From: mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Ah, Fashion.
Date: 2 Oct 92 19:12:10 GMT
Organization: Gordian; Costa Mesa, CA

In article <1992Oct2.022638.26209@spdcc.com>, rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue) writes:
> mike@gordian.com (Michael A. Thomas) writes:
> >  Oh. There's nothing to fashion at all? 
> 
> 	Sure there is.  Money.  A LOT of money.

   Just because something generates money (even a LOT of money)
is not sufficient reason for moral condemnation, right?

> 
> >A person's desire to look
> >good can only be because of insecurity? 
> 
> 	No, that's not what I said - in fact I said that people look
> good without having to cowtow to fashion.  In other words, fashion
> is not necessary for people to "look good".

  I certainly don't disagree about cowtowing to fashion (the archetypical
fashion slave). However, to say that fashion is insignificant (nonexistant)
for people to look good does not follow. There are two different things
going on here:

  1) The concepts of beauty and aesthetics, and whether fashion has
     a place in this (I think it does)
  2) Psychological implications of people who believe that fashion
     (or money, or a 2.5 children and a suburban house) will give
     them unearned self esteem.

  My post has more in the vain of the first, and it seems that your
post was more in the second vain. Do you agree, however, that these
are really seperate topics?

> >Shouldn't a person's
> >view of beauty factor into how they think they should dress/look
> >to give themselves self esteem? 
> 
> 	Of course.  That's why there is a problem with fashion: people
> are always being told what amounts to unrealistic goals about what 
> *is* beautiful, etc.  There are lots of beautiful things in the universe.
> Fashion distorts this by hyping one thing trying to get as many people 
> as possible to emulate it (in order to feel they are part of the "beautiful
> people") and then change onto something else, rendering the object 
> "unfashionable".  What was once used to make someone "beautiful" no
> longer has the opposite effect... (How often do you wear polyester
> suits these days?  Bellbottoms?  you know the litany...)  

  I think this is a problem only if you make it into a problem. If
your self esteem is so tied acceptance by other peoples standards
you are in a world of hurt. For this type of person, fashion addiction
is not the problem; it is a symptom.
  Fashion as with art in general certainly has its trends, but are
these trends necessarily bad? I'm not convinced. You seem to be 
making this out as evil corporate conspiracy; that's nonsense.
Fashion changes primarily for one reason: people want to differentiate
themselves from others while at the same time trying to conform to
others. The fashion industry certain benefits from peoples inherent
fickleness, but it doesn't create it.
 
> 	In other words, those that "create fashion" try to change
> what people's "view of beauty" is.  People then try to obtain that,
> instead of looking for the beauty that was already (and always) there.
> A gross misuse of energy.  More often than not, for a lot of people
> it results in insecurity, lower self-esteem, spent $$$, etc.

  Much the same can be said of art in general. Do you think that art
is a gross misuse of energy? My point is that there are certain
instrisic things that humans seem to need at a psychological level.
Looking good, and feeling good about the way we look seems to be
one of those. It is not necessarily *what* it is we do to look
good, but more of the act of doing something to enhance our own
beauty. 

> 	And what's a "goal of beauty"?  All a person X can do is
> look like the best X there is, or be comfortable with ones own
> good features.  Anything else is not possible - the great lie is
> in being told that it is possible - if only you'll do X Y and Z.

  What I don't quite understand is why think that most people are
chattel when it comes to the fashion industry. By and large it is
six of one half dozen of the other. I certainly don't run out and
buy things just to look "in". On the other hands, I would be lying
if I said that I don't pay attention to what I think I look good
in when I buy clothes. This is, no doubt, colored by what the
various gods running around happen to be wearing (or not wearing 
as the case may be :-). Is this a problem? I mean I need to buy
*something*, it might as well be something that I like and makes
me feel good.

> >What about beards and mustaches?
> 
> 	What about them?  Some people like them, some people don't.
> I myself prefer them.  But it would be silly of me to suggest that
> anyone who didn't have one is somehow "not as good" as someone who did.

  This of course is a fashion statement. That was my point.
 
> 	On the other hand, I do know people who had facial hair and
> did shave because "well, that's in now".  When asked, no they really
> didn't want to do it, and preferred the facial hair, but (shrug)
> "that was in now".  Gack.  

  Well, I would have to say that they probably didn't feel very strongly
about their facial hair then. Sort of like tossing out a worn out
pair of shoes for them wouldn't you say?

> Now I also do know people without facial
> hair (and for the most part with facial hair inertia :-) who identified
> with the bears community.  I would say it is equally stupid to lay
> judgement on people who felt they wanted to be part of the community
> because they did or didn't have "the right kind of face fur".
> I have never felt that way about people, and I can enumerate a lot 
> of people I consider bears who have no beards, and other without
> beards or moustaches.  Why they do or do not have them is up to them,
> but they're not any less beautiful.

  I would definitely agree with this. Being a "bear" is a state of
mind first, and state of body secondly. I would no doubt qualify
on the latter part, but not on the first. Many people are the opposite,
our young fellator being a recent example of this sentiment.
  Although the "bear" movement (if you could call it that) is certainly
more earthy than most fashion cliques, I don't think that makes it
any less of a clique. Certain dress codes are de rigueur (or at least
some would be a faux pas).
  Does this mean that fashion is not important? No. In fact, it seems
to be a key ingredient, albeit in a sideways way.
 
> 	The difference is the message.  The artist is saying "I am
> conveying X with Y (X doesn't have to be beauty - X can be any
> emotion or message).  But let's take the limited case where the
> object can be something to represent beauty.  The artist will
> choose some subject that in her/his mind fits the role
> for that single work.  Certainly there is no pressuree in art
> to depict a single archetype.

  Ah, but for the individual artist there is almost certain to be.
Right? (or at least a small subset)
 
> 	Fashion/advertising has a different motif.  The idea is
> to link some trait to a model giving you a pattern to emulate.
> "If I smoke Marlboro cigarettes I'll be macho like that cowboy."
> "If I buy Grey Poupon, I'll be more classy than using generic
> yellow mustard."  "If I buy these hair products, and clothes, and
> X Y and Z, I"ll be sexy and people will lust after me."  The reality
> is that smoking Marlboros invites medical problems, Grey Poupon
> gets spread on hot dogs, and X Y and Z aside you're still the same.

  Um, what's wrong with Grey Poopoo on hot dogs?

  Se la vie. Art is being exploited, yawn. If you ask me, overall
this is a net gain for artists. If somebody is foolish enough to 
be *directly* influenced by this then they deserve to be disappointed.

> 	It's the somewhat arbitrary decision that only some
> set of qualities are "good" that is the problem.  And as we
> well know last years fashions that were to die for are an
> absolute sin once they;ve gone out of style.   Sheesh.

  It's only arbitrary if you make it arbitrary. As said before,
if a persons ego is so fragile that a fashion faux pas is going to
ruin their life, their problems are much deeper than wearing a 
poodle skirt to a coronation ball.

> >> 	You don't *need* to wax to look good, sexy, interesting, etc.
> >> You don't *need* to be thin, tan, blond, smooth, muscular, young
> >> to have self-worth and to be found attractive by other people.
> >> These things are *traits* not requirements or conditions.
> 
> >  Says who? 
> 
> 	Duh - like says *logic*.  

   You mean logic dictates fashion and human attraction? Now I will
give you that logic has some part in determining what a "ideal" human
is but the variance beyond that defies logic.
   If somebody thinks that being thin-tan-blond-smooth-muscular-young
as better than big-butch-hairy-in-totally-revealing-leather why
is this a problem? And what if this is their preference? Like people
do have a tendancy to date each other. Therefore, assimilation is not
necessarily bad if that is your desire.
   (Personally, I'm pretty easy. I have my general likes and dislikes,
    but I would never let that get in the way of something really,
    er, hot ;-)
> > In your opinion this may be true, but I don't think that
> >the world of taste revolves around your world view. 
> > In fact, I suspect
> >that you are probably in the minority, but no matter. 
> 
> 	Oh?  Gee if we say that I'm patently wrong or in the extreme
> minority then we are saying that unless we bow to the fasions of 1992.8
> we can't be beautiful.  How *EVER* did Mona Lisa get along?

  I did not say that at all. I only said that your view of aeasthetics
is not necessarily preferential. 
 
> 	Let's write it out in deference to you Mikey in simple terms.
> 
> 	FASHIONS CHANGE ALL THE TIME WHILE TRUE BEAUTY DOES NOT

  True beauty? What is that?

> 	Actually re-reading this - it makes no sense whatsoever, warped
> logic or no.  Oh wait I think I have it now.  "Even if I don't have
> a problem with lookism, other people might."  Yes, I know Mike
> THAT'S THE POINT.  The *solution* dear, is not for me to start
> buying into the system but for the system to go away.  That's not
> self-centered (although couched in this language and taken out of context,
> I'm sure you'll try very hard to make it look so) at all.

  If there is a point here, it is that the "system" is an effect not
a cause -- vanity being the cause. Blaming the effect is not very
useful. Vanity has its pluses and minuses like almost every other
human desire. The solution, however, is not to condemn it as a vice
(or superflous or whatever). Some people think it's fun and get 
enjoyment from it (innocently, not out of guilt/nerosis). What is
wrong with that? Obviously, you don't and that's fine by me.
 
> 	If we stopped putting so much stock in it there would
> be a lot of happier (and financially independent probably) people
> around.

  Says you.

> 
> >In fact it may be just *opposite* of you. Why is your view preferential?
> 
> 	Well, for starters it is more positive - people have more intrinsic
> "worth" in their appearence.  It's more diverse - it allows many many
> subjective interpretations of beautiful to occur, and gives people
> more freedom to express themselves without having this strict (but
> constantly changing) false "standard" to check oneself against.
> That's for starters.  And it isn't *my* idea - it's Mother NAtures.
> [If we were all supposed to look the same, we would.  We don't.]

  This is in essense what fashion allows. People are not always born
*exactly* the way they want to be, and have to work at achieving their
personal ideals. Fashion is a means of altering the physical appearance
of our bodies to achieve (or lust after) an ideal we have set for ourselves.
How far one goes down this path is certainly a matter for personal taste
(so long as it doesn't become a neurotic obsession).
  This certainly transcends the realm of fashion. We are all born
with strengths and weaknesses. Just because our strength may be in
one thing does not necessarily dictate that we should pursue it.
In fact, the challange of overcoming our weaknesses can be a strong
motivator. There is a uniquely human trait of desiring to overcome
what nature may have delt us a bad hand on, which I for one think
is an admirable trait not a shortcoming.

> 	Intolerant?  Comapred to - the fashion industry?
> Oh c'mon this is a joke posting right?  You're not actually
> serious......  Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.  OK Mike - go for the kill.
> Show in a series of 1992 fashion media the *diversity* of models.
> Show me ALL THIS TOLERANCE for differing archetypes that apparently
> I'm trying to squash by suggesting that people do not need to conform
> to fashion in order to be beautiful.  

  Your word "Gross" comes to mind. And just how can the fashion industry
be intolerant? Intolerant of *what*? Their aim is simple: make LOTS
of money. You do not make lots of money by not watching what you markets
are. If intolerance were really what the fashion industry were about
we would be all wearing $1000 olive-drab uniforms (like in China). 
They are driven by diversity and tolerance -- it's what gives them an
edge over their competition.

> 	I am not saying that for people who desire to get their
> bodyhair waxed off it is wrong to do so.  Go for it - have a ball.
> (Hey maybe Estee Lauder for an extra price will turn it into a whole
> leather fantasy thing...).  But because it has become an "in"
> thing it is *not* necessary for people to do it to achieve beauty.

  Sigh. We all have our conformance and non-conformance aspects.
Some people's non-conformance aspects are stronger than others
but conformity is not necessarily evil. Objectively you are
probably correct, but people do a lot of things which in the
light of reason are pretty silly. Does this make them *bad*?
  Objectively we don't need sex either (if we don't want to 
procreate) but you won't catch me defending *that* position either.
-- 

		Michael Thomas	(mike@gordian.com)
	"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."  
		-- Hobbes to Calvin
		USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca,	92707-5637
		PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)