|
-
01-12-2013, 03:07 PM #211
-
01-12-2013, 03:42 PM #212
-
-
01-12-2013, 03:54 PM #213
-
01-12-2013, 03:55 PM #214
I used to think high fashion was pointless until I half-watched 'Devil Wears Prada.' One of the only good scenes;
I still don't care about it, but styles do trickle down from these designs.
It's a bit like concept cars, they never actually go on sale, they just inspire the design teams and give them a few ideas.
-
01-12-2013, 03:58 PM #215
-
01-12-2013, 03:58 PM #216
-
-
01-12-2013, 05:29 PM #217
-
01-12-2013, 06:02 PM #218
-
01-13-2013, 12:37 AM #219
Well the truth is it's value doesn't suddenly disappear upon purchase. It's still worth 150.6 million, and is in fact probably worth even more now. I'd say it's not a bad investment.
Also, Pollocks are actually pretty incredible to look at. I could try to explain why the painting is worth what it is or why it's important but I think I'd waste it on you.
-
01-13-2013, 12:45 AM #220
There seem to be a lot of "why are these people dressed in such unflattering clothes" comments in this thread, and that's completely missing the point.
The unspoken MFA assumption about the clothes we choose to wear is that they look "good" and they will make us look "good", and that generally clothing ought to serve those two purposes.
But fashion exists on a spectrum between pragmatic ("I want clothes that will make people think highly of me") and artistic ("I want clothes that are interesting"). Not everyone is interested in wearing clothes that look "good" and will make them look "good". Some people are more interested in wearing clothes that are interesting.
Let's make an analogy to music.
People who wear distressed boot-cut jeans and Affliction shirts are like Katy Perry or Ke$ha - lacking any artistic merit, but massively popular and blending in to the cultural background. Most people don't notice (or choose to overlook) how ****ty it is.
The MFA circlejerk style is like Mumford and Sons or the White Stripes - it's artistically accomplished, aesthetically pleasing, but also quite safe. People may disagree with your particular choices, but nobody's going to think you're an idiot.
The looks linked are like Nicolas Collins[1] - 99% of people off the street will say, "What the **** is this bull****?" and walk away. The line between "crap" and "beautiful" isn't clear. We're not sure whether we're supposed to like it or not. That tension is incredibly interesting to some people.
Personally, I fall squarely into the MFA circlejerk style - just as I mostly listen to music that isn't complete crap but also isn't pushing the envelope too far. I enjoy the experience of wearing clothes that look "good", and of being perceived by others as looking "good".
But I understand why some people would put greater value on looking "interesting".
-
-
01-13-2013, 12:47 AM #221
-
01-13-2013, 12:48 AM #222
-
01-13-2013, 12:52 AM #223
It's ironic to hear people complaining about the death of masculinity on a forum where a large chunk of the demographic are into buying over priced polos, or knock offs of over priced "fashionable" jeans, or cologne. People post photos of their faces and ask for suggestions for complicated hair cuts and worry about their hair more than modern day females do.
I am not saying it is wrong to dress properly, practically, and not look like a slob. But a large chunk of this forum try to play the female role of getting in shape to appear physically attractive to woman, dolling themselves up, and over paying for clothes they don't need. They then go on to complain about "sl00ts" and the declining testosterone in society. It is a contradiction.
Masculinity is having charisma and obtaining social status. That is what woman are attracted to for the most part. (Again, there are exceptions to every rule). Men generally don't care about a female's job or social status. There are exceptions, and you are going to eventually want to blow your brains out if you are in a long term relationship with someone who is dumb as a brick and behaves like a child. But when it comes to initial attraction, men are into physical cues, hence why socially females use to be more into fashion and salons than men.
-
01-13-2013, 12:55 AM #224
-
-
01-13-2013, 08:51 AM #225
I think that's bull chit. BRB only wearing colors I like because colors exist in nature. The fashion industry doesn't own the fuking colors. This rustles my jimmies in the same way that gays think they own all the colors of the rainbow. I'll wear rainbow colors for the literal rainbow without it all being overanalyzed into a bunch of ****gytime hogwash. (No offense to homo or fashion brahs but I think it's reasonable to be able to wear any color without being it associated with some ideology. It's just a color dammit.)
^^^EXTREME PULL UPS CREW^^^
*Frank Yang Flight Club*
Anti Feminazi crew
-
01-14-2013, 08:03 AM #226
-
01-14-2013, 08:32 AM #227
-
01-14-2013, 08:34 AM #228
-
-
01-26-2014, 05:52 PM #229
High fashion in general is a joke. They want you to buy brand name clothing for insanely marked up prices though much of that stuff is identical to clothing you can get for less anywhere. The fashion industry has it figured if they get rich people to walk around in it, everyone will flock to it even though the cost of it is outside the average person's comfortable price range.
This is where chumps are defined. I guess if you have the cash to pay it knock yourself out, even though it's still silly to buy overpriced clothing so you can brag you bought overpriced clothing. Even more chumpy than that however is the people who can't afford it but chase after it, I believe the term is 'wannabe'.
The current real style for people that aren't high society wannabes is more of the Portland/counter culture style (not necessarily hipster however) but rather interesting/sharp and didn't pay too much for anything. Also the urban style is solid still as long as it's minus the retarded bling that got added on in the 2000's.
IMO being creative and looking good without spending pointless amounts of money is the truth. If you can look hot in something you didn't pay much for, mad points over the person who mindlessly paid way too much to look like a tax bracket they are not even in. That's where it's at.
-
01-26-2014, 05:58 PM #230
-
01-26-2014, 05:59 PM #231
-
01-26-2014, 06:03 PM #232
-
-
01-26-2014, 06:07 PM #233
-
01-26-2014, 06:08 PM #234
- Join Date: Jun 2007
- Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Posts: 17,494
- Rep Power: 15799
That's f*cking retarded. There's nothing artistic about that sh!t just because it's "interesting". Anybody can create "interesting" clothing designs that don't look good by simply throwing wacky sh!t together. How is it artistic if it doesn't look good? The problem is that every retard who does something ridiculous thinks they're artistic these days. Yeah it makes them stand out, but if that makes it artistic then so is rubbing dog sh!t all over your face and walking down the street. That will make you stand out too. How interesting.
Stupid people do stupid things, smart people out-smart eachother, then themselves.
-
01-26-2014, 06:16 PM #235
-
01-26-2014, 06:23 PM #236
-
-
01-26-2014, 06:28 PM #237
Bookmarks