clothing trauma

[tangerine]

It's also been called a toothbrush mustache.

Ron Mael may have "taken it back", but since his public profile is almost nonexistent, I would say his "reclaiming" is a tree falling in an empty forest.

Hitler mustache unrehabilitated and probably beyond rehabilitation.

[TPR950H]

Chaplin-stache?

[Vitamian]

I'd say Ron Mael has a non-existent mainstream porfile. Sparks does have that extreme cult following, especially in the forum-favorite nation of Japan.

[tangerine]

Chaplin-stache?

Yes, he had it.

I'd say Ron Mael has a non-existent mainstream porfile. Sparks does have that extreme cult following, especially in the forum-favorite nation of Japan.

Fair enough!

the axis powers?! :eek:

[Vitamian]

Yes, he had it.

Fair enough!

the axis powers?! :eek:

I have noticed Germans like Sparks as well.

[Guest jmatsu]

but on the other hand, if theres something you truely like, and then you stop wearing it just because some dickhead you cant stand starts sporting it, then thats more like a lack of self-confidence, as opposed to being genuinly turned off by it. if the biggest, most obnoxious bro in school all of a sudden started wearing some samurais i wouldnt just stop wearing mine even though i still like them, id rest assured knowing that guys a fucking tool and doesnt know shit about anything, so why let something he does change what i do? once that happens, youre basically letting some turd tell you what to do, and why would you ever do that?

i've thought of this often. this is a legitimate point/question, but i think that by the time that the typical commoner-wretch catches up with your fashion sensibility, that there would be a good chance that your tastes have already changed. i think that true fashionistas are always re-evaluating their wardrobes. obviously they cherish their treasures, but are always evolving and pushing the limits/or kind of creating the industry.

i guess i'd have to put that specific article of clothing in the refrigerator...

popularity usually takes the piss out of a good thing.

people say that immitating something is a form of flattery. this may be so. in my opinion, if the immitator(s) is great in volume and immitates poorly or with zero innovation, i find that this cheapens the clothing. obviously timing is a huge factor.

[dino might]

i've thought of this often. this is a legitimate point/question, but i think that by the time that the typical commoner-wretch catches up with your fashion sensibility, that there would be a good chance that your tastes have already changed. i think that true fashionistas are always re-evaluating their wardrobes. obviously they cherish their treasures, but are always evolving and pushing the limits/or kind of creating the industry.

i guess i'd have to put that specific article of clothing in the refrigerator...

popularity usually takes the piss out of a good thing.

people say that immitating something is a form of flattery. this may be so. in my opinion, if the immitator(s) is great in volume and immitates poorly or with zero innovation, i find that this cheapens the clothing. obviously timing is a huge factor.

i agree with you on this for the most part, but even though the piss has been taken out, most times that doesnt mean the product itself is cheapened, like jane said, if youre someone who genuinely appreciates the quality/detail/craftsmanship/whatever of the garment, then thats all that matters. other things though, dont really have those qualities, when i first saw da ali g show i laughed my ass off, but after i heard "ITS NIIICE!" for the millionth time from just about everyone i wasnt so entertained, less tangible things like a movie, song, etc id say lose their luster very quickly once a certain popularity level is achieved, but something like a no-nonsense, quality made, well fitting pair of jeans cant really ever get old in my eyes (metaphorically speaking that is)

[TokenIndianKid]

ahem....southern california ruins everything.

i disagree. that northern california ruins everything just as much, if not worse than southern california

i absolutely LOVE northern california (good buds, denim, bars etc) but seriously now, theres the same amount of douchebag trend hoppers up there as there are down here.

no disrespect digital, just my .02.

[wild_whiskey]

Yep, the douchebag trend hoppers in SF just wear tighter fitting, more bohemian ish. Same evils though.

I rarely stop wearing something because of a trend out of hand, I just wear it in different context so that I won't look like I'm part of the same crowd.

[fndmybetterhalf]

i disagree. that northern california ruins everything just as much, if not worse than southern california

i absolutely LOVE northern california (good buds, denim, bars etc) but seriously now, theres the same amount of douchebag trend hoppers up there as there are down here.

no disrespect digital, just my .02.

i wouldnt say same amount...

hollywood ruined slipons for me when Ryan Cabrera wore them everywhere

[mr fluffernutter]

you guys ruin everything

[Vitamian]

i disagree. that northern california ruins everything just as much, if not worse than southern california

i absolutely LOVE northern california (good buds, denim, bars etc) but seriously now, theres the same amount of douchebag trend hoppers up there as there are down here.

no disrespect digital, just my .02.

Northern California is too vulgar. While S.CA has those botox whores, N.CA is Casual Corner where you can't find anything vaguely interesting. I'm sure there are one or two sartorial oases in the region, but on the whole, people run around in cheap jeans or sweatpants--or God forbid, pajama pants.

[Sammy You]

here in the east coast we have cluthing trauma

[Carl]

you guys ruin everything

Amen.

Fuck this thread.

[Guest jmatsu]

fuck idiots!

[thelion1856]

You have no idea how much I want to apologize for that mistake. The fact that Northern California has to associate with us is just embarrassing.

Sorry, Southern California. We're assholes.

So cal and Nor cal should be two different states.

[Servo2000]

fuck idiots!

Jmatsu is back, apparently.

[Guest jmatsu]

Jmatsu is back, apparently.

yeah. either rejoice or grovel at my feet. there are many stars in the superfuture atmosphere, but they have once again been eclipsed by the biggest one. the sun has risen once again, apparently.

[Servo2000]

Apparently.

[Analog]

yeah. either rejoice or grovel at my feet. there are many stars in the superfuture atmosphere, but they have once again been eclipsed by the biggest one. the sun has risen once again, apparently.

[dino might]

bump for worthy topic

[Guest jmatsu]

thanks dino.

i often wondered beside the gay imagery, why d&g and d2 gets such a bad rap on superfuture. besides having a couple of crappy pieces (just like all brands do) and the homoerotic ads, have they really offended the superfuture sensiblity more then brands like evisu/etc? i mean what would you prefer highfashion gay socialites or mindless beasters??

[solidricin]

I rarely stop wearing something because of a trend out of hand, I just wear it in different context so that I won't look like I'm part of the same crowd.

The only problem is when someone comments on it but the comment relates it to those trends you're dodging

Anyways, I agree with jmatsu

[keagan]

I remember in 7th grade the ugly girl that everyone hated announced to everyone that her favorite band was alien sex fiend, and that same day I stopped listening to alien sex friend.

[Guest jmatsu]

I remember in 7th grade the ugly girl that everyone hated announced to everyone that she listened to alien sex fiend, and that same day I stopped listening to alien sex friend.

i'm sure alot of unattractive people listen to alien sex fiend.

[Fuuma]

thanks dino.

i often wondered beside the gay imagery, why d&g and d2 gets such a bad rap on superfuture. besides having a couple of crappy pieces (just like all brands do) and the homoerotic ads, have they really offended the superfuture sensiblity more then brands like evisu/etc? i mean what would you prefer highfashion gay socialites or mindless beasters??

I like Dolce & Gabbana (mainline) suits, they fit me very well and their classic black 2B/Notch/SV is one of the most stylish dressy black suit you can get. They also released some pretty good leather jackets and destroyed shirts that people would have been all over if they were say Rick Owens or Dior Homme.

I would possibly (still wearing chucks) stop wearing some articles/brands depending on whom started to pick them up, clothes are a great way to say something about yourself, in fact they say more about your identity than you can possibly express with words unless you have a few hours to spare. I'd hate my message to be "I'm an eurotrash douche and I like long walks on the beach and date rapes".

[Guest jmatsu]

it's obviously how you wear shit and how you incoportate that certain piece into your wardrobe.

[Fuuma]

Because I like to recycle myself (I'm lazy, especially when using english), here's something that might show what my "dressing philosophy" is:

It’s a given that people dress, in a way, for other people. At some point in your development you might get away from that and say you dress for yourself but that’s a naïve way to put it as it leaves the rest of humanity out of the equation (i.e. you don’t dress up to stay home and watch TV, do you?). So where do you go once you get out of that, IMHO essential, “NO†phase.

What’s important to understand, if you want to be satisfied with how you dress, is that dressing for the gaze of others, so to speak, does not equate dressing to meet the expectations of other people. It means understanding that garments are signifiers, due to their charged background and history. Leather jackets aren’t just dead cow hide; they’re Brando in the Wild one who’s rebelling against whatever you got or Joey Ramones rocking at CBGB. In fact, leather jackets are such a great example because they became a metonymy, at least in French, where hooligans and various kind of youth movements of the 60s used to be called “blousons noirs†(black jackets) the garment becoming synonymous with the person, even eclipsing the individual, turning him into the archetype of rebellious youth. Garments, by virtue of their history and depending on the way you combine them with other garments, are also polysemous; they can mean different things depending on the context and what they’re paired with.

Now you might wonder where I am going with all that, so here it is:

1. We do dress for the gaze of others, to communicate something to them, to express ourselves.

2. Clothes are very charged items; they have meaning, even more meaning than the wearer as they imbue him with archetypical characteristics.

3. Knowing all this does not mean that we have to meet the expectations of others, just that they’re here.

4. Consequently there is no optimal way to dress, as only simpletons and economists believe there are universal, optimal settings. It’s all about what you want to convey, to whom and in what way. I guess we could go on a tangent on subcultures Vs “mainstream†culture here, discuss if you feel like it.

5. That being said I do strongly believe that there are better and worse garments, combinations and dressers, I just don’t believe there are better type of dressers

6. So I would say there are good goth-ninjas (i.e. Darkanimal) and total failures (hot-topic goth types). Blank does not like that style, no biggie, I’m not interested in everything, it’s important to be able to filter or the amount of information out there is overwhelming. However that means that if you don’t care about them you don’t try to discuss them in an off-hand manner, if that’s not the case then you have to approach it with an open mind and ask yourself essential questions such as:

a. What is that person/designer telling me about herself/himself

b. What are his/her influences?

c. Are they pulling it off, what could they change, to do so?

d. Do technique, styling and materials come together to become more than the sum of their parts or is it, ultimately, an empty exercise?

e. Etc, you get the idea

[Guest jmatsu]

i see where your going.

what about the connotation/politics of certain labels/fashion houses (the actual labels not the acutal product produced). how would that affect your styling/consumer process?

your descriptions of the leather jacket and that kind of innuendo are relavent, but is it not history that forces us to draw upon that kind of immagery/connotation? is it not inevitable that consumers with fashion interest know this inherently? since we come from an age of disenfranchisement (i assume...i don't know your age or background) should we validify/accept what history has dealt us?

whle probably impossible is there some way to change this sort of lineage and make something our own?

[tangerine]

This makes me think of how when I was a kid the conservative rich kids all wore lacoste shirts, khakis and topsiders or wallabies. These clothes to me were for years synonymous with the "ruling class", the man, whatever you want to call it.

It still weirds me out to see skaters, hiphoppers, rebellious people of any sort adopting this style. It may have originally been a conscious attempt to co-opt the look, but I think now it has perhaps become disconnected from its former connotations for a lot of younger people.