Style V Fashion

[volta]

lately i've been thinking about the differences between "fashion" and "style."

i dont think fashionable people are the same as stylish people. ive talked to some friends about this and come up with a couple of definitons:

FASHION High-fashion clothing is expensive and overly trend-conscious. “Fashionable people†are not, by default, “stylish people.†this rarely happens. Fashionable people may think that they have style but you can’t merely buy all of the latest, stuff right off the runway, throw it on and assume they are the most stylish guy on the planet. You must have style in order to be fashionable.

STYLE still trend-conscious, not as much and not so intesne about it. to be stylish you do not have to spend hundreds on the latest shit to look good, when you’re “stylish†you can truly look good in just about anything; you radiate fashion even if your entire outfit cost 50 dollars. Good clothes are definitely important though, when you’ve got your style, you’ve got self-confidence and you know where to find those good clothes. You’re not just merely copying all of the most current fashion.

so i think a balance of the two is important. Keep an eye on trends but dont live by them

yeah, so any thaughts?

[brody]

Yep I've thought about this before, too. Fashion is what's trendy in the world, style is what clothes you like to wear. Style is also knowing what clothes will and will not work for you/your body, not being completely subject to the latest trend which doesn't flatter you at all.

[bapelolol]

"fashion fades, style is eternal"

[Servo2000]

The argument your making is that you can be stylish without being fashionable, or be fashionable without being stylish? In my opinion, the disctinction is irrelevant, you can inherently not be one without being the other.

At its most basic, according to the American Heritage Dictionary,"stylish" simply means in this context "Conforming to the current fashion; modish." A stylish person is stylish because they are fashionable. As well, the definition for fashionable is "observant of or conforming to the fashion; stylish: a fashionable young woman." The two are, in literal interpretation, interchangeable. However, I'd prefer to use some of the distinction you've created and some of my own to try and find a meaning somewhat closer to how the words are used.

Now, inherently, what you've implied is that there are stylish people who are not fashionable. Obviously, not every word necessarily inherently uses the dictionary definition in the real world, but the point I'm making is this: when you say that a stylish person "...radiate fashion even if your entire outfit cost 50 dollars," what you're implying is that they can wear anything in a manner that is fashionable.

Clothing does not have be trendy, current or relevant to still be, by its nature both "fashion" and "fashionable." By spending only $50 on their outfit, they have still spent $50 on an outfit that is fashionable. There is a reason that they look good in anything, and that's that they understand "fashion." Fashion isn't only the latest designer collection, it is also understanding your body type, what looks good on you, and so on... so in this sense those who are "stylish" are also "fashionable," and consequently, just because you've spent money on modern "fashion" collections you do not become "fashionable" if you fail to wear it with any sort of effect.

I can barely keep my eyes open, so I should probably wait until tomorrow to post, but I figured I'd put this up and see what you fellows think of this theory.

[cheep]

sounds good to me.

[ProfMonnitoff]

Style is if you can stand out even when you're wearing a white t and jeans.

[Charlie Delta]

^ throw some swagger in the mix and we're there!

[Fuuma]

lately i've been thinking about the differences between "fashion" and "style."

i dont think fashionable people are the same as stylish people. ive talked to some friends about this and come up with a couple of definitons:

FASHION High-fashion clothing is expensive and overly trend-conscious. “Fashionable people” are not, by default, “stylish people.” this rarely happens. Fashionable people may think that they have style but you can’t merely buy all of the latest, stuff right off the runway, throw it on and assume they are the most stylish guy on the planet. You must have style in order to be fashionable.

STYLE still trend-conscious, not as much and not so intesne about it. to be stylish you do not have to spend hundreds on the latest shit to look good, when you’re “stylish” you can truly look good in just about anything; you radiate fashion even if your entire outfit cost 50 dollars. Good clothes are definitely important though, when you’ve got your style, you’ve got self-confidence and you know where to find those good clothes. You’re not just merely copying all of the most current fashion.

so i think a balance of the two is important. Keep an eye on trends but dont live by them

yeah, so any thaughts?

This is not an attempt at developing the vocabulary used in here but a rather misguided one at spreading your bias by showing people interested in high fashion (I guess you mean "designer" fashion with runway shows) in a negative light (you probably don't see yourself in this category) and making some sort of ideal definition of what you're aiming for, evidently painting it in a very positive light. Subverting language to fit your needs will only further disinformation.

[volta]

This is not an attempt at developing the vocabulary used in here but a rather misguided one at spreading your bias by showing people interested in high fashion (I guess you mean "designer" fashion with runway shows) in a negative light (you probably don't see yourself in this category) and making some sort of ideal definition of what you're aiming for, evidently painting it in a very positive light. Subverting language to fit your needs will only further disinformation.

no, it's not. there is nothing wrong with "high fashion." i'm merely stating that i think there is definitely a difference between fashion and style, or how the word is used. i am, myself, interested in high fashion and i didn't mean this thread to be a dig at that sort of thing, just a dialogue on how style and fashion are not exactly the same (and to better understand why), and i don't really know what you mean when you say this "...will only further disinformation."

[onemancult]

"be kind to fashion, because it dies a thousand deaths"

style and fashion are opposite sides of the same reversible

cashmere sweater.

they do not exist independent of one another.

[arcticfox]

Stylish people know its all in the details. Collars that sit just right. Shoes that you love looking down at. Perfectly cut jackets and coats your just itching to wear. Denim that fades, tells a story and sees you through. Clothes that are timeless and that have a sense of heritage...People like us are anti-fashion...Sure fashion has its place but style will outlive and outshine fashion. We're interested in longevity, timelessness, a sense of knowing...Look at the better dressed sufu members, you'll see what I mean. In the end stylish people will sit in the background, safe in the knowledge, we don't need to parade, a knowing glance here and there from somebody else thats in the know, that'll do us...We're not peacocks, never have been, never will be...

Servo2000 mistaken edit: I didn't actually change anything, just meant to hit quote but the "edit" button is right where it used to be, so, don't worry... I wasn't abusing my powers just yet.

[wEstSidE]

I don't know why but this reminds me a lot of jake snake's thread where he mocked everyone.

[Servo2000]

Stylish people know its all in the details. Collars that sit just right. Shoes that you love looking down at. Perfectly cut jackets and coats your just itching to wear. Denim that fades, tells a story and sees you through. Clothes that are timeless and that have a sense of heritage...People like us are anti-fashion...Sure fashion has its place but style will outlive and outshine fashion. We're interested in longevity, timelessness, a sense of knowing...Look at the better dressed sufu members, you'll see what I mean. In the end stylish people will sit in the background, safe in the knowledge, we don't need to parade, a knowing glance here and there from somebody else thats in the know, that'll do us...We're not peacocks, never have been, never will be...

I would argue that what you are describing is, in fact, "fashion." I have trouble imagining any designers worth his salt selling clothes that don't have "details" or "collars" that don't "sit just right." The notion that there is in fact a "right" way for a collar to sit is a by-product of many years of a certain type of collar being "fashionable." You're not "anti-fashion," at all.

Give me an example of a user on here who is dressed well who somehow manages to be stylish while being "anti-fashion."

The most outlandish, hypothetical argument you have is that there is someone out there who has no idea what "fashion" or "fashionable" is, and yet still somehow manages to dress well, or is "Stylish." Fact is, they're only "stylish" as a result of the fact that we interpret what they wear as looking nice... which is a result of us having a concept of "fashion," whatever it may be.

My two-cents, as always.

[fadingblue]

:

"Fashionable people†are not, by default, “stylish people.†this rarely happens.

...

You must have style in order to be fashionable.

hahahahahahaa

[todesengel]

I've always thought of fashion as being current trends, and being style the ability to make those trends look good/natural.

[robideaux]

a grad student formerly from my uni gave a discussion on this topic in february and made the same distinction between style and fashion. on par with her dress, the paper was a bit naive. according to her paper style is a understood as a kind of non-propositional modern art, where as fashion is the reification and imitation of style generated by the media and industry. Both fashion and style operate within a social context of gricean relexivity and reinforce or subvert the status quo respectively. However, to it seems obvious to me that "style" can not be reduced to non-propositional superficial elements such as silhouette, line, color, etc; likewise, "fashion" never results in the perfect execution or imitation of looks contrived by the media and industry. Idealy i think there should be a healthy mix of "style" and "fasion" in dress, and as savy dressers we should not commit ourselves to chasing spectres of modernity. Instead we should understand the phenomena as a kind of sybolism, in which for the dresser there is a secret logic behind how and why certain articles of clothing are selected and pieced together. When it comes to dress the unconscious is over-rated.

[Brooklyn Zoo]

Just like some people look good and cool in Fedoras, while most people just look like posers or douchebags.

If you got style, you know how to wear clothes and don't have to spend a fortune.

Half the kids at Supreme look horrible, but the other half pull it off.

Two people wearing the same outfit will never look the same.

i like the simplistic approach to this argument

[ProfMonnitoff]

Give me an example of a user on here who is dressed well who somehow manages to be stylish while being "anti-fashion."

cmf?

But I think that while fashion is limited to clothes, style is also how somebody walks, their voice, their gestures, their handshake, etc. Clothes are a part of it as well though.

So yeah, swagger.

[mike lowrey]

At its most basic, according to the American Heritage Dictionary,"stylish" simply means in this context "Conforming to the current fashion; modish."

I dont agree with this definition. it gives the impression that style is directly related to whats currently in fashion. if you look at these pictures:

I don't think these guys look necessarily fashionable or hip, but they looks very stylish. style is something you have personally (or don't have), not something that is directly defined by fashion. of course the two are associated, but its not 1+ 1. fashion is something that might define or cater to your style.

[wEstSidE]

That guy looks very fashionable. Is he wearing Rag & Bone FW 07/08?

[arcticfox]

Give me an example of a user on here who is dressed well who somehow manages to be stylish while being "anti-fashion."

...Bill, superboobo...A lot of people can be stylish while having no idea as such about fashion (Don't mean Bill or SuperBobo!). Look at the landed gentry, all barbour and tweeds, I doubt whether these people would even consider themeselves to be fashionable yet you would have to consider them stylish. Same goes for the orginal punk movement and even the casual movement, while considering themselves probably the most stylish people out there, they would rarely consider themselves fashionable...

...Still, nice to see so many people with different opinions on this take, makes a change from a bunch of broads yapping about topshop and Kate fuckin' Moss..

[designersheep]

I think how op presented his argument is problemetic. To simplify a bit, his view seems that style is something beyond fashion while fashion is just what is trendy at the time. I would have to disagree in how op has defined fashion, and stand with Servo. I strongly believe fashion is not limited to trend-consciousness and being overly expensive. On contraire, I would love to think that most fashion designers are (or were) in the fashion industry because of their desires to create and express their thoughts and feelings through the form of clothes, and this is closer to art, and I personally am more interested and highly regard this aspect of fashion than the lack of such in style.

To quote Faust from StyleZeitgeist:

StyleZeitgeist is an online community of individuals who are passionate about fashion design. Fashion stands at unique crossroads of artistic and individual expression, utility, and commerce, and we recognize it as such.

Today, it has also become an integral part of Zeitgeist. The aim of this community is to promote an ongoing discussion, through online forums, news, and blog roll, about fashion as such. Another aim of this community is to divorce fashion from consumerism and celebrity culture. If this suits you, you have come the right place. Discuss.

I am always impressed with Faust's views on fashion, and I can really agree with him on many levels because, as some of you may already know, I am a second-to-nobody filmbuff, and I try to look at films as an artistic medium where many unnoticed artists try to express their views in the heap of thoughtless entertainment industries such as Hollywood; and in many ways fashion is worse.

I'd say fashion and style is strongly related, but they are two different aspects of looking at... clothes, for a lack of a better word, when we are talking about style within the context of how people wear clothes.

[Servo2000]

I dont agree with this definition. it gives the impression that style is directly related to whats currently in fashion. if you look at these pictures:

images edited out

I don't think these guys look necessarily fashionable or hip, but they looks very stylish. style is something you have personally (or don't have), not something that is directly defined by fashion. of course the two are associated, but its not 1+ 1. fashion is something that might define or cater to your style.

Fashionable does not necessarily equte to hip, which appears to be your argument. If it isn't, and you agree with my argument that it does not, then I will agree with you that "style" is "something you have personally." However, I don't believe that it is in the sense that you are arguing. People with "style" appear to "have" or be "Stylish" because of more than just some unnameable quality, it is also an understanding of 'fashion' in the sense that 'fashion' is more than the simple "runway collection" reduction the OP announced. Let's take the two fellows you have, for instance.

This man is "stylish" not only because he has x-quality that everyone has been discussing, be it 'swagger' or 'posture,' whatever. He is stylish because of that, in addition to his manner of dress: his collar is perfectly fitted at the neck, he's wearing a classically fitted blazer with what I can only imagine are tailored sleeve-lengths and one of those damn hats that's been around forever. He is not dressed poorly, in fact, he is dressed well: that is fashion. As a consequence, it is impossible to view his style without also examining his fashion, and so the two are connected at a most basic level.

If we look at the photographer as well, i.e. "The Sartorialist," 'sartorial' meaning:

1. of or pertaining to tailors or their trade: sartorial workmanship.

2. of or pertaining to clothing or style or manner of dress: sartorial splendor.

we find that The Sartorialist has defined himself as a representative of this notion of thinking that, to a certain extent, "Clothes make the man." If we assume that he succeeded, then these two are decided examples of men who represent the idea that a man should understand his manner of dress and dress accordingly, and dress according to certain paramaters ("fashion" rules, such as the length of jackets or pants, or color of shoes to belt, or shirt to scarf, and so on) so therefore the two are decidedly "fashionable." The way in which they dress is not an accident.

I'm not arguing that they are not stylish, I'm simply pointing out that "Fashion" and "Style" are inseperable. On some level, they may be different, but it is impossible for us to observe one without the other.

cmf?

But I think that while fashion is limited to clothes, style is also how somebody walks, their voice, their gestures, their handshake, etc. Clothes are a part of it as well though.

So yeah, swagger.

Same argument: we can not observe "Cheeps" style without also examining his fashion sense, because his style is, to a certain degree, his fashion.

[mike lowrey]

This man is "stylish" not only because he has x-quality that everyone has been discussing, be it 'swagger' or 'posture,' whatever. He is stylish because of that, in addition to his manner of dress: his collar is perfectly fitted at the neck, he's wearing a classically fitted blazer with what I can only imagine are tailored sleeve-lengths and one of those damn hats that's been around forever. He is not dressed poorly, in fact, he is dressed well: that is fashion. As a consequence, it is impossible to view his style without also examining his fashion, and so the two are connected at a most basic level.

I couldn't really tell the fit of the blazer based on that pic, hes shrugging his shoulders a bit. I have no idea if his sleeves are a properly tailored length either. even if everything wasn't perfectly fitting it would be stylish in my book. if everything was perfectly fitted, I wouldn't necessarily consider it fashionable.

I interpret fashion as something that depends more on time and general consensus. fashion = a prevailing (generally current) custom or style of dress.. of course you can refer to "personal fashion" which might mean whats fashionable for someone on a personal level, but then whats the use of this whole discussion, I think were trying to associate different meanings to them rather then say its all the same. what goes for the sartorialist, I wasn't paying any attention to the photographer, just the picture in its simplicity.

I can understand the justification to some of your points, but I think were looking at this from a completely different perspective. I'm trying to differentiate the terms and I get the feeling that youre pretty much trying to prove they're almost the same thing, which makes the whole discussion kind of pointless cause you can argue both ways and be atleast somewhat right

[MRTHURS]

not everyone has his(her) own style, but fashion give them the confidence. the style needs time, fashion needs money... High-Fashion likes McDonald, you just buy it, don;t need to cook, and full in 15 minutes!

about the style, I think style is fashion's mother...

[Fuuma]

not everyone has his(her) own style, but fashion give them the confidence. the style needs time, fashion needs money... High-Fashion likes McDonald, you just buy it, don;t need to cook, and full in 15 minutes!

about the style, I think style is fashion's mother...

Please define what is "Fashion" according to you because it is not the same as what is "in fashion" (as in current in style, not necessary a bad thing by the way). The accepted definition of someone who is stylish is basically the same as for someone who is fashionable so this conversation doesn't make much sense. What people are trying to express, I guess is something along the line of "you don't need to hop up on all trends to be well dressed" (noticed that I didn't use fashionable or stylish because that's not the words you're looking for). It sounds like such a truism to me that I don't really see what we're discussing.

Oh and if you think that "Fashion" (big F) is pre-cooked and seem to think it is a bad thing, how about looking for designers that show some complexity and depth in their work?

[volta]

Please define what is "Fashion" according to you because it is not the same as what is "in fashion" (as in current in style, not necessary a bad thing by the way). The accepted definition of someone who is stylish is basically the same as for someone who is fashionable so this conversation doesn't make much sense. What people are trying to express, I guess is something along the line of "you don't need to hop up on all trends to be well dressed" (noticed that I didn't use fashionable or stylish because that's not the words you're looking for). It sounds like such a truism to me that I don't really see what we're discussing.

Oh and if you think that "Fashion" (big F) is pre-cooked and seem to think it is a bad thing, how about looking for designers that show some complexity and depth in their work?

i like how you worded your definition. "you don't need to hop up on all trends to be well dressed." that was basically what i was trying to get across

[Analog]

I think how op presented his argument is problemetic. To simplify a bit, his view seems that style is something beyond fashion while fashion is just what is trendy at the time. I would have to disagree in how op has defined fashion, and stand with Servo. I strongly believe fashion is not limited to trend-consciousness and being overly expensive. On contraire, I would love to think that most fashion designers are (or were) in the fashion industry because of their desires to create and express their thoughts and feelings through the form of clothes, and this is closer to art, and I personally am more interested and highly regard this aspect of fashion than the lack of such in style.

To me, the value points your talking about here fall under Design, not Fashion. I would say that the word "Fashion" in "Fashion Design(er)" is an unfortunate necessity - a case of "lack of a better term", or looked at another way, a term that is weak.

I also think this forum would be better named Superdesign rather than Superfashion.

[goldengloves]

i like how you worded your definition. "you don't need to hop up on all trends to be well dressed." that was basically what i was trying to get across

This would have made this conversation a whole helleva' lot less complicated, but probably not as interesting.

[volta]

This would have made this conversation a whole helleva' lot less complicated, but probably not as interesting.

yup. you're kinda right.