/lit/ - Literature

/fa/ has too many closet nerds on it who have a penchant for dorky goth bullshit to be trusted for fashion advice

>>3833815

Depends what you mean by fashion. Being well dressed for the appropriate activity is necessary. Caring about things to the specifity that /fa/ does is fruitless.

>>3833818
I don't follow enough blogs to go anywhere else for advice at the moment and like the rest of 4chan. It's the easiest, laziest way to discuss/observe clothing trends. That and Tumblr. I do I agree though.

It has some solid social merit in the sense that it communicates to the external world how much you take care of yourself.

If you don't care at all about being well groomed, we can generally assume something about a person socially speaking.

>>3833836
/fa/ is mostly geared towards tiny homosexual boys so if you're like 6'3" and have some muscle you'll look like a dumbass dressed in a /fa/ outfit lol

>>3833843
>if you're like 6'3" and have some muscle you'll look like a dumbass dressed in a /fa/ outfit

Sounds like /fa/'s my best bet.

I'm interested in fashion, but ultimately it's all just transient fads and means nothing. I like people to know that I think that I'm better than them without saying it, which I why I wear what I do.

Also /fa/ has an awfully biased stint on what 'fashion' constitutes, and anybody who has an opinion that conforms with the majority on fashion in /fa/ is undoubtedly horribly unfashionable.

>>3833836
Just go to Styleforum.

>>3833843

Then lose the muscle. It's unattractive and useless.

>>3833865
how's that slave morality working out for ya?

>>3833865

You think it's unattractive, a lot of people would disagree with you.

>>3833856
>I like people to know that I think that I'm better than them without saying it, which I why I wear what I do.

I cowered in fear just reading that. Your fedora should be registered as tool of mental warfare.

/fa/ thinks it would be acceptable to go about dressed in that darkwave ninja bullshit if it could shell out the thousands of dollars necessary. I don't really trust them.

If your wardrobe consists primarily of elastic waistbands and holographic t-shirts, /fa/ might be worth checking out. If not, ignore them.

>>3833873

I don't wear a Fedora, nor am I fat, or bearded or whatever.

>>3833877
yeah, /fa/ is like /mu/ in that if you're super entry level and don't know shit they might show you some things but after a while it gets repetitive and stupid...hmm, come to think of it /lit/ is like that too, i mean at first it's cool until you realize the same threads get posted every day

>>3833885

And that they expect everyone to read degree level literature

Just like /tv/ expects everyone to watch citizen kane and metropolis

and /fa/ expects everyone to wear justin beiber trousers

i've finally come to the conclusion that dressing overly fashionably is actually poor taste.

>>3833856
I think that's a bit of a stretch. I don't like this whole goth-ninja thing but I still recognizes that it's fashionable.

The statement "I only dress for myself" is false but dressing for as many people as possible yields clothing with no personality at all.

The goth-ninja side of /fa/ dresses for the people who appreciate that style of clothing and aren't interested in most other peoples opinions.

There's nothing wrong with dressing for a very obscure audience.

>>3833864
Their WAYWT threads are awful. Maybe just as bad as /fa/'s but I couldn't take the site very seriously after I viewed them.

>>3833885
the internet is shit
there are no good places to go
why am i here? because i don't know where else to go

>>3833895
>and /fa/ expects everyone to wear justin beiber trousers
Straight leg jeans are for Dads.

>>3833908
Blogs are good.

>>3833903
>nothing wrong with dressing for obscure audience

wait but what if the guys who dress in dragonforce t-shirts and jeanshorts are dressing for a specific and obscure audience?

>>3833826
I think he means "high fashion," or the concept of fashion as an art.

do british people have small genitals? because the pants british people wear will crush my balls

>>3833885
Last time I was on /fa/ it was
>blue oxfords
>chino shorts
>gothninja
>chukkas
ad nauseum.

It doesn't help that they're catty as all hell about the same shit.

>>3833920
Yeah, which is why I wanted to discuss this on /lit/. I think the difference is that those people don't care about what they wear to the degree that more fashionable people do. Is just simply caring about your appearance to a high degree fashionable?

Is fashion conforming to as many peoples ideas of what is fashionable? Is what's fashionable completely relative?

>>3833941
well i don't know but i try to conform to "business casual" since i'm supposed to be a "creative pro" which means dressing like a banker in some astronomically priced suit is going to be stupid but coming in timbs and a flannel shirt like a lumberjack is also going to be bad...basically i just dress in what employers/clients want to see...which is just sort of generic mid-range shit

>>3833941
Also, wearing particular clothes leaves an impression. How good are clothes as a judge of personality?

>>3833951
not that good, i saw a very fashionable kid in one of my classes and thought wow this guy must have patrician tastes...nope, he proceeded to whip out a fucking nintendo ds and play pokemon and almost failed the class because he was so god damn lazy, i don't know, maybe his boyfriend dressed him or something because he was fashionable but retarded and childish

>>3833957
It's true that it isn't infallible, but it is generally a decent indication.

>>3833959
i think it's more an indicator if the guy is gay not more than anything else to be honest.

I have absolutely no interest in fashion but I like the way women look at me when I'm well dressed.
I tried to ask /fa/ for advice recently, they gave me a little I could use, but a great deal of what they were suggesting was tantamount to telling me to dress like a catwalk model.
I was also told to lose weight, which I disagree with. I think >>3833843 is dead on.

>>3833963
yeah i think the people in /fa/ actually think the skinny ass models they use for fashion photos are some kind of ideal and not just people on which "medium" fits

>>3833963
>they gave me a little I could use
That's because if you want to be fashionable you don't get tips. You lurk. You develop taste. You observe. You don't just ask to be fashionable. That's not how it works.

>>3833971
why can't they be both?

>>3833870

Yeah, muscle bound freaks. Shocking.

>>3833980
yeah but the point is do you want to "observe and develop taste" from 4chan? do you want to get your fashion sense from a bunch of shutins who live in wisconsin and post on 4chan all day? i live in the nyc metro area if i want to see the latest shit i can just go for a walk...

>>3833987
you know everyone who has muscles looks like a roid goblin off the front page of a bodybuilding mag just like not every kid who's into fashion is a prancing fairy with jizz seeping out his butt

> dressing like a gay guy in attempt to impress women

this is always the funniest to me the poor straight bastards who think dressing like a gay guy is going to get them pussy

>>3834000
it's worked for me.
several times.

i think it's funnier that you think dressing like shit will get you woman, and that you think the only reason someone would dress well is for women.

>>3833995
So do that? What sort of advice were you after?

>>3834000
I dress well because I care about my appearance. Your opinion on this subject means so little to me I can't believe I even replied to you.

>>3834010
>and that you think the only reason someone would dress well is for women.

oh no, i'm well aware a lot of guys aren't dressing well for women...if you know what i mean...

>>3834013
uh oh getting a little defensive? it's ok, we know you're gay and we're ok with that

>>3834014
hah-hah, so funny. good job man. i'm sure glad i don't dress well.

Sometimes I want to save up a couple paychecks just for the sake of redoing my entire wardrobe with more dressy clothing. But I live in a rural area with only the usual mall stores to shop at so I'd probably even be ridiculed if I dressed out of the norm.

So right now I'm pretty pleb, but I must say it does feel pretty good when strangers compliment you for your clothing.

>>3833815

/b/ with books

>>3834014
Gay people dress well so I shouldn't is your argument.

You're like some kid calling me a hipster for using a film camera.

You have no interest in what I'm doing.
You know nothing about what I'm doing.
And you're too insecure to even attempt what I'm doing.

And I am the one having more fun than you are.

>>3834025
most mall's have at least basic formal wear.
zara, for instance.

>>3834023
do you really think women give a shit what kind of pants you have on? "ohh, look at this guy, he just spend $500 bucks on the latest trouser trend, i want his penis in me NOW!" yeah, that's really how relationships work.

>>3834025
Don't be a pussy.

I have a feeling the majority of /fa/'s users are just guys in their early twenties into skateboarding that live in either New York or California and browse Tumblr. So much Supreme/Fuccboi/Gothninja

>>3834035
Supreme is fucking awful, that shit has to be viral marketing and not real people. At least that's what i choose to believe.

>>3833980
I wasn't asking to be fashionable. I think I made it quite clear that I didn't want to dress like model, I just wanted advice on my clothes. That's not the same thing.

It's like you coming on here and asking if the Foundation series is any good, then being told you should read Tai Pei because it's fashionable.

>>3834030
Yeah, I know. Nobody's arguing that.

>>3834030
Yes, actually. I know plenty of women, who when asked what they like in a man, respond with "well dressed."

Part of attracting the other sex is being well dressed.

And no one said you had to spend a lot of money to be well dressed. Also, no one said being dressed well automatically means you'll get laid. It just always, invariably, makes you look better. If you're good looking enough to dress like a neckbeard and still get laid then go for it man.

>>3834040
Right, and your advice was lurk more or the fashion website of your choice. I don't think you understand.

Anyone who doesn't understand the substance in something coming from Rick Owens for example has spent no or close to zero effort learning WHY his clothes are revered. There's a deep level of appreciation that is only unlocked with a knowledge of fashion historically, and of the wider marketplace today. There's also an element of technical virtuosity that would be lost on anyone who hasn't looked twice at how their own clothes and others are constructed. There was a long thread about this the other day, which the OP and others probably missed.

http://fuuka.warosu.org/fa/thread/S6284366

Being turned off from him is understandable. His name is mentioned every four posts on /fa/, no matter the thread. Only his most obnoxious designs which your average pleb can grasp are hyped (geobasket sneakers). His reputation is like Joyce on /lit/ in this regard, maybe Nabakov. There's a great amount of substance lost to the dilettante who never scratches beyond the surface (this goes for both fanboys and those who dislike). His women's collection, for starters, which represents about half of his entire creative output. If they tunnel-vision on his sneakers they'll also never appreciate the level of craft involved with his more formal wear, to name another example.

And this is just Rick. There's as much to talk about with Yohji, Raf, Kawakubo, Watanabe, and more historical people like Armani, Helmut Lang, or Maison Martin Margiela.

But when someone with an untrained eye and ignorant mind lay their eyes over a Damir Doma runway collection you get comments like >>3833818 >>3833877 >>3833903. Shit like "gothninja is just a trend for grown up Hot Topic shoppers." Many there are talking over and above the level of understanding and knowledge I've alluded to, and don't have the patience to explain everything to three new lurkers every day who can't comprehend what they are looking at. There are plenty of places to learn more, and /fa/ isn't one of them.

>>3834043
"Well dressed" and "Fashionable" are not the same thing.

>>3834050
Raf is mediocre at best. He reached his prime with Jil Sander and is now redundant.

>>3834043
see you seem to think people can only either dress like Liberace or a construction worker...you know you can dress well with out overdoing it.

>>3834049
No, the advice was essentially "Here are some models wearing outfits, you should lose muscle mass so you're a similar build then wear what they're wearing".
I don't think you understand the difference between the advice given in this thread here and the one I made on /fa/.

>>3834055
Being well-dressed is part of being fashionable shit head. They're not the same because "fashionable" encompasses much more, but to be "fashionable" you have to be well-dressed.

>>3834045
supreme has been around since the 1990s and has never had an ad or anything, they dont even have an official facebook or twitter like most fashion brands, they dont need to viral market to anyone
once you look past the box logo shit, they make nice clothes that throw references to cool shit and are better quality than fast fashion clothing
im too old for supreme now, I used to wear it a few years ago, but the brands image has kinda been ruined by odd future, but they put out nice stuff occasionally

>>3834055
holy shit, someone with a clue!

/fa/ doesn't know shit, too many autstic gothninjas running around

it's a generally poor aesthetic that nobody can pull off

>>3834059
I can from this post alone you haven't looked at Raf's work in the 90s. You probably saw S/S 02 at best. Have you read the Raf Simons Redux book?

>>3833897
>>3833908
>>3833934
>>3833962
>>3833963
>>3834000
>>3834017
>>3834030
>>3834045
ITT: People who don't know anything about fashion who think their opinions matter.

>>3834060
No, I don't think like that at all. I don't see why you'd think so. Liberace is actually almost the opposite of how I dress.

>>3834064
I've seen plenty of catwalk models who are clearly fashionable but not even remotely well dressed. You're talking out your arse. One can equally be well dressed but not fashionable.

>>3834071
Our opinions were asked for.

>>3834066
>they don't need to viral market to anyone
>pay odd future to wear their shit

oooh kay

>>3834070
But you're wrong - it constituted almost entirely of basically crafted pieces with a generic silhouette, pieces of clothing you could find at the Gap, and someone else's poetry pasted crudely on the back. It took almost no creative ability.

Rick Owens, for example, demonstrates vast creativity with every collection.

>>3834070
yeah and woo tommy hilfiger was probably cool in the 90s too lets all rush out and buy some right now

>>3834075
>they don't need to but they do so they do need to

>>3834071
you mean:

> people who wear clothes everyday and as such have opinions about them

haven't been on /fa/ in like years but what i enjoyed most about it was that it had a fairly vibrant tripfag community

most people could probably do with lurking the site a while if only to pick up the basics on style. i could never get into /fa/ lurking full time because it all seems like such an expensive business.

>>3834084
Well if that's how it was, it definitely has gotten much worse.

>>3834081
there was a certain point where those new york brands sold out and turned wack, supreme and zoo york both to be local shit that only east coast skaters gave a shit about and then somewhere last decade they sold out, now you see mexican housewives pushing baby strollers in zoo york hoodies and you see 4chan nerds from wisconson in supreme hats...zoo york sold out worse but supreme did too, they both just seem tacky to me at this point...hell even "ecko" was cool for a little while in the 90s before they put it in every mall in america

>>3834075
the guys in odd future are close friends with the people in supreme LA, they have been for awhile, that's how they get free shit now, other people that are close to supreme get free shit too, like lucien clarke, jason dill, and eric koston, it has nothing to do with odd future being famous rappers. supreme was already a successful and pretty popular brand before odd future got big. odd future just brought supreme to dickriders, hypebeasts, and people unaware about streetwear

>>3834077
So you're telling me this is a generic silhouette with pieces of clothing you can find at the Gap? Whether or not you like it is different than whether or not it's really as cut and dried as you make it (Raf just simply took stuff from the Gap and printed words on it). He also didn't start printing over his clothes until the 2000s. Strike one.

Have you really looked at ALL his collections, including video? And you haven't answered about the redux book, so I'll assume you haven't read it. Strike two.

>>3834078
I'm smiling at the irony of this comment.

>>3834082
There's a difference between wearing clothes to avoid being naked and studying trends, tailoring, looking of clothes that have a good silhouette and learning colour theory because you enjoy it.

There's a difference like an istagram user isn't a photographer.

>>3834091
I don't believe anyone would seriously wear those clothes in public.
It's a bit like Duchamp, isn't it? It's probably making some great artistic statement but you're not going to put it on display.

>>3834091
woah hold up bro do you have your head so far up your fashion ass that you think the shit in your pic looks good?

>>3834095
*instagram

Basically, if I was to take your opinion seriously it would only be to keep you happy. I have nothing to gain.

>>3834098
>I don't believe anyone would seriously wear those clothes in public.
yeah bud and no-one's going to hang the mona lisa in their living room

>>3834095
> implying i don't already know color theory

wow man you know color theory holy shit that's elite only you and every design and art major on the planet

>>3834095
We still have perfectly valid opinions on clothes. For example, one might have the opinion that being interested in clothes to the level you describe is narcissistic, fatuous and shallow.

>>3834099
To appreciate something you have to understand it.

It's why so many people think minimalist art is stupid.

>>3834103
Nah, it's a hobby.

>>3834102
Just filling space,

let's make an anology of fashion and cars

well dressed: recent bmw sedan with stock shit

fashionable: lexus with tinted windows, spoiler, 2000 watt stereo, loud exhaust pipe and chrome rims

now i'm sure the guy in the riced out lexus thinks he's really cool and impressive to the ladies but everyone actually thinks he's a dipshit, are you a dipshit of fashion?

>>3834101
In case the subtleties were too great for you, I was implying that these are as aesthetically pleasing as Duchamp's The Fountain.
With the exception of the black chap there, all those people look utterly ridiculous. I have never seen anyone outside of a fashion show dress like someone in a fashion show.
Except Lady Gaga, maybe.

>>3834104
but the point of art is not to "look good" while this is the ONLY point of "fashion" so this is apples and oranges, sir

>>3834098
Yes and no. A good part of what Raf (and others mentioned in this thread) was definitely artistic. I'd also wager not that many wore Alexander McQueen's headgear to the supermarket.You don't seem to be the person I was arguing with earlier though.

>>3834099
Your reaction and comments come a dime a dozen, like someone walking through an art museum and when they see Richter or Pollack for the first time they say "My 5-year old could do that!"

Or someone who somehow catches ear of Luigi Nono and says, "This sounds like a horror movie soundtrack."

My concession is that "there is no accounting for taste." It's not my style, if you were to ask me to post something that I think looks good I'd have posted something else. But the guy I was responding to claimed Raf just printed words over Gap clothes--the pic is a counterpoint.

Second, since I take it you're a /lit/ denizen there is far more to this than what "looks good." Imagine your comment being a reaction that sounds like

>This protagonist is unlikeable. How can an unlikeable protagonist possibly be a literary achievement? You guys are deluded.

>>3834101
>D&E being this /fa/
So that's where you've been...

>>3833815
If you look at the archives, D&E targeted them once. When they came back here to complain, some interesting titbits were shared.

>>3834112
That's because you don't live in Tokyo, Paris, NYC or Milan.

>>3834113
So you're not even making a living from it? Indulging in shallow, fatuous vanity simply because you enjoy it? That makes it so much worse.

>>3834118
Well, quite. That's my point. /fa/'s advice has been to wear Alexander McQueen's headgear to the supermarket.

>>3834116
That is a good point, sirsirsirsir.

>>3834122
I've been to those places and I have owned a television in the past.
No one wears those things.

>>3833815
I'm pretty fashionable and I live in nyc

>>3834091
Well, it isn't a unique or new silhouette if that's what you're trying to tell me. The t-shirt is basic, the jacket is just an oversized leather jacket with unnecessary, distracting features. The military style blazers are nice. I wouldn't wear them though.

It's not a strike if I didn't know the date he began to incorporate that into his clothing.

Big deal, he didn't overdo the whole pretentious, edgy, or "deep" messages plastered on ugly clothing to relate to cool teenagers thing until the 2000s. It was still present within other collections - e.x, that "New Kids, Inc" message. Yeah yeah, youth culture and all that bullshit (i.e, an excuse to substitute a lack of creativity with other people's mediocre work.)

If you're going to base your argument on the premise that I haven't seen every single Raf Simons show ever then you're not going to get very far. Sure I haven't. I've seen enough. I don't have to have seen every show. Few have.

I also don't need to read the book to be right. Just because you decided to doesn't instantly make your argument correct.

>>3834098
No it's not. Well, maybe in the sense of "conceptual art" and "readymades." But where Duchamp's readymades require a certain creativity and originality from the artist, as they involve taking an object that would otherwise be unartistic and turning it into art, Simons simply takes other people's art and makes it relatable to the youth. (That and shit tier graphic designs.)

>>3834116
Disagreed. There are some designers who make an art out of creating things that look ugly. Carol Christian Poell is the first that comes to mind.

Secondly, what "looks good" to people is highly subjective, and would definitely change if you acquired a greater amount of knowledge and experience. For 95% of men out there wearing a suit with GQ-style tailoring is the pinnacle of "looking good."

Same goes for oil painting. A great majority of people think art should only look like Renaissance or Impressionist paintings, and everything else doesn't "look good."

>>3834102
There's knowing and there's knowing. Maybe you know colour theory because Mr or Ms Nice Art Teacher Who Let You Piss About In Lessons told you something titled "colour theory", or maybe you know colour theory because you read some Goethe or some of Munch's letters or something.

>>3834123
>That makes it so much worse.
Give me a better reason.

it's always funny when poor people get obsessed with things they really can't afford, like maybe 4chan should have a Yachting board and all these middle class kids in the midwest who've never seen the ocean can bash each others nautical aesthetics

>>3834129
Well you haven't been in the right places than. I live in ny and I have lived in paris and people do dress like that. You just have to be in the right club or in the right crowd.

Go to Le Baron next time you are in nyc, if they let you in that is.

>>3834137
sorry i was too busy browsing hypebeast and bidding on airforce ones on ebay to read any of that shit, being this fly is a fulltime job nigga i don't have time for books n shit like that

>>3834139
goof detected

>>3834135
When you say unique or new, are you talking about relative to 2013 or relative to the time when the collection was actually put out?

The "strikes," the fact that you haven't seen all the collections, and the book you haven't read means that I am working with far more knowledge than you. Your opinion has far less grounding than mine.

We're both forming a judgment, but I have much more in consideration. Not only knowledge of Raf, but of the lay of the land at the times Raf was working.

>>3834140
well now you're just caught up in pecuniary emulation and that's nothing to brag about, trying to keep up with the 1% is a fool's errand but feel free to blow up your credit card trying

>>3834138
>making a living from it

>>3834135
I was referring to the aesthetics of it. You'd have to be a special sort of moron to wear this in public or hang Duchamp's Fountain in your living room.

>>3834140
How cartoonishly catty of you. I'm sorry to say I don't want to go to those clubs. Those aren't normal people, and they do look ridiculous.

>>3834150
I don't know anything about fashion but you sound like a major dickhead.

>>3834136
This. Commes Des Garcons' Rei Kawakubo once said "something doesn't have to be pretty to be beautiful," and that's a very true statement. Her aesthetic is definitely not "pretty," in fact, she works off of ugly.

Or Miuccia Prada's "ugly chic." Yohji's tendency to rip and tear apart at pretty clothing until it becomes deconstructed and "ugly."

Fashion doesn't have to be pretty.

>>3834150
> british nerd obsessed with shitty british shit

that's another corny thing about /fa/, too damn british

>>3834151
But I am the son of a 1%

>>3834161
First up against the wall.

>>3834156
>Rei Kawakubo once said "something doesn't have to be pretty to be beautiful
you just have to be tall, as aristotle said.
everyone else has to settle for being neat and well-proportioned

can some of you fashion snobs go over to that thread about how "fascinating" the working class is and tell them a thing or to

>>3834150
In relation to the times, of course.
Again, because you may know more about one designer doesn't make your argument correct. In fact, even if you knew more about everything pertaining to fashion at all, which I highly doubt, your argument still doesn't automatically become right. What a fallacious way of thinking. Knowledge =/= faultlessness.

Woah there bud, just because you've watched more Simons shows and read a book on him does NOT mean you know more about the times than me. It's just one person. I can almost guarantee I know more than you otherwise, but like I said before, that doesn't matter. This isn't about who knows more, it's about the specific argument at hand.

>>3834166
You know how I like it baby

>>3834149
>Those aren't normal people, and they do look ridiculous.
And who are you to say this?

>>3834149
There are some aesthetic similarities to be found, I guess, but they are still rather different. Duchamp is much less appreciated, and much more creative and vital to modernity. Both of them do cater to very small audiences (if it can be said that Duchamp catered at all.)

>>3834183
Why don't I rephrase this.

You tell me exactly what's unique or original about Raf and I'll tell you why it isn't.

>>3834183
I wouldn't say either of our judgments are correct or incorrect, but basically I disagree strongly with your proposition that Raf is "mediocre." Your opinion is less informed. Just as a matter of course I trust an opinion better the more it is informed. I don't for example pretend to call Nabokov a hack after only reading two of his novels.

>>3834188
suppose he was talking about nerds at an anime convention in dream theater t-shirts and jean shorts?

>>3834201
And would ask the same question.

>>3834201
He would be un-fashionable but he would still be normal.

>>3834188
Someone who isn't part of your highly specific special-interest group and so can see it from an outsiders perspective.

>>3833843

You have no idea what you are talking about. Models are generally 6' to 6'2 and go from skinny to having some muscle. At 6' 3 you are very nearly ideal for looking great in clothes.

this is what makes me skeptical of /fa/, they claim to be very aesthetically sensitive people with refined taste, yet they watch horrible japanese tv shows intended for children...do you shut off your "superior" tastes when it's time to watch some anime or what?

>>3834198
Fair enough, but I needn't read every one of his novels to call him a hack. As long as I've read a good amount. And I've watched a good amount of Simons' shows.

My knowledge on Simons himself may be less, but that doesn't mean I know less about the era he was designing in. That's what this argument is about: a designer's talent is identified by their technical ability to create, their creative abilities, and their ability to maintain a powerful legacy. As such, and in relation to the times, I hold that Raf Simons is mediocre. He shows little technical ability, his creativity is sustained primarily through the work of other artists or designers, and he hasn't had TOO drastic of an influence. I won't deny he's had an influence, but it's been mediocre.

>>3834222
/fa/ just hates mainstream things.

>>3834222
Anime can be refined, don't be a pleb.

>>3834219
no shit bro but the models shoulders are too thin so if i order from some place that says "model is 6'2" wearing medium" the thing probably isn't going to fit right because my shoulders are going to wider than his...luckily some sites give full measurement of the model but low end places just say the height and then it's a gamble if it'll fit

>>3834195
I'm leaving pretty soon and would be glad to come back to the thread later to continue, but I mean the very first thing is: who else in the first place was even taking menswear seriously as an appropriate place for artistic exploration in the 1990s? If I can qualify, I should mention menswear as the singular focus.

I've read from Tim Blanks he still goes to shows where people feel uncomfortable or think it inappropriate to see men in "fashion." It's still so strange for many to see men as objects for that kind of exercise. Of course I recognize what Raf is doing doesn't jump nearly to the artistic or technical heights of say Alexander McQueen or Chalayan, I am merely trying to argue against your original position that Raf was (and I'm guessing you think he always was and still is) mediocre. Of course men's fashion is becoming less and less stigmatized, but imagine someone working back when Raf was.

Compare what "mediocre" in the 90s menswear means with what Raf was doing. PRL, Gap, Hilfiger, Nautica, Hugo Boss, CK .... ? I really can't agree.

>>3834233
and don't say "lose weight" my shoulders are naturally wide, the place muscle is "an issue" anyways is calfs (shit that looks "slim" on some boy model always ends up looking "skinny" on me) and my biceps so if the sleeves are too tiny the shit is going to be awkward with a bicep stretching the shit

i constantly wear tracksuit bottoms and baggy tee shirts. i even have a monster energy drink top.

what i want to know is whether /fa/ looks down on me in the same way that i look down on /lit/ plebs.

this is one of the questions that keeps me up at night.

>>3834249
yes

>>3834249
Everyone looks down on you.

>>3834258
>>3834259
good thing i dont giev a shit what u fags think :>)

>>3834259
chiming in on this thread to agree

>>3834260
>this is one of the questions that keeps me up at night

>>3834264
fuck.

>>3834233
>>3834243

Apologies about the proportions bro. Just buy a large or XL. High fashion brands dont tend to make clothes for fat people, so those sizes just have a bigger chest and shoulder, but are proportioned similarly to the smalls and medium. As for your musculature, you can buy brands that cater to your body type. Don't try to fit into SLP because you won't.

>>3834249

It's true.

>>3834271
Look dude. Forget what other people think for a second including myself. Why do you dress like that?

>>3834241
Well, I don't think that should qualify. And that depends largely on what you would define as artistic.

Again, I don't deny that he's had some influence. Certainly, he's HELPED in making menswear more artistic, but he isn't the only one, and there are people who did more.

I won't compare it to them. I'll compare it instead to Rei Kawakubo, Yohji Yamamoto, Vivienne Westwood and, to a lesser extent, Hedi Slimane. Simons owes a lot to all of these designers (less so to Hedi, their influence is more mutual.)

fashion is a boring and unfulfilling hobby

>>3834123
I like the look of clothes. I may one day look into creating them but I like to appreciate them.

I'm sure I could be doing more productive things.

i care a lot about how i dress and i look fucking great but i could not give less of a fuck about fashion designers or that whole scene anymore, and almost everyone on /fa/ dresses like shit from what i can tell

>>3834283
Everything is boring to someone who knows nothing.

>>3834290
i know raf simons, patrik ervell, hedi slimane, sruli recht, rei kawakubo, yohji yammoto and it's still boring

>>3834227

Not the guy you're talking to but...

Fashion is like film in that sheer creativity generally cannot be taken seriously. Instead one has to root one's creations in fashion/film history. On this line of thought we can say that Raf Simons is a good designer like Scorsese is a good filmmaker: they both borrow extensively from other culturally significant artistic creations, but in appropriating these elements they make them their own and produce their own significant work. Raf Simons is regarded as one of the most influential designers of the late 90s and early 00s despite that fact that his aesthetic relies entirely on appropriation instead of sheer creative power.

>>3834293
Do you have a reason to be fashionable?

>>3834301
nah
i guess that's why it's boring for me, the runway stuff is interesting from an aesthetic point, i was just being edgy
i just find trying to dress nice and spending tons of money is boring and I'm socially retarded so yea

>>3834298
Also not the guy you're talking to

Fashion is much more..technically.. demanding than film. Simons lacks technical skill. Fashion is a much older, and changes much quicker, than film. Simons contributions are mediocre (if it can even be said that he contributed at all.) His only contribution is that he helped make menswear more artistic, and even then, there were people who pushed the boundaries much more than he did.

Appropriation is good, but one can't be considered a great designer without sheer creative power. You need to have some. He has almost none.

>>3834318
Fashion actually encourages self confidence and getting out as long as you don't become insecure. Fashion lifted me out of depression and gave me the encouragement to deal with my problems properly.

But that's just me.

>>3834333
>gay dude proclaims fashion saved my life!

coming out of the closet will do more for you

>>3834333
It made me more confident as well. It also helps with making friends or talking to people. It feels good to receive compliments.

>>3834342
yeah being snobby and judgmental is a great way to make friends!

>>3834346
Who said I was either?

>>3834346
Well it definitely isn't working for you.

>>3834341
Admitting you're a homophob will do you good too mate. I'm totally fine with my sexuality.

>>3834354
there was nothing homophobic about my post, maybe if you lose the paranoid victim mentality you won't have to blow your whole paycheck on clothes to feel good about yourself

>>3834346
See. This is why I don't take everybody's opinion seriously. Because you're clearly talking out your ass. This goes for everything.

I think you're just scared of what people think of your clothing.

>>3834356
you the one who had no friends until you studied fashion so obviously you're the one scared of how you dress

>>3834359
come on man do you realize how gay the stuff you're saying sounds? nothing worse than some dude in denial

>>3834355
You're implying things because you have no argument.

>>3834355
>there was nothing homophobic
Uses someone's sexuality as in insult is homophobic in this context.

>>3834365
who said it was an insult? maybe you're the one who's homophobic if you think being gay is an insult?

I appreciate what people like owens and doma are doing, but i cant integrate much of it into my style which is probably a cut below mainstream hollywood actor tier, meaning good fit, good material, and safe.

>>3834331

Like some directors know the technical aspects cinematography very well, some designers know the technical aspects of garment making very well. This technical knowledge is, however, not necessary to be a good filmmaker or fashion designer.

YSL for example had little significant training in dressmaking when he took over Dior and yet his early collections were well received. Any technical skill that he did have was learned on the job, either as Dior's design assistant (for 3 years) or working as head designer.

Rei Kawakubo has no training as seamstress, whatsoever. Tom Ford had minimal training. Hedi Slimane had none.

The job is largely managerial when creating at any significant level of production. The team of seamsters, tailors, patternmakers, and stylists that one keeps in close company are the equivalent to the production designer and director of photography in film. The job of the fashion designer/director is to ensure that these technical masters can achieve the creative vision of the guy at the top. Even designers as well trained and isolationist as Rick Owens or McQueen work with at the very least a small team of experts who know at least as much as they do.

As for his influence as a designer read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/style/tmagazine/TM1923192.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

so what kind of cars do u guy drive cuz it would be kind of embarrasing to like be all dressed up in some fancy shit and get into a toyota

Fashion is a scam, but you do got to look good

>>3834409
/fa/ kids dont have cars
they spend all their money on $1000 shoes and take a bus because they have no miney left

>>3834413
buses are hipster cool though, so it's fine

I have a very form fitting body. The kind where i can comfortably sleep in tight clothes.

So i don't care what i wear.

I usually wear something similar to what nathan drake wore in the first uncharted.

Baggy jeans and a white t-shirt. I have literally no ass, wide hips and wide shoulders so it fits.

>>3834413
but then how do they take home all the girls they think they impress with their clothes?

>>3834420

you mean boys. boys dont care about having to ride the bus.

Fashion is in the timing and correct placement of the word.

My own opinion about /fa/ is one of complete bemusement. I'm confused about why they spend their time talking about fashion and not something else.

I actually like fashion. I want to dress cool. I just don't want to discuss it because I don't think it's an interesting topic.

>>3834510
well i like to believe that they're all aspiring designers at some fashion school and that's why they waste all day obsessing over it but sadly i think a large percentage of them post on /fa/ all day because they actually think it will help them get laid lel

Fashionable clothing is too expensive. I'd much rather buy some boring, neutral clothes and save the money for more important things. There are far better ways to express yourself than through fashion.

>>3834554
yeah but you can always buy cheap knockoffs of the expensive shit, sure it'll be itchy and pinch your calves but it'll look mostly the same

>>3834444
God she is the worst with these fluttery self indulgent tweets. Absolutely insufferable. I wish the old buzzkill would just shut the fuck up. Shes as bad as those r/atheists who make up their own 'quotes'.

>>3834444
nice quads

Hearing a teenager saying that he loves fashion is like he said that he loves to waste time watching pointless fashion shows and then spending his dads money to buy unnecessesary stuff aimed at loosers like him.

>>3834583
so what should he buy instead? a video game console? an anime boxset? a big bag of marijuana?

>>3834444
What a retarded statement.

>but only then
Forced poignancy and obviously not thought out, one of those cherry toppings for show more than actually contributing to the logic of material. Fucking bitch.

Your average person doesn't wear fashion shit because they're expensive and not mass-produced and accessible on a surface commodity relation. It's niche stuff.

>>3834590
A 4chan pass so he can bypass CAPTCHA. Shit's expensive.

Butthurt is not fashionable.

/fa/ died years ago

>>3834590
A book? A gym membership? A nice piece of meat so that he can learn how to cook? Or actually save the money?

There are lots of ways to spend money as a teenager instead of buying piece of clothing that was made for 5 euros and sold for 75 euros.

I dont find anything meaningful in this.

>>3834608
but if you buy a gym membership then you'll get a bunch of fat/scrawny people hating on for being in shape, you can't win bro, there's always going to be some guy on a couch in a basement somewhere who's going to be mad at whatever you do

>>3833815

I too have often thought that there should be a /ph/ board.

>>3834618
getting fit is improving your everydays life and has many benefits, not only that you get mired everywhere you go (no matter how hard you try, a fit healthy male in nice fitting v neck t shirt will always be more respected that some skeleton wearing 200 dollar scrawny shirt and 450 dollar pants), but you - live longer, have better mood, sleep better, have improved imunity, are healthier overall.

On the other hand, getting /fa/ will earn you respect from guys like you. Because it is much easier to get /fa/ than to get /fit/, even a retard understands the basics of etiquete

>>3834646
You need to work on your sentences. Less is more.

>>3834608
I buy all my clothes.

>>3834659
i care about fashion about as much as i care about architecture, which is to say not that much but a little. still i don't tell people who care about architecture that they're a bunch of fags wasting their life or something...why do ppl get so mad about fashion

it's all about the fit and who's wearing what, but more of the former

>>3834677
Property is a much better investment than clothes.

>>3834677
Probably because they arent too fashionable themselves or are too lazy to bother.

>>3834677
because it's more popular
you don't have building design commercials pushed in your face every day

>>3834681
Making good impressions on others always has its benefits. Why does it seem as if these uglies try to make a point about being socially retarded?

>>3834687
what do you mean? The sort of fashion that is thrown in your face, the big brands like aero and all that shit isnt fashionable at all. you see somebody wearing that and its no better than having your mom still dress you. Might as well hate film because its always thrown in your face.

>>3834689
You'll make a much better impression on someone if you dress like a normal person than if you wear "fashionable" clothes. Those make you look like a dickhead.
I'm not sure what being ugly has to do with clothes. That just sounds enormously shallow.

>>3834699
Now it sounds like youre just directing this at a certain demographic that growing up really upset you. Porbably those jocks who wore hollister. Fashion isnt wearing name brand. Its dressing well and being coordinated. Its aesthetics through color coordination and subtlty. It doesnt have to be bold.

>>3834695
the number of people exposed to fashion and care at least somewhat is larger than architecture
same thing with music, more people have somewhat of an interest in it so they feel their narrow opinions matter

>>3834699
>like a normal person
Why would anyone want to impress anyone this entitled and arrogant?

>>3834699
m8 most of fashion is pretty normal looking

>>3834708
I'm surprised you can't tell from the way I write that where I grew up there is no such thing as a jock. That would invalidate your entire argument.
Fashion is wearing a name brand. Dressing well is being well dressed and for the nth time, though there might be overlap, they are not the same thing.

>>3834699
you sound like some yokel who just got to new york and is intimidated by all fashionable "dickheads"

>>3834722
What's entitled and arrogant about not wanting to dress like a fairy?

>>3834726
There are degrees of fashionable and /fa/ is at the retard end.

>>3834730
>Fashion is wearing a name brand

what in the fuck?

can any /fa/ ppl recommend me a book surveying the history of fashion sort of like "Jansen's History of Art" but for clothes

>>3834730
>Fashion is wearing a name brand.
So you're knowledgeable and interested in fashion when it suits you.

>What's entitled and arrogant about not wanting to dress like a fairy?
Because your opinion doesn't matter?

>>3834730
Excuse me? Fashion encompasses the entire art. Fashion designers and fashion shows do not adhere to the idea of a name brand, but rather entertaining a throwback or innovation to what one wears. Designers work with fabric to create textures and work towards an idea. Your definition of fashion is very ignorant to the creativity that goes into it.

One thing that bugs me about people who dont care for fashion is that they seem to think it is shallow and that might hinder their intellectual pinache, like the dreaded sports.

>>3834745
I can recognise when someone's out of place or trying too hard.

>>3834752
Were you too busy examining the stitching on your booties to read the thread?
>Curious about /lit/'s opinion on fashion.

>>3834769
Youre so butch and macho. Wow. Everyone look. This guy has a penis. Likes titties. Wow.

>>3834780
It's not about machismo, it's about not being pretentious about clothes.
You guys are utterly ridiculous.

>>3834780
Don't be like that mate. How else would hot chick know he likes the puss if he didn't dress shit.

Nothing gets a broad hotter than badly fitting blue jeans and a graphic t-shirt.

>>3834792
Why do you assume everything revolves around sex?

>>3834788
>not wanting to dress like a fairy?
>It's not about machismo

>>3834796
Why do you think wearing nice clothing is seen as un-masculine? Why do you think the opinions of the people making these judgement's should be taken seriously?

>>3834797
Fairies generally wear ridiculous over ornate clothes.

>>3834796
Because everything revoles around sex and survivalism.

>>3834802
see >>3834788

>>3834807
>it's not about these assumptions, it's about these asumptions

>>3834803
Luckily being fashionable doesnt mean dressing like a faerie. Its dressing in a way that compliments your body type, the season, the weather, or environment you live in. Its harmony. why do you want to live in this bubble of wild stereotypes? You must have enough sense to know its not really the case that fashion is just a bunch of over the top gays having a glitter party.

>>3834803
And that stops you from wearing what ever you like? And we're the insecure ones.

If I can contribute to this thread outside of the pseudomasculine MRA fedoranerd's argument w/ everyone else re his fears/perception of the femininity of 'high fashion or w/e, I'd just like to say that I dress mostly in an attempt to not stand out. I have a moderate interest in fashion and mostly follow the trends of what a normal college student wears considering that I'm a normal college student. I have some high fashion clothes, for example. I still wear Nike shoes and wear t-shirts.

>>3834792
well... i wouldn't underestimate the amount of women who like a hot, keyword hot, guy in some tight jeans and a t-shirt

>>3834828
The people arguing against being fashionable don't know anything about being fashionable.

>>3834828
when i was an undergrad there was this dude who was in a couple of my classes who always dressed in a fucking pinstripe suit ... i'm like yeah that would probably look good in court arguing a case or something but you're in intro to western civ bro. i mean "dressing appropriately" is worth something.

>>3834843
is that bad?

>>3834860
What? The picture. Nah, sounded like what you wear.

>>3834860
yeah i can't tell if he put that as something bad or something good

>>3834868
Yeah, because you're unfashionable?

>>3834873
so you think nike sneakers, white socks and a baggy t-shirt with a zipper on the side is fashionable? ummm, ok fashion expert, i'll just let you carry on being fashionable over there in fashion city

>>3834873
no, i know if it's fashionable or not..i couldn't tell if YOU thought it was fashionable or not. durr.

>>3834876
Great! I'll have fun only wearing that fit for the rest of my life.

What we're you expecting? Just shows, yet again that you don't know what you're talking about.

It's not all feather-boas and trench coats.

>>3834879
>So you're knowledgeable and interested in fashion when it suits you.

>>3834883
dude, you posted a picture of a dude wearing sneakers, jeans and a t-shirt...

>>3834889
see>>3834828
>What? The picture. Nah, sounded like what you wear.

my problem with /fa/ is that fucking everyone is millionaire. i went there the other day saying that i wanted to get into /fa/ and buy some decent clothes with the $200 i had save, but. most of them basically agreed that they wouldn't even consider A SINGLE piece of clothing for that ammount of money.

what the fucking fuck
do they all live in fucking Paris or something? godamn, I'm on a country in which H&M is the ultimate fashionable store, It doesn't need to be fucking rick owens to look good here (or anywhere in the world, really).

fuck.

>>3834856

Yeah, in my experience awareness of surroundings (i.e. what everyone else will be wearing) is extremely important. The suit guy might as well be wearing cargo pants and a turtleneck, as it demonstrates the same level of situational awareness.

I can understand how /fa/ wants to spend time discussing the upper echelons of fashion and stuff you'd wear down a catwalk and that there's probably a lot to fashion as an art form that I'm unaware of, and I imagine that probably carries over into expertise of every day fashions and I respect that immensely. I'm not that interested, and I pick up on everyday fashions as I see them. I don't know if that makes me /fa/shionable or not.

>>3834883
that t-shirt has a zipper on the side man

>>3834896

Thrift stores. I get all my best clothes at thrift stores. All the cool kids are going to thrift stores these days. If you live in a wealthy area, you can probably find a lot of designer brands there, too.

>>3834820
That sounds like what has been reiterated multiple times as "being well dressed" rather than "fashion" which, if you'll look at your own board, is about models and ridiculous clothes no-one wears.

>>3834826
I already wear what I like, and it's not an expensive advert for insecurity and vanity.

>>3834828
>huurrr anyone who disagrees with me I'll label as whatever
You guys are really quite dishonest at debate.

>>3834901
oh is that some new innovation by raf simmons that costs 450 bucks sorry i didnt realize how genius it was

>>3834901
next lvl 2222 edgyyy

So? Don't be such a pussy.

>>3834896
dude, most of them are fucking nerds with social anxiety disorder who cry when their mom makes them go outside to walk the dog, lol 90% of those fags don't have any of the shit they post about

>>3834908
>sorry i didnt realize how genius it was
You haven't seen another shirt like it so...
>hurrr durrr cuz it looks dum
>i am best judge of all thigs
>i spek for the PEOPLE

>>3834916
You are literally the only cool person on this site.

>>3834911

I don't disagree with you. You just have a puerile conception of what fashion is. Fashion can be masculine. Not all fashion is skinny jeans. Dad jeans and buzz-cuts don't send out "I'm straight--fuck me!" signals to women. The alternative, however, is not hotpants and gold lamae. There is a middle ground of manly fashions.

>>3834923
so all the other boards on 4chans are shutin autists who fap to cartoons and play video games all day in their shitty suburban towns except /fa/ which is filled with tycoons and international playboys who travel the world in search of the latest fashion? yeah, that sounds likely.

>>3834926
Nope. I'm saying you're apart of this site. You're either one of the people you just described or you are literally the only cool person on this site.

>>3834931

He said most of them. There are a few well adjusted people on 4chang.com

>>3834907
I would prefer buying online... i have more time to decide if i like or not the clothes. I'm also new to the city and I think that I have a light case of social anxiety (that feel when haven't left apartment for 2 weeks), so I'm looking for cheap Internet stores. Best I have found are Karmaloop (haha epic karmashit xDDDfagget) and Asos.
>>3834916
I... I don't know man.

>>3834909
edgy? why? it just looks like shit to me. zips aren´t cool. it looks uncomfortable also. And it´s useless, useless features like these looks pretentious
dressing good should suggest lightness, agility etc but that´s my opinion

>>3834944
>but that´s my opinion
It sure it!

>>3833815
I'm curious, what's with the bat?
Is he Alex the large?

>>3834944
The the jacket on that duck looks pretty cool. Too bad if I wore anything like it I'd suddenly be pretentious.

>>3834950

As the guy who posted about wearing t-shirts and tennis shoes originally, I do have to say that the zippers and skinny jeans aren't exactly my style, but I don't think that looks necessarily unfashionable.

>>3834896

clothes that are interesting to look at and arent made in a collapsed sweatshop in Bangladesh cost money

people who complain about clothes costing more than they do to make completely ignore the operating costs of the businesses that make the clothing.

>>3834958
Just looks cool.

>>3834959
Not only dressing like a cartoon character, but dressing like Donald Duck?

>>3834966
I'd rock it.

>>3834963
I'm not saying that they are overpriced, I'm saying that I can't believe that there is no possible way to spend $200 on some clothes that look good.

>>3834966
Fashion is about having #NoFear

>>3834955
I don´t give a fuck about fashion but I like to dress good, and zippers on the side just look like shit to me. Seriously guy? it seems the ultimate try-hard for someone that doesn´t want to look good, just different... and cheap possibly

>>3834958
>>3834964

the garments the model is wearing are significant symbols of social unrest as they were first and most significantly associated with the 60s skinhead youth movement. the bat further suggests that image.

>>3834976
Oh cool. Thanks.

>>3834976
I'm pretty sure the punx never wore dumb hoodie trench coats, though
I mean it looks alright besides that I guess

>>3834974

It looks a little bit ridiculous, sure, but I think a lot of fashion is based in looking a little bit ridiculous.

>>3834972

A garment that retails for $200 was probably made for around $35 estimated from the traditional retail markup for 2.5x from manufacture to wholesale and 2.5 from wholesale to retail. When a company is producing at a small scale, with ethical labor, quality materials, and intricate construction at the best possible manufacturing facilities it is very easy for a garment to cost $35 to make.

This markup primarily covers operating cost as well. There are huge overhead costs at all points in the sale of garments.

>>3834984

The parka (and it is a parka, not a trench) first became a fashion item with the skinheads.

>>3835007
No no, you see all coats are now trench coats. The high street and shock media told me.

/fa/ is actually the worst board. /b/, /mlp/ /pol/, /x/, /sp/, /mu/, /v/ and the like are traditionally known vectors for faggots from other websites but /fa/ is a tumor all it's own. It has no meshing with the community at large except people who are desperately trying to get out of the community (/fit/, /r9k/, /soc/). Hell, even /soc/, despite being the best known 4chan ghetto, still has a smattering of /b/ attached to it.

Nobody gives a fuck about clothes.

>>3835016
>It has no meshing with the community at large except people who are desperately trying to get out of the community
That just straight isn't true.

>>3833987
nah man. I'm the kind that only has tonification but not much volume going on. even I can admit that many women like muscular types. a fair amount go nuts for the type

>>3835016
>Nobody gives a fuck about clothes.

No, /fa/ gives a fuck about clothes. You keep pretending you opinion matters. /fa/ is different to the majority of 4chan because the majority of 4chan is unfashionable.

>>3835002
you are telling me every single person that i've seen that looks good spent more than $200 on a single piece of clothing? c'mon man... maybe it's not top quality/high-fashion, but it doesn't meant it won't look good.

>http://us.asos.com/ASOS-Fairisle-Sweater/yqxhs/?iid=2357152&SearchQuery=jumper&sh=0&pge=0&pgesize=36&sort=3&clr=Grey&mporgp=L0FTT1MvQVNPUy1GYWlyaXNsZS1KdW1wZXIvUHJvZC8..
>http://us.asos.com/ASOS-Denim-Jacket-With-Acid-Wash/ym0ub/?iid=2487310&SearchQuery=denim%20jacket&sh=0&pge=1&pgesize=36&sort=3&clr=Black&mporgp=L0FTT1MvQVNPUy1EZW5pbS1KYWNrZXQtV2l0aC1BY2lkLVdhc2gvUHJvZC8..
>http://www.karmaloop.com/product/The-Core-Tight-Jeans-in-Original-Unwash/136838
>http://www.karmaloop.com/product/The-Lismore-Jacket-in-Eclipse/351908

i could buy all of that with 200$ and they look pretty decent.

>>3835016
>Nobody gives a fuck about clothes.

Only 4channers say this shit.

>>3835039
you can look good without paying that much but you are really not helping your argument with those clothes lol

>>3835039
>if 4chan when shopping

>>3835039

It probably feels cheap and is sloppily designed. If you're going to buy cheap clothes keep them simple where the brand has little room for error. They cannot meet a low price point while taking care to design irregular or intricate garments as they ought be designed.

I regularly wear black jeans from GAP and H&M alongside much more expensive coats and shoes because jeans are simple to design and a inexpensive denim fabric is hard to distinguish from an moderately expensive denim. Inexpensive t-shirts are ok too.

Buying quality garments second hand is also an option. Most of my shoes are used, but are made of quality leathers that look great anyway.

>>3835007
But my book on British slang says that anorak is "Twee, jangly guitar pop performed by fey young men with floppy hair dressed in rain jackets known as anoraks"
I guess I can see skinheads wearing them, tho; idk about British fashion in general

but u no wot m8 it wounnit look so bad if ey put a bangin DONK ONIT

>>3835075
>and a inexpensive denim fabric is hard to distinguish from an moderately expensive denim
>actually believing this
Oh man, what the hell

>>3835077

if you know where to shop you can find cheap denim which isnt ugly

>>3835094
where

>>3835101

Anywhere if you can sort the shit from the decent stuff.

The premium gap denim was considered high quality for the price when i purchased it, now they've cheaped out on it (which was probably the plan all along) and its terrible.

Unbranded brand is still relatively inexpensive and decent. Buy on sale.

>>3835053
>>3835062
then teach me how.
could you also explain why these clothes suck?
>>3835075
thanks for the input. so the cheap monday jeans are good to go?
also, where could i buy second hand quality stuff? ebay'

I exclusively wear boat shoes, jeans, and a t-shirt associated with my high school/college. If it is cold I wear a peacoat.

>>3835094
>>3835123
You won't get a good quality denim for cheap
>The premium gap denim was considered high quality
This isn't even vaguely good ever. Italy and Japan rule the denim scene for good reason, stick your gap on a fire or something.

>>3835152

Cheap Monday has been slacking since they got bought out by H&M. Their M.O. is now profit and not quality at a low price. Their designs are still more interesting than most other inexpensive stuff, however.

If you know the quality brands you like ebay or styleforum's buy and sell are good places to look. Be patient, don't buy everything that strikes you, only buy exactly what you are looking for.

>>3835039
i gotta tell ya bro asos house brand shit is absolutely atrocious quality, it may look ok in the pictures but it is really low bad, i got suckered into ordering their shit a couple times and finally swore "never again"

>>3835179
>The premium gap denim was considered high quality FOR THE PRICE

That was like 50 bucks on sale. You can't compare them to $400 jeans.

>>3835152
>http://us.asos.com/ASOS-Fairisle-Sweater/yqxhs/?iid=2357152&SearchQuery=jumper&sh=0&pge=0&pgesize=36&sort=3&clr=Grey&mporgp=L0FTT1MvQVNPUy1GYWlyaXNsZS1KdW1wZXIvUHJvZC8..
I don't like the pattern and it looks cheap. The white on grey colour scheme just don't look nice.

>http://us.asos.com/ASOS-Denim-Jacket-With-Acid-Wash/ym0ub/?iid=2487310&SearchQuery=denim%20jacket&sh=0&pge=1&pgesize=36&sort=3&clr=Black&mporgp=L0FTT1MvQVNPUy1EZW5pbS1KYWNrZXQtV2l0aC1BY2lkLVdhc2gvUHJvZC8..
If you're going to get a jean jacket you should get a lighter one. Not a bluer one, a more washed out one.

>http://www.karmaloop.com/product/The-Core-Tight-Jeans-in-Original-Unwash/136838
I don't like the stitching on these.

>http://www.karmaloop.com/product/The-Lismore-Jacket-in-Eclipse/351908
This looks alright but not great.

All the brands you picked out are cheap for a reason. They aren't designed as well or as high quality as other brands. Cheap Mondays are notorious for stretching. All of this stuff relies very focus on very current trends. They probably don't fit well either.

Hopefully this wont come off as too snobby or anything. As bad as /fa/ is they could help.

>>3835185
hmmm.
could you tell me some good brands that I could buy with the 200$ on eBay/styleforum? used, of course. I'm really new to /fa/, I mean, I've been lurking the board for like a year, but I don't know about brands or where to start building some /fa/ knowledge.

>>3835191
>$400 jeans
Because only GAP do sales

>>3835207
>but I don't know about brands or where to start building some /fa/ knowledge
Why not? Just lurk, why not make a thread about it on /fa/?

>>3835210

they have sales more often and they go deeper

you probably can't find quality designer denim for less than 30% off in desirable sizes

>>3835223
because people on /fa/ are insufferable pedants

>>3835256

because the people on /lit/ aren't insufferable pedants

>>3835261
ok look at the front page of /fa/ right now...a thread on vans, a thread on nazi inspired looks, some dude whining about his haircut, some thread about semi-mainstream rap, "tough guy/badass inspiration thread" with guys who look like girls and ... yeah.

>>3835282
So go somewhere else, fucking hell.

>nazi inspired looks
The Hitler Youth? lol

>>3834843
w2c roshes?

>>3835561
Why do you mean man? They're either Roshe Runs Woven or just Runs with the black swoosh which you can do on the Nike website for like $30 extra.