This is so, so untrue. I, myself, am not a stylish person, residing in the women's equivalent of Category 2, and trying vainly to avoid major errors. That said, there are people who like clothes, and are good at them, and having people like that around is a good thing, regardless of their sex, because they're pretty and fun to look at. I can sympathize with wearing the same clothes every day, but by doing it you're depriving people of the possibility of having an interesting outfit to look at.
My best friend in high school was, if possible, even geekier than I was, but with a truly intense and bizarre fashion sense. Skinny, pale, funny-looking, and would come into school in these terrific Gatsby outfits that were a thing of beauty. Didn't make him a bad person.
Ogged, I say this somewhat timorously, but this post is kinda sexist.
,,,which is not to say that I think you, personally, are sexist.
? Was it before your time here that I went on about how women shouldn't dress up? Does that help?
This is the kind of post that makes Unfogged Unfogged.
No, ogged's totally right. But he's NOT SUPPOSED TO TELL!!!
I'm not so much getting the sexist thing myself. Misguided, certainly. Tia -- can you spell it out a little?
But even in a jokingly inflammatory style, this is some bullshit-norm-reinforcing stuff. It's not okay for men to want to look stylish? But it is still okay for women? Whuh?
What about Mr. B, whose style everyone noted?
I agree with LB, life would be much less visually interesting if everyone were a slob. (And initials, please, on the Gatsby figure. DK?)
Oh, I got you. No, I think ogged's been clear that he wants both sexes in uniform, utilitarian clothing, except for while they're playing beach volleyball.
But of course. Now there's someone I should really find again, I haven't seen him since my wedding.
What about Mr. B, whose style everyone noted?
Mr. B, as a non-fuckwit, was clearly operating in the special occasion exception space.
I knew a Gatsby figure in law school, initialed JF.
What's strange is, her "rules" are completely from outer space.
And what's stranger than that is, she's issuing rules so that Category 3 men, to whom she's attracted, will become Category 2 men, to whom she's not. What's up with that?
This post is still incredibly misguided. What are you ogged, some kind of a commie? People with senses of style are creating beauty in the world around them.
Ogged, just because you look fine in That One Shirt doesn't mean your approach will work for everyone.
You know, the affectation of "I don't bother to pay attention to clothes" is at least as annoying as the affectation of "I care about clothes."
Just sayin'.
On the subject of fashion, this was good:
I was thinking about the fact that Monica Lewinsky's famous blue dress came from the Gap. That was back in the mid-1990s—rosier days for the company. Can you imagine a White House intern now—a well-off woman from Beverly Hills who considers herself fashion-forward—buying a dress from the Gap? I can't. Maybe Banana Republic. … It's just a sign of how badly things have gone for the brand: They can't even get world leaders to ejaculate on their clothes anymore.That being said, I'm a solid Category 2. Every day to work: black skirt (I must have 10), sweater (usually pink and v-neck), and flats. Weekends: jeans, sweater, and boots. Time spent shopping is better spent doing something else.
"I don't bother to pay attention to clothes"
That's not at all what I'm saying. People should think about clothes--that's what I'm doing in this post, after all--but being "stylish" is bad.
I say bravo to Ogged for upholding perhaps the single most beseiged element of our society's all-important network of gender double-standards. The rise of fashion-conscious men is bad, bad, bad, but I fear the struggle has already been lost.
Would it be cruel to point out that Washingtonians are not, per definitionem, fashion-forward?
Define "stylish." Do you mean "slavishly wearing what's "in" this season, just b/c it's in," or do you mean "having a sense of personal style"? B/c granted, the former is a mistake, and often creates really unflattering outfits. The latter, however, is laudable. The former, in combination with the latter, is perhaps a bit vain, but who among us doesn't have a certain vanity?
the affectation of "I don't bother to pay attention to clothes"
What if it isn't an affectation?
That said, Sherry's rules are kind of restrictive. I think you can wear sneakers for walking around town and not be a fashion don't, and sneakers are definitely essential to many category-3 looks (for women as well).
#28, then that's fine, as long as it isn't trotted out as some demonstration of moral superiority over those who do.
27: Art has meaning; fashion doesn't.
I'd love to be more stylish, if I had any damn money. As of right now, it's at or near the bottom of my priority list, under food, shelter, medical attention, and education. Maybe with a more generous welfare state, I could be devoting more of my resources to fashion.
Define "stylish."
Sherry's "rules" are clearly "what is in this season", esp. restrictions on pleats and pockets on shirts. This is simply nuts, and I agree with ogged that for men to pay attention to it is a font of evil.
Free advice: whatever is on a Brooks Brothers suit / shirt is kosher for men to wear (not, note, fashion-forward), but don't buy a Brooks Brothers suit / shirt unless you're a little chunky or like a lot of freedom of movement or have an adequate tailor. Find the same kind of thing from another maker.
I'd love to be more stylish....
- Kotsko
Does anyone really need more evidence of ogged's point?
While I'm all for encouraging anti-fashion sentiments (as someone who doesn't want to be bothered with pressures to be stylish), I did have a kind of icky conversation with a coworker the other day. He talked about how his girlfriend used to be the type who dressed moderately nicely but that he pressured her into completely changing her style of dress and wearing sweats all of the time. There seemed to be an undercurrent of control there, like he was intentionally trying to make her unattractive so he wouldn't have to compete with other men.
What? Labs, the reason I went into academe was so I wouldn't have to wear damn ties to work.
JOOOOOOOOAAAAAAN!
I am a fashion template.
I think that, as a theoretical matter, it is perfectly acceptable for heterosexual members of both sexes to find stylishness attractive. Having a "look" is a non-trivial way of being interesting, creative and unique, all very sexually attractive qualities. However, as a contingent, empirical fact about contemporary American society, it happens to be the case that most stylish men are fucktards. They tend either to be narcissists with outsized senses of entitlement or to be men still trying to be Kool Kids long after the age at which such an aspiration stopped being acceptable. Thus, Ogged is at least partly right, even if he is wrong about why he is right.
as a contingent, empirical fact about contemporary American society, it happens to be the case that most stylish men are fucktards
But this is what I said (substituting "fuckwit" for "fucktard"). So you agree that I'm partly right and partly right about why I'm right.
FL:
I agree with ogged; I just don't think he should be sharing family secrets. I'm not sure I understand the furor in the other direction. Ogged's offerring a predictive rule. He's not saying being stylish is itself bad. He's not saying that being stylish transforms one in other areas into a bad person. He's just saying that, for some unknown reason, guys who are stylish are, more often than you'd expect, fuckwits.
Sorry, I meant to say "fuckwits." I took you to be saying that aspiring to be stylish is necessarily correlated with bad character, whereas I think the relationship is more contingent.
"guys I've known who care about looking stylish (whatever that means to them) have been fuckwits. Don't be a fuckwit."
I think that a lot of the anti-Ogged sentiment here maybe misguided. Ignore the value side and focus on the factual question. How many "stylish" men do you know who are not fuckwits? I admit, it may be difficult to avoid theory/observation overdetermination here (i.e. I can't help but think that otherwise decent guys are fuckwits from the moment they make a fashion related comment).
I do not like this word "fuckwit". It has no style.
Fuckwit me, I'll put a foot in your ass.
In all seriousness, SB, you speak Teh False.
#32: Fashion most certainly is a form of art.
#34: Disagreed. What is "in" this season can be nuts if slavishly followed. It is not, however, nuts if it is a look that is flattering for one's personal style (e.g., stock up on unpleated pants so that next year you don't have to buy pleated crap). And inasmuch as fashion is a form of art, there's no reason to reject it out of hand.
#40: Disagreed again. In my experience, most men who care about fashion are, at worst, merely somewhat vain. And again, there's the "appreciating art" issue, which I like in men. I don't mind a certain vanity, and I certainly prefer it to the more common masculine affectation that baseball caps, sweatshirts, jeans, and tennis shoes are a universal outfit amd a point of pride to show that one isn't a big ol' fag.
We're excluding gay men, right? Because otherwise this theory crashes and burns before it leaves the ground.
Is it just my unworldly impression or is it actually the case that men's fashion changes less and less dramatically than women's?
I hope that's the case, anyway, 'cause I just dropped a lot of money on Savile Row.
Well, we're talking about it in the context of who Sherry (a stand it for women generally) finds attractive. So I think gay men are out.
Err...that is, people she wants to date and (per ogged) should date.
"We're excluding gay men, right? Because otherwise this theory crashes and burns before it leaves the ground."
Not sure. I've known plenty of gay men who lamented the high style component of gay identity (and who dressed nicely, but without paying too much attention to trends or effect).
In defense of Ogged on the sexism charge, let me say that man or woman, if you identify with the Sex in the City style fetishism, you are a fuckwit.
In all seriousness, SB, you speak Teh False.
I speak Teh True, sir. "Fuckwit" is an aesthetic zero.
I know at least one guy who is terribly stylish (but in a "has a personal style" sense that B. mentions, rather than "follows trends, althought they someties do line up), and not a fuckwit. He's actually rather delightful. So stylish that everyone assumes he's gay. So, data point.
47: But Sherry isn't saying that if the fashion du jour suits you, stock up on it before it goes out of style (which would be reasonable); she's promulgating fashion du jour as a "rule". Which is cobblers', for the same reasons Kieran supplies in 25 in the other thread.
"Fashion most certainly is a form of art."
In the way we are using the word, no it isn't. Maybe you can make a case that certain garments are art -- unique objects, whatever -- but the question between pleats and no pleats is not art.
Actually, good style is so subtle that the unstylish don't see it. Recognizable brands and trends are the marks of cluelessness. A truly stylish person will be mistaken for a category-3 by most category-2s. All those category-1 types have failed. Might as well be dead, viking.
50: That's right. A man walking around in a stylish suit from the '80s might look ever so slightly off. A woman walking around in a stylish outfit from the 80's would look as if she were wearing a Halloween costume. Think of the shoulder pads alone.
b-wo: I think you're right; men's fashion changes, but less dramatically than women's. ('I know. This year, we'll make the ties all .5" skinnier.' 'Brilliant!')
54,
Okay, anyone, man/woman/gay/straight, who appreciates an object because of its brand or its high price, irrepsective of that object's aesthetic qualities, is a fuckwit in that respect.
However, I know many gay male non-fuckwits who are not brand or trend chasers, but do have very distinctive personal styles. I am trying to think of some straight style-conscious non-fuckwits, and I admit I'm finding it hard.
But ties from the 1980s do in fact look wrong.
gay male non-fuckwits
This is an NYT Style feature waiting to happen.
In the way we are using the word, no it isn't. Maybe you can make a case that certain garments are art -- unique objects, whatever -- but the question between pleats and no pleats is not art.
Perhaps she means that having a style—in the sense of 59—requires an aesthetic sense and its judicious exercise.
My brother has a very nice fashion sense and is neither gay nor a jerk. I OTOH am (and have always been) borderline in between Sherry's second and third categories. I'm not proud -- I often look at people of both gender's who dress with intent and who wear their clothing attractively and think it would be nice to know how to do that. But most every time I attempt it I come off looking silly.
#58:
Art, according to the OED:
1. Skill; its display or application.
2. Human skill as an agent, human workmanship. Opposed to nature.
5. The application of skill to subjects of taste.
6. The application of skill to the arts of imitation and design, painting, engraving, sculpture, architecture; the cultivation of these in its principles, practice, and results; the skilful production of the beautiful in visible forms. The OED notes that "this is the most usual modern sense of the word art."
6 II. Anything wherein skill may be attained or displayed.
8. A practical application of any science; a body or system of rules serving to facilitate the carrying out of certain principles.
10. A pursuit or occupation in which skill is directed towards the gratification of taste or production of what is beautiful.
12. An acquired faculty of any kind; a power of doing anything wherein skill is attainable by study and practice; a knack.
I submit that fashion fits every one of these definitions. Moreover, I argue that denying that fashion is a form of art is an anti-populist argument, based primarily on the fact that fashion is available to women and the middle classes.
My brother has a very nice fashion sense and is neither gay nor a jerk. I OTOH am (and have always been) borderline in between Sherry's second and third categories. I'm not proud -- I often look at people of both gender's who dress with intent and who wear their clothing attractively and think it would be nice to know how to do that. But most every time I attempt it I come off looking silly.
55, if you spoke Teh True we would have to do without the phrase "emotional fuckwittage." This cannot stand.
The problem with using "art" in a nonfine-art sense is that basically everything is an art, so although you can call attention to a particular person's artistry, calling attention to the potential for artistry in any given practice isn't very informative.
#70: I don't think so. Anything made with a sense of intent and aesthetics is art. It's pretty well established that the distinction between "fine" and "applied" arts is a traditional distinction between the arts of men and those of women.
And/or the arts of social elites vs. the arts of the rabble.
I agree with bitchphd. Certainly the construction of clothes is an art, and moreover, a consistently interesting dresser makes a ton of aesthetic decisions about how to combine items every time they get dressed; it's a creative act in the same way interior decoration is.
Anything made with a sense of intent and aesthetics is art.
Which could be anything. I have no love for the art/craft distinction (and I think it's very interesting how landscaping, say, used to be a fine art).
Could be anything *made,* for one. And okay, if the distinction is important to you, then let us say anything that is *usually* made with a sense of intent and aesthetics. By that standard, fashion is art; sweatshirts and jeans, not.
Okay, first things first.
(1) Men having a fashion sense isn't some newfangled pussified liberal PC Calvin Klein plot: in American culture, it's at least as old as the Roaring Twenties, and was sustained through the 30's, 40's and 50's by the likes of Humphrey Bogart and Cary Grant (I know he's a Brit, but he had great influence on American male style), at which point Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin and the rest of the rat pack, along with (obviously) JFK, came along to let the word go forth that the torch had been passed. The 60's and 70's were a real problem (Newman and Redford notwithstanding), and the 80's were totally horrifying, what with the pernicious influence of the Young Republican preppy look, but male style started to recover in the 90's and now with the likes of George Clooney, Brad Pitt (in his non-grizzly phases) and Colin Farrell, to name a few, class is back in a big way. Men making the extra effort to dress like a million bucks isn't gay or teh gyeh or anything else, and it isn't recent. It's got a long tradition that needn't be foppish.
(2) There's an urban/suburban divide here. For instance, I'm not a social gadfly by any means, but I find myself out, several times a week, at functions/gatherings/bars at which I may or may not bump into someone I know professionally, or want to know. I think this is a city phenomenon, but it's been a while since I lived in the suburbs, so I'm not sure. Anyway, my point is, for these evening outings, I usually dress nice, but not too nice. At minimum, this means following Sherri's rules, but usually it means a bit more; perhaps a jacket that complements my shirt, and certainly shoes that match. In fact, Sherri's "no dark shirts with suits" rule should contain an important amendment, which is wearing a suit, well-tailored shirt, and no tie. Tieless with dark shirt is a great look, and I use it often when I have need to. In fact, "with tie" is almost never done in my circles; it signifies that you're a businessman, and not a hip artsy fellow.
(3) I realize that in paragraph 2 I'm using professional reasons as a crutch for my fashion-consciousness, but the truth is, I enjoy looking my best, and it makes a noticably better impression on people when I make an effort. To that end, I'm aware of fashion to a certain degree, but I'm pretty sure I'm not the kind of douchebag ogged is talking about.
(and I think it's very interesting how landscaping, say, used to be a fine art)
Has it stopped being? I would certainly think it can be a fine art at least in so far as architecture can be, which I think is more than never, less than always.
makes a ton of aesthetic decisions about how to combine items every time they get dressed; it's a creative act in the same way interior decoration is.
Yeah, but that's what I said before. (Interior decoration, also formerly a fine art, IIRC, and discussed in Kant's 3rd critique.)
(and I think it's very interesting how landscaping, say, used to be a fine art)
Has it stopped being? I would certainly think it can be a fine art at least in so far as architecture can be, which I think is more than never, less than always.
Did the suburban fuckwits ruin the fine-artitude of landscaping?
Kant distinguishes between art and ornamentation; interior decorating is ornamentation, but doesn't rise to the level of art.
if you spoke Teh True we would have to do without the phrase "emotional fuckwittage."
I merely asserted a property of a word. Such an assertion needn't hereditarily apply to the word's derived forms.
I'll see your "emotional fuckwittage", and raise you a "Literary Fuckwittgenstein".
makes a ton of aesthetic decisions about how to combine items every time they get dressed; it's a creative act in the same way interior decoration is.
Yeah, but that's what I said before. (Interior decoration, also formerly a fine art, IIRC, and discussed in Kant's 3rd critique.)
#71: I would categorize the kind of fashion under discussion here as "entertainment", which can be but is not necessarily art.
Kant distinguishes between art and ornamentation; interior decorating is ornamentation, but doesn't rise to the level of art.
Fashion most certainly is a form of art.
The point being, however, that those things which do not interest us, we perceive as not having much meaning.
#86: That's fine. The point being that there is a qualitative difference between saying "X does not interest me" and "X is bad."
This art / non-art thing is like whether darts is a sport.
Before you start, darts is not an art.
Kant distinguishes between art and ornamentation; interior decorating is ornamentation, but doesn't rise to the level of art.
I was thinking of the moments of the beautiful part, before he's introduced the notion of fine art as such (hence, I was cheating). Even wallpaper designs a la grecque can be free beauties, there.
This art / non-art thing is like whether darts is a sport.
Before you start, darts is not an art.
I wish someone would tell us what Kant would say.
83, sorry B-Wo, I wasn't trying to argue with you, but just to defend fashion against all its detractors, present in the thread or merely theoretical.
Either unfogged is broken, or ogged's implemented an AJAX-based commenting system that only sometimes kicks in.
I'm perfectly happy to grant that fashion can be an art, and people should merrily think seriously about it. And yet, stylish dresser = fuckwit.
Joe, Kant would say you're a punk.
Kant would say, "Somebody get me out of this coffin!"
Setting aside the nominalist question of "art", dressing well is expressive, and ordinarily expressive of a desire to make a positive aesthetic impact. How is this done?
... if expression were constituted by the external relation of object with object, everything would be expressive equally, indeterminately, and universally. The flower in the crannied wall would express the same thing as the bust of Caesar or the Critique of Pure Reason. What constitutes the individual expressiveness of these things is the circle of thoughts allied to each in a given mind....
But for expression to be an element of beauty, it must, of course, fulfil another condition. I may see the relations of an object, I may understand it perfectly, and may nevertheless regard it with entire indifference. If the pleasure fails, the very substance and protoplasm of beauty is wanting....
So far, so good: the arrangement of objects to produce pleasure by association with existing impressions can be expressive of beauty. But why do some arrangments of things express beauty and others not?
Now we only ask for reasons when we are surprised. If we had no expectations we should have no surprises.... When our senses and imagination find what they crave, when the world so shapes itself or so moulds the mind that the correspondence between them is perfect, then perception is pleasure, and existence needs no apology.
Santayana, The Sense of Beauty
In other words, pleats can be okay, depending on their relation to surrounding objects and the prior impressions they evoke. This is suspiciously similar to "... eye of the beholder" and "ymmv", but nicely put.
Damn. If I'd come in on time, I could have made Ogged look moderate. Too late.
A fashion trend once grew up around me without my knowing it. It was called grunge.
Landscaping, gardens anyway, used to be done/designed by artists. Today it tends to fall under the architectural purview, and architects typically don't like to be called makers of art.
I am in complete agreement with SB's comments in this thread.
#100: Dressing well is not necessarily expensive. Money makes it easier, and obviously following trends is more expensive than not following them if you control for things like quality. But it is possible to dress well and spend no more, or less than most people spend to dress badly.
architects typically don't like to be called makers of art.
My cousin the architecture student would disagree. He's far more interested in the aesthetic aspects of architecture. Of course, he's not all that interested in whether people would want to live/work in these buildings, but I guess that's what goes along with being a student.
He's far more interested in the aesthetic aspects of architecture.
His school will teach that right out of him.
The profs he's had have been reinforcing it pretty well, actually. He worked for a summer at the firm of one of them, who apparently only does architectural competitions. No commercial contracts.
His interests are in really avant-garde stuff that isn't all that practical at the moment. It's not that he's designing very large sculptures with no real-world value, it's that he likes the experimental stuff. Long-term practicality over immediate. So it's not just the aesthetic aspects, I guess. Though he does design some odd looking buildings.
It is not possible to dress well and spend no more than I do to dress badly.
the art/not art/ comments seem to have come and gone, but here's what I think:
Either the term "fine arts" is meaningful or it isn't. If it's meaningful, then it doesn't include mass produced pants without pleats. If it isn't meaningful, then there's nothing to be gained from calling something art, and something not art. And therefore, no argument can be made that X is good because X is art (or Y is not good because Y is not art).
For instance: football equipment is art. Distinguishing between football equipment and, say, a Rodan sculpture is purely a tool to self-satisfy the elites.
In fact, football itself is an art, comparable to modern dance. See above.
To make any of these arguments is, frantkly, to be an ass, and that's as true for the pleated pants as for the shoulder pads.
a Rodan sculpture
Which Godzilla thought was not art.
or the non-pleated pants. whatever. Most of my pants don't even have pleats, because when I started working, the pants on sale at banana republic didn't have pleats.
Wasn't the whole point of all the pop-art people to break down that barrier between art/not art? Same thing with Flavin (who came up the other day), or that blank canvas that's slashed through the middle at MoMA. It's not so easy to draw a line, a lot of it is in how the audience approaches the art-object. So something could be both art and not-art, depending on who's looking at it. (It's entirely possible that this makes no sense, but this is the impression I get when I see one of those "weird" art exhibits.)
that's fine, Matt F. I'll agree that there isn't a real distinction between art and not art. But if that's true, then we gain nothing by calling fashion an art, to distinguish it from a football game, is all I mean.
Sometimes in order to create we must destroy. The destructive urge can therefore be a creative one. Godzilla was creative, and an artist. QED.
Did Godzilla have the necessary level of awareness to consider things "art" or "not-art"?
Text, did you just call me an ass?
Because if so, I'll have you know my ass looks FINE in these pants.
Also, he preferred to have his name pronounced to rhyme with "tortilla". The fact that so few know this is a measure of his status as an alienated outsider.
Text, I don't think anyone is arguing that pants, pleated or un, that one buys at Banana Republic are art. Bitchphd upthread said that mass-produced jeans and sweats are not art. However, certain articles of clothing certainly are art (women's clothing more than men's clothing, since women are more commonly allowed to be very expressive in their clothing without being chastized for their fuckwittedness), and decisions about what to wear with what can be expressive and beautiful and creative, but this kind of expressive dressing would seem to be included in Ogged's "fuckwit" category. At an extreme of creativity, when the dresser produces a strong and surprising aesthetic experience in the viewer, fashion is art (in the same sense as interior decorating). This is different from whether you are following all of Sherry's rules, which are mostly foolish, or at the very least extremely convention-bound, which make the act of following them pretty much the opposite of art.
I'll bet it does. In which case, I'm sorry?
#100: Dressing well is not necessarily expensive.
B, you know I, and Santayana, wrote "expressive", right?
I'll agree with what Tia said. Let's all try on pants!
he preferred to have his name pronounced to rhyme with "tortilla"
Is this a rule for upset sea-dwelling monsters -- i.e., does it apply to Scylla, too?
Don't tell me Scylla was the rock.
But if that's true, then we gain nothing by calling fashion an art, to distinguish it from a football game, is all I mean.
Well, the difference is in degree instead of kind, but this doesn't mean the distinction goes away. We can still make judgments about the relative artiness of football vs. fashion (e.g.), it's just that we can't have that solid demarcation between them.
#121: My bad, I misread.
#120: No, as a feminist and a bitch I must insist that you concede my point; I do not accept apologies based on the fineness of my ass.
In fact, to be fair, I didn't say "mass produced" jeans and sweatshirts; I just said "jeans and sweatshirts," because my point was not so much about the means of production as about the question of design and intent, and the parallel question of interpretation (wearing) and intent. So I'd still point out that, for instance, the *design* element in fashion is art, even if that design is then mass-produced; one would have to get into a discussion here Benjamin, I guess, to deal with that one.
I'm not saying that the sudden appearance in Banana Republic of unpleated pants this fall is one of the nobler achievements of humanity, or anything. I'm just saying that I object to the popular opinion that fashion is shallow piffle, and those who care about it, shallow piffleheads.
"here OF Benjamin."
And of course, even w/r/t art, one can judge "bad" art and "good" art. The entire point of aesthetics is judgment, isn't it?
Sure, Matt F. So make an argument that mass produced pants are more of an art than mass produced shoulder pads, or a particularly acrobatic touchdown catch. It may be convincing. But you can't do the work by saying, x is art, y is not.
Anyway, I'm trying to clear all this up. I love fashion!
I think that shoulder pads have as much of a design element as dress pants. Also, helmets. They are doing some great stuff with cages these days. (I'm not kidding, face masks are cool).
So, if the point is that pants are more of an art than other mass produced goods, due to the design element, I disagree. The design element is there in most if not all mass produced goods.
If the point is that all mass produced goods are art, then my point stands that it then becomes frivolous to distinguish between art and not-art.
And I don't think fashion is piffle headed.
Don't tell me Scylla was the rock.
No no, that was Paul Simon.
you'd be surprised at how much thought goes behind which face-mask to wear, where to tape, whether to use eye-black, whether to use a visor, how to wear one's socks. There is a lot of interpretive work done in making those decisions -- they aren't purely utilitarian.
There is a lot of interpretive work done in making those decisions
Not to mention, whether to flap one's arms, butt heads, or slap derrieres upon "scoring a Touch-Down".
What brought the sharpened clippers to that height
And sheared the white cloth thither in the night?
make an argument that mass produced pants are more of an art than mass produced shoulder pads, or a particularly acrobatic touchdown catch.
That's the thing, they aren't necessarily. I suspect we're actually in agreement here; a really spectacular catch is more aesthetically pleasing than a pair of Levi's (or whatever), just as a really nice hand-tailored suit can be more aesthetically pleasing than a standard 4th down punt. The distinctions still have meaning, it just means that you have to make a judgment, rather than dismissing something outright as non-art.
What but design of darkness to imperil?-
If design govern in a thing called apparel.
I once read a book that had a reference to the Scylla and Charybdis (or however the fuck you spell it) in every single chapter, sometimes more than once.
Ultimately, I physically threw the book across the room.
Was it "Snow Falling on Cedars"?
Oh, I'm quite willing to agree that there are design features in, say, sports uniforms and in how players do face paint and so on. Absolutely. But I think that to move from that to "alll mass produced goods are art" is too quick an elision. Many, probably most mass-produced goods are "designed" with an eye to something other than aesthetics: cost, the abilities of the machinery, packing, etc. I would say that to consider something "art" one would have to focus primarily on the *aesthetic* qualities of the object in question--even though of course if one prefers the "form follows function" argument, then one would argue against that, and I'd concede that too, under those criteria. Anyway, this entire argument has basically already happened w/r/t fine art, what with ready-mades, pop art, etc. And yet, we still use the term "art," and we still act as though people know what we mean.
I think what you are arguing is that if the distinction between "art" and "not art" isn't clear, then it is meaningless. I disagree. It's quite possible for people to hold conflicting ideas in their heads; unavoidable, even. "Meaning" doesn't have to mean "consistency."
I was making the argument that if art becomes all inclusive, or inclusive of all things with a design element, then it becomes meaningless, because all things that humans produce have design elements.
People continue to use the term art, even after the pop-art explosion. I tend to think that's because there is a real distinction between "fine art" and other decorative objects, but I don't have a good means of proving that here.
But if the distinction does exist -- if there is a line to draw, a blurry one, between objects with design elements, and "art" or "fine art," then I think that shoulder pads and dress pants would have to fall on the same side of that line. If you think that side is the "fine art" side, then I think you've made the definition more inclusive than it should be, if it is to remain a helpful distinction.
"I would say that to consider something "art" one would have to focus primarily on the *aesthetic* qualities of the object in question."
This would make the issue of art, not-art depend on the way the object is approached. Which is probably right -- Duchamp and all that. But then you would have to concede, that approached primarily with its aesthetics in mind, any object can be art. And if that's so, declaring "x is art, y is not" is rather a waste of time.
There is real distinction--one that has a lot to do with cultural prejudices and the like. It may be objectionable, and I may argue against it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I do maintain that a good tailor is an artist, just as I would maintain that a good designer or a good craftsman is an artist.
#143: Perhaps. But in the present argument, saying "fashion is art" isn't a waste of time: it overcame the initial claim that fashion was meaningless and unimportant (or something to that effect).
is a linguistic distinction ever anything different from a cultural prejudice?
If it has meaning, but the meaning is invalid for cultural reasons, then what is to be gained from using that meaning to prop up one sort of object against another?
but if art isn't any kind of a distinction, saying "fashion is art" doesn't overcome that initial claim. Rather, it can be overcome by demonstrating that fashion has meaning and import (which it does).
125: When I typed "mass-produced," what I meant was something entirely different, and you all should have known it. Hmmph.
In fact, I meant "not designed or produced with meaningful attention to aesthetics." I wasn't trying to make some Bejaminian point about needing the aura of an original creation.
Oog. Late to the game here, and haven't had time to read all the comments. But see my next post -- explaining why I often agree that well-dressed men are not necessarily attractive. Vanity and fussiness are unattractive, and both often go with well-dressedness. But being tuned in enough to avoid the big blunders but choosing clothing that is merely safe and passable -- that to me looks like cowardice. Sometimes poorly dressed men are most attractive of all. But other times they are just clueless/arrogant about social nuance.
it overcame the initial claim
That wasn't my actual claim, y'know; I was snarking on the earlier (linked) comment about the perceived meaninglessness of entertainment one doesn't enjoy. Good o-earnestness, though.
#148: No, but I think that Text is making a Benjaminian point. Or was, anyway.
I have to think more about the answers to Text's later posts. Back later. It is very hard to come up with coherent things to say while grading late student papers.
a good craftsman is an artist.
Don't we only say that because craft is not properly appreciated? A work of craft can be beautiful and even moving without being art.
I don't agree that art is divided from applied art along class or gender lines. It's divided from them along functional lines.
Is a beautifully lucid instruction manual a work of art?
152 -- depends on the intent of the instruction manual author, right?
I maintain that what I say now is what I've always said, and what has always been said is what I say now. If I make Benjaminian points, then it is good to do so.
I think my point is this.
Think of Duchamp. A urinal is not a work of art in its usual context: it is merely functional, and people don't think of its aesthetics. (Hence we avoid the intentional fallacy.) Put it in an art museum, though, and the context demands that one think of it as an aesthetic object: it is art, and although this depends on context and not on the object itself, that's the point.
The original argument was that one shouldn't dress in a way that draws attention to oneself or one's clothing: that is, that clothing should be merely functional, not art. The problem with that argument is that (1) it is an aesthetic argument from the beginning; (2) the fact of the matter is that we do, generally, think of clothing in an aesthetic sense--otherwise we wouldn't care what we wear or exercise any choice about it. That is, even in every day use, clothing has an aesthetic value and is judged accordingly. Hence, fashion (by which I mean, "the choices one makes about what one wears, including cut, color, and so on") is art. Sure, one can say that it isn't art strictly speaking, but since nothing is art strictly speaking (all "art" depending on the cultural context in which its being interpreted as art), that's a meaningless argument. In contrast, one does not *usually* think of urinals, or football shoulder pads, or the like in aesthetic terms. One can do so, yes, and then it becomes "art." But the fact that anything, including a urinal, can be seen as "art" in the proper mindset doesn't mean that the term is meaningless at all.
I think the argument works until we get to the contrast. A urinal could look a thousand different ways and maintain the same level of utility; we choose a specific way for it to look, and the choice is purely aesthetic. Shoulder pads are made to look as aggessive as possible. There is a cerain utility to that aestheticism (trying not to sound too garbled) in that there is a purpose to be served by looking aggressive. Nevertheless, aesthetics are at work.
Face masks are an interesting example. The "box" facemask emerged in the early nineties; it doesn't add much utility, and actually inhibits the range of vision, which for some positions, is very important. One of those positions is defensive back. You would think -- purely based on utility -- defensive backs would not wear "box" style face-masks. But they all do. Because it looks fucking cool.
I see nothing wrong with appreciating aesthetics in all of our objects. The argument works at that level. But I'm afraid I don't buy the distinction between pants and shoulder pads, or face-masks, or cars, for that matter. Your first objection is, however, entirely valid.
This reminds of when I was in Rome a few years back and someone told me that the best Caravaggio was in the churches, not in the special exhibitions that were then running. I've always thought the best urinals were in the restrooms.
I also don't think this stands up:
"we do, generally, think of clothing in an aesthetic sense--otherwise we wouldn't care what we wear or exercise any choice about it."
We would care about what we wear in two or three important ways: (1) for protection, (2) social conformity, (3) sexual attraction.
2, and especially 3, interact with aesthetics in the same way that the shoulder pads' designed aggressiveness interacts with aesthetics. But they also provide a utilitarian reason for preferring one set of clothes over another.
you could replace "social conformity" with "signalling one's place in the social hierarchy."
This is not to say that clothing can't be seen in a purely aesthetic light, but merely that it isn't more conducive to that light than any other type of object.
No, because we care about clothing for all those things (although I think "sexual attraction" is way overrated as a reason people choose to wear what they wear), but we also care about them in terms of how they look--which isn't just a substitution for "sexual attraction" or "social conformity." People consider, for instance, what colors are good on them; whether or not a particular style suits their aesthetic; whether or not they care for the social connotations of X or Y brand; and so on. When one puts together an outfit, one considers whether X and Y "go together" or not, what event one is going to, who is likely to be there, and so on. All of those things require aesthetic judgment, and I don't see how you can say that, for instance, considering which shoulder padds one wears when one steps on the field (does one do that? Or does the coach merely order them?) is comparable.
This post obviously confuses correlation with causation. Just because you don't want to be the kind of person that does X, doesn't mean that doing X will make you that kind of person.
I think "sexual attraction" is way overrated as a reason people choose to wear what they wear
What about wearing pointy shoes in order to get laid?
the face-mask selection is particularly apt. At pretty much all levels of competition, football players choose which facemask to wear, and the choice requires as much aesthetic judgment as choosing boots or pants or whatever. Is a face-mask art? If Duchamp puts one in the louvre, sure.
I've chosen football here to contrast with your position that sports aren't art in the below thread, but you could really substitute any ordinary object and get the same result.
My above point wasn't that choosing clothing doesn't require aesthetic judgment -- obviously it does -- but that it also involves non-aesthetic considerations. On the whole, it isn't any different from choosing any other sort of object for personal ownership.
The point is that choosing an outfit is different than choosing an object for "personal ownership"--because one doesn't simply buy the thing, one then combines it with other things according to mood, situation, company, and so on. This is why interior decorating or landscaping can be considered arts, but buying a television cannot--even if a television can be said, rightly, to have design elements in it and to be chosen in part because one likes the design elements. Owning the thing or using the thing isn't, in and of itself, art: it's owning and using the thing in combination with owning and using other things in a way that's deliberately calculated to create an aesthetic effect--OR in a way that is understood as deliberately calculated to create an aesthetic effect--that elevates it to art.
I still don't think it quite works. We don't buy any items in a vacuum, but we combine them all with the other things in our lives, and we do so for aesthetic effects. It might be that we are more conscious about this, or more deliberate, with regard to clothing, but we do it with cars, bikes, computers, lamps, and football helmets as well.
What you seem to be describing is "living artfully" -- or that's my inartful phrase for it -- being conscious of the aesthetic choices that we make every day. Maybe fashion is one way in which we "live artfully" -- some of us to a higher degree than others -- but this doesn't eliminate all other possible ways of doing so.
As you mentioned yourself, the decision to embrace or reject fashion is itself an aesthetic decision. I think that is true for more than just the clothes we wear.
Reading the above, "living artfully," that sounds pretty gay. Just thought I'd point that out before everyone else does.
Shall we agree to disagree that we are miscommunicating?
I think we follow each other's arguments, but I'll agree to disagree about them.
