Posted by
Colleen Shirazi,
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
9:36 PM (Eastern)
Weeeellll...ya left out a couple of factors in what makes style. One is--utility. Perhaps not a direct function, as in wearing, say, a rubber thimble on your finger, or steel-toed boots. lol What can I say? Style to me has never been a product of leisure; it has always had an underlying purpose. If you remove the purpose, the construction has no meaning.
That could be partly because I am an engineer. To me, function is decorative. And partly because I am an American. We have a class system, but we do not have a caste system. It's quite different; we've never had royalty.
Where did jeans...the very symbol of success, or so it would seem...come from? Why did the world fall in love with the jean? Who else could have invented the jean. It is the sheer utility...thick denim, rivets, tough cotton thread that nails the seams...that is the beauty.
That's not even going into the denim jacket, the tee shirt, the tan, for that matter....
Another factor is age. The longer you own something...either you love it more or you love it less. You seldom see it exactly the same way you did ten, twenty, thirty years ago.
So...to me, something acquires more value the older it gets, assuming you didn't give it away or toss it out. I suppose there are fake-aged products around, but they never look the same as genuinely aged products.
Another factor is wearing something that was made by hand. Something imperfect, or so individual that it's just as good as imperfect. These products contain a fragment of the spirit of the person who made them. They are different from anything mass-produced.
This may all be working class natterings, but I don't think so. These are the very factors that are copied whenever they can be, but like any other copies, they are...well, just that.
You're quite right! I knew I was forgetting something (and felt uneasy posting for that very reason, as if my post were incomplete), which is to say, utility. My head is never in practical zones, anyway. (Too many books.) But utility is not really a determination of style, but of workmanship, rather. Why not do we not, then, dress in L.L. Bean? It's healthier (warmer, more breathable), more durable, more comfortable, and certainly less expensive than, say, Gucci. Generally, "fashion" sees utility as a bonus, but not part of the essence of style (it's sort of the definition of fashion, as least according to the reading that Essence of Style determines it as). Otherwise, why would anyone pay $40,000 for a bag, when a canvas bag (mine was $20) would do just as well? Craftmanship, maybe, but it's really more style that you're paying for. Utility is more incidental to style, I think, than part of its essence.
The closest comparison that runs through my head is...computer code. Not the 1's and 0's kind, but the English language kind...the code you write to produce computer applications. The stuff that has "if" and "else" in it.
The result of this code can be quite ornate and beautiful. But whenever I see the results, what I invariably think about is the code that produced the results.
It is probably not a good example (because I can see if something is running less efficiently than it should...the guy didn't run the thing enough times, or he got lazy and neglected to hammer out that last few milliseconds)...what I'm saying is that utility can have a tremendously beautiful shell, and that is what people see, the same way they see the results of a computer program. Perhaps they do not consciously see the code but it is the code that defines what they do see.
The thing is this. People assume that fashion design comes from the top and trickles down. But I think for a very long time...it comes from the bottom. The designer goes out and sees what the people at the bottom are wearing. There can be a certain beauty to whatever they're wearing, but--by definition--it has to sit upon a purpose.
The interpretation of it of course is an intellectual, educated, artistic interpretation. But the origin...is what I see.
It can't have always been like that. Some of it has to be from sheer mobility, the ability to jump on an airplane and go anywhere in the world. So you can pick from the working classes of the entire world, but I do maintain that function is a key element of modern style.
Dain
11:54 PM,
You're quite right! I knew I was forgetting something (and felt uneasy posting for that very reason, as if my post were incomplete), which is to say, utility. My head is never in practical zones, anyway. (Too many books.) But utility is not really a determination of style, but of workmanship, rather. Why not do we not, then, dress in L.L. Bean? It's healthier (warmer, more breathable), more durable, more comfortable, and certainly less expensive than, say, Gucci. Generally, "fashion" sees utility as a bonus, but not part of the essence of style (it's sort of the definition of fashion, as least according to the reading that Essence of Style determines it as). Otherwise, why would anyone pay $40,000 for a bag, when a canvas bag (mine was $20) would do just as well? Craftmanship, maybe, but it's really more style that you're paying for. Utility is more incidental to style, I think, than part of its essence.
12:33 AM,
No! No! No! That is not what I mean at all.
The closest comparison that runs through my head is...computer code. Not the 1's and 0's kind, but the English language kind...the code you write to produce computer applications. The stuff that has "if" and "else" in it.
The result of this code can be quite ornate and beautiful. But whenever I see the results, what I invariably think about is the code that produced the results.
It is probably not a good example (because I can see if something is running less efficiently than it should...the guy didn't run the thing enough times, or he got lazy and neglected to hammer out that last few milliseconds)...what I'm saying is that utility can have a tremendously beautiful shell, and that is what people see, the same way they see the results of a computer program. Perhaps they do not consciously see the code but it is the code that defines what they do see.
The thing is this. People assume that fashion design comes from the top and trickles down. But I think for a very long time...it comes from the bottom. The designer goes out and sees what the people at the bottom are wearing. There can be a certain beauty to whatever they're wearing, but--by definition--it has to sit upon a purpose.
The interpretation of it of course is an intellectual, educated, artistic interpretation. But the origin...is what I see.
It can't have always been like that. Some of it has to be from sheer mobility, the ability to jump on an airplane and go anywhere in the world. So you can pick from the working classes of the entire world, but I do maintain that function is a key element of modern style.
Post a comment (NO SPAM)