Jump to content

Acronym.


Westbrook

Recommended Posts

i think dr gitlin was referring to the people i was referencing in my post, not me, but he might be referring to me and I could be misunderstanding. 

@appleseed 

yeah at the core of it, for me it's really an individual-centric thing. my actions are purely based on how i myself feel about the actions that i take (this is just how i live life). ie.  what you said about no one knows the things you're wearing are supreme. yeah, no one in my life cares or knows about anything i wear, but i will know, if that makes sense. and that's pretty much all that matters to me? i know that's a little maniacal. the me wanting to disassociate from it was not out of shame that someone might categorize me amongst those i expressed disdain for or anything like that. it's simply that i know the action would not be one of cognitive conssonance. when my principles are extremely individual-centric, almost to a flaw, and i see the fanbase of this being predominantly society-centric / internet centric, it feels completely out of alignment for me. it's more like a hippie-energy thing. it's important for me personally to be in harmony with the ethos of something that is a part of my life. I stay fairly disconnected from social media / all the platforms aside from the infrequent use to sell or buy something but even then those interfactions left an undigestible taste in my mouth. this by no means means i'm not going to keep my favorite pieces. it's just that i've tapered away from it being THE thing for me in relation to fashion art consumption is all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I dunno. Do obnoxious concert-goes somehow make Mayer a lesser-guitarist? Do the Bryan Lee's of the world somehow takeaway from ACR's actual output or make it objectively less-interesting?

To me, changing behavior and/or interests because of others is the literal opposite of an individual-centric pursuit. If you'd linked ERLSN's SJW Twitter regurgitations to your being out-of-alignment, I could understand a logic behind wanting disassociation.

 

Regardless, this is exactly what I was hoping people would get into after @jeddyhsu's remark; so thanks for going out on a proverbial limb.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no worries, think this is a great discussion.

the answer to both of your first questions, is absolutely not. the music doesn't change whatsoever. my opinions on mayer as a guitarist would not change whatsoever. but what it does change is maybe me considering whether or not I'd enjoy going to live shows as much. similarly if you start hating the changing ambience / vibe of a restaurant you used to love but now only would get take-out there. 

obviously clothes doesn't have that exact same parity, nor am i equating the live concert / restaurant ambience to the community around that brand necessarily, but to me it's my exposure to the entire ethos of it. Had I stayed completely off the grid, quietly listening to my records by myself things probably wouldn't change.  but it's literally that exposure to that part of the ethos that has made me associate that negative energy with this brand. that's a part of how I actually see it in my head. A brand isn't just it's products. like if data came out that said white supremesists make up 50% of taco bell's customers, i'd be like nah i ain't tryna be eating the same food as them. fuck that. not tryna even be in the same resonance as that. and i'd stop eating there, regardless of me thinking they make bomb food or not, it's not their fault at all.

it's more changing behavior not because of others, but because of how i feel about it. It's a bit hard to verbalize but  i think debating whether an action i'm taking is something that is individual-centric or not with someone who doesn't personally know me or that just plainly isn't me, doesn't really make sense because i'm the only person who can determine that as the individual. also i'm not like boycotting acr out of my warddrobe or anything like that, it's just significantly become less of pillar when it used to be the flagship. and i'm simply saying that because of the ethos not being as perfectly aligned with my values as it once was, as something like visvim currently is, it's just not where I want to put my energy. (also budget for like shit completely related to this, that's just my own personal taste changing etc. but that i can't decouple all of this completely is all)

i'm not the greatest at writing things in a clear manner but hope that kinda makes sense.

again, completely personal anecdote, speaking 1000% only for me, not attempting to make any sort of broadcast about the state of things in any way or form. 

Edited by erictheninja
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Appleseed said:

Yeah, I dunno. Do obnoxious concert-goes somehow make Mayer a lesser-guitarist? Do the Bryan Lee's of the world somehow takeaway from ACR's actual output or make it objectively less-interesting?

To me, changing behavior and/or interests because of others is the literal opposite of an individual-centric pursuit. If you'd linked ERLSN's SJW Twitter regurgitations to your being out-of-alignment, I could understand a logic behind wanting disassociation.

 

Regardless, this is exactly what I was hoping people would get into after @jeddyhsu's remark; so thanks for going out on a proverbial limb.

 

I used to have this kind of discussion with a friend who was really into Supreme. Even 6 years ago the brand had already hit a saturation point where he felt wearing certain items was communicating the wrong message. It's a really interesting dilemma and I'm not ready to pick a side, but I'm not sure if I would agree that modifying your behaviours/interests because of what's popular or what other people are doing necessarily makes you less individually-centric. This friend of mine demonstrates individuality more than anyone else I know.

I personally notice a lot of parallels with the popularity of Acronym and the popularity of synthesizers. It just doesn't feel good when people buy themselves into your tribe, especially when these people don't offer anything to the community in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hooper said:

I used to have this kind of discussion with a friend who was really into Supreme. Even 6 years ago the brand had already hit a saturation point where he felt wearing certain items was communicating the wrong message. It's a really interesting dilemma and I'm not ready to pick a side, but I'm not sure if I would agree that modifying your behaviours/interests because of what's popular or what other people are doing necessarily makes you less individually-centric. This friend of mine demonstrates individuality more than anyone else I know.

I personally notice a lot of parallels with the popularity of Acronym and the popularity of synthesizers. It just doesn't feel good when people buy themselves into your tribe, especially when these people don't offer anything to the community in return.

as someone who produces music and owns a few synths but knows nothing about the community behind them, pretty interested in your thoughts around the parallels

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, erictheninja said:

obviously clothes doesn't have that exact same parity, nor am i equating the live concert / restaurant ambience to the community around that brand necessarily, but to me it's my exposure to the entire ethos of it. Had I stayed completely off the grid, quietly listening to my records by myself things probably wouldn't change.  but it's literally that exposure to that part of the ethos that has made me associate that negative energy with this brand. that's a part of how I actually see it in my head. A brand isn't just it's products. like if data came out that said white supremesists make up 50% of taco bell's customers, i'd be like nah i ain't tryna be eating the same food as them. fuck that. not tryna even be in the same resonance as that. and i'd stop eating there, regardless of me thinking they make bomb food or not, it's not their fault at all.

This paragraph is fascinating to me for two reasons:

  • your example is close to some things that have actually happened in real life -- look at L.L. Bean being endorsed by Trump. despite the brand being loudly apolitical, Trump's endorsement led to a boycott by association.
  • frankly it's not hard at all to imagine skinheads specifically jumping from mil fashion into acronym.

but a difference I'm seeing is that acronym is so small. Even as it's become known in the hypebeast community, I've seen Acronym exactly twice in the wild in my 4.5 years living in NYC. The prevalence is a lot more abstract unless you engage with the online streetwear community. And i'm beginning to suspect i'm a lot less wired into that community than the average person on this forum, so people being dumbasses on a Facebook group doesn't bother me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ya for me, the interactions were few and far inbetween but it did make up the majority, also the level of dissonance was high for my personal values. the difference for me in this example and the fake taco bell / ll bean situation is i don't care about impact related to society. the scale of the impact doesn't matter in my own mind. cause it's purely about what i think  about my own actions and experiences and whether they feel true to self (an ever changing one at that) or not.

like it's not the fear of any shame or embaressment from any person or society that would make me want to stop me from eating tacobell / buying LL bean. but simply my own volition and shame for self

Edited by erictheninja
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, hooper said:

I used to have this kind of discussion with a friend who was really into Supreme. Even 6 years ago the brand had already hit a saturation point where he felt wearing certain items was communicating the wrong message. It's a really interesting dilemma and I'm not ready to pick a side, but I'm not sure if I would agree that modifying your behaviours/interests because of what's popular or what other people are doing necessarily makes you less individually-centric. This friend of mine demonstrates individuality more than anyone else I know.

This hits a key point for me, and is why I phrased things they way I did. Might have been head-to-toe, but you wouldn't know it because no blatant logos / signaling. The saturation and association (both Supreme and ACR) have absolutely tweaked some of my own behaviors, but not to the point of the OP where one is selling everything off (or losing actual interest - perhaps more importantly e.g., 'clothes' vs. culture and symbolism).

That said, isn't 'modifying your behaviours/interests because of what's popular or what other people are doing' the literal definition of collective-centric behavior? Maybe I'm being too pedantic (or not enough?). How stand-alone do you have to be for a negative reaction to actually become individual-centric behavior instead of just plain-old contrarianism? Lots of gray area for sure...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to me, something is individual-centric if you're doing it for yourself and not individual-centric if you're doing based on how you may be perceived by a party other than yourself. 

unless you're trying to intentionally play that perception into you're favor or something. ie. dressing a certain way to a negotiation to give off a certain perception so that you can play that in monetary favor for yourself. that's ultimately an individual-centric action. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like a paradox eh? Is being contrarian individualistic? It's temping to say no, but I'm able to ponder it for a while. It's definitely pedantic but that's part of the fun. Can you be individualistic in a group of 1? 

Ultimately some kind of strive to be unique seems individualistic to me, and in the real world I think that requires constant change and evolution, or rather just being extremely fucking weird from the start lol. That being said, what could possibly be un-individualistic with sticking with something that happens to become popular?

Edited by hooper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly up for discussion - and while we keep throwing these terms around loosely, they're actually pretty well defined in some circles. @erictheninja's last post talks about currying favor for personal gain as individual-centric, but if you're feeding / contributing to the group (to whatever end), it's actually collective-centric, regardless of whether you get personal benefit out of it or not.

 

14 minutes ago, hooper said:

That being said, what could possibly be un-individualistic with sticking with something that happens to become popular?

bingo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the same action can be individualistic for one person and not for the other. it's all completely personal.

re: currying favor,

i was simply stating my own current personal definition of being individual-centric. i'm sure everyone has their own definition and views on what that means to him / her as they should, every single person should think for themselves. but similar to former point. it really is to each his own. only we know our own code and breath. that's the wavelength i think about things on at least.

Edited by erictheninja
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, erictheninja said:

as someone who produces music and owns a few synths but knows nothing about the community behind them, pretty interested in your thoughts around the parallels

basically they're both having a moment in the spotlight. it's great, really. I love new Acronym and I love the new pro audio gear coming out, but I just don't care to post pictures of my clothes or equipment as often nowadays as it feels like I'm competing for space in a dialogue dominated by people who more than anything are just showing their ability to buy things. 

It seems like almost everyone eventually yaks about how things were better in the past lol. How could it be true that life has been continually getting worse for centuries? I try my best to not sound like one of these people lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, erictheninja said:

my own current personal definition of being individual-centric

Ok, but that doesn't somehow make this technically correct. Just makes you one of the more selfish bee's in the hive! Not even arguing whether this is 'good' or 'bad'.

While these things come down to personal choices, you need to step back and look at them more objectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i definitely would get that in everyway and agree if we were discussing something more rooted in being data-driven / adjacent, scientific / math etc. but the concept / definition of being individual-centric is inherently subjective in every aspect, it's based on context even if you wanted to look at it from an objective standpoint, it varies from culture to culture, company to company, family to family , even year over year etc. 

By no means do I not see and appreciate your viewpoints though. I'm simply saying "fasho I respect that, good shit." it's just not my truth or how i operate, here's how i see it. and i think that's healthy.  

Edited by erictheninja
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely though the ironic/paradoxical thing is that in the 'real world' acr wearers are by the nature of numbers alone and, individualistic, and while cavorting around their natural habitat do indeed feel that way, however, only when meeting up for group therapy session on the interwebs does the paradox kick in and that individual suddenly become the clone/drone hive dweller.

Does this not feed that "oh damn, so there are more out there" type of feeling?

So can you all not enjoy being together alone?

Either that or disconnect from social media that feeds the paranoia or rot or whatever it is folk are feeling and return to that pre-state of blissful individualcentricity (yes, I know non real word).

Don't forget when we first started buying Analog/burton etc (pre acronym the clothing company but design agency) there was little to no social media/hypebeast etc, and since then the early adopters that then welcomed ACR with open arms as a distillation of those and related projects have grown alot older and evolved, some beyond or moved sideways, this might also explain why alot are shedding their collections or this might also be because the share price is right to sell!! - If you get what I mean, you can't blame some to not look a gift horse in the mouth.

Right now I think the wave has been ridden and the glassy tube has folded in on itself, we've reached the impact zone and some will paddle out back again to await the next set while others will take the whitewater ashore.

Sometimes getting back to 'out there' is better than being seen 'in here'...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some real rough psychology, but being individual-centric basically lies in your motivation. If you’re contributing to a group for personal gains, it’s still individual-centric. Eg: cleaning up a park because you don’t like seeing trash. Sure it benefits the community but it was an internally motivated. If you do it because kids are falling on broken glass, then it’s collective.

What you guys are talking about with changing dress/behavior in currying favor sounds like a high self monitor - you adapt to social cues and behave accordingly regardless of your internal beliefs (and then you could ascribe individual or communal-centric motivation to this). A low self monitor wouldn’t care and will wear acrnm regardless of the social setting (an individual-centric decision), but their actions in that setting can still be self/community-centric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 5/27/2020 at 1:26 PM, erictheninja said:

i think dr gitlin was referring to the people i was referencing in my post, not me, but he might be referring to me and I could be misunderstanding. 

@appleseed 

yeah at the core of it, for me it's really an individual-centric thing. my actions are purely based on how i myself feel about the actions that i take (this is just how i live life). ie.  what you said about no one knows the things you're wearing are supreme. yeah, no one in my life cares or knows about anything i wear, but i will know, if that makes sense. and that's pretty much all that matters to me? i know that's a little maniacal. the me wanting to disassociate from it was not out of shame that someone might categorize me amongst those i expressed disdain for or anything like that. it's simply that i know the action would not be one of cognitive conssonance. when my principles are extremely individual-centric, almost to a flaw, and i see the fanbase of this being predominantly society-centric / internet centric, it feels completely out of alignment for me. it's more like a hippie-energy thing. it's important for me personally to be in harmony with the ethos of something that is a part of my life. I stay fairly disconnected from social media / all the platforms aside from the infrequent use to sell or buy something but even then those interfactions left an undigestible taste in my mouth. this by no means means i'm not going to keep my favorite pieces. it's just that i've tapered away from it being THE thing for me in relation to fashion art consumption is all.

 

Yep, you got it right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beepy said:

Some real rough psychology

How thin do we get to slice this tho - i.e., separating motivation from behavior? This is what I meant by objectivity; should be obvious that individuals' choices are pretty much always going to be individual-centric in this context, for reasons that @TEKsevenZERO and others have mentioned. In the real-world, this topic mostly operates in a vacuum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Appleseed I mean, the original question that sparked this was what's the motivation behind a certain behavior, so objectivity comes from identifying that. Why would sell off their acrnm collection? @TEKsevenZero carved out two big motivations for that behavior. 

Same goes for buying acrnm in the first place. For some people, something about the brand resonates with them, so they buy. Then there's the fuccbois chasing clout on IG - acrnm/techwear is hype and gets internet points, so they buy.

It is interesting that people feel there's a paradox in there being an acrnm community considering it's a product made by someone else - you're inherently connecting with Errolson et al in wearing acrnm. Like tek said, you're together alone... until you e-congregate. I'd say the same goes for any a niche interest, statistically there's not going to be too many of your "group" members in the wild. Like choose the biggest act from any music sub-genre - you're probably not going to see too many people wearing that band tee despite them having sold millions of albums. Until you go to a concert or maybe record store (not counting the Ramones or Black Flag or whatever else they sell at Urban Outfitters).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To try and look back and see our earlier interests as being somehow more "right" or "authentic" because of a lack of social media or popularity just seems like an asshole attitude. I think I just miss clout-chasing among what was simply a smaller group of people. I would certainly want to think you're a vain show-off if your instagram account showed just you and all your Porsches. However, if I had rather saw you posting about them on the Porsche forum, I would probably just think of you as an enthusiast lol. I guess I feel the same about the whole streetwear thing.

At the end of the day these pictures pictures people post only show so much. We should not jump to conclusions with limited information. That is dumbassery. That includes labelling people as being clout chasers or vain hypebeasts because simply because of their social media profiles. Pull yourself out of the negativity. When people saw the new J1E as having some kind of influencer marketing campaign, I think it was forgotten that Errolson works really hard at making things, and therefore has a heck of a lot of reason for sharing pictures from other people enjoying the spoils of his labour

nowadays I actually like the full acronym getup knowing it has a bit of an anti-cool factor to it, at least to some fashion nerds. :p

Edited by hooper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My orig. reaction was about approach (to the culture / 'hobby') and the use of the 'collective-centric' term, which frankly, just wasn't something possible 10~15 years ago. You had people here, 5thD....a few on that UK forum (blanking on the name?). A handful of otaku spread across the globe like a Gibson novel. It was a relief to find community, but nobody was getting into it because of the community. We can argue good/bad/right/authentic, but for better or worse there are obviously a lot more options for accessibility (and group-making, e-congregation, etc.) now, which allows for more of the diversity and differences since described.

Personal motivation to sell-off could be related (or not?), hence the question-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i feel like personal motivation to offing one's collection is that people have amassed more than they need, and have started to realize that. you could throw in other factors like "clout-chasers on m'internet" or saturation of the brand due to more retailers having the option to place purchase orders for this most recent drop, but i think people are def getting into the "less is more" mindset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...