/fa/ - Fashion

Narcissism is /fa/

When you buy a $900 tshirt.

When their fashion hobby becomes an erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own clothing, body, and haircut.

>>6836526
this.

fashion in itself is an art and you are the canvas.

even if you partake in fashion for others, you still direct attention to yourself because you are the art.

after the first time you masturbate looking at yourself in the mirror

>>6836571
what about designing fashion for the runway, which has nothing to do with yourself?

>>6836578
Narcissist since grade seven whoop whoop

when you post pictures of urself on the internet

>>6836571
fashion isn't art. it's not even close to it. it's a commodity. lust, narcissism, and eroticism are just some of the things it utilizes in order to increase profits. all they want is for you to think that if you buy that givenchy t-shirt, or perfume, you enter into an imagined world of luxury.

>>6836662
art can be a commodity
barbara kruger is a hack

>>6836662
>it's a commodity.
u realize ppl buy all forms of art? music, paintings, buildings, everything
>all they want is for you to think that if you buy that givenchy t-shirt, or perfume, you enter into an imagined world of luxury.
replace the givenchy tee with an eames chair, a van gogh painting, ect. and you still have the same (shitty) argument

>>6836708
paintings are not attached to your image in the same way fahsion is.

when you are into fashion and you are a narcissist

fashion can't turn you into a narcissist, it can just become a new outlet for your narcissism.

>>6836708
well to be fair fashion is more inherently materialist than other forms of art. it also evokes a much smaller range of emotional/intellectual responses than music or visual art can. there is some reason to argue that it's "not art", although I'd disagree with that. I think it's less pure an art form than some, but clothing is still a potential medium for art.

>>6836739
A lot of people do wear clothes to "enter into an imagined world of luxury" or to impress people, but personally I care about what I wear because I have an interest in aesthetics and creativity, it reflects my personal tastes and style, and wearing clothes that I like makes me feel a lot more confident.

>>6836739
u think ppl dont like showing off their expensive ass houses, art, furniture, ect w/ their pool in the back and rar in the garage? thats like the entire point of rich ppl parties and instagram and shit

there are plebs who eat up any kind of art cause its expensive and theres ppl who actually care about it, if u cant seperate those thenn ya everythings gonna be shitty for u

>>6836760
are people just born narcissists? i don't know how this works but the way you phrased your sentences made me confused

>>6836760
art predates the silly concept of materialism

I posit that a fashion hobby is inherently narcissistic if you're taking photos of yourself and/or dressing yourself inappropriately for the weather.

>>6836809
>implying thick wives weren't a sign of materialism back in the cavemen era

Fat caveman bitch gets all the food (all the wealth! Material!)

>>6836834
Shorts + sweater = narcissism?

I might have to agree bc it turns me on to do that

>>6836809
What's your point?
Fashion is materialism and art.

>>6836867
point is the modern usage of 'materialism' is just a way for poor people to feel superior or more enlightened than those that own more than them

>>6836526
>purple hair
>mesh sleeves
>thick rimmed glasses
>torn tights
>ugly

She exemplifies Tumblr in almost every way.

>>6836859
I guess what I was trying to get at was if you're considering the aesthetic value of an outfit over its practical merit, then ur probs a vein-mayne

>>6836886

Hehe I'm like 20% guilty of that! Only when it's v cold outside n I'm lookin 2 flirt

>>6836662
>fashion isn't art. it's not even close to it. it's a commodity.

michelangelo's sistine chapel, commissioned (emphasis) by some papal asshole

>>6836662
>lust

detail from bosch's garden of earthly delights

>>6836903
hehe me too :^) Except I'm probably more like 70% guilty!

>>6836927
Baby teach me ur tips

>>6836662
>narcissism

lol
a more salient example might be warhol's persona as a work.

>>6836662
>and eroticism

salvador dali, young virgin auto-eroticized by her own chastity

>>6836914
yeah i nvr rly saw the meaning behind that
i thought the renaissance was refining physical art to the highest degree of beautiful

>>6836662
>in order to increase profits

speaking of commodity

>>6836952
>>6836949
>>6836934
>>6836926
pls talking in tongues

>>6836662
>all they want is for you to think that if you buy that givenchy t-shirt, or perfume, you enter into an imagined world of luxury.

are you seriously suggesting that artists don't regularly create personae for the public to consume in order to increase the cachet of their work?

>>6836662
>imagined world of luxury
>imagined

expensive clothes are luxurious and have significant social capital. people treat you better when you dress well.

>>6836952
yo, twerk it. suck ma dick

>>6836526
when this happens

>>6836976
3rd fit is balla

>>6836926
>tfw no qt bf to shove flowers up your ass

>>6836760
i don't think people firmly grasp the meaning of the word materialism, so here is the dictionary definition:

ma·te·ri·al·ism (m-tîr--lzm)
n.
1. Philosophy The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
2. The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life.
3. A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns.

it is entirely possible to consume high fashion and be nonmaterialistic; and given the existence of definition one, it kind of makes it a weak insult, doesn't it?

>it also evokes a much smaller range of emotional/intellectual responses than music or visual art can.

no it doesn't. it's less suited to linguistic messages because you don't have much space to talk and printing slogans doesn't make for compelling designs very often, but it's perfectly capable of presenting your world view; sruli recht, for example, is very clearly an optimistic futurist with a utopic vision were we won't become wage slaves.

> I think it's less pure an art form than some

seriously? duchamp's urinal is nearly 100 years old and people still belabor this distinction between art, non art, high art, and low art.

>>6836998
>sruli recht, for example, is very clearly an optimistic futurist with a utopic vision were we won't become wage slaves

you know better than to put words into the lords mouth

>>6836998

postmodernist pls go

>>6837007
the idea that art can't be a commodity is a pomo idea

>>6837014
what comes after post modernism? like, nowave?

>>6837026
metamodernism

>>6837029
i think hip$ter was using the 3rd definition

>>6836998
ma·te·ri·al·ist [muh-teer-ee-uh-list] Show IPA
noun
1.a person who is markedly more concerned with material things than with spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values.
2.an adherent of philosophical materialism.
adjective
3.concerned with material things; materialistic.
4.of or pertaining to philosophical materialism or its adherents.

>>6837029
i'm not sure what the point of that was because it doesn't contradict the definition i supplied.
slamming fashion as being materialistic is just a declaration that the rest of your rant can be ignored.

>>6836983
the hippy fairy terrorist?

>>6837041
he didn't use the word materialistic, what i think he was saying is that fashion involves clothes so it differs from other forms on art in which you have to physically hold it/wear it opposed to just looking at art or listening to music
i'm not good with articulating with what i want to say

>>6837061
i don't own a single piece of sruli (sorry turnleft), you don't need to own or wear it to participate.

>>6837078
that's true but i feel like i'm not completely understanding you, what's your definition of fashion? i'm looking at fashion as a way of expressing yourself

>>6837078

but then your perception is limited to visual consumption, which is only a part of fashion

>>6837092
communication that occurs using, mostly, clothing as its medium.

>>6837094
you also have the option of reacting to it, if you so choose, by emulating it or rejecting it.

>>6836935
I've only got one tip for you bb ;)

arabelle what are you doing here you fucking nerd
go back to tumblr and blogspot

>>6837099
>mostly clothing
what else do people use? i think this is where i got myself lost

>>6837114
photography, the runway, designer persona, label cachet...

>>6837094
Your perception of a garment will always be incomplete until you produce it to yourself. Can't have everything.

>>6837105

it suppose. but it seems more beneficial to emulate or reject it once i have also experienced it in real life as opposed to only visually, my conclusion is more informed. i think you have a better understanding of a garment that you touch, feel, wear than simply downloading jpgs of.

>>6837119
none of those things work without clothing

>>6837129

no, but you can aim to know more about it than through only visual media, you can be better informed, although your point is very true

>>6837134
what's your point?

>>6837136
yes, and you'll have a better understanding of a painting that you see in person, and you'll have an even better understanding if you learn to paint, but neither are necessarily required for experiencing art in the broadest sense.

>>6837149
because fashion relies on clothing mostly it is heavily materialist

ITT: twerk it discovers truisms

>>6837149

>yes, and you'll have a better understanding of a painting that you see in person, and you'll have an even better understanding if you learn to paint, but neither are necessarily required for experiencing art in the broadest sense.

i guess one's choice of their approach to participating in their given medium just depends on what level of depth one wants their understanding to be

>>6837160
and painting relies on paintings.

>>6837166
nice dubs

>>6837166
what's shocking is that this stuff has to be said at all.

>>6837169
everything's cleared up, thanks for humoring me

>>6836781
I doubt clothing has anything to do with it. It more likely has something to do with your relationship with your parents early in life.

>>6836998
oh, I'm so sorry; economic materialism, then. asshole.

In fairness I should admit that different people have different ways of appreciating any given art form. You could very well enjoy fashion without being materialist in the slightest. I just tend to think it's a slightly boring hobby if you aren't primarily interested in buying and owning the clothing.

My real issue with your post comes here:

>no it doesn't. [ . . . ] were we won't become wage slaves.

Are you really arguing that fashion can affect people just as strongly as a great poem or a great song? Well, I can't prove that wrong, but I can appeal to the experience of anyone reading this. I think clothing can evoke powerful imagery, but I'm sorry, I don't think it's as efficient a medium for that as music or written word or visual art.

I can't think of any outfit or piece of clothing I have ever seen that has left me with as rich an impression as either of these have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap-v_Sk20Jg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6MFrYeCt_E

I think fashion is a great hobby, I think it's a legitimate art form, but I can't see how anyone in their right mind could say that has the same potential for artistic expression, in either breadth or depth, as film, music, literature, or the visual arts. Clothing can only say so much.

>>6837414
>i don't see how anyone in their right mind could disagree with me

>>6837426
Well, on this point I don't.