As a precaution to my largely imaginary audience, my teaching nature may diverge into a lot of analogies as well as a few references to history and science. My logical reasoning is also highly mathematical - as reasoning should be.
I've been stumbling across a lot of fashion commentary (via Tavi Gevinson's blog) concerning the opinions of the factions that fashion tends to create. Pro-fashion, anti-fashion, and some mild commentary on things in between, I've found to be interesting in their own ways with distinct messages to offer. There is still one thing that escapes me and it's not due to any unresolved issues within each respective article as much as it is... a more permanent enigma: What is fashion?
It may come off as odd that someone who likes reading fashion blogs and opinions, who has their favorite models and favorite designers, doesn't really have an idea of what fashion is - but seriously, there are times when I have to wonder where a lot of this commentary is being derived from and while they all may have a foundation in fashion, fashion in itself is quicksand.
Fashion, as defined by Webster, is a prevailing style during a particular time. Fashion, being defined by time, essentially makes it a function and with time constantly changing - fashion changes as well. Fashion is a variable in an environment searching for a constant. As a matter of fact, it is quite obvious that fashion trends are predicted through calculus and this manifests itself as:
1997: baggy jeans
2000: boho
2005: metallics
2008: bug sunglasses
2009: big waist defining belts
To add less of a method to the madness is the opinions of designers, who I am quite sure do not come to a hard consensus on the style of the time, also contributing to this unstable, ever changing view of fashion. Thus, fashion is generally an environment where anything goes, but only the best stays. It's the theory of evolution on crack. Hence, the elusiveness of the concept of fashion.
In my own experience, I've never found myself in an environment where I felt the need to alter my style to fit in. I spent the first 9 years of my life in a rather unsexy catholic school girl uniform and that did not change social distinctions at all. I've been regarded as a little off or odd for almost all of my life and since changing a personality is rather hard - especially a personality I like, I embraced this outside perception of me as an opportunity to do whatever I wanted - even wear a stained sweater with ducks on it to picture day. I accepted that, regardless of what I wore, I was always going to be a little odd - because of the way I looked, thought, talked...etc. There was no point in trying to "fit in" with any group and this train of thought was only supported by my having, what one would call, friends. Anyway - this is turning into an aside on my style development, I'll get back to the biz.
I generally go for the nondescript "fashion is a mode for self expression" route. To those who complain about clothes, do you ever look in the mirror naked and find yourself completely content being out of the confines of fashion? Truthfully, I'm quite comfortable either way - though I prefer the clothed route for the sake of being lawful. Laws dictate that we be clothed in most public areas, but that opens some to the larger problems of letting the fashionable general public dress them versus trying to dress themselves. It's a match between the development of personal style versus going with the flow of the fashionable time.
When it comes to fashion, I can't analyze it as concretely as other things. I find it far more abstract - inspiring, interesting, and fun, but nothing that I feel I can supply relevant commentary on. Always adjectives, but never nouns. Maybe social commentary, but fashion commentary? I need words for that.
It wouldn't be out of line to say that I don't really follow fashion, I just like looking at the pictures.
"Do you think that fashion is oppressive to women – and men – or should we celebrate it as a source of fun and self-expression?" (Tanya Gold's Article)
Seriously, it's both.
No comments:
Post a Comment