each other.

I'm not really sure what your definition of cool is, but when I think someone is cool it's usually because they are honest, funny, wise, intelligent, and unique, among other things. I didn't mean it in like the high school way. But you're right, I shouldn't have used that word, because now everyone is equating it with something very far from what I originally meant.

So what? So you said people put time and effort to walk into Atelier, and I just told you that they don't, unless by effort you mean taking a taxi there, instead of understanding and appreciating the clothes.

no, I didn't. When I said the whole "anyone could but not just anyone would" thing, all I meant is that actually doing so is different from just being able to. That is really all that I meant, nothing more. What are you wearing today vs. what could you be wearing today. What percentage of people walking down the street actually dress well or even halfway decently. Anyone could wear any of the designers discussed here but how many people actually do. I'm not saying that it takes any talent or creativity or a great amount of effort, or that it makes you cool. I hope you don't think I'm that dumb.

[BeauIXI]

Shall we define exactly the terms we're arguing?

Example...

III. BY SUBSTANCE, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself; in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception.

IV. BY ATTRIBUTE, I mean that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.

[Shucks]

Shall we define exactly the terms we're arguing?

didn't i already do this, as in 'authenticity' = "being true to one's value system"?

feel free to add one for 'cool' though. good luck.

[zamb]

Shall we define exactly the terms we're arguing?

Example...

III. BY SUBSTANCE, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself; in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception.

IV. BY ATTRIBUTE, I mean that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.

and here begins the metaphysical wild goose chase.............the perpetual quest for absolute definitions...............

[endorphinz]

*******

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.

[Shucks]

yay! good call endo! let's segue this dicussion over to porn instead.

[genevieveryoko]

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

[BeauIXI]

and here begins the metaphysical wild goose chase.............the perpetual quest for absolute definitions...............

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?