/fa/ - Fashion

It's all vitriol, there's no substantiation or concrete argumentation. It's just the words of a frustrated outsider who likely thinks that Forever21 and DVF are cut from the same cloth - he obviously hasn't taken the time to learn the language at all.
Anyone can make broad, angry generalizations. This is 4Chan, I'm not impressed.

oh, s-steve-kun...

>>6524954
i wish i had that scene from the devil wears prada memorized just so i could ether idiots like whoever said this

>>6524954
i was having fun listening to shellac and then u posted this.

fuck you why did you show me this

>>6524954
> at least pornography has a function

>>6524993
which one

>>6525039
blue sweater

>>6525022
Because apparently eking a thimbleful of genetic slop into a gym sock is a more important endeavour than the intersection of art, technology and culture.

yeah but everyone knows steve albini is a cunt

steve has a talent for saying things that make people upset
i still like him though

"For less than the cost of a Big Mac, fries and a Coke, you can buy a loaf of fresh bread and some good cheese or roast beef, which you will enjoy much more."

>>6525053
>>6525059
aye, Steve is one edgy cunt. requesting that quote where he shits on jazz

I can allow it though since Big Black is rad and he's produced some cool stuff

>>6525059
his cooking blog was GOAT

>>6525043
>into a gym sock
is this an american-only thing? I've never come into a sock, and afaik all my friends just use toilet paper as well

>>6525068
"Jazz serves a cultural function in the music scene. It is a signifier for musical "adulthood." To embrace jazz is to don a kind of graduation cap, signifying a broadening of tastes outside "mere" rock music. This ostentatious display of "sophistication" is an insult, and I find the graduation cappers transparent and tedious. Certainly there must be interesting music one could call "jazz." There must be. I've never heard it, but I grant that it is out there somewhere.

Jazz has a non-musical parallel: Christiania, the "free" zone in Copenhagen. In Christiania, like in jazz, there is no law. People are left to their own inventions to create and act as they see fit. In Jazz, the musicians are allowed to improvise over and beside structural elements that may themselves be extemporaneous. Sounds good, doesn't it? Freedom — sounds good.

The reality is much bleaker. Christiania is a squalid, trashy string of alleys with rag-and-bone men selling drugs, tie-dye and wretched food. Granted Total Freedom, and this is what they've chosen to do with it, sell hash and lentil soup? Jazz is similar. The results are so far beneath the conception that there is no English word for the disappointment one feels when forced to confront it. Granted Total Freedom, you've chosen to play II V I and blow a goddamn trill on the saxophone? Only by willfully ignoring its failings can one pretend to appreciate it as an idiom and don the cap"

Freetown Christiania bonus.

I agree completely, and steve albini is great

>>6525074
No, I've seen a video of Dutch rapper Stijn bragging about the practice above a pile of laundry.

I guess at the end of the day there's usually a sock or two laying around, you know? Convenience.

>>6524954
steve is one of the greatest fuccbois
any cunt who think worths something brags about having steve's phone in their cellphone. Total fuccboi enabler.
Also, doesn't he gets paid by working in a shallow industry run by mobs?

fucking christ steve, i love big black and shellac are p good why do you do this

>>6525040
that's a good scene

I gotta tell you bp you are less of a faggot than you were a while back when you first started shitposting here

Can we talk about this: where people outside of fashion get this idea that clothes are either superficial, solipsistic, fleeting, decadent devices for assuaging poor self-esteem or shit you wear because people tell you you can't be naked?

Even when I was an edgy teenager with contempt for everything within two steps of wealth, no idea how to execute my ideas, and no interest in fashion-qua-medium I got what clothes could be, what their point was.

>>6525237
thx :)

>>6524979
Well said.

>>6524993
"'This... stuff'? Oh. Okay. I see. You think this has nothing to do with you. You go to your closet and you select... I don't know... that lumpy blue sweater, for instance because you're trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back. But what you don't know is that that sweater is not just blue, it's not turquoise. It's not lapis. It's actually cerulean. And you're also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002, Oscar de la Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves Saint Laurent... wasn't it who showed cerulean military jackets? I think we need a jacket here. And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of eight different designers. And then it, uh, filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic Casual Corner where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs and it's sort of comical how you think that you've made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact, you're wearing the sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room from a pile of stuff."

>>6528943
That quote is bullshit, though. An artist who SELECTED the "cerulean" color did so because he's a fashion person. But the actuality is...that was the dye they had lying around and was accessible to the sweatshop workers who mass-produced that line for a season.

I agree "fashion" trickles down, but in the end, no amount of fashion means shit when it's being worn outside the industry. At that point, it's just clothes. Is comfortable? Can you move freely? Do not have the color already? Go for it.

>>6529083
>not getting it

>>6524954
albini isn't even a good musician, so why would i care about his opinion?

>>6525079
and this kind of exemplifies what a narrow minded loser he is. dude pops in a kenny g album or watches zoolander then leaps to a conclusion and shares with us as if we should be so privileged.

>>6529083
they had that dye on hand because the people who make the dyes decided they would. it's not the fashion designer who dictate that thing to us, it's the textile designer. that's the only part that they got wrong. the designer dictates to us the way in which that fabric will be utilized.

>>6529083
I disagree entirely. If it was early St. Laurent, the color was definitely selected by the designer. All department store fashion has trickled down from designer fashion in some way.

>>6529083
The point is, people who say they are "exempt" from fashion don't realize that everything they are wearing was in some way inspired by designer fashion.

>>6529101
>not getting it
I get it. She's justifying lazy, plebeian clothing choices for that intern by saying it came from a fashion genius at some point earlier in the design process. EVERYTHING is, in fact when it comes to clothes. What I don't agree with is that these fashion geniuses are somehow important. That their sense of style is somehow justifiable, especially at the upper limits of cost.

>>6529104
Right, pretty much what I think. It's more about "well, we've got this fabric or this color soo...tell some respected figure to make something of it and brand it so I can pay this child 12 cents for the day to make a profit of 14 billion dollars." Capitalism is fine, don't get me wrong, but that shirt didn't get sold because some fancy-pants branded it; it got sold because it was available (to this woman, at least).

>>6529108
>I disagree entirely.
>All department store fashion has trickled down from designer fashion in some way.
And I explicitly said that "fashion trickles down." You and I agree about fashion, just not about who is actually making the fashion choices. Hell, there a million and one different designers out there that don't sell a thing or influence anyone. Does that make them fashionable, valuable, stylish? Or did they fail? It seems a common motto for most of that industry is "conversion doesn't equal fashion." Ocean Pacific at Wal-mart sells a shitton of clothes but that doesn't make it fashionable (even if its original design was) but does that necessarily mean Guillermo Des Ornitasny's 4 brand-new scarves for the fall season are fashionable when he couldn't sell more than 3 pieces?

>>6529120
That's the point she's trying to make, but just because she says it, does it make it true? Certainly every bit of fabric you own owes a portion of its existence because of "high fashion" at some point...and you might have bought it because it "looks nice" based on your body, the material or the world around you (you didn't go out and get deer-skin or something, for example)...but THIS girl who claims "exempt" from fashion didn't buy it for its fashion. She bought it for its price and utility. That's the difference. "The Devil" in this movie could never understand that point; she continued to believe that everything revolved around fashion, that even sub-consciously people were buying things primarily on fashion. While the intern girl came to understand "the Devil", that boss never understood the intern.

Rank does not equal truth. I understand her reasoning, but her reasoning doesn't always apply.

>>6529157
>Right, pretty much what I think. It's more about "well, we've got this fabric or this color soo...tell some respected figure to make something of it and brand it so I can pay this child 12 cents for the day to make a profit of 14 billion dollars."

don't put words in my mouth, that's not how this is done. the world's top textile designers create a product that they sell to the world's top fashion designers and years later whatever could be distilled from their work is what is sold at forever 21.

>it got sold because it was available (to this woman, at least).

it was available in that form because of decisions made by the higher fashion design community. someone does dolman sleeves, years later you pick up acrylic copycat at ross, and maybe you bought it because it was there but the reason it has those dolman sleeves is because jean von galliano showed them.

>>6529182
or at least, that's how the picture is painted in the devil wears prada. these days f21 usually gets their knockoff to market faster than the designers. it doesn't matter, because it's still the designer dictating f21s product line to them.

>>6524954
GQ inspires dadcore people like you.

i finally decided to sit down and start listening to some albini
nigga either needs to tune his guitar or grow some balls and abandon tonality

Designers are marketers. By buying into fashion, you are buying into marketing. All of your artistry and advanced construction was selected and engineered because it appeals to you, the kids who will pay $800 for a pair of sneakers, and the rich folks that want to be like you. It works the same for selling shoes or purses or Goretex jackets.

The idea that marketers control all of our choices isn't really a revolutionary one, and it certainly isn't a sexy one.

>>6529182
My problem is, well let me ask the question, "who cares if it had dolman sleeves?" I didn't ask for it, I didn't buy it for it (or maybe I did, who knows) but those dolman sleeves were pure fashion. That it prevailed and showed up at a dept. store showed it might have remained profitable along the line but is THAT was fashion is? Something desirable enough to last 3 years and find its way to Sears? Does that make things that DON'T last to that low denominator UN-fashionable?

Jean von Galliano may be a genius artist. A designer of talent and vision. His clothes may be made of fine materials (rare or common) and might be serviceable on many different bodies. His designs can stand the test of time to make it to Younkers. He is a fashionable guy making fashionable clothes. And 1/10,000 don't give a SHIT. They won't purchase it for the name or the sleeves. They'll buy it because the mall was 5 minutes from their house, they had the right size and it was on sale. Or maybe they ignored it completely and got a regular t-shirt. Or they bought a raglan sleeve baseball shirt because they play baseball every so often (maybe their on a team).

What is fashion? Some degree of familiarity (rare or commonplace)? "The Devil Wears Prada", to me, is a movie about a shallow woman who thinks fashion applies to everything in life as a PRIMARY source or reason. She justifies herself and brings up a variety of reasons to get others to agree, but it's up to me to agree and I won't be right or wrong if I choose to disagree.

>>6529251
no, you got the point, miranda priestly is supposed to be kind of vulnerable. she's an antagonist.

i'm into fashion for the design objects.

>>6529248
it's also reductionist, and it isn't true of all things everywhere.

>>6529251
No, actually. Despite the clothing being on sale for however much, how far away the department store is, and whetever else, to a certain degree there is always a part of a human being that will buy something because they like how it looks. Fashion.

An actual discussion about fashion? On my /fa/?

I'm proud.

>>6529265
Yeah, we're not really supposed to agree with her at the end; her arc didn't end with a reformation and the audience is supposed to leave with respect for the industry, but not be a slave to it.

I'm into fashion if it's functional as Hell. I like cargo shorts or pants. I like stretching fabric with rain repellent features. I like flannel-lining. I hate shoes with only two laces. I hate pants so tight you can hardly move, let alone lift a large load if needed.

I like that you and I can get along even if fashion isn't the same between us. On the other-hand, I wouldn't say I'm fashionable in the least. I have 4 Hawaiian shirts in my closet; I know they are fashionable. But damn, I'm comfy and I at least don't look like a box.

>>6529301
I have repeatedly affirmed you that "fashion" is an intrinsic part of the purchasing process. You WON'T buy ugly things in lieu of an equal or superior product that looks worse. What you and I are seemingly talking past each other about is WHO determines fashion. Do I like it because a french guy made it? Because I saw someone I respect wear it? Because it appeals to me through osmosis, because people around me dress similarly? Do these things exist in the firstplace because of a designer? A textile manufacturer? A political leader or philosophy? Because humans like the color blue?

In the end, I bought it because I justified its cost for what I needed. Not for its sleeves. Its sleeves may even have been something I DIDN'T like about it. How does that translate to fashion; its creation is fashion-based...but not its selection.

>>6529324
>You WON'T buy ugly things in lieu of an equal or superior product that looks worse.
I mean better, of course.

>>6524954
Nice graphic tee, faggot.

>>6529324
But you're missing my point. What I'm trying to say is that by your standard, if you don't care about fashion, you'd be wearing something along the lines of a soft tee (assuming you still care about comfort), sweatpants, and slides on any occasion where dressing formally was not necessary. What I'm trying to communicate to you is that even if you don't buy into the whole fashion thing, your taste still permeates into the clothing decisions you make. You are familiar with the concept that you will look subjectively good dressed a certain way. Your personal style influences the clothes you buy whether you are consciously aware of it or not.

>>6529324
And the designers of popular designer clothing determine fashion. It is decided by everyone from Tisci to the designer at Belk. Fashion is categorized for this reason.

>>6529378
I get that point, though. I'm supporting fashion; that much is unavoidable (not that I'm trying to "avoid" it).

Do you say that I am the biggest influence on fashion? My style is my own, even if influenced by others? Are you saying my style is NOT my own BECAUSE I'm influenced by others?

Regardless, fashion creates clothing. My wallet decides fashion. "Fashion" is never universal and too inter-connected to ever be pinned to a single source. Where you show support is simply shallow since it all supports "fashion."

Big Black/Rapeman/Shellac etc is 100% fedoracore. You will never see anybody but friendzoned bronies listening to them.

He also produced multiple records for Whitehouse: the most mallgoth band of all time.

>>6529448

albini produced records pretty much indiscriminately if they came to his place in chicago and rented out the space.

also way to sling around insulting terms that have already been devalued to the point that they reflect more on you than what you're saying, dude. pls upd8 lingo