xoxo, Aca-fan Girl

[fortfrolic]

Ah, the viewing party. I used to co-host weekly "Lost" viewing parties, but eventually we gave them up as the show started going downhill and haven't yet managed to organize them since its revival. The point is, I'm attending a "Gossip Girl" season finale party this evening, complete with dress code, and it's making me want to expand my

Comments

[cathexys]

Fascinating comment!

Did you see Louisa's GG In Media Res piece last fall? I think there may indeed be a lot of fannishness in that particular engagement (she's done work on fashion and Roswell as well), but its ties to consumerism more than anything else, I think make it a less easily classifiable fan activity....

[transgeneric]

(Louisa here...) Hi! and Yay for more acafangirls watching GG! (and btw, I didn't know about this LJ. OK if I friend it?

I don't completely agree with Cathexys here, as I'm sure she'll be unsurprised to find out :D Or rather, if I'm reading your comment right, cathexys, you're saying that engagement with fashion isn't fannish because it's consumerist? Since when are those things opposed? Yes, some fan communities value a gift economy in relation to sharing their own creations, but even those community-specific values don't exclude consumerism as one mode of identification with a text.

There's an article I found fascinating about Veronica Mars fandom and fashion in the Teen TV book--and yeah, way back in the day I wrote a paper on the Roswell Beauty Divas. To tell the truth, I found my way to fandom not via anything seemingly transgressive like slash, but because of my adoration of Maria Deluca's lipgloss. Ah, good times :D

My, I need to get some GG icons for this account....

[fortfrolic]

Thanks for the link- I have a friend doing similar work on branding and "The Hills," so I am familiar with the phenomenon and I know she'll want to read Louisa's piece too! (*waves to Louisa!* Of course you can friend! Love your GG piece!) Agreed that the emphasis on consumerism steers it away from fan activity as we know it, but as I've argued in the past for the benefits of HP's line of garb at Hot Topic as a positive way to "brand" one's fannishness, I think there's some room for argument here

[fortfrolic]

(Also, sorry for the two-comments-one-stone post...for some reason lj wasn't letting me reply to you guys separately...)

[transgeneric]

But does it move us away from creativity? Or is this another example of cut and paste creativity, creativity by assemblage within limitaitons? I guess I'd caution against our taking an anti-consumerist value and applying it to creativity. Are creativity and consumerism mutually exclusive?

(And really, this also gets into issues of valuing "originality"... *waves at cathexys*)

Wow, this really does bring me back to my Roswell paper days. Good practice for an upcoming piece I'm writing on GG on Second Life...

[cathexys]

See, it's the originality that has me worried...but I would like to distinguish trolling through shops to find fashion just like it looks on the show versus buying it wholesale...it's not about repetition (bc the desire is to replicate as closely as possible in cosplay, right?) but about active vs passive maybe?

[transgeneric]

shopping isn't necessarily passive. haven't we already established that passive vs. active is too simplistic a dichotomy, and is too often used to support culturally embedded stereotypes born of hegemony?

um. ok. i guess i still get a little riled on this issue :D *hugs cathexys* sorry to do so all over your LJ fortfrolic! (love the username btw, though I have no idea what it means :) it just has a nice sound.)

[fortfrolic]

Are you kidding, I love all the spirited debate! This is why I toss out all these half-formed musings, so that brighter bulbs than I can hash them out, so thanks to both of you for giving me a great deal to think about.

Some quick thoughts (now that I actually took a moment to think this through)- I'm not sure how much of this we can hinge on an idea of "originality" because, as cathexys notes, this is more about mimesis than innovation. We seem to be talking about labor here (e.g. there's more "labor" invested in trolling vintage shops than buying a costume wholesale, and even more labor involved with creating a costume from scratch- which is I think the most strident/accepted definition of the cosplay ethos) and the value ascribed to fan labor within fan communities.

The active/passive divide is also tricky, as we've all agreed on multiple occasions that it's not a productive binary, and I'm with transgeneric on this one re: shopping's ability to be considered an "active" form of fan practice. Can consumption be creative? Sure. I suppose this

[fortfrolic]

No, I don't think they're mutually exclusive at all- I suppose my distinction would rest in not whether costumes are purchased or constructed, but how they're used. I'm something of a "fanboy" style collector, so I've always taken issue with people devaluing consumer aspects of fandom simply because they're not "creative." I guess the creativity, for me, is in how those objects are being used- for example, my apartment is decorated in various fan objects my boyfriend and I have collected over the years, so I consider them to be "active," or at least actively identifying us with various fandoms

[transgeneric]

Oooh how do I love the notion of fannish passing! That is such a fascinating thought. Different instantiations of fannishness, fannishness passing as (or just fannishness as) stylishness/media savvy vs. geekishness.

Hmmm my stuff on Roswell fashion never did get included in my Roswell article. Maybe it made it in my diss.--I'd have to check :D I'll see what I can dig up! I'll be revisiting all of this for my GG paper, so this is all very timely :)

[cathexys]

Oh, I don't think I wanted to argue that...you've trained me better than that :P

I tried to argue that it's less easily classifiable but not less valid, if that makes sense...

Re fortfrolic's question below, though, if there were a spectrum, would buying from the copyright owner be less fannish because less creative/individual/invested???

[transgeneric]

classifiable? oh you know me and classifications.... so I'll just shut up now. :D

why is buying from the copyright owner less creative/individual/invested? Couldn't one be equally or more invested and creative buying? Certainly the fans who dedicate themselves to recreating fashion are deeply invested. No, it's not the same type of creativity--fashion is more ephemeral, but it's still self expression, imo.

I'm guess I'm not really comfortable with rating things on a spectrum like that... but then, when am I ever... :p

[cathexys]

but the creativity is exactly what gets lost when you buy the entire thing wholesale...i don't think that's what you were thinking about but i think that's the differentiation fortfrolic was making...

And you me: always wanting to put everything in nice and neat boxes...

dichotomies ftw!!!

drafted my flow thing btw... \o/

[transgeneric]

dichotomies so not ftw!! So Not :P:P:P

i feel, if one buys the whole thing wholesale that the creativity happens in the performativity, in the margins.

[cathexys]

but can't you at least acknowledge that there's a spectrum between making the costume - buying the parts - buying the entire thing? There's a different time investment and a different creative engagement and, yes, a different ACTIVE engagement...

[transgeneric]

I just think it's *different*. But I wouldn't trace out a spectrum with valuations of creativity, no. I think that if someone is buying the entire thing, the creativity is in the performance vs. creating a similar look.

But I think that most fashion invested fans don't buy the entire thing peice for peice exactly. For GG very few could afford to!

The hunt for the pieces is very much what that article in Teen Television about the TWOP Veronica's Closet fans was about. The mystery solving of locating exact pieces or their likeness--akin to the mystery solving of VM overall.