Is there anything more irrelevant than fashion?

LeeLooLee · 28-10-2015 01:28AM

I enjoy dressing well. I enjoy reading fashion blogs sometimes when I'm at home in the evening. Not because I'm an airhead (I'd usually read newspapers or political blogs) but because I do genuinely enjoy putting outfits together and trying out different looks. In the grand scheme of things, no, of course it's not important. I don't particularly care much whether something is 'in' and I don't spend much money on clothes, but yes, I am interested in fashion to some extent.

wil · 28-10-2015 01:57AM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Beep beep

I see sir is a dedicated follower of Paul Julian :pac:

colossus-x · 28-10-2015 01:58AM

Team Sports on the telly !

Junkyard Tom · 28-10-2015 02:22AM

I like torches and maps and playing football in the rain.

chrissb8 · 28-10-2015 02:49AM

Fashion as a thing is important and people absorb their identities through clothing etc.

Xpose and celebrity culture is pointless crap. Blady blah blah is wearing this today. Who cares

On another note whenever I peer into the Style magazine for the Sunday Times I laugh. All the clothes listed are 100's of pounds or Euros. I mean really it's a magazine read mostly by middle class to upper middle class people. I don't think they have wardrobes going into the €1000's. Get real. Saw a dress in there for €700, nothing special or anything just a summer dress. Honestly why the f**k pay money like that for clothes.

Paddy Cow · 28-10-2015 05:34AM

Kenny Bania wrote: »

Was just thinking about this other other day - is there anything less important or relevant to our existence, our lives, or us as a species, than fashion?

If our ancestors hadn't taken a keen interest in fashion, they wouldn't have been able to leave Africa and settle in colder climates. They wouldn't have developed fabric to make clothes, shoes, tents, sails, dyes, scrolls etc and it's entirely feasible that our existence as we know it know wouldn't exist.

Fashion shows such as Expose might seem like frivolous indulgence to you but it's really no less relevant than say, Top Gear. You could argue what's the point of that? Three grown men going blah blah blah about cars that the average person will never own. All you need is a car you can afford and kinda like so what's the big deal about Top Gear?

Here's the secret - it's just a light entertainment tv show and reading too much into it and putting it down doesn't make you an intellectual. You might not put a lot of thought into picking out your clothes or value the fashion industry that much but I guarantee that if you survive in the zombie apocalypse, you won't be long learning how to be nifty with a needle

Massimo Cassagrande · 28-10-2015 09:11AM

mynameis905 wrote: »

I'm not sure I get your point, besides some kind of inverse snobbery about brands? None of my clothes are from 'designer labels' or have any visible branding. I sure as shít don't own any bling.

I was agreeing with you. And adding my own crap grasp of fashion to the mix.

Kenny Bania · 28-10-2015 09:28AM

Paddy Cow wrote: »

If our ancestors hadn't taken a keen interest in fashion, they wouldn't have been able to leave Africa and settle in colder climates. They wouldn't have developed fabric to make clothes, shoes, tents, sails, dyes, scrolls etc and it's entirely feasible that our existence as we know it know wouldn't exist.

Fashion shows such as Expose might seem like frivolous indulgence to you but it's really no less relevant than say, Top Gear. You could argue what's the point of that? Three grown men going blah blah blah about cars that the average person will never own. All you need is a car you can afford and kinda like so what's the big deal about Top Gear?

Here's the secret - it's just a light entertainment tv show and reading too much into it and putting it down doesn't make you an intellectual. You might not put a lot of thought into picking out your clothes or value the fashion industry that much but I guarantee that if you survive in the zombie apocalypse, you won't be long learning how to be nifty with a needle

They're all good points - as I said at the start, I am genuinely curious about this and open to being corrected.

I guess in hindsight (after reading your post & a few others), I'm not criticising the doers - the designers with a good artistic mind that possess the skills of making clothing. So I guess what my criticism should have been aimed at was the celebrity culture & Xpose 'airhead' end of fashion - the pretentious end of it (which I feel is most of it, or certainly the mainstream). The whole "OMG I can't believe they wore that" aspect - basically, the stuff Bruno (the movie) took the p*ss out of.
I absolutely do admire the skill & craftwork of people, the likes of which you'd find on Etsy. These are skilled people making art, which I fully admire. I guess it's just the airheads that irritate me - the bloggers and the people that talk about it as it's it's life or death or even matters. But they have no skills themselves - they're just critics, but not even intelligent ones with a proper critique of anything - they just say "OMG" all the time & talk air.

Mother Brain · 28-10-2015 10:06AM

Paddy Cow wrote: »

If our ancestors hadn't taken a keen interest in fashion, they wouldn't have been able to leave Africa and settle in colder climates. They wouldn't have developed fabric to make clothes, shoes, tents, sails, dyes, scrolls etc and it's entirely feasible that our existence as we know it know wouldn't exist.

Ah I don't know about that! It was hardly a keen interest in fashion rather than a utilitarian response to a varying climate. I'll tell you one thing, back then if you had insisted on wearing a short skirt and heels in the face of the biting winter cold and uneven natural terrain (as fashion dictates today) you wouldn't have been likely to last too long!

newport2 · 28-10-2015 10:28AM

Paddy Cow wrote: »

If our ancestors hadn't taken a keen interest in fashion, they wouldn't have been able to leave Africa and settle in colder climates. They wouldn't have developed fabric to make clothes, shoes, tents, sails, dyes, scrolls etc and it's entirely feasible that our existence as we know it know wouldn't exist.

They developed the fabrics that allowed them to cope with colder climates out of necessity, not so they'd look good. Not really fashion as such, more practicality.

mathie · 28-10-2015 10:31AM

You think you know fashion. Well, fashion's a stranger. You think fashion's your friend. My friend, fashion is danger.

eamonnq · 28-10-2015 11:38AM

Lucca Short Weight wrote: »

All the people in this thread saying the don't get fashion. I mean, you are wearing clothes, right? Well then you somewhat interested fashion, wether you like to talk about clothes or not is another thing. I don't believe that people here are that "removed" from fashion that they wear clothes they don't like. Unless, of course, everybody here is hipster :P

Kind of cold going around without them.

topper75 · 28-10-2015 11:47AM

newport2 wrote: »

They developed the fabrics that allowed them to cope with colder climates out of necessity, not so they'd look good. Not really fashion as such, more practicality.

Plus they didn't 'leave Africa' as though one might take a boat from Cork to Peru. They moved onwards generation by generation to the next feasible location where food was available. This process took some of them across the Sinai peninsula and they continued to spread through the millenia. Eventually one generation got a mind to canoe across to here about 9000 years back. Britain was probably colonised a long time previous to that from a landbridge.
I propose that it was much warmer in Ireland then. The evidence from the Céide fields shows a growth season that was almost year-round.

Wibbs · 28-10-2015 11:57AM

newport2 wrote: »

They developed the fabrics that allowed them to cope with colder climates out of necessity, not so they'd look good. Not really fashion as such, more practicality.

And very likely as a way to show group allegiance. Tribal types have "fashions" too and they evolve over time if not by "season". Modern fashion plugs into that. Even anti fashion does. Look at the hordes of "rebels" who are carbon copies of each other. "I'm a goth I don't buy into fashion *sniff*". Yea, yet you look like every other bloody goth out there. Very tribal.

About the earliest signs of modernity in our species show up as body adornments, fashion as it were. Bead necklaces and the like. Hell even earlier humans appear to have done this. Neandertals mixed up pigments for body adornment and one group specifically sought out eagle feathers likely as decoration. Other groups would have known them as the Eagle feather guys. They as a people overall seemed to favour blacks and reds and even mixed in ground up mica as sparkles for their makeup, a trend that became fashionable of late.

newport2 · 28-10-2015 01:04PM

Wibbs wrote: »

And very likely as a way to show group allegiance. Tribal types have "fashions" too and they evolve over time if not by "season". Modern fashion plugs into that. Even anti fashion does. Look at the hordes of "rebels" who are carbon copies of each other. "I'm a goth I don't buy into fashion *sniff*". Yea, yet you look like every other bloody goth out there. Very tribal.
.

Would not dispute that at all Wibbs, just disputing the statement made that if it wasn't for fashion then our ancestors "wouldn't have been able to leave Africa and settle in colder climates. They wouldn't have developed fabric to make clothes, shoes, tents, sails, dyes, scrolls etc".
I believe necessity drove that more than fashion, although fashion may well have had a hand. I don't buy that we'd all be still sitting in the warm sun in South Africa if it wasn't for our desire to look nice.

I think status was more tied to clothes/items worn back then, which was largely down to the value of the items, gold, fur, etc. More of a status symbol than a fashion statement, like perhaps a car is today. Nowadays fashions change every few months and are not necessarily down to value, although they can be. I think they were in ways two different types of "fashion".

Wibbs · 28-10-2015 02:28PM

Oh sure N, I agree, I would just add that it wasn't just practicality. It had another viably important effect and that was equally important an effect on the evolution of modernity in humans. I agree with you 100% that there are two types of fashion. There is the more long lasting stuff and the frivolous "seasonal" yellow is the new black/skirts are "in" and all that daft and often pretentious ramped up camped up nonsense. I would argue that the latter just plugs into the deep ancient need to show allegiances/status and monetizes it and do so extremely well. The billions made on the back of throwaway fashion are many. And that's before we get into the crazy levels of sweatshop stuff that goes on for our cheap clothes. Personally I only buy clothes that are made in Europe or the West in general.

The Backwards Man · 28-10-2015 04:48PM

wil wrote: »

I see sir is a dedicated follower of Paul Julian :pac:

Did he do Bowie's voice too?

El_Dangeroso · 28-10-2015 04:52PM

If something looks irrational —and has been so for a long time —odds are you have a wrong definition of rationality. — Nassim N. Taleb

jimgoose · 28-10-2015 04:55PM

c_man wrote: »

I don't get the likes of Xpose, or how women can spend hours reading fashion magazines. But I'm sure they derive some pleasure from it, and looking good is something so fundamental that we can all relate to the industry to some degree...

I harrumphed as much to Mrs. Goose only the other evening, carefully placing my copy of the Sealey Tool Catalogue one-side to preserve the socket-and-ratchet section, and pausing only briefly to peer over my bifocals to check if Rossi had elbowed young Marc Marquez off his RC213V yet. :cool:

AudreyHepburn · 28-10-2015 04:55PM

I wouldn't say fashion is irrelevant, it's just not the be all and end all that people try to make it out to be.

Now don't get me wrong, I enjoy fashion as much as the next woman but I'm no slave to it. I won't wear an item just because it's in, and I tend to dress for comfort more than style. I pretty much wear what I want and don't see the problem with not wearing exactly the same as everyone else.

jimgoose · 28-10-2015 04:59PM

Like many middle-aged men I have no direct interest in fashion and am like a bull looking out over a five-barred gate when it comes to such matters. However, Woman kindly takes it upon herself to ensure that I sally forth with the rising sun each day looking some way dapper and presentable, and not dressed in a grain-sack with a pair of old Wellingtons. So there is something to be said for it, even if I am not personally any more use at it than a fish in a privet-hedge. :pac:

pickarooney · 28-10-2015 05:21PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't want to defend expose, but that's like asking how can a musician be creative if they're just playing by the arbitrary, ever changing rules of music

I don't see how it's anything like that at all, but we might be talking at cross purposes. If you're talking about the designers, fair enough, more power to them. I meant more the people wearing fashionable items because they're 'in' which is the equivalent of someone being cutting edge because they listen to music recommended by Pitchfork even though they don't really like it all that much.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 28-10-2015 06:01PM

Zillah wrote: »

It is completely insane and embarrassing . I've had people tell me I should or shouldn't wear something because it's the fashion, or because it is or isn't 'in', and when I ask them what that means they can never give me an answer that equates to anything more than "because someone said so".

They're not even claiming that certain things are or are not aesthetically pleasing, they talk about fashion like it's a cold front coming in from the north Atlantic - a simple reality to which we must all react.

It's amazing how easily people can be controlled. Some group of designers and magazine editors decide what's in this season and all the little sheepies conform.

doireannod · 19-12-2015 12:49AM

seamus wrote: »

I guess it makes people happy. The entire industry/concept is something just so far removed from my sphere of concern that I refuse to take my own opinion on it as being at all representative.

I literally cannot fathom the appeal in it whatsoever. I do not understand what enjoyment someone gets out of looking at or talking about clothes and fashion. In fact, I can't really relate to it at all. Like, I don't *get* Formula 1. It's a bunch of cars going around the same track 100 times, yawn. But I have been known to enjoy watching other sports, so I can relate to F1 on that level.

I have no similar way of relating to people who enjoy fashion. But it's for exactly this reason that I don't sneer at it really or comment on it. I am so far removed from it that I don't even feel like I understand it well enough to make fun of it.

You don't wear clothes?

doireannod · 19-12-2015 12:54AM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

It's amazing how easily people can be controlled. Some group of designers and magazine editors decide what's in this season and all the little sheepies conform.

You think fashion has nothing to do with you? Go to youtube and look up "cerulean The Devil Wears Prada". I'll let Meryl Streep do the talking

19-12-2015 02:54AM

doireannod wrote: »

You think fashion has nothing to do with you? Go to youtube and look up "cerulean The Devil Wears Prada". I'll let Meryl Streep do the talking

Lol. No.

Austria! · 19-12-2015 03:10AM

I don't really care about style and dressing well, but I can accept people do. But fashion is nonsense. Oh that dress was great 4 years ago, but now it's terrible because polkadots/stripes/swastikas are no longer in because the fundamentals of human aesthetics have changed. It's a the fascism of the superficial.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't want to defend expose, but that's like asking how can a musician be creative if they're just playing by the arbitrary, ever changing rules of music

The rules of music aren't arbitrary. Only an idiot would refuse to listen to music they liked years ago because some aspect of it is no longer cool.

doireannod wrote: »

You think fashion has nothing to do with you? Go to youtube and look up "cerulean The Devil Wears Prada". I'll let Meryl Streep do the talking

Fashion has nothing to do with me. I don't care what colour my jumper is, let alone why it's that colour.

ArtSmart · 19-12-2015 03:28AM

asherbassad wrote: »

I can take it or leave it.

I find people who talk about fashion and trends and nothing else to be extremely vacuous. But then I know people who just dress well out of sheer inherent good taste. You can have some celebrity at some crappy awards bash wearing some "alleged" latest style that they shelled out thousands for and they look like a dog's dinner, then you can witness some French or Italian girl who maybe works in a library or cafe and she looks the pinnacle of style in her affordable threads. She just has an eye for what looks great, even if it's cheap.

I went through a phase of being very fashion conscious in my teens. It had to do with the music I listened to but was also influenced by the "casual culture" of football hooligans so brands like Stone Island, Tacchini, Prada, Lacoste, etc were must haves along with rare-release or limited edition trainers that were only available in say Germany or Denmark. I was never one for football violence. I was a college boy and just loved the clothes.

But then I grew out of it and became a bit scruffy. My job as an computer engineer meant that I was paid handsomely and looked up to in work even though I looked like I just came from a Pearl Jam concert.

I suppose I've come full circle again and like to wear expensive designer shoes but there's a reason for this. I notice I'm taken more seriously if I'm wearing nicely fitted shirts and great shoes. I also get more compliments from the opposite sex which is nice considering I'm no longer 25 or even 30. So that's good. I still slum around from time to time in knackered jeans, boots and a hoodie but the girlfriend tends to take care of my "wardrobe" so there's always some good clobber to step out in. Plus I have two extremely wealthy gay neighbours and I get their hand-me-downs when they're out of season by a week. So I can be down the pub with pint in hand, a week's stubble wearing a Valentino shirt, haha and Bruno Magli's watching football ...all freebies courtesy of my gaybours.

To conclude, I suppose, I really would not have a clue about the trends until I see someone cool on Graham Norton's couch and would think "now that lad looks sharp" but it would never be my obsession.

My philosophy, if clothes were food, would be fillet mignon with Malbec or Dover sole with a nice Riesling once a week. Rest of the time shepherd's pie or stew is fine as long as the ingredients are good.

Speaking of fashion and closets....

Maybe time to step out of one and into another?

Anyhoo....

I used to think like the OP until I realised that...

Fashion is like any form of art - it expresses human thought and emotion. The slight difference is that it tends to be within a narrow time scale.

Yes, there's a lot of nonsense around it. But it affects anyone who live in a non-extreme poverty world. (And prob even there)

Just think about it. You gonna go into town etc wearing lumberman jacket and flares, without serious pre-approval by a mini-retro opening in the fashion world?

Really?

Fashion is a good expression of current human thinking and societal 'zeitgeist' attitudes etc. Its a language, a powerful one, and one most somehow understand.

doireannod · 19-12-2015 04:50AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Lol. No.

Lol. Too important for fashion and Oscar winning actresses.

mynameis905 · 19-12-2015 05:01AM

Austria! wrote: »

I don't really care about style and dressing well, but I can accept people do. But fashion is nonsense. Oh that dress was great 4 years ago, but now it's terrible because polkadots/stripes/swastikas are no longer in because the fundamentals of human aesthetics have changed. It's a the fascism of the superficial.

Fashion has nothing to do with me. I don't care what colour my jumper is, let alone why it's that colour.

On the one hand I agree with you. I do care about dressing well but the shirts that I'm wearing today are more or less the same as the ones I wore four years ago and will be the same four years from now.

Having said that, everyone follows trends whether they know it or not. If you go shopping for a pair of jeans now you'll find that most of the available fits are straight or slim fit. Ten years ago you'd have been hard pushed to find anything besides bootcut. Ten years before that the shops would have been full of baggy jeans. You'll get the odd person who'll claim to be wearing say, Levi 501s for years but the shape of 501s has varied enormously over the years. Clothing styles change and people buy what's available to them in the shops. Assuming you buy clothing in some shape or form then yes, fashion does have something to do with you. On the ultra fast changing of styles and things being 'in' and 'out' of fashion I agree with you - a great deal of it is extremely vapid.

Re the colour of your jumper - of course you care. Would you wear a hot pink jumper down the pub tomorrow? Didn't think so.

Is there anything more irrelevant than fashion?

Comments