[HN Gopher] Why did clothing become boring?
___________________________________________________________________
Why did clothing become boring?
Author : benbreen
Score : 74 points
Date : 2024-12-04 14:41 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (resobscura.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (resobscura.substack.com)
| makmanalp wrote:
| You might enjoy the excellent Articles of Interest podcast, an
| episode of which covers this exact phenomenon, but there are many
| other great episodes about similar subjects in clothing and
| fashion
|
| https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/suits-articles-of-int...
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| The industrial revolution gave us clothing for cheaper, and much
| more importantly, gave us a lot of other more interesting things
| to spend our time and energy on!
| sph wrote:
| Such as more time in the office
| jdx9 wrote:
| Which is a reasonable explanation in its own right. Before
| office-going was common, getting dressed up to display
| yourself in public was a special occasion. Even in the early
| days of offices people dressed in fairly elaborate dress. But
| when you're doing the same thing day in, day out, the novelty
| of putting yourself on display wears off.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Like creating or buying virtual outfits for our video game
| characters!
| quantadev wrote:
| In modern times clothing became boring precisely when Mark
| Zukerberg first revealed video of his walk-in closet having
| nothing but racks of identical gray T-shirts in it. Legend has it
| that from that day forward no striped or colored shirts have ever
| been seen in Silicon Valley.
|
| Then all socks went from white to black, oddly enough.
|
| The other clothing tragedy that happened around the same time-
| frame was that someone in Hollywood declared Fanny Packs to be
| out of style right when tight jeans came into being. This was a
| true tragedy for the hipsters, because fitting large phones into
| yoga-fit tight jeans would've been something even Harry Houdini
| would scoff at.
|
| I've worn Levis 501s and used a Fanny Pack forever, and I never
| plan to stop.
|
| Don't get me started on grown-azz men wearing bead or string
| bracelets. Nothing is more cringe than that, except for maybe
| flip-flops on men, but don't get me started.
| normie3000 wrote:
| > Nothing is more cringe than that, except for maybe flip-flops
| on men, but don't get me started.
|
| Are other sandals acceptable?
| quantadev wrote:
| No. Men's feet are sickening, especially to other men, and
| should never be seen except on the beach, lake, or swimming
| pools.
| Tagbert wrote:
| What an odd, self-hating attitude. You also make some big
| assumptions about how other people see feet of any gender.
| Do you get skeetchy about hair on legs or armpits, too?
| quantadev wrote:
| I think you're taking this topic a bit too seriously. Or
| at least you've convinced yourself that I am. lol.
| Bjartr wrote:
| Yeah, it's interesting, your phrasing in this comment
| thread comes off very serious and sincere with little if
| any hint of sarcasm. Maybe throw a "lol" in there
| somewhere so the rest of us can get a hint.
| quantadev wrote:
| It was an obviously lighthearted rant. People are just
| endlessly in search of something to be condescending (or
| offended) about.
| herbst wrote:
| You are also club socks in sauna?
| forgotoldacc wrote:
| I really don't intend for this to be a personal attack, so
| please don't take offense, but I think it's unusual to wear a
| fanny pack while calling other fashion "cringe".
| quantadev wrote:
| The difference is fanny packs have utility. Even Batman has a
| utility belt. I call my fanny pack my "Utility Belt" in fact.
| Batman didn't wear beads. lol.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| So do many other bags.
|
| It feels weird to hear someone talk about the death of
| fashion, and in the same post, attack people's fashion.
|
| If you want to wear your beaded fanny pack with sandals,
| more power to you.
| quantadev wrote:
| I think you're missing the main point of vanity versus
| utility, in my light-hearted semi-humorous post.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| There's nothing wrong with the vanity of choosing a fanny
| pack over pockets or another bag these days. I support
| your fashion choice. Especially if you prefer your
| fashion to be functional. I do, too!
| quantadev wrote:
| You're correct that I care about utility, but incorrect
| that it's vanity/fashion.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| I think that we just think about fashion differently.
| Putting thought into what you wear for any reason,
| functional or otherwise, is fashion.
|
| Beyond that, you're choosing a suboptimal and uncommon
| item for "utility" (a fanny pack) where other, better
| options would suffice. Why? I can't answer that, maybe to
| make a statement. In any case, this choice is "fashion".
|
| Props to you for going out wearing what you like and not
| caring what other people think, be it flip flops or a
| fanny pack or a feather boa. Rock it!
| quantadev wrote:
| You're just playing word games. Fashion means what's
| popular/trending and `utility` means the exact opposite.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| _> Fashion means what 's popular/trending and `utility`
| means the exact opposite._
|
| Does it? Never heard that one before. I see a lot of
| people wearing fashion that isn't currently popular or
| trending, and a lot of utilitarian fashion (look up
| "techwear")
|
| I suppose I probably won't convince you otherwise, it
| seems very important to your belief system that
| utilitarian fashion choices not be considered fashion
| choices because that would mean you engage in fashion, a
| prospect you seem to find unpalatable.
| Clamchop wrote:
| It seems important to you that others understand you are
| strictly utilitarian, that you're not like the others
| that busy themselves with frivolities like jewelry and
| designer sneakers. You dress yourself in a way that
| clearly communicates that. Some items are off limits
| because they don't fit the look. Flip flops? Not even as
| shower shoes, because you're a grown man.
|
| Deep irony here.
| quantadev wrote:
| I find it interesting when people try to redefine words
| to have the opposite meaning. We now have someone saying
| `utility` choices are actually `fashion/vanity` choices.
| lol. They're just transparently playing word games, on
| purpose, but it's still amusing.
| addled wrote:
| > Don't get me started on grown-azz men wearing bead or string
| bracelets.
|
| Unless it was made by their young daughter/granddaughter, it
| which case it is the mightiest of talismans.
| quantadev wrote:
| That is very true. :)
| crooked-v wrote:
| Fanny packs have never been in style. The jokes about out-of-
| style dads wearing fanny packs have been around since they were
| invented.
| quantadev wrote:
| Oh they were definitely in style. They were/are a great way
| to carry stuff. Just look at all the yoga-tight pants on kids
| today with front pockets bursting at the seams. lol. These
| kids would LOVE to use fanny packs, but are too scared too.
| herbst wrote:
| I am so surprised everybody calls them out of style. Youth
| around here (German speaking countries) just throws them
| over the shoulder. This slowly creeped from 'dealer on the
| corner look' to the default norm.
| quantadev wrote:
| Right I'm aware of the 'over the shoulder' style
| happening in Europe right now. People recognize the
| utility of a fanny pack sized bag, but would never dare
| to wear it around the waist, for fear of being ridiculed.
| imp0cat wrote:
| Exactly, and rightfully so. It just looks weird having it
| around the waist.
| quantadev wrote:
| I still even carry my phone in a belt pouch. A major
| Fashion Faux Pas, because I should be cramming it down a
| pocket, instead, like a civilized member of society. lol.
| ghaff wrote:
| Fashions in everything. At one point I wanted a new fanny
| pack for some reason and you just couldn't find them.
| Then they became more common again. I have a friend who
| loves her pickleball carrier for carrying odds and ends
| around.
| Rhapso wrote:
| I just hate shoes. I'd go barefoot if somebody hadn't filled
| all the walking environments with broken glass, so flip-flops
| and huaraches it is.
|
| I love my 5-fingers, but they are too hot for general wear.
|
| Don't get me started on the harm "normal" shoes do to your
| feet.
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| There are excellent non-5F barefoot shoes that work well in
| hot environments.
| Rhapso wrote:
| Like flip-flops and huaraches?
| herbst wrote:
| Do you cringe about clothes when you are visit other places
| too?
|
| Adilettes (Adidas flip flops) und a fanny pack by Gucci are a
| legit clothing style in Germany. Maybe cringe for some, but
| state of the art for others.
| eesmith wrote:
| Just how young are you?
|
| Your 501s are an echo of Steve Job's wardrobe, "black long-
| sleeved mock turtleneck made by Issey Miyake, Levi's 501 blue
| jeans, and New Balance 991 sneakers", quoting his Wikipedia
| entry. Elizabeth Holmes was one follower of that style.
|
| I can assure you that tight jeans came into being many years
| before cell phones, even if you date from the first
| demonstration version in 1973.
|
| Fanny packs were in dubious style when I was in college in the
| early 1990s.
| markedathome wrote:
| Much comedy was born of the "bathe wearing your jeans" and
| lying on the bed trying to get tight jeans over the thighs,
| especially during the late 80s. Then came leggings and lycra
| woven into jeans that now allow slipping tight jeans on
| without too much fuss.
| eesmith wrote:
| On the flip side, from 1972 at https://archive.org/details/
| mensupermen0000coop/page/22/mode... :
|
| "Today youths ... wear clothes which disconcert their
| elders, including tight jeans to emphasise a bulging
| crotch. They spend most of their time strumming on guitars
| or trendy-looking girls who look as though they've just
| crawled out from underneath a rolling stone. Secretly these
| girls will worry about tight jeans making a man impotent."
| quantadev wrote:
| I was in High School in the late 1980s, so yeah we had some
| pretty narrow ankle pants for sure, but what's funny about
| today is the comical pairing of super tight up top too, along
| with a massive phone jammed into a front pocket that looks
| like you'd need crow bar to get it out. The obvious solution
| is a fanny pack, but the kids are trapped by circumstance
| because fanny packs are out. lol. Perfect Storm of fashion
| comedy.
| eesmith wrote:
| You think kids now care don't use fanny packs because
| "someone in Hollywood declared Fanny Packs to be out of
| style" back when you were in high school in the 1980s?
|
| How amazingly influential this mysterious someone was, to
| influence things some 35 years later!
|
| Certainly more then how the beatnik and hipster styles of
| the 1950s influenced your generation of HS students.
|
| Since purses are another obvious solution, I place no faith
| in your interpretation.
| bluGill wrote:
| Fashion trends come and go and come back again. So that
| fanny packs are out of style again doesn't surprise me.
| quantadev wrote:
| They've only come back in the form of shoulder slings.
| The "Waist Wear Phobia" is still very real.
| quantadev wrote:
| > in the 1980s, we had some pretty narrow ankle pants
|
| If you got from that the existence of Fanny Packs circa
| 1980s, then one other thing you should "place no faith
| in" is your ability to interpret sentences.
| saaaaaam wrote:
| I think there are a couple of important things missing from this
| article. One is that until relatively recently clothing served a
| very different function to that of today.
|
| In Europe, in our grandparents' or even parents' childhoods - as
| late even as the 1970s - housing and transport was very different
| to how it is now. Clothing was largely purpose-specific; people
| had far fewer clothes than today but those clothes had more
| specific purposes. For men that mean different weights of woollen
| suits for spring and autumn versus winter, and linen suits for
| summer.
|
| Houses weren't so well insulated or heated so you dressed to stay
| warm. With cars less common, you dressed for the outdoors. Hats
| weren't fashion statements: they were to help keep you dry and
| warm.
|
| Go back 100+ years and roads were much worse, people travelled by
| horse.
|
| Capes, gloves, boots: things like this were all a defence against
| mud and rain and weather. If you were riding a horse you needed
| something like a cape with a high collar to stop your back and
| face getting splattered with mud thrown up by the horse's hooves.
|
| But more importantly, at the wealthy end of society, dressing was
| an indication of status and leisure. The clothes in the first
| picture are clearly somewhat impractical, but that doesn't matter
| if your only task for the day is to sit and talk or stroll
| gently. If you have a team of people to dress you and look after
| your clothing you can wear impractical layers of clothing that
| seem ridiculous today. Those layers were still designed to serve
| a purpose - largely keeping warm - but the application and design
| of that purpose became exaggerated as purpose took a subsidiary
| role to status.
|
| Many countries also had "sumptuary laws" which forbid lower
| classes of people from using certain fabrics or colours or
| dressing in particular ways. This meant that clothing for the
| higher classes was an articulation of power and status: in the
| 17th century you could tell instantly from someone's style of
| dress whether they were a peasant, farmer, merchant, or
| aristocrat. That articulation of status - for the highest classes
| - meant that clothing was designed to show off the elements of
| dress that were reserved to that class of people.
| dimitar wrote:
| Well you can make the case that people don't have to dress a
| certain way because we are much better insulated
| (metaphorically and literally) from the environment. And there
| are of course no sumptuary laws.
|
| So clothing can be more fun, if people want to of course - look
| at how music subcultures have incredibly varied ways of
| expression through clothing - metalheads, hiphopheads, punks
| etc.
| atoav wrote:
| I think you hit gold there, todays lack of interesting
| clothes is in my eyes related to two things:
|
| - market logic made work clothes boring (think about guild
| clothing, the only interesting thing I see from time to time
| is the chimney sweeper)
|
| - less people are inclined to feel part of a subculture
| and/or express that in their fashion choices
|
| As someone who was a teenager in the 2000s, back then I had
| at least 6 different outwardly recognizable subcultures in my
| school class (Metalhead, Punk, Hiphop, Emo, Raver, Goth) and
| that was more or less normal within my generation.
|
| My small brother and nieces were teenagers during the mid
| 2010s and in their class all people looked the same. Not only
| did they look the same, they felt the pressure to all look
| the same and get similar brands and so on. It just appears
| that it is a more conforming generation, maybe due tonthe
| role social media started to play for them. When I grew up
| social media existed but in a class of 25 maybe half would
| use it (maximum). And all social media algorithms were
| strictly chronological.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| So how, instead of with clothing, do subcultures express
| themselves now? By choice of memes? Which fanfic they read?
| Do people wear boring clothes but pick subculture-
| signifying avatars?
|
| EDIT: Looks like goths are still a thing?
| https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zjg1P_2IPOQ
| colechristensen wrote:
| What happened is all of the
| counterculture/subcultures/whatever got so popular and
| kind of mellowed out and melted together into a bunch of
| samey stuff.
|
| Like how music went through this phase where "not
| mainstream" music started getting really cool but now all
| of those sounds are just what everything sounds like now,
| you can't rebel against mainstream music right now.
| harimau777 wrote:
| The way that I've heard it described is that capitalism
| now appropriates any subcultures that arise. That both
| serves as an avenue for profit and has the added benefit
| of suppressing anything that might inspire people rebel
| against the status quo.
| colechristensen wrote:
| This is just a weird attempt at being edgy about
| capitalism.
|
| A new subculture either grows or dies, if it grows people
| start making money off of it and it gets diluted by the
| popularity into something more beige and palatable. It
| isn't about capitalism it's just when you add more
| people, they take it less seriously and hardcore becomes
| bland.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| Young people today have as many self imposed rules as my
| grandmother used to have. Rules about being cool. Rules
| about gatekeeping. They would 100% be calling people out
| for wearing white during the wrong season back in the day,
| only they'd call it clowning on them as if it's any
| different.
| colechristensen wrote:
| These are things that go in cycles. When people have been
| doing things in a bunch of subcultures it becomes "ugh,
| why are you trying so hard to be different" and when
| people have being all doing the same thing for a long
| time it's "ugh, why are you trying so hard to fit in".
| You hit a peak then everybody gets disillusioned and
| starts doing something different. It's cool to be ahead
| of the trend.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Re: boots.
|
| In a world dominated by animal-powered transport, _especially_
| in cities, boots weren 't optional, and they were _high_ to
| keep the muck from soiling your trousers / dress hems. (As I'd
| recently commented in another thread:
| <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42326115>.)
|
| (Women if at all possible didn't walk streets, though of course
| that was a privilege largely restricted to the wealthy.)
| space_oddity wrote:
| How the purpose of clothing has shifted over time, and I think
| a lot of it boils down to the balance between utility and
| status
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| the "lap dog" used to be a heating accessory
| gspencley wrote:
| > Those layers were still designed to serve a purpose - largely
| keeping warm
|
| Yes and no.
|
| Something that people often take for granted is doing laundry.
| The invention of the automatic clothes washer and dryer changed
| things _dramatically_.
|
| Before automation, laundry day for a household of 4 was a huge,
| laborious, and often multi-day task.
|
| Not only did garments need to be washed by hand, but there was
| a lot of attention to how to clean certain types of garments
| and fabrics effectively. A woman's summer dress with grass
| stains on the bottom hems, for example, needed different
| treatment than a man's 3 piece grey suit (which, by the way,
| were constructed _very_ differently than they are today).
|
| Since you needed your stove-top to heat water, most laundry was
| done in the kitchen which meant that you also needed to plan in
| advance what your family was going to eat that day and have
| things prepared.
|
| I own a recreation Edwardian era 3 piece suit. It has no
| zippers and it is unlined (I recently wore this to a funeral
| here in Canada and it was COLD despite the layers that I was
| wearing).
|
| The reason that the suit is unlined is because, as you say, it
| was common at the time to wear layers. So the thing is
| shockingly breathable and light compared to a modern, lined
| formal suit (which is also made out of different suiting wool
| so the texture is different too, an Edwardian suit "feels" less
| formal than a modern suit).
|
| But the reason people wore those layers was not always
| necessarily to stay warm. In fact, the layers were worn in the
| summer in hot climates as well as during winter in cold
| climates.
|
| Today people often assume that full body undergarments were
| born out of a prudish sense of modesty (a la "magic Mormon
| underwear"). This is a myth. The reality is that they:
|
| a) kept the outer garment clean for longer by avoiding direct
| contact with the skin (and thus sweat etc.) and
|
| b) they gave everyone in the family roughly the same general
| style of undergarment (in terms of colour and fabric) so that
| you could batch-wash what needs to be washed most often all
| together in a single pot on the stove
|
| Here's a good YouTube video that really puts into perspective
| why laundry was so different pre-automation, and it was one
| major factor (though not the only one) that informed how people
| dressed:
|
| https://youtu.be/88Wv0xZBSTI?si=c-YEogtMyy8pAFlA
| ljm wrote:
| I wonder how much this relates to the placement of a washing
| machine and/or dryer.
|
| It's typically in the kitchen in a British household, unless
| you have a house with a utility room or an old outdoor toilet
| (growing up, my house had an external downstairs toilet but
| it was just used for storage and the washing machine).
|
| When I moved abroad though it wasn't unusual to see the
| washer/dryer in the bathroom.
|
| > But the reason people wore those layers was not always
| necessarily to stay warm. In fact, the layers were worn in
| the summer in hot climates as well as during winter in cold
| climates.
|
| This still holds up today. Can't speak for anywhere else but
| in the UK people will go out in 30oC weather in an anorak or
| puffer jacket with a hoodie and tee underneath. The exact
| opposite of us northern British types who go out in winter
| wearing just one light layer at 5oC (tee + jeans, top +
| skirt).
| pm215 wrote:
| I think a big part of why UK washing machines aren't in
| bathrooms is our electrical regs, which don't allow plug
| sockets within three metres of a bath or shower. Most UK
| bathrooms aren't big enough for that, so you end up having
| to do awkward workarounds like giving them a hardwired
| connection and/or boxing the machine into a cupboard. (I
| used to own a flat where the only space to put the washing
| machine was the bathroom and had to get it boxed in...)
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Ask anyone in New Orleans and they'll tell you that Mondays
| are for red beans. This is because it was laundry day, and
| one of the easiest, heartiest, and least labor intensive
| things that you could cook for a long time with minimal
| supervision is a pot of beans that only got better the longer
| it cooked.
| ineedaj0b wrote:
| is there any reason we still line suits today? debating
| removing the lining of one of my suits to see what happens
| harimau777 wrote:
| Linings are often a slippery fabric in order to make a
| jacket easier to put on. The lining also reduces wear on
| the main body of the fabric since you are rubbing against
| the lining instead. Linings are also a useful way to hide
| the seams and other construction details of the garment.
|
| However, any of these could probably be worked around.
| bluGill wrote:
| That youtube is a long rabbit hole that I'll be spending some
| time going down. My wife hates you...
|
| (okay, I'll be careful not to let it take up so much time my
| wife notices, but it could get that far if I'm not careful)
| rahimnathwani wrote:
| For men that mean different weights of woollen suits for spring
| and autumn versus winter, and linen suits for summer.
|
| Never has an HN comment made me feel so old.
| herbst wrote:
| The most boring is how black people tend to cloth, especially now
| where it gets cold black is the dominant colour on anyone.
|
| It's likely just me but my eyes don't render black clothes people
| very well.
| iammjm wrote:
| Why did clothes ever become NOT boring in the first place?
| Clothes are above all something that warms/protects/hides us from
| the world. Aesthetic contemplations are really just an
| afterthought. Also, "fashion" is one of the stupidest things
| ever, like oh hey, you should now replace your perfectly good
| clothes every season because someone says so??
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Your argument could be read as beauty not mattering. For a
| different POV, countless animals will risk their life to look
| fabulous/make themselves stand from the pack to leave a legacy.
|
| Arguably fashion could be one of the most important thing to
| people.
|
| PS: on a side note, even in technical circles where we could
| expect more detachment from appearances in general, a lot of
| comment will revolve around "X looks dumb". As in "I'd look
| dumb taking a photo with an iPad" or "who would wear VR googles
| around people and look like an idiot". People are social
| animals, and they care about how they look.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| However, we should use our intelligence to find ways to curb
| the extent to which clothing has become an obsession, becaue
| the clothing industry is unsustainable and creates enormous
| amounts of waste and pollution. With our big brains, surely
| we can find ways to differetiate and display our styles
| without so much waste? Or perhaps we should just go back to
| trying to make AI think like us...
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Picking clothes that make us look good, and frequently
| replacing our clothes, are really two quite different
| things. You don't have to do the latter to achieve the
| former.
| Clamchop wrote:
| You could say that being green, or appearing to be, is in
| fashion.
| floydnoel wrote:
| i like this argument- fashion is left over animal spirits.
| the less rational (and more animalistic) we are, the more
| that fashion matters to us.
|
| that would explain the drop in extreme fashion's popularity
| also as people become educated.
| navane wrote:
| What's the point in surviving if no one wants to mate with you,
| evolutionary speaking.
|
| Is your type, dating wise, someone who is warm and dry?
| bluGill wrote:
| > Is your type, dating wise, someone who is warm and dry?
|
| My type is someone who has enough excess wealth to support my
| kids. Of course what this means is different for different
| animals, and in the case of humans different styles of
| raising kids, and different genders. In our modern world we
| don't think like this, but in 1700 a man could rape a woman
| and she would have no choice but to bare the child (if one
| happens), and then society would raise the child (in some
| cases she could drop the child off with the shakers or
| similar) - the important point is in this case the man only
| minimal cost to the child but there are a lot of costs on the
| woman. Thus women generally need signals that this man will
| stick around to feed her an can afford, that while the man
| needs to know the women's body will result in a baby being
| (as opposed to all too common dies at birth).
|
| Warm and dry is the very minimum you can ask in a potential
| mate - anything else will die before the child is born and
| thus you don't pass those genes on. However if you can find
| someone who has enough free time to not only be warm and dry
| but also well decorated that implies they have plenty of
| excess time making warm and dry clothing for the child who
| then won't freeze to death. Of course different climates have
| different warmth and dry needs.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Warm, yes. Dry, quite the opposite.
| mcphage wrote:
| > Aesthetic contemplations are really just an afterthought
|
| Aesthetic contemplations are never an afterthought.
| gklitz wrote:
| > Clothes are above all something that warms/protects/hides us
| from the world. Aesthetic contemplations are really just an
| afterthought.
|
| I think it's the exact opposite. Would seem like the transition
| our species had made to require clothes in the areas we live
| came after we had the clothes needed to migrate to those
| regions. The first humans to strap leaves to themselves likely
| did so for athestic reasons not for warmth, that would have
| come later.
|
| Though I'm no historian so this is just speculation.
| itishappy wrote:
| > Clothes are above all something that warms/protects/hides us
| from the world.
|
| Not sure that follows. Most places have a climate that would
| allow us to get by without clothes if we so desired (at least
| for part of the year), but few do. On the other hand, farmers
| and their families used to use flour sacks to make clothing,
| and when the flour companies realized this they started making
| patterned sacks. Flour companies didn't do this for fun, it was
| a desirable feature that increased sales.
|
| > Also, "fashion" is one of the stupidest things ever, like oh
| hey, you should now replace your perfectly good clothes every
| season because someone says so??
|
| Agreed, but nothing stops us from keeping fashionable clothes
| around for a long time. "Sunday best," for instance.
| achierius wrote:
| Note that the "wearing flour sacks" was not some perennial
| tradition of farming families: it was a necessity of the
| times, i.e. the Great Depression / dust bowl, where many many
| farmers were forced into destitution.
| itishappy wrote:
| I'm sure it's a bit of both. Feed sacks weren't worn by the
| affluent, but it would have been cheaper to use unpatterned
| fabrics. People went out of their way to select attractive
| patterns and match them with each other.
| bluGill wrote:
| With mass production attractive patterns were cheap for
| the flour companies - they were already pattering the
| sacs with the brand name so it was almost zero extra cost
| to put more pattern on the bag. If patterns actually
| costs them much they wouldn't have done it. People who
| have a choice between two $1 bags of flour will choose
| the nicer on for the nicer clothes they can make - but if
| one bag as $1.05 they would choose the cheaper one.
| Shared404 wrote:
| I don't think clothing is any more boring than computers or
| photography or painting or drawing or running or cooking or
| martial arts or reading or woodworking or cars or makeup or any
| other hobby. Which is not to say all of those interest me, but
| is to say any field is going to be interesting to some but not
| to all.
|
| For my case, for most of my life I hated thinking about
| clothes, hated anything other than big hoodies/jeans/jackets,
| saw it as purely utilitarian. Eventually after some soul
| searching and realizations/some new medication, I have
| discovered that I quite like using my clothing to express
| myself, my mood, what I'm doing, and so on.
|
| Fast fashion is very dumb though in my opinion. No reason to be
| wasteful and throw things away, but there's a middle space that
| can be very rewarding to explore - the first time I put on a
| skirt was quite literally life changing.
| space_oddity wrote:
| It's wild to think about how something so simple - just a way
| to shield ourselves from the elements - has become this huge
| cultural phenomenon
| criddell wrote:
| > you should now replace your perfectly good clothes every
| season because someone says so?
|
| Is that what you do?
|
| If not, then that's a bold move setting up a strawman as you
| try to start a flamewar.
| rikthevik wrote:
| Clothes are an important part of how we communicate with each
| other. It's an important part of the human experience, right up
| there with art and music.
|
| By having this opinion (and I assume dressing plainly) you are
| sending your own message to people about what's important to
| you.
| carabiner wrote:
| > Also, "fashion" is one of the stupidest things ever, like oh
| hey, you should now replace your perfectly good clothes every
| season because someone says so??
|
| Have you ever encountered the world of javascript frameworks?
| TheGRS wrote:
| Personal tastes and preferences and opinions aside, clothing is
| a pretty important aspect of communicating. Easy reference
| point is Mean Girls: On Wednesdays, we wear pink. In that
| scenario its simply a means of communicating conformity and
| support for the group. Seasonal tastes change because
| tastemakers set them, and people who want to be in the
| zeitgeist follow suit.
|
| And even in sub-cultures where one is just trying to
| communicate their distaste in fashion, there are usually
| unofficial dress codes. At nerdier conventions I typically see
| screen t-shirts riddled with pop culture references, or
| standard issue polos + khakis that communicate a sort of "I'm
| professional and I don't want to overthink my wardrobe".
| They're also the only place I see utility kilts, which
| definitely communicates something.
|
| Einstein famously had several copies of the same outfit,
| because he didn't want to think about dressing, but he found
| one that worked for him. And I've seen several engineers copy
| this approach - communicating efficiency and I'd argue at least
| some desire to emulate an Einstein.
| julianeon wrote:
| Fashion was a major driver (possibly the main one) of the
| Industrial Revolution. The economics of it kicked off the
| modern tech-based society we live in today.
| redpandadolphin wrote:
| Let me guess you're a Star Trek fan?
|
| Clothes, as with many things in life, can be a form of artistic
| expression. What's so wrong with that?
| harimau777 wrote:
| You might be mistaking modern "fast fashion" with more
| traditional understandings of "fashion". There is nothing about
| fashion that requires clothing to be replaced every season. In
| fact, much of what we now think of as fashion was actually a
| form of recycling. All of those fancy ribbons, collars, and
| smocking we associate with Victorian fashion? Those existed to
| cover up repairs, allow worn out parts to be replaced, and to
| allow clothing sizes to be adjusted when it was handed down.
|
| More generally, fashion is a powerful form of self expression
| that allows someone to project to the world how one wants to be
| perceived. Eliminating fashion because it's impractical would
| be like eliminating art as impractical.
| space_oddity wrote:
| Fashion is more than just an aesthetic - it's tied to history,
| labor, economics, and identity
| com2kid wrote:
| > You get the idea. From Sao Paulo to Riga to Seoul, people in
| the 2020s pretty much dress the same way.
|
| This is incorrect. Even within the US there are differences
| between cities, people in Miami dress differently than people in
| Seattle.
|
| People in Tokyo dress different than in LA, and people in London
| dress differently than in Mexico City.
|
| Is there a rich tapestry of local clothes? Well, no, but people
| also don't dress the same by any means.
|
| There is a lot of homogenization for sure, but people who travel
| a lot and pay even a little bit of attention can easily spot the
| differences between cities.
| autoexec wrote:
| We can only expect so much from the children in sweatshops making
| our clothing. When you replace skilled craftsmen and guilds with
| children and slaves you should expect products to be less fancy.
| Isamu wrote:
| First off the historical record in clothing is dominated by the
| wealthy, and in particular the notable clothing of wealthy. You
| would need to compare this to haute couture of the present.
|
| Now examples are dominated by average people, wearing inexpensive
| fashion that is mass produced.
| dhosek wrote:
| What I find interesting is that where traditional clothing has
| managed to maintain some sort of foothold, it's almost invariably
| in women's clothing. This is largely a superficial observation
| and is likely becoming increasingly false as time goes on and is
| based almost entirely on media representations, but I think
| someone more skilled and knowledgeable than me could find the
| boundaries of this observation against reality.
| ghaff wrote:
| Formal-wear for men is a pretty rare thing (and usually rented)
| outside of certain limited circles. Ties/jackets/suits are more
| common although there's been a big transition over the past few
| decades from them being the norm at a lot of industry events or
| even day-to-day office wear in a lot of roles.
|
| I still remember when the IBM booth staff showed up at one of
| the big shows wearing IBM logo polos. Every one else was sort
| of welp, if IBM can dump the suits I guess we can too.
| dhosek wrote:
| When I first started working, I wore a necktie to work Monday
| through Thursday and would never think of showing up to an
| interview not wearing a suit, and since then wearing a suit
| to an interview has become somewhat frowned upon and other
| than a brief flirtation with "necktie Tuesday," I can't
| remember the last time I wore a tie to work. It's a pity
| because I look damn good in a suit.
| ghaff wrote:
| When I first started working, ties in the office but not
| working on-(work)-site. After grad school, suits were
| pretty common in product management/marketing/etc. and ties
| at least pretty common in general.
|
| When I came in to talk to some people I mostly knew for my
| last job ~15 years ago, I did wear a tie and jacket and a
| couple people joked a bit but I knew them and they had been
| around long enough to know I just wasn't taking anything
| for granted.
| dhosek wrote:
| I remember once showing up to the office after taking the
| morning off and one of my co-workers asked why I was
| wearing a suit and I told him I had a job interview. He
| thought I was joking and later repeated this to someone
| else and then said that I had fooled him with that
| before.
|
| Except I did have a job interview and I was so glad to be
| out of that workplace.
| shellfishgene wrote:
| I find it weird that he shows those immigrant clothes at end the
| as an expression of individuality. If you were to go back to the
| origin towns of those immigrants, almost everyone would wear the
| same thing! It's the same with all traditional clothes, they are
| quite close to uniforms. They show the exact opposite of
| individuality, they show membership of a certain group. And
| taking too many liberties with that outfit would be frowned upon
| in the community.
| karaterobot wrote:
| I bet you'd find a lot more variety in a random sample of 100
| people today than you would in, say, the 17th century. I think
| the way he's framing this is weird. He's comparing drawings of
| aristocratic costumes that were notable enough to archive for
| posterity, as well as pictures of people's ceremonial garb (and
| best going-to-meeting clothes) with an unevidenced claim that
| people today all dress alike (do they?). To make an apples-to-
| apples comparison, compare those historical clothes with NY
| Fashion Week, or Cosplayers. Or, compare the surviving wool
| trousers and tunics of a medieval peasant with a picture of what
| people today are wearing in the average subway car or grocery
| store.
| bluGill wrote:
| Random sample of where? The world or a single random hamlet?
| teractiveodular wrote:
| This. Also, the "brother and sister in Sweden" appear to Sami
| wearing ceremonial gakti, not everyday wear.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A1kti
| harimau777 wrote:
| I think that the difference might be that today's aristocratic
| costumes and ceremonial garb is largely boring. In both cases
| they are largely just suits or cocktail dresses. Even the more
| unique ceremonial garb that does exist (e.g. robes in high
| church congregations and academic robes) are worn very
| infrequently today.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-05 23:01 UTC)