what attracts you first?

[stlukesguild]

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Now that is debate at its finest. How can you possibly come back from that, Juniper?

America has always been a conservative nation...

Is that so? Perhaps you might make some effort to prove your sweeping statements... otherwise someone might just assume your making this up as you go along.

...you are expected to dress appropriately...

Nearly all walks of life... all social groups... and certainly a majority of careers have established expectations as to how an individual is to dress. You're not going to make it far as a lawyer or a businessman or a classroom teacher dressed like this:



By the same token... you are not going to make it in the factory or the oil fields dressed like this:



Fashion is all about aspiring to associate oneself with a given group... whether one is aspiring to be part of the corporate world, academia, the art world, bikers, head-bangers, gang-bangers, etc...

This is determined by the business world and it's supposed to mean that you are an upstanding citizen. Someone a company can hire. An obedient person who will not question authority. All conservatives celebrate this sentiment to this day.

Really... your rant has little to do with fashion and everything to do with politics and your preconceived notion of everybody different from yourself.

Fashion comes and goes, of course, but it was never OK to be a "dirty hippy," even during the '60's. People had to fight to express themselves the way they wanted, and many paid a heavy price.

Fighting to "express themselves". You really believe this? As if the generation of well-to-do kids who modeled their dress after their heroes... mostly rock stars... were designing their own clothes rather than simply following the latest fashions as worn by those they admired.

Beatings, losing your job, being kicked out of your parent's house, etc, were all common.

Oh please! certainly being dressed in the wrong manner in the wrong setting can be dangerous. It still is. It wouldn't be wise to stroll through certain urban neighborhoods dressed in a three-piece suit or enter a biker bar dressed as a drag queen.

Eventually, the Establishment gave up to some degree but most people are conservative and there is still a deep seated hatred among the population against those who dress and believe differently.

The "Establishment"?? A "deep seated hatred among the population..."?? Again, this has nothing to do with fashion or appearances and everything to do with what appears to be a personal hatred of those different from yourself. You bristle at Alex painting "the poor" with a broad brush-stroke, but seem ready to stereotype everyone else in a negative manner: "The Establishment" the "conservative population" with its "deep seated hatred of those who dress or believe differently."

The '80's saw a great resurgence in conservatism, but along came punk rockers and then goths, then grunge, etc. It is still a bitter pill for many to swallow, and I'm not just talking about our leaders. I'm talking about ordinary citizens.

What bitter pill? Do you honestly think the average person cares in the least whether you wish to go about in punk attire with a leather jacket and lots of studs and a blue Mohawk... or dress as a Goth... or in Steampunk fashion?

In places like Mexico--which is a very conservative country--and throughout the Middle-East, many young people are being killed and in some cases tortured for dressing emo or goth.

Documentation, please... otherwise you are again talking out the wazoo.

There is a counter culture in every country and a respected way of dress in every country. It has nothing to do with fashion but is instead a struggle of those who upheld the system and those who want change.

Oh give me a break, You cannot really be that naive. Or if you aren't so naive, then you are certainly rather prejudicial. You jump all over Alex for making judgments based upon the way a person dresses... and then you turn about and to the exact same thing in spades. Those who dress in Manner A all presumed to all be political conservatives in support of the system (whatever that "system" may be) while those who dress in Manner B are heroic revolutionaries struggling against the system.

Revolutionaries in their Struggle for Change against the Establishment:















Like I said, most are conservative and want everything to stay the same. Just look at some of the comments in this thread.



OK, Sher... how do we create thumbnails that link to the larger photo?

[OrphanPip]

So you are trying to suggest that the ghetto "hood" look cultivated among rappers (and my students) and based upon the "style" of urban gangs is more "authentic" and less about aspiring to associate oneself with a certain social caste? You really believe that?

No, but I was trying to be deliberately contentious. The point is that the idea of an objectively more appealing or better style of dress is arbitrary, because I am quite able to prefer certain styles associated with lower classes than others. The statements of superior or inferior forms of dress are nothing more than attempts at asserting class privilege, not simply class association, but the idea that certain forms of dress are inherently superior. It then becomes part of a system of exclusion that I have no interests in associating myself with.

Unless an individual gives no thought to how he or she dresses... I would say that it doesn't matter whether one is poor or rich... fashion choices make a clear statement about the aspirations of the individual and which social groups he or she wishes to associate with.

Certainly, but not all aspirations and social groups are equivalent. I no more approve of dressing to signal one's association with criminality than I approve of one dressing to broadcast one's social position.

C'mon Pip... fashion is a symbol of class inclusion regardless of class. Honestly, I have been around rich and poor and found an equal share of jerks in either class.

Oh I had enough experience with the country club crowd at college to know that I don't much like them, the most boring group of vacuous, useless human beings I have ever had the displeasure to socialize with.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, I must say this thumbnail thing is quite annoying. I can barely see anything. Aren't they supposed to get bigger when you tap them? I seriously don't see what was wrong with the old system. Did someone actually complain? If so, maybe they should get rid of the dial up and move into the year 2004.

Like I said, most are conservative and want everything to stay the same. Just look at some of the comments in this thread.

To be fair, Emil expressed those exact sentiments, wanting things to go back to the old days because they were so much better, for whatever reason he thinks the past was somehow better:

What anyone says on the forum doesn't bother me unless it's unwarranted personalisation of a thread. As I have said, I don't believe his point of view to be correct because it's based on a questionable sample. Living in one of the most densely populated cities on earth my contact with people on a daily basis allows for a wider observation of people's appearance and it's one that has been carried out over a long period of time. On this basis it is not difficult to see that people's attitude to their personal appearance has been stood on its head. The conformism of a time when people took pride in their appearance actually upheld a standard that was a necessary part of social cohesion, and the result of its abandonment can be seen by anyone who is old enough to make the comparison.

It's hardly the first time he's done his "in my day" rant.

[qimissung]

Quite honestly it's been my experience that rich people are annoying. They prefer to be exclusive. And I've found "poor" people, on the whole, to be much more inclusive, or at least willing to be. It that's stereotypical, so be it.

As far what attracts me, I've noticed that I may make a list or set parameters, but in actualityI tend to be drawn to people that meet certain psychological perogitives, of which I'm never aware of until it's too late (or that's been the case so far!.)

[stlukesguild]

No, but I was trying to be deliberately contentious. The point is that the idea of an objectively more appealing or better style of dress is arbitrary, because I am quite able to prefer certain styles associated with lower classes than others. The statements of superior or inferior forms of dress are nothing more than attempts at asserting class privilege, not simply class association, but the idea that certain forms of dress are inherently superior. It then becomes part of a system of exclusion that I have no interests in associating myself with.

That sounds noble enough... until you make similar assumptions about the superiority of one musicians or artist or writer over another. And surely none of us would dare make such assumptions now would we?

Well, I must say this thumbnail thing is quite annoying. I can barely see anything. Aren't they supposed to get bigger when you tap them? I seriously don't see what was wrong with the old system. Did someone actually complain? If so, maybe they should get rid of the dial up and move into the year 2004.

My thoughts exactly... and I can probably see even less that you as I've misplaced by glasses somewhere in the house... ... but then perhaps we are both being judgmental about those individuals too poor to move to DSL or Cable. I bet they dress crappy too.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, around here at least, no one is too poor to get a nice cellphone with a good internet connection. They literally hand them out to poor people, whether they need them or not,

Quite honestly it's been my experience that rich people are annoying. They prefer to be exclusive. And I've found "poor" people, on the whole, to be much more inclusive, or at least willing to be. It that's stereotypical, so be it.

That has been my experience, also. I was watching golf over the weekend, and when it gets on the pro-level, I can't think of any more exclusive, pompous, fop-laden group of people on the planet, aside from rich bankers. I bet their lavish club houses are filled with the sounds of racist and homophobic epithets, unless that a-hole Tiger Woods is around, of course.

[stlukesguild]

I bet their lavish club houses are filled with the sounds of racist and homophobic epithets, unless that a-hole Tiger Woods is around, of course.

Of course the poor that I have known have never been known to be racist or homophobic...

[OrphanPip]

That sounds noble enough... until you make similar assumptions about the superiority of one musicians or artist or writer over another. And surely none of us would dare make such assumptions now would we?

It would only be analogous if such assumptions about art were to be based on class association. The analogy would be that one should associate themselves with Joyce because of some social caché rather than an aesthetic argument. I wouldn't want to be associated with people who claim to like x or y artists because of how trendy they are either.

[stlukesguild]

Well, around here at least, no one is too poor to get a nice cellphone with a good internet connection. They literally hand them out to poor people, whether they need them or not...

And I am absolutely thrilled to pay that $5 or $7 a month for the Universal Access Fee so that the little hoods I teach can surf the web for free porno.

My gas company has the audacity to ask me (this is printed on each monthly statement) how much I'd like to donate to offset the costs of those who don't pay their bills (This is beyond the fee already charged to cover utilities for those beneath the Federal Poverty Rate). I'd like to ask them if I might join those who don't pay their bills... but somehow I think things would get quite cold around here if I did that.

It would only be analogous if such assumptions about art were to be based on class association. The analogy would be that one should associate themselves with Joyce because of some social caché rather than an aesthetic argument. I wouldn't want to be associated with people who claim to like x or y artists because of how trendy they are either.

So there are no assumption about "class" or "wealth" associated with art? I wonder what the percentage of the audience attending the symphony or the opera are beneath the poverty line.

I wouldn't want to be associated with people who claim to like x or y artists because of how trendy they are either.

This has been the reality for who knows how long. Super-Rich Collector X picks up a Warhol at auction for X-millions of dollars (a number sure to make the press). He then holds a dinner party where he can show off his latest acquisition to his wealthy friends... effectively proving his wealth, taste... and foresight.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I bet their lavish club houses are filled with the sounds of racist and homophobic epithets, unless that a-hole Tiger Woods is around, of course.

Of course the poor that I have known have never been known to be racist or homophobic...

Yeah, but still, doesn't it pisses me off more when rich people act in that way. The poor are usually uneducated and uninfluential. One can't say the same about rich jerks--whereas the poor are racist out of ignorance, the rich are racist out of meanness and prejudice. Plus, the upper class are supposed to be more classy, no?

I don't care, I'll just say it: I don't like or trust most rich people. Not all of them are bad, but I find most to be greedy, egotistical, uncompassionate jerks. I guess I'm prejudiced against rich people. Oh well! It's not going to keep me up at night.

[OrphanPip]

So there are no assumption about "class" or "wealth" associated with art? I wonder what the percentage of the audience attending the symphony or the opera are beneath the poverty line.

No, but I'm not one of those who goes around saying that the musical taste of the general public are degenerate and inferior either.

It is irrelevant if one can correlate the consumption of certain artistic products with class groups. It has no bearing on the idea that the tastes of the upper classes are inherently superior merely on the basis that they are associated with the upper classes. It is entirely possible for something which is genuinely good to be correlated with the consumption habits of the upper classes. My point was entirely that there was little difference in terms of aesthetic worth between some fashions lower and middle classes and some fashions of those of the upper classes, other than the display of class exclusion. If fashion is primarily a display of group inclusion, is it at all analogous to artistic choices? I think it is more comparable to political alignments.

This has been the reality for who knows how long. Super-Rich Collector X picks up a Warhol at auction for X-millions of dollars (a number sure to make the press). He then holds a dinner party where he can show off his latest acquisition to his wealthy friends... effectively proving his wealth, taste... and foresight.

I don't get the point of this response. You're essentially responding to me saying I don't like this behavior, by saying that the behavior exists? Of course it exists, that is assumed in my statement of dislike towards the practice.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I think how one chooses art and clothes can be the same. Sometimes one will choose the clothes they wear because it is what's fashionable, not because it's what they really like. The same could be said of art, like the example stlukes gave with a rich guy buying a Warhol piece. Though I think it's definitely more preventative when people are buying clothes, the idea of a poseur is definitely not exclusive to one thing rather than another--there can be a pompous attitude taken towards anything within that thing's context. Unfortunately, if that rich guy is a true Warhol fan and just wants to share a piece of great art with his friends, he's going to have a hard time convincing people of that.

[stlukesguild]

I don't get the point of this response. You're essentially responding to me saying I don't like this behavior, by saying that the behavior exists? Of course it exists, that is assumed in my statement of dislike towards the practice.

It's a reality that most artists have to face... moreso in the visual arts than in literature and music. Like it or not, most works of what we term "fine art" are essentially luxury items... far beyond the price range of the middle-class... let alone the poor. If I spend three months on a painting, a $5000 price tag is not much to ask... indeed, its rather selling the work at a bargain basement price. Yet how many here can afford to spend $5000 on a painting? I spent $5000 on a painting once. Both my wife and I were working overtime and we were able to purchase the painting through monthly installments. We both loved the painting and knew the artist personally... and we recognized that the work would become the visual centerpiece of our home. But now... I couldn't even afford my own paintings.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

We've talked to artists at art fairs who've said the same thing--they can't afford their own work (which I assume means they couldn't take the loss if they decided not to sell it), which is simultaneously funny and sad. And ironic.

I've never bought an original piece of art. Just can't afford it, or bring myself to pay that much for it. I have plenty of prints, though.

[qimissung]

Yeah, but still, doesn't it pisses me off more when rich people act in that way. The poor are usually uneducated and uninfluential. One can't say the same about rich jerks--whereas the poor are racist out of ignorance, the rich are racist out of meanness and prejudice. Plus, the upper class are supposed to be more classy, no?

I don't care, I'll just say it: I don't like or trust most rich people. Not all of them are bad, but I find most to be greedy, egotistical, uncompassionate jerks. I guess I'm prejudiced against rich people. Oh well! It's not going to keep me up at night.

lol, my feelings, exactly! In fact I said that to one of my sons recently when we were discussing racism. When I said that he looked a little startled, then countered, "But they work hard for their money." (my apologies to Donna Summer) And I said it didn't matter, that they were jerks. I do realize that it's a prejudice. I like to think I'm open-minded enough to give someone the benefit of the doubt when I meet them. Unfortunately, I have rarely had to change my mind.