malaesthetique

jack photography: understanding what he says and thinking it is overdone and not very interesting are two entirely different things.

i have had enough experience with pseudo intellectuals to know one when i see one. have also seen enough people picking fights to see that robi is just as interested in causing a commotion and taking cheap shots as he is in discussing aesthetics.

the second part of that paragraph is what about to get him banned:

here is some transparency.

This all started with a mild and on point critique of Lowrider's fit. I gave the good with the bad, very fair. Then some nobody armed with a weak argument tried to talk metaphysics with me. Naturally i met his pretentious timbre and exceeded it. Stylistically over the line a bit but that doesn't invalidate the truth I spoke.

Hap your analogies were off but your sentiment was understood. But admit it I had every right to retaliate after being provoked like that.

FYI calling someone a pseudo-intellectual destroys all your credibility. Its equivalent to declaring yourself the expert. I'd like to see you try to probe the depth of my knowledge on subjects I addressed just to be sure.

robi

why is it when your logic runs out you resort to insults?

e.g. old man, idiot

Because beasts must be beaten in order to learn. And actually I didn't run out of any logic, just added an extra layer to my assault.

You seem to be the one who has run out of valid responses. So far just 2 inadequate analogies.

i can understand what you wrote, but it is overdressed, ugly to read.

it looks like a russian mail order bride all logos the biggest dolce logo on the chest, with some versace all over print pants, lets not forget the massive diamond ring. all very flashy, once the decoration is taken away, it is not very interesting.

Another false analogy because it assumes that there is no logic. This can be applied to anything if you don't understand whats being said. There's nothing inherently ugly about it, you just find it troublesome.

Anything stripped of its decorations is uninteresting, even you. Its all dressing you idiot.

i dunno hap...

basically what you and a couple others are getting at is that you just don't like the way he expresses himself and that he does it just for the sake of using a big vocabulary. thing is, you can't buy words/terms.

though i do not choose to speak/post like malaesthetique i agree with what he has said. wondering if u have comprehended his post(s).

if so, do u not agree?

exactly. His argument only stands if the logic does not compute.

We don't dress up so that other people will understand us. In fact quite the contrary. I use big words to alienate the inarticulate and stupid, the same way I wear nice clothes to alienate tasteless plebes.

actually using that many big words when smaller words would be clearer, is the intellectual equivalent of buying and wearing expensive labels just because they are expensive.

the problem with the way that malaesthetique chooses to express himself is a lack word synergy.

edit: nice fit zee

lack of word synergy-LOL@ this concept. as if single words were aesthetic entities on their own. Your analogy breaks down old man. this purely objectified treatment of fashion goods is exactly what I'm responding to. Putting together an outfit is nothing like writing a poetic verse. completely different games. putting together a decent outfit is more akin to compiling an anthology of poetry. Coherence or an overarching theme is key.

Sorry you don't dig the way I chose to phrase my response, but I wont compromise precision for the sake of "clarity" in your uneducated opinion.

A little less superfluous use of the thesaurus and verbatim and this would have been golden.

Abridged version:

Man uses patterns and rules to break-down complexity.

You state that nature is too complex and can't follow rules/patterns.

You'ze stoopid.

glad you were able to glean at least that much but your abridged version totally missed some other valid points and direct responses to semper's comments. I just chose not to express myself in the typical sufu-hoodrat fashion.

show me where a simpler word could have been substituted form something more exact. This is simply the language I am used to, no thesaurus necessary.

sayword- STFU

Jack, cant rep but thx for being literate

Shortened the quote a bit, although I mean to answer all of it.

(don't read this if you're tired of this discussion)

I agree with a lot of this. But. Peanut butter is actually just peanuts. Sushi without the wasabi is mainly rice.The two combined come quite close to Gado Gado then, which is a traditional dish: (usually) cold rice with peanut sauce and some cabbage. Still calling it sushi would probably be seen as an outrage by many people, but essentially there's nothing about it that's impossible. Whether it's good taste is something else, and as much as you can try and describe taste, it's hard to fit it into rules. You can put down some principles for yourself and share them with others, like on sufu, but starting to treat them like mathematical laws is ridiculous, and anyone doing so is making a complete fool out of himself.

Being all in one concept, with matching musical taste, political views etc, is a teenager thing, like deciding to become a gothic. At that age, it's very useful as a framework, a starting point from which you can mature as a person. Nothing wrong with it. But by the time you're well in your 20s, it'd better have dissolved into something less schematic, and more individual, wit all its paradoxes. To me that's what style is all about.

But then, I'm not a teenager.

Thank you.

Lowrider, now sell me those high ann dem boots you posted about a year ago.

you call it a framework, i call it an ideology. the main difference is that yours was less fortified and has already crumbled. Instead of rebuilding you've simply allowed your morality to lapse into cynicism. Having ideals is not some puerile phase out of which we should seek to grow.

Don't try to lecture me on the inherent chaotic principle of nature. I'm not lobbying for a full blown science of fashion. Its on a different ontological plane altogether. But reductionism in general is the best tool we have for gaining a deep and critical understanding of any complex phenomena--why certain works of art are valid/invalid, why an outfit works/doesn't work. Its not all a game of chance. Although it is more romantic and easy to simply assent or dissent at the level of the whole, your subconscious mind is going to be applying "rules" anyway with or without your explicit awareness. Better to come to terms with that. Maybe then your universe will start being more ordered and sensible.

the positioning of your finger makes that picture like x1000 better

I was actually asking her to pull my finger

really man? christ, i got my BA in english and i don't feel the need to write like you on a fashion forum. your post above reminded me of the most quoted lines in macbeth "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." taken out of context of the play and applied here, it makes a lot of sense.

you use big words but your logic is tragically flawed. i'll save you mental anguish of trying to figure out why.

you're attempting to make 2 points in your post. first, that my consumption habits depend on outsourced thought. you're assuming that i only care about sufu approved designers. significant / insignificant designers, i don't really care. like i said previously, if i found shit that i like - and i'll be more to the point now - at walmart or target, i'd buy it and many a time, i have. i just don't care that much about it.

second, that my approach to fashion and my uninformed procurement of garments applies to my overall mentality. you're taking a single topic, one that's barely a blip on my radar but is obviously your earth and sky and how you define yourself and are trying to say that the "general mechanics" apply? have we've ever discussed anything other than fashion? actually have we ever communicated prior to this? no... so let me simplify this for you with this example: i see you eating a salad and assume that you're a tree hugging vegan. must be true right?

this is not the argument of a smart man.

This scenario is nothing like inferring from one salad meal that a person is a vegan. There is clearly a pattern of incoherence in the way you dress. HVibskov + alden indys the first time we've exchanged words years ago to Self Edge + carol christian poell most recently. You obviously do not consider how a piece will fit in with the rest of your wardrobe. You consume in insular categories and boast that your process is something simple: see, like, buy. This fragmented approach is the reason that despite having a some nice individual pieces nothing comes together properly. The historical evidence and your rationale speaks volumes. I think its pretty safe to assume a thing or two about your ideology, your metaphysics, or that your taste in music must be just as confused and superficially ecclectic with no unifying criteria behind it.

The "general mechanics" I speak of is well supported by a phenomena known as "transfer of principle," or simply being able to apply the abstract knowledge gained in one field onto another, finding isomorphisms across seemingly disparate phenomena. If you had good taste in lit or were skilled at literary analysis I would assume you would be able to grasp the rules of the fashion game a bit easier. But the level of superficiality with which you treat it implies that you were probably not that great with lit either. sorry for you

But I see through this defense mechanism, this I'm above it all because I don't care dismissal. If you truly didn't care about the legitimacy of your purchases or the correctness of your style how would you find yourself here in the first place, participating like you do. Chance? If you're not trying to please anyone or prove anything why continue posting, Inertia?

Keep on dressing and living in contradiction. My logic remains flawless.

this is not an argument i can win since i'm posting on a fashion forum and it's really not worth my time anymore to try and explain myself. let's just agree to call it lowrider land logic.

mal - i see your point and apologize for offending your refined sense of style with my aesthetic bastardizing of brands.

can we move on now?

Its not the subject matter that makes this argument un-winnable, but your general mentality and tacit ideology. Your consumption habits depend on outsourced thought. You don't care about really knowing what makes a designer significant, just the fact that he/she is significant. And that is sufficient for you to like it. We could be talking about any subject: food, film, music, etc. The general mechanics of all these cultures is essentially the same.

very simple. if i like it, and i can afford it, i'll buy it. i'm not a baller and am not trying to front like one. i don't consider it a waste of funds since it's something that brings me joy. plus, if i don't sacrifice anything to buy what i want, then i'm not missing out on anything - no harm, no foul, no waste of funds.

well, it's simple in my mind...

where is the joy in failure.

Your problem most likely is that you never had style when you were young and poor. That's when you can afford to learn from mistakes like this and really develop a good sense of dress. But you're already a grown man and should be able to dress like one. You have enough money to buy fancy shit but have no aesthetic faculty influencing your consumption other than your naive subconscious impulses. How can one be simultaneously attracted to Self-Edge denim and Carol Christian Poell, wear the two together, or utter those names in the same breath? Only in lowrider land does this logic make sense.

Dude...everyone around you is wearing short sleeves and skirts and whatnot. Is the leather jacket not a bit excessive in weather like this?

Wow, were you there? How do you know that they're all wearing shorts? There were also girls in animal costumes too. Now that's excessive.

What everyone else chooses to wear is irrelevant. They wear shorts because that's all they have in their crap wardrobes. In principle there is nothing wrong with wearing a leather jacket and a T shirt on a 70 degree night, let alone indoors at an air conditioned lounge.

Ok jmatsu - you wanted to see me attempt a fit pic with the jacket. Flame away!

4 Avery IPAs down...

Right leg stable:

Left leg not so much:

jacket looks good but the boots throw this off. they are way to rigid looking for such a slouchy unstructured raglan cut and TJ's.

this weekend

RO

Brilli

Ksubi

Drkshdw

Guilano (not shown)

daily bump

bump and price drop: $200

outer sole measurement please

email to [email protected] or just post it in the thread

I'm very interested if the fit is right. Thank you

outsole measures from heel to tip of toe 13"

Widest point being 4.5"

sounds big, but inside fits like a US 11-11.5

morning bump

Raf Simons

price drop to 225.

OS shirt sold, price drop on kitsune's to 50 bucks shipped.

latest beta evers release slays

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=0KGVK7KL

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IveKJQt-bbE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IveKJQt-bbE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

best track: play bizzare

amazing ambient dark electro and dark electro funk by the master, danny wolfers. highly recc'd

shite forgot to label drop. it's Ann D sleeveless parka. total final fight street punk status.

ma+ wallet,

and thats probably it for june hahah.

damn son how much? we had the double joint at my shop in red. wanted 2 kopp but some nigga beat me to it.

anyway, my most recent kop: