Fashion, design, beauty and asethetics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Serial_Apologist
    Full Member
    • Dec 2010
    • 37641

    #31
    Sartorial styles change from age to age, and from era to era. Fashion is purely a 20th/21st century phenomenon, wouldn't one say? - designed to create lines for rapid turnover without consideration of lasting qualities; and to fit figures deemed ideal for standardisation. I can't remember who it was (Berger??) who, citing the nude female figures in Reubens' paintings, pointed out that what constitutes physical attractiveness changes from age to age. Compare with the Twiggy look of the Mary Quant generation to which I belong, or today's shorn back-and-sided six-packed males compared with the quasi-feminised long-haired 1970s look in restricting shoulder padded velvet hues, hardly figure-flattering, and non-hugging flares. And so with the clothes required to optimise said physical qualities. Standardising ideal looks creates the idea in impressionable young minds of attainments, often unreachable, expected to be complied with in order to be a fully belonging status stake-holding member of society. Failure to "measure up" () fosters the accentuation of the isolated individualised soul suited to market targetting to status-confirming ends in a capitalist society set up to create winners and losers at all levels.

    Leaving aside general observations about fashion, male "fashions" are crap, and have been for at least three decades now. The truism of their importance is revealed in the public's blind obedience to the demands they make, however visually absurd the results. But I'm probably rationalising all this because I've seldom found anything to wear that really looks right on me.

    Comment

    • vinteuil
      Full Member
      • Nov 2010
      • 12801

      #32
      Originally posted by Serial_Apologist View Post
      Fashion is purely a 20th/21st century phenomenon, wouldn't one say?
      ... I think the dandy of the 19th century would disagree. As would the beau of the 18th. And if you go back to the Elizabethans with their slashed silks and codpieces - and renaissance sumptuary laws - themselves successors to laws of republican Rome and earlier Greece - no, Serial, 'fashion' has always been with us...




      ,

      Comment

      • Serial_Apologist
        Full Member
        • Dec 2010
        • 37641

        #33
        Originally posted by vinteuil View Post
        ... I think the dandy of the 19th century would disagree. As would the beau of the 18th. And if you go back to the Elizabethans with their slashed silks and codpieces - and renaissance sumptuary laws - themselves successors to laws of republican Rome and earlier Greece - no, Serial, 'fashion' has always been with us...




        ,
        I see those as styles, whereas fashions are driven by desiderata peculiar to more recent times, creation of the consumer of inbuilt commodity obsolescence. In style the poor person makes their own clothes or picks up those discarded by their betters. Status subsequently acquired the literal shapes of upward aspiration in the guise of personal choice and its associated idea of control over individal bearing unavailable to the lower orders in former societies and not made part of the thinking as individuals.

        Comment

        Working...
        X