2. a. Make, build, shape. Hence, in wider sense, visible characteristics, appearance. Said both of material and of immaterial things. arch. {dag}out of fashion: out of shape.
~Oxford English Dictionary.
There were a few other good ones, that basically place fashion within airs and mannerisms, but this one seems quite appropriate. We are incorrect in the assessment that fashion comes from uncomfortable conforming attire. There is a debated (loosely) but agreed upon aesthetic today. Stiletto = sexy, Ugg = vomit.
Practicality & wearability = mens clothing. Which has some aesthetics, that died before the advent of cargo pants. I've had some debates on this subject, but we basically lost 'men's fashion' with the Victorians. At present the idea of it is nearly ludicrous to the mainstream population. Take a look at the fashion channel and analyze men on there, anytime they decide to do over a guy, he looks like a bum off the street, while entirely functional looking women are presented by 2 to 1 odds. This has it's ups and downs of course. But the true embrace of practicality and wearability would look something like cargo lounge-wear, it would conceal all senses of gender. Basically "Ninja-wear" one would be able to place 50 random objects upon themselves in nooks and crannies. Certainly there are a few steps before this... But when we start combining "holding massive amounts of shit", "can be slept in", "has zippers on the side to adjust for 50 degrees external temperature easily"
*shudders*
Therefore "Men's fashion" is oxymoronic, minus the aesthetic of the tie, the white button down shirt, and the suspenders... Well, I'm still looking.
~Oxford English Dictionary.
There were a few other good ones, that basically place fashion within airs and mannerisms, but this one seems quite appropriate. We are incorrect in the assessment that fashion comes from uncomfortable conforming attire. There is a debated (loosely) but agreed upon aesthetic today. Stiletto = sexy, Ugg = vomit.
Practicality & wearability = mens clothing. Which has some aesthetics, that died before the advent of cargo pants. I've had some debates on this subject, but we basically lost 'men's fashion' with the Victorians. At present the idea of it is nearly ludicrous to the mainstream population. Take a look at the fashion channel and analyze men on there, anytime they decide to do over a guy, he looks like a bum off the street, while entirely functional looking women are presented by 2 to 1 odds. This has it's ups and downs of course. But the true embrace of practicality and wearability would look something like cargo lounge-wear, it would conceal all senses of gender. Basically "Ninja-wear" one would be able to place 50 random objects upon themselves in nooks and crannies. Certainly there are a few steps before this... But when we start combining "holding massive amounts of shit", "can be slept in", "has zippers on the side to adjust for 50 degrees external temperature easily"
*shudders*
Therefore "Men's fashion" is oxymoronic, minus the aesthetic of the tie, the white button down shirt, and the suspenders... Well, I'm still looking.
Reply
Leave a comment