Confess something that might surprise others or damage your reputation on JUB - 2014

[belamyi]

Whenever people (including those in the fashion industry themselves) go on too much bemoaning the lack of originality or whatever else in fashion, I roll my eyes because they're barking up the wrong tree. Clothing is a mass product for as mass a market as can be managed. So it's always going to be an "art form" compromising itself for marketability and affordability, and not for pure artistic achievement or extraordinary originality.

You are simply, apart from ALL that I already commented, fundamentally misled by mistaking production for marketability

 

[belamyi]

If you had utterly on response worth reading why'd you bother to make one at all?

You mean "no" response worth reading. According to your very cavalier and olympian dismissal, neither was your post, and there I was, GIVING REASONS instead of merely covering your own impotence with a "meh... not worth..."

 

[borg69unimatrix]

You are mixing art, craftmanship and mere production as applied to a single general concept, clothing, that can be as exclusive or mass-oriented as those three modes of handling allow it to be.

If the product is based on a general abstract formula of elaboration, that is, clothing or jewelry, not dependant on the actual raw material or the excellence of its elaboration by further refining on that basic formula, as is the case with perfectly cut perfect diamonds, or high-end cars or haute couture, any sort of elaborated product can equally be either exclusive or mass-oriented, provided you have the right technology to support it without any special cost... all that you can think of can be a luxury, from just water, or the access to it, to a computer, depending on the society you live in and the technology that runs it.

So don't get me any more of that bs concerning clothing being mass-oriented per se. Covering your body may be more or less basic and mass-oriented, but clothing is so general and complex in its intefiniteness as to invalid your statement under its own weight... is leaf-covering clothing? is it mass-oriented by nature? or would that rather be leather clothing more fundamental to serve the purpose of covering and, therefore, more truly mass-oriented?

Belamo is the next Tim Gunn... I just know it!!!

 

[xbuzzerx]

So don't get me any more of that bs concerning clothing being mass-oriented per se. Covering your body may be more or less basic and mass-oriented, but clothing is so general and complex in its intefiniteness as to invalid your statement under its own weight... is leaf-covering clothing? is it mass-oriented by nature? or would that rather be leather clothing more fundamental to serve the purpose of covering and, therefore, more truly mass-oriented?

Yes. It is. A culture that would use grass or leaves as clothing is doing it because it's utilitarian and widely available as a means of covering based on the resources available locally and the methods and effort which can be reasonably devoted to covering one's body.

And 99.99% of people who obsess about fashion are seeking to convey from their appearance some kind of expression or statement they are otherwise incapable of making through their own artistic expression, demeanor or ability - or to impart certain affectations of class, style or the pretentions of such. No one who actually cares about real meaning, value or uniqueness as you claim to do would give one fig about the cost of "design originality" of the clothes someone is wearing because literally any ape could put on those clothes.

 

[belamyi]

Yes. It is. A culture that would use grass or leaves as clothing is doing it because it's utilitarian and widely available as a means of covering based on the resources available locally and the methods and effort which can be reasonably devoted to covering one's body.

And 99.99% of people who obsess about fashion are seeking to convey from their appearance some kind of expression or statement they are otherwise incapable of making through their own artistic expression, demeanor or ability - or to impart certain affectations of class, style or the pretentions of such. No one who actually cares about real meaning, value or uniqueness as you claim to do would give one fig about the cost of "design originality" of the clothes someone is wearing because literally any ape could put on those clothes.

I refer you to what I posted: you are making the fundamental logical mistake (very common) of believing that their are essences and necessary causes that support your assumptions. As I said, you are mistaking item, product and marketability.

Who is that idiot in that cover? he's American, isn't he.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I refer you to what I posted: you are making the fundamental logical mistake (very common) of believing that their are essences and necessary causes that support your assumptions. As I said, you are mistaking item, product and marketability

That clothing is for dressing people, and that designers and manufacturers producing clothing to sell are looking to make a profit?

Yes, I am making those assumptions. I suppose somewhere on the planet there are a few people so wealthy they design clothes entirely for the expression of it with absolutely no eye towards ever selling any of it. But those people hardly merit mention in a discussion of the fashion industry or fashion culture.

 

[belamyi]

That clothing is for dressing people, and that designers and manufacturers producing clothing to sell are looking to make a profit?

Yes, I am making those assumptions. I suppose somewhere on the planet there are a few people so wealthy they design clothes entirely for the expression of it with absolutely no eye towards ever selling any of it. But those people hardly merit mention in a discussion of the fashion industry or fashion culture.

Yes, you are making the asumptions of taking the secondary and parasite elements that allow Tim Gunns to earn an easy living for the center of all that is involved in the term "clothing".

 

[xbuzzerx]

Yes, you are making the asumptions of taking the secondary and parasite elements that allow Tim Gunns to earn an easy living for the center of all that is involved in the term "clothing".

The industry engaged in the design and production of 99.99999% of all attire on the planet are hardly a "secondary parasite element" when discussing the fashion industry. You imply that the rightful place of clothing in human civilization is something to be designed and admired purely as artwork, and not as something to be worn.

 

[belamyi]

The industry engaged in the design and production of 99.99999% of all attire on the planet are hardly a "secondary parasite element" when discussing the fashion industry. You imply that the rightful place of clothing in human civilization is something to be designed and admired purely as artwork, and not as something to be worn.

But that industry doews not equate with clothing, which is centuries and milleania older than that industry and which is the original subject of this discussion: THAT was my point. Get it, finally, now?

No, my point was precisely to treat such a general term as "clothing" as open to all of those possibilities: artwork, industry, mere item independent of both... while it is you who assume there is a fundamental restriction to an understanding of it, and a necessary, more fundamental connection with only one of all those possibilities.

You started talking about "clothing", without specifying antything and, when I pushed you to elaborate, you ended up taking up a certain status quo and specific cultural (and economic) development as the fundamental, everlasting state and "essence" of the term.

 

[xbuzzerx]

But that industry doews not equate with clothing, which is centuries and milleania older than that industry and which is the original subject of this discussion: THAT was my point. Get it, finally, now?

The entire fashion industry itself is a needless leisure indulgence precipitated by human civilization moving out of the phase where utilitarian objects like clothing for covering our bodies stopped being dictated entirely by utility and very limited resources and became an overglorified way for people with leisure time and surplus money to begin engaging in a pretense that one's style or unique taste was a manner of making distinctions of prejudice and class and refinement. Caring about it at all is entirely an arbitrary indulgence but a person's "good or bad" taste in clothing signifies next to nothing.

 

[belamyi]

The entire fashion industry itself is a needless leisure indulgence precipitated by human civilization moving out of the phase where utilitarian objects like clothing for covering our bodies stopped being dictated entirely by utility and very limited resources and became an overglorified way for people with leisure time and surplus money to begin engaging in a pretense that one's style or unique taste was a manner of making distinctions of prejudice and class and refinement. Caring about it at all is entirely an arbitrary indulgence but a person's "good or bad" taste in clothing signifies next to nothing.

Again, that was not our original point of discussion, and I might even agree with what you wrote there, but we were talking merely about "clothing", and I was trying to make you see the difference with a full-throttle, 2014 fashion-industry and merely "clothing", which is a concept that can be developed in many other ways, not just subject to big fashion concerns and malls for the borg to consume.

 

[belamyi]

The entire fashion industry itself is a needless leisure indulgence precipitated by human civilization moving out of the phase where utilitarian objects like clothing for covering our bodies stopped being dictated entirely by utility and very limited resources and became an overglorified way for people with leisure time and surplus money to begin engaging in a pretense that one's style or unique taste was a manner of making distinctions of prejudice and class and refinement. Caring about it at all is entirely an arbitrary indulgence but a person's "good or bad" taste in clothing signifies next to nothing.

Again, that was not our original point of discussion, and I might even agree with what you wrote there, but we were talking merely about "clothing", and I was trying to make you see the difference with a full-throttle, 2014 fashion-industry and merely "clothing", which is a concept that can be developed in many other ways, not just subject to big fashion concerns and malls for the borg to consume.

Otherwise, fashion industry would have existed like that for centuries...even before any sort of industry existed at all...

 

[xbuzzerx]

Again, that was not our original point of discussion, and I might even agree with what you wrote there, but we were talking merely about "clothing", and I was trying to make you see the difference with a full-throttle, 2014 fashion-industry and merely "clothing", which is a concept that can be developed in many other ways, not just subject to big fashion concerns and malls for the borg to consume.

You were, as I recall, attacking the lack of dedication to pure artform within the fashion industry, and I pointed out that all of the fashion industry for all intents and purposes exists for the purposes of fueling and profiting from conspicuous consumption... any artistic expression within that worth noting is merely a side benefit or a tool for competition and improving sales, but the goal of selling the product profitably is always paramount. It's not a pure artform existing only for the sake of furthering an art, or even for leaving anything to posterity, since fashion is invariably laughed at only a few years later.

 

[belamyi]

You were, as I recall, attacking the lack of dedication to pure artform within the fashion industry, and I pointed out that all of the fashion industry for all intents and purposes exists for the purposes of fueling and profiting from conspicuous consumption... any artistic expression within that worth noting is merely a side benefit or a tool for competition and improving sales, but the goal of selling the product profitably is always paramount. It's not a pure artform existing only for the sake of furthering an art, or even for leaving anything to posterity, since fashion is invariably laughed at only a few years later.

No, again, that was your assumption. What I attack is the fashion industry not letting REAL creative space out of those coordinates you describe, but merely a travesty, with a higher quality wrapping, of the same repetitive mainstream, mass-oriented product... just like you do not allow any space for reasoning outside your own assumptions and righteousness.

 

[borg69unimatrix]

Again, that was not our original point of discussion, and I might even agree with what you wrote there, but we were talking merely about "clothing", and I was trying to make you see the difference with a full-throttle, 2014 fashion-industry and merely "clothing", which is a concept that can be developed in many other ways, not just subject to big fashion concerns and malls for the borg to consume.

Otherwise, fashion industry would have existed like that for centuries...even before any sort of industry existed at all...

There you go again...

I think I take some minor offense to this because the Borg were selective in whom they assimilated.

You had to have certain physical attributes. There was a set level of technology. Tactical skills. Intelligence. Resources. Something new and unique to add to the collective to better and enrich it.

You lump them all together like mindless sheep who cannot think for themselves... Lemmings... that would take just anybody to be a place holder if they had a pulse... which wasn't the case.

 

[belamyi]

There you go again...

I think I take some minor offense to this because the Borg were selective in whom they assimilated.

You had to have certain physical attributes. There was a set level of technology. Tactical skills. Intelligence. Resources. Something new and unique to add to the collective to better and enrich it.

You lump them all together like mindless sheep who cannot think for themselves... Lemmings... that would take just anybody to be a place holder if they had a pulse... which wasn't the case.

So the borg are so useless and incapable of developing those skills themselves that they need to assimilate and, therefore, castrate them and make them useless for further development, being ultimately dependant on skills which are innovative and "enriching" only as long as they are outise their dumbing down realm. You are like the wrongly-called right governments... or simply governments.

 

[borg69unimatrix]

So the borg are so useless and incapable of developing those skills themselves that they need to assimilate and, therefore, castrate them and make them useless for further development, being ultimately dependant on skills which are innovative and "enriching" only as long as they are outise their dumbing down realm. You are like the wrongly-called right governments... or simply governments.

Yup. That pretty much sums it up right there.

Resistance is Futile. Our thoughts are One.

 

[belamyi]

Yup. That pretty much sums it up right there.

Resistance is Futile. Our thoughts are One.

So you are ashamed of it. And must admit... that it is too late too go back and disown your stupid fascination for [an] ultimately worthless entities/[entity]

 

[belamyi]

Resistance is Futile. Our thoughts are One.

HA! your borg ass..!

Although for the way they are depicted to win, I would rather go with the borg.

It's like when in Worl War Z those stupid started singing and revelring while the zombies were on the other side of the wall: I immediately said "I'd rather be on the other side" ... stupidity is fundamentally with the borg, but if the other side, supposedly "us" win stupidly, we have already lost our cause, no matter the appearances..: we have been assimilated already even by appearing to have destroyed them.

 

[xbuzzerx]

No, again, that was your assumption. What I attack is the fashion industry not letting REAL creative space out of those coordinates you describe, but merely a travesty, with a higher quality wrapping, of the same repetitive mainstream, mass-oriented product... just like you do not allow any space for reasoning outside your own assumptions and righteousness.

You are arguing in a circle. Yes, an industry dedicated to making profit will always have its other directives subjugated to profit, and in the modern economy, that means a certain degree of compromise with mainstream appeal, mainstream accessibility, mainstream desire-- or the ability to fabricate these things through the crafting of a brand name and good marketing and good publicity. Yes, this means that an artist truly consumed only by the furthering of his craft without regard (or even, with contempt for) the mundane consideration of profitability or marketability is neither the driving force nor the centerpiece of the fashion industry. But why should you reasonably expect he would be?

If you are saying it is regrettable that we're not a society that can pay good thinkers to think, good painters to paint, good sculpters to sculpt, good designers to design, with no worry about the cost or expense or any return on it, sure, I can agree with that. But I'd be surprised to hear that this is either particularly new to you or that you think the fashion consideration alone is any particular victim of it.