/fa/ - Fashion

I dont want to look like a my uncle on vacation, oh and

>following/giving a shit about trends

Lol

>dat bearded guy
I'm so turned on right now

the guy in the top right is wearing clarks lol

hawaiian shirts are uggo, dick dunks are cool, joy division tees and clarks are a long running joke
hope that explains it

floral > hawaiian

/fa/ is scared of colours / subscribes to a monochrome aesthetic / equates (>equivocates) hawaiian shirts with early teen odd future fans

however there are a few posters that are quite partial to a floral shirt, but they tend to be close fitted and have a smaller pattern than the average hawaiian shirt

>be senior in highschool
>the uniform fit last year was sperries/birkenstocks, Hawaiian shirt over pullover hoodie, herschel bag, chubbies
>Cherry Creek at it's finest
Hawaiian shirts are awful( I do like that bottom right one though)

We're not teenage girls, we don't care about pleb trends.
We care about fashion as an art and method of self expression.
Rick dunks don't go out of style the same way a basquiat painting doesnt

>>6729408
Where do you think you are? A fashion board? Fuccboi this is /fa/!

>I wear Hawaiian shirts
>I look very young and getting mired left and right

I wear hawiian. Copped a few from thrift stores and did some alterations taking them in at the sides.

Was shopping downtown a few weeks ago wearing this one.

Got more compliments on the 4 dollar hawaiian shirt than anything else I was wearing... even shit that cost 100 times as much.

also I dont care for either rick dunks or clarks dbs,.

I think joy division are okay, and the unknown pleasures tee is really good looking. though, I would never wear it myself though since im not really a huge fan of them.

>stop generalizing

>>6729434
>Rick dunks don't go out of style the same way a basquiat painting doesnt

>this is what fuccbois actually beleive

AHAHAHAHAH oh god you are in for such a rude awakening

>>6729415
If you don't give a shit about trends, then why not wear classic menswear and look awesome?

>>6729434
This makes me feel so euphoric

>>6729461
cause i don't like menswear.

>>6729461
Agree with this, wearing classic menswear used to be a lot more what this board was about a few years ago, always banging on about desert boots and Levis, now it's ridiculous looking Rick Owens

>>6729561
I genuinely miss those days, when raws and desert boots weren't just ironically posted and when people discussed the quality of their clothing the durability =/= quality line never came up.

>>6729461
I don't know why all people don't do this. It's not hard to look good in high quality, tailored clothing.

1. They're not particularly interesting. We're all savvy nerds with access to the entire history of human dressing. We tend to be bored by stock versions of stuff, and love remixes, updates, or riffs on them.

Like someone else said, floral print shirts? Sure. Hawaiian prints?

2. ...ehhhh? Despite that, we're both a very sincere and earnest board - that is, we have a genuine, non-winking appreciation of the stuff we like to see remixed - and a progressive one. A retro appropriation of something associated with the '50s is definitely not what we're about.

3. lol plebs

4. lol trends

5. Too often, the patterns are too gross (as in coarse, not as in disgusting) or dissonant to subtly blend into an outfit. They're a statement piece, but what statement are they making? Does anyone know? Except that maybe "I look at style blogs?"

6. There's an aversion on this board to color, yeah, maybe a little, but I think it's more a suspicion of it. It's both too easy to do and too hard to well on a large scale, so we tend to like it in muted shades and as an accent. Also, many of us are some kind of poor and/or young, and having more versatile (read: more neutral) pieces is something we wind up tending towards.

>>6729434
> Rick dunks won't go out of style

>>6729408
>Like for example, this board has completely ignored/missed the boat on Hawaiian shirts this summer.
that's probably because we don't give a fuck about whatever trends are being pushed by mainstream fashion blogs

all of those people look like shit

unfortunately, we have a lot of other trends that look like absolute shit that do get a lot of attention on here

>>6729408
uggs and fucking yoga pants are a trend too should i wear those too?

>>6730097
Why would they? They're an updated version of a classic shoe.

I don't get why people try to sound like they have a staunch aversion to trends.
Almost everything clotheswise is a trend. Even most "classics" are subject to trend variations within them, like the difference between slim cut suits popular today and the box monstrosities of the 90s.

we set the trends so you can follow them

>>6730082
>what statement are they making? Does anyone know?
The statement I make with it is that I like colour and LOUD standout shirts.

Hawiian shirts for me are a personal thing that I have a long history with. They're very *me*. So I guess I don';t have a lot to do with the current trend.

>>6730097
They won't, brother. Not for decades, and even then... They're probably the most universally loved garment in my wardrobe. From young kids to teen swaggots to 20-something sneaker heads to 30-something gym rats and all the way down to a few regal older men & women who still follow fashion? everybody loves the shoe, I get stopped all the time... And they'll likely continue loving it for years to come.

>>6730155
I cannot believe how delusional you are.

The only people I've seen irl wearing them have been asian teen swaggots. And I laughed.

>>6730204
i think its about time you headed back to /v/ buddy

>>6730204
u haven't seen ne1 wear nethang irl bcuz u dont leave the house

>>6730204
>And I laughed
So what? Your opinion doesn't matter.
You're obviously just mad because you can't afford them anyway, go start a dreambox thread, du

>>6729450
that's because hawaiian shirts hide your grotesque body well

>>6729450
Fuckin' shitskinned, hideous, greasy gross, lard filled fuccboii, bitch made chode dick, neckbeard Canadian basement rat, mama's boy, leaching mother fucking nut gobbling faggot.

Because /fa/ just isn't open minded or creative when it comes to fashion. If you don't follow what /fa/ likes, it's not /fa/ and you suck at fashion.

That doesn't even bother me so much as how /fa/ makes fashion seem so complicated. The guides can be helpful, but it's more like people here just copy those looks instead of learning from it, and when they see people deviating from it, they tell them they're doing it wrong. This makes near everyone who comes here afraid to experiment or play with fashion...and so very few people here have any actual style, imo. They just have safe, nice clothes and are wearing them in a safe, nice way. And don't get me wrong, people here look acceptable and sharp, but they sure as hell lack a certain je ne sais quoi.

>>6730247
why dont you post some good fits and contribute instead of bitching about it

anyways theres not much expirimenting to do, pretty much anything you think of has been done already. spacecore fits are really the only thing i can think of.

>>6730107
>all of those people look like shit
Can you explain why you think they look like shit?

Start with, for example, the first guy on the top left. His shirt seems to fit well and it's colorful. He pairs it with a basic blue jean, which acts as a neutral to me, because so many things pair well with jeans. His accessories are minimal and simple. His hair is neatly pulled up in a top knot. He has nice eyebrows. I just feel like...it's all so simply and effortlessly done, what the fuck can possibly be going wrong here? Other than it's simply not to your taste?

>>6730284
See this is what I'm talking about. Aping the 'next big thing' aesthetic is not experimenting. It's just following.

>>6730284
I do post fits when I happen to be on here and there happens to be a thread for it.

I'm not talking experimenting like doing something that's never been done before, I'm talking experimenting like trying to wear something you normally wouldn't, maybe something that stands out, or is a little "out there," and successfully incorporating it into and outfit/your wardrobe.

>>6729450
Dan are you part native?

>>6730299
how is spacecore the "next big thing"

weve had like 3 fits

itll never be popular

itll never trend

how much can you expiriment? chances are if you wear x with y and it looks good someone has thought of it ages before you. eventually youll have crust pants, wingtips, and a poncho for the sake of being original and youll look like shit. unless you make your own clothes its pretty much impossible to be original. knoch was the last person ive seen that actually pulled it off, i doubt you do.

>>6729408
They look awful

>>6730310
thats not something everyone wants to do, get over it. regardless a ton of people here would stand out

>>6730331
So no one should try? Then why aren't we wearing hawiian shirts then?

I mean, there's no point in trying to be original, accoridng to you.

>>6730346

I'm not saying everyone should want to do it. What I'm saying is that it's discouraged here, and it's sad, and uninspired. People here take it all too seriously and nobody seems to have fun with fashion.

How do you think people here would stand out?

>>6730222
>obviously just mad because you can't afford them anyway

I wish you kids would grow the fuck up about this. It's 1200 bucks. Anyone with a job can budget that if they really want to. Most people choose not to.


No one thinks you're cool because you spend more money. It does not make you better dressed and it does not make your e-peen bigger.

>>6730331

Experimenting doesn't have to be about being original. It can be about wearing new things, acquiring loved pieces, wearing stuff you love, and looking good while doing it.

>>6730368
This is pretty much why people leave /fa/.

It's a great place to learn, but ultimately it's a very stifling environment for originality or creativity.

mfa is fashion daycare

/fa/ is fashion bootcamp

neither are fashion real-world.

>>6730368
its not discouraged at all what the fuck are you talking about

>>6730385
Should also mention...and possibly not looking good while doing it! That's part of the challenge (also part of the fun, if you are able to look at it that way).

>>6730387
It's highly discouraged.

>>6730387

r u srs

People get ripped apart in WIWT threads for the dumbest shit. or receive advice that doesn't even make a huge difference in their outfits. For example, I've literally seen people advised to go crew neck over v-neck (to me, there isn't much difference unless you're going for a deep v)...which results in not much difference, only that they are just wearing a crew neck now, and people will say it's an improvement. :\

>>6730431
are a fucking moron? the neck opening make a big fucking difference. its like saying you put any plant in any pot. nah nigga

fashion aint for you

>>6730431
>there isn't much difference
its not an insignificant diff though

>>6730414
ppl from other boards sometimes come in and call anything they don't like "retarded"

just ignore them

>>6730446
Please explain to me where the earth shattering difference is made.

>>6730476
they look pretty different to me
not sure why this is an issue for you dude

>>6730476
v will be better with cardigans

crew will be better with sweaters

>>6730476
its for framing your face and manipulating proportions

v neck elongates your neck while crew doesnt

jesus christ. get off this board.

>>6730298
>Can you explain why you think they look like shit?
first of all, most of them are some form of ugly and will never be able to look anything better than passable (in very basic outfits to boot) because of it

the only exception is the top right

however, the disgusting print, wrinkled shirt, and fucked up cuffs (on the pants AND the sleeves of the shirt) still leave him looking like shit

the rest are just desperately trying to incorporate le trendy print when it does nothing for the ensemble

>Start with, for example, the first guy on the top left.
>His shirt seems to fit well
are you retarded? how does it fit well at all? it billows in all the wrong places and gives him fucking hank hill proportions
the dude in the top left honestly looks like an abomination in all respects

>those fades
>that bun
>that fit

>He pairs it with a basic blue jean, which acts as a neutral to me, because so many things pair well with jeans.
>he actually thinks indigo jeans are neutral
>he actually thinks indigo jeans go well with "so many things"
indigo is the most abused and overrated thing ever
you've cemented your place as a megapleb, just go back to your lamestream bloggers

>I just feel like...it's all so simply and effortlessly done
that's cute, but i feel like it's incredibly hamfisted and ridiculous on top of the fact that it all fits like shit

>>6730480
They are different, obviously, but it's not earth shattering. What I mean is, I personally don't feel like such a tiny difference in neck line will make or break an outfit.

>>6730483
This...I actually follow the logic of this. Because people won't even see the v if you wear a sweater. That being said, however, if the situation was flipped, I don't think it would be a mistake to wear a crew neck with a cardigan.

>>6730496
Personally, I don't find a typical v-neck on your basic tee to be all that elongating or manipulative of proportions. It's too small a difference to be all that meaningful, imo.

>>6730529
>I personally don't feel like such a tiny difference in neck line will make or break an outfit.
But it will improve/make it worse

thus it is important

wearing hawaiian shirts isn't a style lol
nor is it a relevant trend

>>6730431

dumb fuck

>>6730284
you go post some fits, dickface, everyone appreciates seeing your face

>>6730525
>it billows in all the wrong places and gives him fucking hank hill proportions
It's like you think he is actually shaped like Hank Hill underneath. It's a fucking Hawaiian shirt, it's unstructured, and thus, its billows are unstructured. It's going to do what it's going to do, you can't make it "billow" in the right way. It's clothes! It's going to move like clothes.

>indigo is the most abused and overrated thing ever
Do you even hear yourself? You sound ridiculous. It's a color and it's an OK color to wear, just like most any other color.

>that's cute, but i feel like it's incredibly hamfisted and ridiculous on top of the fact that it all fits like shit
As long as you admit that it's a matter of opinion.

>>6730525
>first of all, most of them are some form of ugly
irrelevant and possibly racist. Talk about the fit. please
>only exception is top right
Yeah definitely racist
>Desperately trying to incorporate a trendy print
How could they have done that when these sartorialist photos are one of the very things that *made* hawiian prints trendy this summer?

> it billows in all the wrong places and gives him fucking hank hill proportions
I hope you realize that people sometime blouse their shirts for effect. There isn't a single objective way for a shirt to fit.

>indigo is the most abused and overrated thing ever
so you're saying that too many people like it so you're going to hate it to be contrarian. Jesus christ how can indigo be overrated? It's like one of the most fundamentally basic dyes. It's in goddamn everything.

>megapleb
meaningless internet buzzwords
You're everything that is wrong with this board. Loudly shitting on things you don't like and acting like your opinions are objective truth doesn't make you an internet superhero. It makes you an asshole.

>Hawaiian shirts look stupid
>men in nigger shoes, leggings, and nazgul cloaks are A+

>>6730541
Fair enough. But only slightly.

>>6730585
>But only slightly.

depends on outfit m8
but w/e

>>6730575
Fucking. THANK YOU.

Why does /fa/ fixate on some styles and not others?

people look at a range of clothing and decide what clothing appeals to them.

>Like for example, this board has completely ignored/missed the boat on Hawaiian shirts this summer.

perhaps people on this board dont find hawaiian shirts appealing?

>This trend is current and relevant.

its current and relevant for people who want to achieve that particular look...

>Meanwhile the board fixates on discontinued rick dunks from four years ago, joy division tees and clarks DB's,

i think that has quite a bit to do with the types of photos that are reblogged on tumblr often, in reality i havent seen that many people in waywt threads wearing discontinued rick dunks.

and clarks are a simple shoe that have been recommended for years.

>>6730645
>Why does /fa/ fixate on some styles and not others?
Are you really going to go there when you dress so static? pls

>>6730667

what do you mean?

i find clothing that appeals to me, and i wear that clothing.

>>6730677
and what appeals to you is only fixate on one style. Have you not seen your outfits?

>>6730687
he didnt say "Why does /fa/ fixate on some styles and not others?" hes quoting the op you dumb shit

>>6730667
>doesn't know how to read

>>6730687
It's not just one person fixating on one style, tho. That's not even the problem. It's that the whole fucking board is fixating on one style and people are discouraged from dressing any other way or trying other things.

>>6730687

whats wrong with having a particular style?

and yeah like he said i was quoting the op.

>Why does /fa/ fixate on some styles and not others?

>>6730691

lot of truth to OP's post.


on /fa/ it's pretty much either streetwear, or traditional or full on goof. There's some blending, but very little originality that doesn't already occur within those aesthetics.

>>6730703
and what style is that?

>>6730569
>It's like you think he is actually shaped like Hank Hill underneath.
no, i don't
that's why i said it GIVES him those proportions

>It's a fucking Hawaiian shirt, it's unstructured, and thus, its billows are unstructured.
it billows unattractively because it's a poorly constructed piece of shit that is poorly tucked
none of that is an inherent part of hawaiian shirts

>Do you even hear yourself? You sound ridiculous.
do you hear yourself? you sound conditioned by decades of seeing people in blue jeans

>It's a color and it's an OK color to wear
it's a fine color when worn well
there is nothing wrong with indigo itself or even wearing indigo
when people think that indigo denim is versatile is when we have problems

there is no reason to assume that indigo is as versatile as people would like it to be
it is not a neutral color, and the k-mart fades just make it even less versatile

>>6730715

i disagree, i think that people too easily put an outfit into a certain category or genre and fail to observe subtleties or distinctions between outfits.

if everything black is considered goof, and everything with sneakers is streetwear, and everything with derby shoes is traditional, then of course everything falls into these categories, but theyre so broad that there is a huge amount of aesthetic diversity under each of those commonly used labels.

>>6729450
I really like this photo. love the shirt dan

>>6730737
Do you really, honestly think that there is a lot of aesthetic diversity on this board?

>>6730575
WOW BUD, you're becoming a valuable part of this board. I can dig it.

>>6730733
I see four very different people wearing a similar standout piece in four very different fashion contexts and they're all pulling it off.


Standout pieces are like punk rock. They're have to be shocking and vulgar. And they have to defy everything else.


If the hawiian shirt conformed to the rest of the humdrum fit, then what would be the fucking point? It's not a standout piece anymore.


Really I don't think you sound like a guy that wears loud standout pieces at all.

You'd rather create a homogenous overal aesthetic and that all blends together with itself. But don't shit on people for going about their clothing a different way.

>>6730745
do you honestly think there isnt?

try going to another board sometime. /fa/ may not be the best dressed but its pretty diverse

>>6730733
also, everything comes down to a matter of opinion, but your opinion is unsophisticated

>>6730575
>irrelevant
it's extremely relevant, my little includer

>and possibly racist.
lol

>Yeah definitely racist
just because the white man in the picture is the most objectively attractive person in the picture does not mean i am racist (although i am, and there is nothing wrong with being racist) or that he is not the most objectively attractive

if the non-white men did not have pitiful head to body ratios and shitty facial aesthetics while the white man did, then they would be the more attractive people in the picture

this is not about race, this is about their facial features and bodily proportions
they drew the short genetic straws in comparison to the white man

>these sartorialist photos are one of the very things that *made* hawiian prints trendy this summer?
>one of the things
>this summer
if you haven't noticed, these ideas float around all corners of the internet before they show up on surface level blogs
just like animal and cosmic prints, it was marketed and circulated a year in advance if not more before it became a big thing

>I hope you realize that people sometime blouse their shirts for effect.
i hope you realize that the effect looks like shit

>There isn't a single objective way for a shirt to fit.
should we never criticize anyone because there is no objective way for a shirt to fit?

>meaningless internet buzzwords
it's not a buzzword when i gave a concise explanation as to why he is a megapleb
it's just an insult

>You're everything that is wrong with this board
people with shitty taste, lack of formidable knowledge/experience, and a desire to never insult anyone because muh subjectivity are everything wrong with the board
being inclusive doesn't make you an internet superhero, it makes you stagnant

>>6730763
That diversity is better than it was, but it still has a way to go.

What little we have was hard won.

Do you remember the shitposting camps and engineered board wars and spam and hate and bullshit?


There was a time where anyone who said the words "personal style" was immediately shitposted into oblivion.

>>6730745

yeah i think the clothing of any group of people is diverse by default. first, its a multinational website, people buy clothing from different places all over the world. regardless of that, you can always find distinctions, however minute from one outfit to the next, compounded with the fact that if you put the exact same outfit on two different people, it will have different proportions and silhouette due to their body shape, yeah, i think there is quite a bit of diversity.

>>6730770
If shirt blousing looks *objectively* bad, then you should be able to explain why.

And your explanations shouldn't be rooted in your time and place and culture and circumstance. Because you're claiming to be objective and universal, remember?


But you won't. You'll just spout some throw away garbage like "Looks like shit" or "Hank hill"

>op asks why everyone on this board seems to be focused on the same aesthetic
>everyone talks about his one example
That dude user posted an ill fitted heroin chic and everyone was on his dick. He didn't look good
Do many people are into tech wear and Asian-like style

It should be obvious. This board just has a bunch of losers

I'm in no position to talk shit, but I'm copping more and hopefully soon ill be able to contribute to this board

>>6730761
>I see four very different people wearing a similar standout piece in four very different fashion contexts and they're all pulling it off.
i see four very different people, and they all have similar problems, but none of them are pulling it off

>Standout pieces are like punk rock. They're have to be shocking and vulgar. And they have to defy everything else.
they also have to be executed correctly

while i do not like hawaiian shirts, i believe they could be executed well, but i don't see anyone in the OP doing that

>If the hawiian shirt conformed to the rest of the humdrum fit, then what would be the fucking point?
is wearing pieces that fit well now "conforming"?

>Really I don't think you sound like a guy that wears loud standout pieces at all.
i'm a girl that wears a lot of loud, standout pieces

>You'd rather create a homogenous overal aesthetic and that all blends together with itself.
i'd rather people not stray from safe zones when the alternative is making fools of themselves

>But don't shit on people for going about their clothing a different way.
>a different way
the thing is, they haven't even gone "a different way", they've just gone a way that is not flattering or unique
all of the problems that i've identified are problems that are commonly made by people that hardly give a fuck about fashion AND fashion enthusiasts (as demonstrated by OP's picture)

>>6729408
I wish I could ban everyone ITT

American get so angry and agitated in summer

>>6730791
>first, its a multinational website, people buy clothing from different places all over the world
I think a lot of people on this board are buying online from places that ship internationally, so they more or less get the same looking clothes. Also members of this board fawn over a lot of the same designers/types of clothing.

>compounded with the fact that if you put the exact same outfit on two different people, it will have different proportions and silhouette due to their body shape
I don't think that two different sized people wearing the exact same thing counts as diversity. Like two people going for a going for a looser or tighter fitting tee-shirt, one gets a tighter tee to emphasize buffness, the other to emphasize his skinniness...and say they both pair it with dark denim raws and clark desert boots...it's a subtle difference, yes, but I wouldn't call that diverse by any means.

>>6730842
>while i do not like hawaiian shirts, i believe they could be executed well, but i don't see anyone in the OP doing that
So why isn't anyone looking at the pictures, taking the inspiration and discussing how it *could* be done well?

Instead it's just "hawiian shirts suck -- ignore"

no curiosity.

no sense of adventure

no risk taking

>how you would actually look

why not pair with a leather jacket for the ultimate fashion statement?

>>6730842
I would like you to post an example of a stand out piece that is executed "correctly." Show me that, and/or a Hawaiian shirt that you think has been pulled off well.

Hawaiian shirts baby!

ALOHA!

>>6730878
looking good rasputin, hows the body transformation progress going?

>>6730842
You're failing to recognize that fashion is like 99% subjective.

Sure, they're are objectively bad things to wear...but you have to be People of Walmart mode to achieve that. The outfits that are being worn on OPs picture might not be your cup of tea, but that doesn't mean they are objectively bad.

>>6730903

much better than all these old pictures show

Hey, what shirt and tie do you recommend with a black suit for a job interview?

>>6730916
please stop posting on /fa/

>>6730921
you should have answered my thread

>>6730878
>>6730888
>>6730894
>>6730904
Ahahahhahaha.

But seriously, I think these pictures go to prove that OPs pic is a good example of Hawaiian shirts worn well. It is leagues above these, at least.

>>6730866


>I think a lot of people on this board are buying online from places that ship internationally, so they more or less get the same looking clothes. Also members of this board fawn over a lot of the same designers/types of clothing.

sure, some people do, but most outfits i see in threads wont have the same brands, there is generally a range.

>I don't think that two different sized people wearing the exact same thing counts as diversity. Like two people going for a going for a looser or tighter fitting tee-shirt, one gets a tighter tee to emphasize buffness, the other to emphasize his skinniness...and say they both pair it with dark denim raws and clark desert boots...it's a subtle difference, yes, but I wouldn't call that diverse by any means.

well i guess everyone has their own definition for "diverse" when it comes to styles of clothing. im just very detail oriented, and small changes in shape and proportion make very distinct differences in outfits in my observation.

>>6730932
i look better in them than when i was fat...

perhaps i should try Small ones, instead of the medium ones i have now?

>>6730832
>If shirt blousing looks *objectively* bad, then you should be able to explain why.
this is the only explanation i need, and you know it

i guess i need to point out to you that the blousing in leyendecker's two dimensional PAINTING you have posted looks absolutely nothing like the blousing in OP's picture, and everyone in the painting has great bodily proportions and facial features

>and your explanations shouldn't be rooted in your time and place and culture and circumstance.
they aren't
they're based in nothing more than the way it looks right now

>>6730871
>So why isn't anyone looking at the pictures, taking the inspiration and discussing how it *could* be done well
i've already told you that none of us give a fuck about hawaiian shirts, but keep reading

>Instead it's just "hawiian shirts suck -- ignore"
you (or OP if you are not him) started the thread with an accusatory tone and posted bad examples to boot
this means you are not going to get coddling, fascinated responses
you didn't try to invite them into any kind of adventure, you tried to shame them for not taking your preferred brand of adventure in the first place

when one has no interest in a specific kind of garment, they're not going to bother brainstorming about how it could work just because OP is too daft to find a good example

if you want to spark some kind of creativity, then don't post poor examples after you've berated the community

>>6730909
>You're failing to recognize that fashion is like 99% subjective. Sure, they're are objectively bad things to wear...but you have to be People of Walmart mode to achieve that.
this is kind of like saying there are objectively bad things to listen to, but only stuff like justin beiber is objectively bad
someone that actually has a formidable understanding of the technical side of music can tell you that justin beiber is only the beginning

all you're doing is trying to excuse your unsophisticated palate

>>6730770
>does not mean i am racist (although i am, and there is nothing wrong with being racist)
>there is nothing wrong with being racist
>nothing wrong

>>6730968
Dropped my pic, but srsly? Nothing wrong?

>>6730978
>those layers
dope

>>6730965
I want to see how you dress. But you won't post shit.

>>6730965
SO the blousing in the lyndecker painting looks good then? So then blousing isn't objectively bad? Then why did you say it was?

>>6730932
>cheeseburger in a can is proof that big macs are good
this is what you sound like

>>6730978
The problem isn't racism, it's murder that i find more problematic about that image

>>6730983
lol'd

>>6730987
>SO the blousing in the lyndecker painting looks good then?
yes

>So then blousing isn't objectively bad?
no

>Then why did you say it was?
when did i even say it was? as i recall, i said
>it billows in all the wrong places
>it billows unattractively

never did i say that blousing or billowing was inherently bad, i said that the billowing in his fit was bad

>>6731003
I think it billows in novel places.

>>6731001
>pretending like racism had nothing to do with the murder in the photo

>>6730978
Not that guy but there is nothing wrong with being a racist as long as you don't act on it like the people who lynched the guys in that picture. Killing people is wrong.

>>6730988
Using your example, the four images I responded to are more like cheeseburger in a can, OPs picture is more like a burger you've cooked at home.

>>6731003
>>6731017
I'd say that hank hill proportions might be interesting and diverting in a country like japan where people are generally thin and small-framed.

>>6731017
I don't think it billows in novel places...just...it's billowing. Because it's a fucking Hawaiian shirt and that's what lot of them do.

Clothes MOVE and shit. And it looks fine.

>>6731038
He still looks fit and small framed tho, no matter how his shirt is billowing.

>>6730212
Autism

>>6731044
SO he pulls it off. He looks more rugged and *american* (american penisu so big)

but he doesn't look unhealthy.

>>6731038
>>6731054
Oh haha. It makes sense. He;s got the way traditional japanese topknot but also the american tourist dadwash jeans in baggy straight cut. This with the tourist hawwian shirt...

He's fusing cultures and making a statement. It's brilliant.

>>6731054
Wait wait wait. You think that I think he looks American? And THAT'S why I like his look?

Dude, I just dig his outfit. I don't think he "looks American." Pic related looks American.

>>6730954
nigger you need clothes that fit. i know its winter in aus, but baggy turtle necks do not look good. go buy cheap shit and find a cheap tailor. go and ask for tapered sides on every top you buy.

>>6731084
Also this. This looks American.

>>6730978
that isn't just racism, that is murder

i should remind you that racism does not just mean disliking or even exacting violence upon certain races, it can be as simple as acknowledging the existence of races

the existence of races is undeniable

>>6731017
i think novelty does not necessarily mean anything good
i think you are also not realizing that it isn't novel at all because people have been making the same mistake for at least a century
the difference is that most people who made/make the mistake did/do not have high-end cameras and status with which to flaunt their mistake

>>6731024
>OPs picture is more like a burger you've cooked at home
whether it came from burger king or your grill, it's a disappointing burger

>>6730994
i got over making an exhibit of myself here, but you deserve something http://imgur.com/a/M9YTx

>>6731038
did you see the episode where he met his japanese half-brother? that was a good episode

>>6729415
i bet you crop your pants and wear funky sneakers right now

>>6731119
> it can be as simple as acknowledging the existence of races
Lol no. That wouldn't be racist. It is actually beneficial to the anti-racism movement to not be "colorblind" and to acknowledge that differences exist amongst people. But I'm not going to argue this point with you.

>>6730904
>>6730894
fix everything.

>>6731119
>http://imgur.com/a/M9YTx#7

You know what, I can't believe you are criticizing this guy for the way his shirt billows in a completely normal way when you are wearing a shirt that drapes like, well, that. But at least I have the decency to admit that it's a matter of opinion, not an objective fact. You aren't making a "mistake," you're just wearing stuff you like in the way you like it.

Anyway, nice looks overall. A little too avant garde for my taste, but I get what you're going for. http://imgur.com/a/M9YTx#3 is prob my favorite.

>>6731165
>Lol no. That wouldn't be racist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

rac·ism (rszm)
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

now i'm going to give you the definitions of discriminate and prejudice because i'm sure you have misconceptions about the meanings of those, too

dis·crim·i·nate (d-skrm-nt)
v. dis·crim·i·nat·ed, dis·crim·i·nat·ing, dis·crim·i·nates
v.intr.
1.
a. To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available.
b. To make sensible decisions; judge wisely.

prej·u·dice (prj-ds)
n.
1.
a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.

let's review
to be racist is, when free of the emotional charge of colloquialism, to distinguish between races and hold preconceived ideas about those races (usually stemming from widely observed phenomena)

>>6731220
>beautyfur.jpg

I think you posted this before and I didn't even notice the hair WHAT THE FUCK

>>6731220
Don't be fucking obtuse. You can distinguish/find/determine differences without being prejudiced and socially discriminatory towards. Which is a lot better than singing kumbaya and pretending we as people have no differences. Differences are good.

>>6731259
*towards others

>>6731215
>You know what, I can't believe you are criticizing this guy for the way his shirt billows in a completely normal way when you are wearing a shirt that drapes like, well, that.
that blouse doesn't really have any draping in the front, so idk if you meant to link the photo of the back or something

in any case, i did not shit on the guy in OP's picture because his billowing was abnormal or contemporary, i shat on it because it looked bad

if he had found a way to be "novel" without looking borderline autistic, then i wouldn't have said anything

>Anyway, nice looks overall. A little too avant garde for my taste, but I get what you're going for.
well, thank you

>>6731238
lol, i only recently noticed how hairy bruna is

for some reason, it only makes me like her more

>>6731259
>You can distinguish/find/determine differences without being prejudiced and socially discriminatory towards
no, you can't

you still don't understand what discrimination or prejudice mean even though i gave you the definitions relevant to this context

to discriminate IS to find differences
to acknowledge those differences IS to have prejudice

you are blind to what these words really mean because you are used to them carrying such an emotional weight

>>6731299
>if he had found a way to be "novel" without looking borderline autistic, then i wouldn't have said anything
You look autistic, fwiw, but I still think you aren't necessarily making mistakes, and I still get what you're going for.

>>6731220
Here is an example of each definition strictly according to your definitions provided.

Racism
>Black people are criminals. They are like that because it is inherent to their black race. Let's deprive them of human rights.

Discriminate (in the context of finding a difference)
>Your skin has more melanin than my skin.

Prejudice
>I do not like black people. They are uneducated and lazy and stupid, and I know this bc I see it played out all the time.

>>6731355
while i have never seen an autistic person with style that resembles mine, male or female, but have seen many that resemble the guy in OP, i think we can at least agree that he and i look like different brands of autistic

>>6731400
>Here is an example of each definition strictly according to your definitions provided. I say they are strictly according to your definitions because I want to make you forget that there are countless other examples to be provided for each definition. 2/3 of the definitions I have provided are tailored to be presumptuous and haughty because the definitions you provided did not sound inherently presumptuous or haughty, so I'm hoping this will make your definitions will sound more presumptuous and haughty by association.
if you didn't figure it out yet, i'm saying that you're grasping at straws

>>6731119
>http://imgur.com/a/M9YTx
Oh it's you. haha.

>>6731119
>flaunting his billowing shirt
The guy wasn't flaunting anything. He was walking on the street and scott schumann the fashion street photographer walked up and took his picture.

>>6729450
/thread

>>6730965
>my explainations aren't rooted in any particular time or place
IF you're saying that it looks bad because it looks like hank hill, then would it still look bad if you lived in a time and place where hank hill didn't exist?

If so, then please detail exactly why without referring to a 21st century american cartoon character.
And I can't beleive you're shitting on that guy for bringing up lyndecker when you brought up hank hill.

At least lyndecker is fashion illustration.

>>6731879
>If so, then please detail exactly why without referring to a 21st century american cartoon character.
it's a repulsive shape that is worsened by the print and jeans, i really can't make it any more clear
there isn't even an interesting edge to the ugliness

>And I can't beleive you're shitting on that guy for bringing up lyndecker when you brought up hank hill.
you have pretty poor reading comprehension if you think i shat on him for bringing up leyendecker
i scolded him for assuming that i think blousing is inherently bad and trying to use a rather stylized painting as an example of clothing done right

>At least lyndecker is fashion illustration.
that's nice, but you have to realize that illustrations are rarely very accurate (this is important because little details matter a lot in the way fabric behaves IRL) representations of garments unless they are copying life or photos exactly, but it doesn't take a genius to realize that leyendecker doesn't do either

loomis said something like this in one of his books: the eyes sees, but the hand selects

leyendecker does a lot of selecting, and there's no doubt that his style looks great and serves its purpose as an illustration, but it can only guide you so much when it comes to live clothing

>>6731879
>then would it still look bad if you lived in a time and place where hank hill didn't exist?
people with bodies similar to hank hill would still exist, so yes
even if they didn't exist, then it would just be a new form of ugliness

>>6731855
>The guy wasn't flaunting anything.
it's more about the availability of high-end cameras and status nowadays than whether or not the individuals themselves possess it directly
the photographer's resources become no less potent when distributed

>>6729408
>those feet

BARF

WHERE ARE THE QT MODELFUS W/GR8 FEET???

>>6729450
Looks like a snapshot from a movie, ily dan.

>>6732760
What's so repulsive about it? Do you not like ovals?

>more about the availability of high-end cameras and status nowadays

You have no idea what you;re talking about, do you. Have you ever taken a picture of anything in your life?

>>6732813
looking at her imgur, I'd say no.

>>6732821
It's a she? God, she's insufferable.
>>6732813
>what's so repulsive about it
She won't be able to tell you. Because there's nothing objective or logical to it, despite what she claims, it's just an opinion.

>another day on /fa/
>dan was already on the next level before everyone
>again

>>6732865

>another day on /fa/
>dan compliments himself again

>>6732881
>>6732865
>dan wore bomber jackets before everyone else
>dan wore hawaiian before everyone else
Thanks dan

>>6729604
/fa/ was better before it was filled with retarded teenagers

>>6732911
/fa/ has always been mostly composed of retarded teenagers.
4chan has always been mostly composed of retarded teenagers.
Where have you been?

>>6732911

Yeah because it was much better when there were only the true intellectuals in their raw denim and clarks boots.

>>6732922
>4han has always been mostly composed of retarded teenagers.

No. Typically they're college kids.

>>6732813
>What's so repulsive about it?
i was about to say that it's inexplicable, but then i asked myself why certain shapes are attractive in women, and that isn't inexplicable, so this must not be inexplicable either

i guess it must be that the implication of belly fat in tandem with a notable absence of mass in the arms and lower body is particularly disgusting, more so than an overweight man with a masculine frame and evenly distributed body fat at least

>You have no idea what you;re talking about, do you.
yes, i do

do you have an actual argument yet? asking if i know what i'm talking about doesn't identify any of the supposed problems in my post let alone explain what's wrong with them

>>6732843
>Because there's nothing objective or logical to it, despite what she claims, it's just an opinion.
yes, there's nothing objective or logical about one of these shapes being more aesthetically pleasing than the other

http://www.mybodygallery.com/photos-15417-body-shape.htm?StartAt=17#.UhMRQpKLZMI
http://www.mybodygallery.com/photos-32953-body-shape.htm?StartAt=36#.UhMRiZKLZMI

>>6731119
I know it hurts, girl... but I'd rather date the hawaiian shirt woman in OP's pic than you.

You look like some weird-ass chubby with leukemia spending daddy's money on clearance sale ssense and... christ, are those mukluks?

>>6730968
is it wrong to be free to hate other races because you have freedom of speed

>>6732942
>http://www.mybodygallery.com/photos-32953-body-shape.htm?StartAt=36#.UhMRiZKLZMI
GotDAMN this site is like a self shot thread on /s/. Do you have any other goods ones?

>>6732949

*whoosh*

>>6732942
So you think it makes him look fat? Why didn't you say so?

I disagree. I think it elongates his torso.


And if you think that what your hormones tell you to hump ammounts to objective aesthetic truth, then I have nothing more to say to you.

>>6732979
So sex has nothing to do with beauty?

>>6732985
I've seen beautiful mountain ranges and forests yet I had no desire to fuck them.

The purest beauty that I have ever experienced has occurred as split moments in time. They had fuck all to do with sex or natural selection.

>>6732942
Ordinary people have had access to excellent cameras for over 100 years.

Good photography takes skill and a good eye. It's not about the gear. A good camera in the hands of an incompetent will produce photos that look like shit. A shitty point and shoot in the hands of a real photographer will produce wonderful images.


So if you're saying that because he was spotted and snaped by a good photographer he's flaunting because he was wait, no I don't know what the fuck you're trying to say. You're just flailing around and making broad denouncements that make no sense.

>>6732942
>inexplicable

/fa/ is a board that is full of opinions, and that's a damn good thing. But if you lack the skills to communicate *why* you hold an opinion (or if you just can't be bothered, you lazy fuck), then your post is absolutely worthless.

Try to remember this. Because that anon had to badger you through several post of pseudo intellectual flailing before you would admit that it was because you thought it made him look fat.

Don't pretend that your opinions are objective truths. That's just a lazy asshole's way out of having to support his opinions with observation or thought or insight.

And an opinion without those is

absolutely

fucking

worthless

/fa/ is just late on everything and thus completely misses a lot of smaller trends. three years ago when /fa/ was hyping raw denim and CDBs, SuFu anti-menswear hypetrain was in full effect. look at the SuFu marketplace or sz today... why are so many people getting rid of RO pieces compared to a few years ago??

sorry ^thats a very fashiony post with the acronyms/nicknames but i dont feel like changing it

>>6732949
idk why you think this would hurt me, why you would think i'm chubby, or why you would think my parents have a cent to their name

i love mukluks and am probably gonna get some lace-up ones this winter

>>6732959
just select <100-120 lbs with the hour glass or pear shapes and wade through the grandmas/clothed ones

>>6732979
>So you think it makes him look fat?
it doesn't really make him look fat as you can't quite tell what's under it, but it does resemble a disproportionate fat person

>Why didn't you say so?
it's pretty much a given that resembling hank hill means you look kinda fat

>I disagree.
you can disagree when told that the sky is blue, too, but it's undeniable that the shape resembles someone who has
>belly fat in tandem with a notable absence of mass in the arms and lower body

>And if you think that what your hormones tell you to hump ammounts to objective aesthetic truth, then I have nothing more to say to you.
i don't, but there's no use in denying that your hormones are integral to what you perceive as beautiful
hormones are far from limited to sexual urges

even infants prefer attractive faces in their caretakers, do you think that's the result of what they want to hump?

>>6733111
is this for real?

By my reckoning, that would make /fa/ exactly two years out of syn with sufu. Because /fa/'s anti-menswear crusade was 2012.

>>6733116
>what you perceive as beautiful
That;s not objective. That's subjective.

>>6733116
The sky isn't blue. It has no colour. We perceive it as blue because of charged particles in the ionosphere.

The sky being blue is a subjective experience.

Your entire fucking metaphor works agaisnt you.

>>6733120

according to my observations it's for real. but im just a dude that browses fashion sites

>>6733116
>do you think that's the result of what they want to hump?
Sexuality is a huge factor in childhood psychology.

>>6733043
>Ordinary people have had access to excellent cameras for over 100 years.
lol
we clearly have different ideas of what ordinary people and excellent cameras are

>Good photography takes skill and a good eye (...) A shitty point and shoot in the hands of a real photographer will produce wonderful images.
prove it
there are so many factors that play into a good photo

i expect you'll be presenting me with some one-hit wonders of the amateur photography world

>So if you're saying that because he was spotted and snaped by a good photographer he's flaunting because he was wait
idk what you're even trying to say
he was spotted and snapped by a photographer (that i have no reason to believe is good) because of coincidence if i had to chalk it up to one thing

>You're just flailing around and making broad denouncements that make no sense.
you've been flailing around and focusing on a negligible part of >>6731119 for the past few hours for lack of an argument relevant to the discussion, i'm really not sure why you think you're in a position to lecture me about making sense

even with all your effort, you never addressed the main point in the post which is that his mistake is not novel, it's just not perceived as the standard partially because it's regarded as unattractive and partially because people that do not fit the standard did not have so many venues that would aid in the circulation of their images in the past, but the fact remains that his mistake is commonly made

>>6733092
>But if you lack the skills to communicate *why* you hold an opinion (or if you just can't be bothered, you lazy fuck), then your post is absolutely worthless.
it's almost like you didn't even read the post beyond that word

if you had, you'd know that i went on to say it's not inexplicable and could have avoided revealing your short attention span in an ironically long-winded fashion

>>6733145
>>6733116
Man I remember being that age. I was a horny-ass kid. I remember being like 3 or 4 years old and after seeing the little mermaid I wanted to hump everything.

ITT: We get invested in philosophy over FUCKING HAWAIIAN SHIRTS.

>>6733155
this board is seriously that fucking stupid

>>6733124
>That's subjective.
>aesthetics cannot be critiqued because muh subjectivity
you should go to a place that will allow you to be free from all judgement that is not positive because i have bad news: /fa/ is not that place

>>6733132
what a pedant you are

you can deny that it looks blue during a clear day, my little pedant, but the rest of the world will know that you're an idiot or suffering from a medical condition

then again, being this much of an idiot could qualify as a medical condition

>>6733145
it's a huge factor in psychology

do you think they prefer attractive faces because they want to hump them or not? do you think heterosexual women prefer to look at attractive women because they want to hump them?

>>6733155
this is what happens when you tell dan that his torso or anything that vaguely resembles it is disgusting

at least you can say you were warned

>>6733148
Uncle Terry.


You have the arrogance and hubris to think you have a handle on objective truth and beauty. And that makes you an idiot.

>>6733148
i think its funny in that you seem to think explaining something is just restating what you think in a different way.

>>6733164
>LOOKS blue
subjectivity

>>6733164
>do you think they prefer attractive faces because they want to hump them or not? do you think heterosexual women prefer to look at attractive women because they want to hump them?

Yes. Indirectly, but yes.

>>6733164
I have no problem with people making qualitative judgements.The power to do so is one of the greatest things about being a sentient being and In fact I enjoy hearing about how they came to such judgements.


But when you start thinking that you have special mystical access to objective truth, I call you an idiot.

>>6733164
>aesthetics cannot be critiqued because muh subjectivity
nobody said this. Nowhere. It;s the opposite. He;s saying that because they;re subjective, in-depth criticism is more important.

ITT: anon get mad at tripfag and derails thread.

>>6733225
which tripfag?

>>6733235
leukemia girl? did she ever even trip?

>>6733167
>Uncle Terry
mah nigga

Guy in the top left looks like he's from Hawaii so he's not even wearing a Hawaiian shirt. He's just wearing a shirt

>>6733167
>You have the arrogance and hubris to think you have a handle on objective truth and beauty
what do you mean by "[i] have a handle"? i think it's ridiculous to insist that beauty can be reduced to just subjective when people demonstrate on a daily basis that it isn't so simple

>>6733172
i explain just about everything much earlier in the thread, but there are some people that would rather avoid the main point or just insist on showing us how dense they are

if you'd like to discuss something specific, then quote something specific from my post

>>6733174
>subjectivity
>Indirectly, but yes.
>they indirectly want to hump them
what does this even mean? what do you think it means? is it all subjective?

if it was truly all subjective, wouldn't you have stopped replying a long time ago because your perception of my post, be it positive or negative, exists only in your mind? what is the point of arguing with me when you think it is nothing more than subjective?

>>6733190
>I have no problem with people making qualitative judgements.
you've demonstrated that you have a problem with at least one person making qualitative judgements, so it's pretty clear that you do whether you're comfortable admitting it or not

>But when you start thinking that you have special mystical access to objective truth
you're sorely mistaken if you think i have claimed that i do
my judgements on the shape of his shirt have been explained with the preferences of humans in general and not just my own preferences, but you seem to be unable to accept that there are verifiable patterns in the world

>>6733224
>in-depth criticism is more important
what you're failing to realize is that he is never satisfied, it can never go deep enough for him, it will always come down to muh subjectivity

it is his crutch

>>6733251
>you're sorely mistaken if you think i have claimed that i do
That's what you've been doing the entire thread. It;s the only thing that has pissed me off. I couldn't give two shits about the rest of it.


>what does that even mean
attractive =/= beautiful. We're biologically hard wired to prefer being around other humans with symmetrical features. It can be direct and sexual, or it can be indirect and non-sexual but it's still a biological imperative.

But that is not universal truth. It is not some transcendant platonic form of beauty.


And I'm not dan.

>>6733251
>>6733268
is it actually dan?

>>6733301
No. I have never posted with a trip. But this delusional mukluk-wearing spent piece of used jet trash is butthurt so now I'm the great and powerful DENIM DAN.

>>6733251
whoops, i meant to upload that with this one

fuck this character limit

>>6733235
i assumed he meant this tripfag because i never tripped

>>6733167
>>6733242
wait, he's telling me TERRY RICHARDSON is an example of a good photographer with a shitty camera?

you're joking, right? he's a prime example of how hilariously easy it is to be a "good photographer"

terry proved to us all that you need nothing more than hot and/or famous people to take "good" photos and gain notoriety as a photographer

with that said, much of his work uses cameras that are considerably better than a shitty 35mm

>>6733268
>That's what you've been doing the entire thread.
>my judgements on the shape of his shirt have been explained with the preferences of humans in general and not just my own preferences, but you seem to be unable to accept that there are verifiable patterns in the world

>attractive =/= beautiful.
i agree, but i suspect we would disagree on why they aren't the same

>But that is not universal truth. It is not some transcendant platonic form of beauty.
>transcendant platonic form of beauty
tell me exactly what this means

there is only what we can admire as living things, and as living things, we are subject to our biology no matter how much that blasts your bottom

are you thinking of inner beauty? are you thinking of the essence of beauty as described by plato himself? are you just throwing "platonic" around for the hell of it? i have even more bad news for you: that's not free from your biological imperatives either, and it never will be

also, address
>if it was truly all subjective, wouldn't you have stopped replying a long time ago because your perception of my post, be it positive or negative, exists only in your mind? what is the point of arguing with me when you think it is nothing more than subjective?

>>6733301
is what actually dan?

Forgot hawaiian shirts what is with this sleeve rolling trend? Even in our waywts it's all over the place..

>>6733308
>that one time dan got caught samefagging and pretended to have a roommate that was in on the joke with him
now I can't trust that you aren't dan, dude lies out of his ass all the time

>>6733320
I would roll my tshirt sleeves in high school but gave up because they wouldn't even stay and never looked just right

>>6733308
is that mannequin chan

>>6733315
>terry proved to us all that you need nothing more than hot and/or famous people to take "good" photos and gain notoriety as a photographer
you are telling me. i am mad as fuck that this old faggot unlocked godmode before i did.

>tfw you will never bang and take pictures of you banging thousands of QT models while making millinons off of it and gaining even more social status to bang even more QT models
FML

>>6733315
>better than a shitty 35mm
I shoot 35mm all the time, what's wrong with 35mm?


>plato
Yes, I mean plationic as in platos forms.

>escaping biological imperatives
Mostly, no. I'd say that when I listen to glend gould play the golderberg variations and call that beautiful it's not natural selection that is driving that decision. Or at the very least, less so than if I were say that Sahsa Grey makes me hard.

>there is only what we can admire as living things etc
So you've just admitted subjectivity. That our experiences are constrained by our biology. That we are fundamentally subjective beings with no way to tap into any objective transcendent truth. And that such truth, even if it exists, is irrelevant.


So why the fuck do you keep nattering on about so and so's outfit being *objectively* bad, or hank hills torso being "objectively" ugly.
>if it was truly all subjective, wouldn't you have stopped replying a long time ago
barriers of perception are part of the conditions of our existence. But we operate our lives according to what we perceive because we have nothing else to go on, and we'd be stupid not to.

But we'd also be stupid to think that our perceptions are limitless or universal. We'd also be lazy worthless fucks if we didn't make the effort to justify our interpretation of our perceptions logically. You irrational ho.

>>6733346
>Infinite focus
>hard direct flash yet no one looks flattened or blown out >minimal hard shadows
>fantastic skin tones
>models all have great energy -- it's clear that Terry is on their wavelength

10/10 great photographer
>>6733364
if she really had a clue, she would have jumped on it being a point-and-shoot TL4, not the fact that it;s 35mm. SHe;s talking out of her ass.

>>6733308
>spent piece of used jet trash
fucking lost it

>>6733330
unfortunately, yes. I thought she was better than this, but it turns out she's a huge aspie

>>6733382
Uncle Terry is like Andy Warhol. You can sit there and fume and say "I could have done that!" but the truth is, he did and you didn't.

>>6733364
>I shoot 35mm all the time, what's wrong with 35mm?
if you're doing portraits like terry often does, it's going to distort the subject

oh, wait! that doesn't matter! there is no right way to take a photo, it's all subjective

>Mostly, no. I'd say that when I listen to glend gould play the golderberg variations and call that beautiful it's not natural selection that is driving that decision. Or at the very least, less so than if I were say that Sahsa Grey makes me hard.
>So you've just admitted subjectivity. That our experiences are constrained by our biology.
pick one

your taste in music is no less constrained by your biology than your erections are

now there are varying degrees of subjectivity when it comes to arts? does this not mean there are varying degrees of objectivity when it comes to arts? you want to talking about "good photographers", but defining some photographers as "good" is in itself denying what you've been defending the rest of the time

>That we are fundamentally subjective beings with no way to tap into any objective transcendent truth.
>And that such truth, even if it exists, is irrelevant.
your other comments about beauty don't match this assertion
you want it to be relevant when it suits your taste and irrelevant when it doesn't

>So why the fuck do you keep nattering on about so and so's outfit being *objectively* bad, or hank hills torso being "objectively" ugly.
you'd have to be personally invested by way of recognizing yourself in the outfit or torso or be an inconsistent contrarian to believe that they are anything but ugly as evidenced by the patterns we can observe in human preferences

>>6733315
>wait, he's telling me TERRY RICHARDSON is an example of a good photographer with a shitty camera?
>you're joking, right? he's a prime example of how hilariously easy it is to be a "good photographer"


Then why don't you take your yashica TL out and take some awesome portraits. You can post them here; I'll wait.

>>6733424
>barriers of perception are part of the conditions of our existence. But we operate our lives according to what we perceive because we have nothing else to go on, and we'd be stupid not to.
>and we'd be stupid not to.
>We'd also be lazy worthless fucks if we didn't make the effort to justify our interpretation of our perceptions logically.
then why have you been insisting that we don't?

if this thread is still around tomorrow morning, i will follow this when i wake up

>>6733424
I never said my appreciation of Bach wasn't subjective. Only that it involved sex less. It's still constrained by the fact that I need fucking eardrums. There's no argument here I've already admitted everything that you're trying to attack. You're just dense.

>>6733424
>you'd have to be personally invested by way of recognizing yourself in the outfit or torso or be an inconsistent contrarian to believe that they are anything but ugly as evidenced by the patterns we can observe in human preferences

So if a certain set of preferences are common to humans then that makes them objective?

Oh I know. We'll get rid of art criticism entirely! We'll just hold on vote on what everyone likes! No one will have to justify or explain anything!

>>6733382
>it's clear that Terry is on their wavelength
I think you mean it's clear that they're on his dick my friend.

>>6733439
Man, that's how you GET on their wavelength.

>>6733445
I-I don't think mine is big enough for them ._.

I guess I could settle for sexually humiliated by qts.

>>6730575
>RACIST! RACIST!
The rice niggers simply looks bad. There are handsome rice niggers, but those in the pic aren't among them. And u mad.

>>6733424
35mm distorts the subject

Oh my fucking god you retarded bitch, 35mm is the FILM format, not the focal length. Are you fucking retarded? You literally do not have the slightest fucking clue.

>>6733513
nevermind the fact that if 35mm *were* the focal length, then it would be a wide angle, and therefore not ideal for portraits.

>>6729427
Tell ´em brother

(also, w2c)

>>6733437

>So if a certain set of preferences are common to humans then that makes them objective?

Yes, because everybody can agree on them; they are not subject to the interpretation of the individual..

>>6730916
Shirt lighter than jacket, and tie darker than shirt is almost always safe.

>>6733810
that's not what objective means

>>6733803
>abraham mignon
mah nigga

>>6733425
send a group of hot/famous people my way, and i'll whip some up for you

>>6733432
>Only that it involved sex less.
the involvement of sex is irrelevant since it's not as though sex is the only biological imperative, it's just one of the most easily outlined imperatives

>It's still constrained by the fact that I need fucking eardrums.
your eardrums aren't at all what i'm getting at
i'm getting at the fact that everything you feel and think is the result of some kind of biological imperative

>There's no argument here I've already admitted everything that you're trying to attack. You're just dense.
i was hoping you'd admit to being an inconsistent contrarian in the explicit terms

>>6733437
>So if a certain set of preferences are common to humans then that makes them objective?
the set of preferences just aid in making the beauty measurable and quantifiable, and at the end of the day, that's what makes it objective, but i have also mentioned sophistication of the palate in this thread

i don't know how familiar you are with plato, but he said that certain individuals were better at realizing beauty than others

>We'll get rid of art criticism entirely!
at least you're coming to terms with your own agenda

>>6733513
>Oh my fucking god you retarded bitch, 35mm is the FILM format, not the focal length. Are you fucking retarded? You literally do not have the slightest fucking clue
>implying his t4 doesn't have a 35mm lens

>>6733537
>and therefore not ideal for portraits.
what if i want my portraits to look shitty? there is no objective way to shoot portraits

>>6734591
you're really ugly lol

>>6729450
fuckin bad ass

>>6729408
Trends are irrelevant, good style doesn't need to change every 6 months.

>>6734972
~~**You Are On His Path**~~

>>6729434
are ... are you serious?

>>6730965
>if you want to spark some kind of creativity, then don't post poor examples after you've berated the community
Damn dude this. I ignored op the first time I saw it because he started off on a bad note in every possible way. If we didn't care about the trend already why would you think we'll be more into it when all you can tell us is its 'relevant' and show us a pic where half of the people look as goofy as actual goof fags?

>>6733803
whyred :-)

>>6734591


>sex isn't the only constraint it's just the easiest to outline
Which is why I brought it up. Duh.


>at least you're coming to terms with your own agenda
That's not my agenda; that's yours.


I want open discussion of aesthetics where people justify their opinions with observations.

You want to be able make closed pronouncements that adhere to some imaginary objective standard that you just fucking made up. And you don't want anyone to question you on this. And then when you get pressed on the source of these supposedly 'objective' standards you mutter some shit about majority rules.

>making the beauty measurable and quantifiable
beauty is not measurable or quantifiable. All we can do is try to determine whether or not we are experiencing it and then attempt to explain why... which is a worthwhile exercise, by the way. But there's no end to the discussion. No answers. Nothing ever gets solved or defined. Because that's not the fucking point.

>plato said
plato was wrong. His forms do not exist.There is no mystical metaphysical realm where truth and true forms exist. I only brought him up to make this point. I don't believe in magic or fairies either.

>>6734591
>all these clueless people
>all wide angle portraits are bad because they distort the subject

absolute bollocks.

all lenses distort. A lens is not a human eye.

And there's plenty of good uses for wide angle in portraiture and fashion photography. Whether you can spot them depends on your skill as a photographer.

And it's not the focal length of the lens that determines the way the subject distorts, it's the distance of the lens from the subject. All the focal length changes is how close you need to be to achieve the same field of view.

But terry doesn't get super close and do head a shoulders with a 35mm lens... he generally gets everything down to the knees.

35mm is a great focal length, it's really common among street photographers and photojournalist because it creates immediacy and intimacy.

>232 replies
>this fucking thread
jesus christ how horifying

>>6733308
>mukluk

I looked this up thinking it would be some sort of swamp creature but it turned out to be the mocassin things? Are those the manitobah?

>>6733308
that fit is beyond awful.

She has something good going with the coat and the fucks it up completely with that ridiculous hat and those ugg things

>>6735989

There uggs? Christ I wish the chicks in my college had those uggs instead of the foot turds they wear now.

>>6735949
>>6735989
>>6736164
Don't you guys remember the native american fad?

Seems like circa 2009 every bat for lashes wannabe girl was wearing mukluks and feathers and fur hats to shows.


Maybe it was just a canadian tthing.

>>6733308


This is not me.

>>6736309

Yeah I think its a canada thing. I saw some with the china lookin mini versions last winter in LA but never legit ones.

>>6735664
>Which is why I brought it up. Duh.
you're not helping your case here

complaining about the sexual aspect of appeal as though it's more heinous or less legitimate than any other biological imperative is silly

>That's not my agenda; that's yours.
this conversation began with me criticizing art

>I want open discussion of aesthetics where people justify their opinions with observations.
if you are >>6730569, then you're just lying now

i am becoming more and more convinced that you want a chance to bitch about opinions because you whine about every single negative observation that is made

>You want to be able make closed pronouncements that adhere to some imaginary objective standard that you just fucking made up. And you don't want anyone to question you on this.
it's an objective standard that i've recognized
i actually don't mind anyone questioning it because i like to hear what other people think for the sake of my own curiosity, but you won't convince me that what i've ridiculed is aesthetically appealing

>And then when you get pressed on the source of these supposedly 'objective' standards you mutter some shit about majority rules.
>majority rules
it's much more complicated

>beauty is not measurable or quantifiable. All we can do is try to determine whether or not we are experiencing it and then attempt to explain why... which is a worthwhile exercise, by the way.
you should read about the beautification engine

>But there's no end to the discussion. No answers. Nothing ever gets solved or defined. Because that's not the fucking point.
all of your discussions about this are destined to be reduced to "nuh uh"

>I only brought him up to make this point.
what point were you making? why try to discredit something by saying it's not a "platonic form of beauty" only to dismiss his forms completely?

>>6735763
>all lenses distort. A lens is not a human eye.
did you hear that, my little pedant? you have company

>And there's plenty of good uses for wide angle in portraiture
>plenty
how many are there in comparison to good uses for lenses with longer focal lengths?

i have no doubt that there are "plenty" as this word is vague enough to be often used by people who want to paint a minority as something more, but do they not have fewer applications than lenses specifically tailored for these genres?

the most notable effects in portraiture would probably be the way they enlarge the central features (this is often the nose), and when it comes to full-body shots, people can end up looking stumpy, like mammoths, or they may just get lost in the background and lose focus on the clothing

>And it's not the focal length of the lens that determines the way the subject distorts, it's the distance of the lens from the subject.
that's true, but in a portrait, you are usually going to be closer than further away from the subject due to the nature of portraits

we're acknowledging that they aren't ideal for portraits, we're not saying that they have zero applications

>But terry doesn't get super close and do head a shoulders with a 35mm lens... he generally gets everything down to the knees.
that's my point

>35mm is a great focal length, it's really common among street photographers and photojournalist because it creates immediacy and intimacy.
street photographers and photojournalists are usually not taking photos with the intention of making the people in the photos look as attractive/photogenic as possible, and when they are, they have enough distance to make the distortion negligible

>>6735949
nah, i got those from here

http://www.tecumsehbrand.com/

i like the sole and overall construction more than other mass-produced mukluks

>>6737370
>complaining about the sexual aspect of appeal as though it's more heinous or less legitimate than any other biological imperative is silly

No less silly than the arbitrary choices that you'e made to devise your aesthetic metric.

Sexual beauty has a tendency to bore me. I don't claim that it doesn't exist or that it isn't real. Only that I find it predictable. This point isn't even central to my argument.


>all of your discussions about this are destined to be reduced to "nuh uh"
All discussions about everything can be reduced to nuh uh.

The point of discussion isn't to resolve or prove anything.

>it's an objective standard that I've chosen to recognize
because you've chosen to. It's *not* objective.

Really I don't care if your value judgement are based upon a complex and sophisticated framework of criticism. You've chosen to embrace that framework. You are not measuring a piece of art against objective absolutes, you're measuring it against a human construct. That construct might be perfectly wonderful and rewarding. But it's asinine to think that it amounts to truth.

>but you won't convince me that what i've ridiculed is aesthetically appealing
No one is trying to. I'm trying to get you to stop abusing words like 'objective'

>why try to discredit something by saying it's not a "platonic form of beauty" only to dismiss his forms completely?
It's not a platonic form, and nothing is. Because they are non-existent, or irrelevant at best. Plato was brought up before you backpedaled and admitted to your perceptions being subject to you biology. He's irrelevant to the discussion at this point.

>>6737813
>No less silly than the arbitrary choices that you'e made to devise your aesthetic metric.
they aren't arbitrary

>because you've chosen to.
>You've chosen to embrace that framework.
it's not a choice i've made, and it's not a choice other people have made either

>It's *not* objective.
consider an allergen or analgesic
while living things have varying reactions to these things, and some may not even experience allergic or analgesic reactions at all, their properties and the effects of those properties in humans especially are not regarded as subjective just because they vary and are rooted in biology

even if no living thing is around to experience or observe those effects, the properties that induce those effects are still there

>Plato was brought up before you backpedaled and admitted to your perceptions being subject to you biology.
this still doesn't tell me what the point you were making was, but i actually admitted this prior to you bringing up plato >>6732942, and it isn't backpedaling for the reasons i described above

Because this board has its own fashion trends it follows.

Literally, dress however the fuck you want. In WAYWT threads we judge on how good you look as a whole, and in the style you're trying to achieve.

Lel i actually tried posting a hawaiian shirt thread and even used that first picture and was completely ignored for the most part