I don't feel fashion ever goes out of style. But then again, I don't really have any sense of fashion.
My grandma, tired of always putting on makeup (and not very good at it), paid to have her makeup tattooed to her face about 20 years ago. She requested "aqua" for the eye shadow color. The artist, having never tried to tattoo eye shadow, was concerned about "what if that color goes out of style?". My grandma just replied "I don't care".
Edit: Oh and tattooed make up always goes over well in a surgery room. "Excuse me ma'am, you were requested to have removed all your make up prior to surgery".... Good times.
Are these actually subcultures that refused to die or just instances of retro-fashion? Most of the models look young. How much continuity do they have with the original members of the subcultures, beyond historical photographs, etc.?
I've always had the impression the lowrider subculture is still at least an active thing in Southern California? I grew up in an area with a sizeable Hispanic population on the East Coast and never really got a whiff of it though.
I can't speak for the "scene" anywhere but where I live, but you never really hear of skinheads in the US, and the handful I've ever seen are generally older (late thirties and up) and typically exist as a part of a punk scene. It's common enough to see a few older dudes in Fred Perry's with shaved heads at a show in my small southern city. I got to a lot of shows, see everything from a buncha street punks in spiky jackets bumming gas money to "feminist" punk bands but can't say I've seen a skinhead band come through.
As I said, I claim to know nothing about the "scene" anywhere but in my town, but at the very least the music hasn't died out. You still have major Oi! / skinhead adjacent acts like Cock Sparrer around, apolitical skins[1], and plenty of newer skinhead-esque bands[2][3]. Of course these are all in the UK / EU. Seems there are a few labels around, and the videos have good enough production values that I imagine there have to be a fair enough number of skins around to buy the records / merch. Seems some older, lesser known skinhead acts are on the same label as some of the aforementioned new ones, so there appears to be a bit of continuity. At least continuity beyond "art school hipsters."
Yeah, lowrider culture (and hotrodding) is still alive and well here in Southern California. About once or twice a month I'll hear, and then see, lowriders cruise past my apartment in downtown LA.
I'm so relieved that the media continue to ignore my subculture- the biggest subculture of the last, oh, 40 ish years [1]. With the disturbing exception of the recent fashion trend of young girls dressing like '90s Metallica (but with designer handbags).
H&M did try to make battle jacket trendy (and sold the slayer and metallica tshirts you refer to, under license), but some band détourned these poser vests succesfully[0]
The fact that conversations with metal fans about metal are about as interesting as accounting night classes probably has more to do with this than some kind of visceral reaction to how "extreme" metal is or whatever. _Look What You Made Me Do_ is much more musically and artistically offensive than anything Metallica ever did, and I'm including _Reload_ in that.
Metal is whatever you want to get out of it. For example, I think Devin Townsend is one of the most gifted artists out there. It's great that people might want to listen to extreme grindcore or black metal or gore themed metal. They have Broken Hope lyrics to go read. Listening to folk metal is also a blast since it usually incorporates interesting musical instrument juxtapositions and/or incorporates mythologies told in a visceral manner. Or there's soul crushing depths incorporating brutal historical moments such as Ahab's depiction of the Raft of the Medusa.
Pulling Metallica out of a hat as representative of any kind of metal, let alone "extreme metal", is a pretty big disservice to the genre's diversity and spectrum of appeal.
>> _Look What You Made Me Do_ is much more musically and artistically offensive than anything Metallica ever did, and I'm including _Reload_ in that.
This deserves a separate comment.
I looked up Look What You Made Me Do on Wikipedia. It's a song by Taylor Swift. Its claim to offensiveness, as far as I can tell, is that there's a scene in the video of her in a bathtub with real diamonds. Presumably that's offensive in the sense that there are so many poor people in the world who can't afford a bathtub, let alone diamonds. In any case, the song was "offensive" enough to have a wikipedia page a mile long and to have topped the charts and reaped all sorts of awards.
You compare that to "Reload", an album that I also had to look up on account of it being from the period of Metallica's history that I find bland and boring. I had a thing with Meallica right up until "...And justice for all". After that, they might as well have beeen Taylor Swift for all I cared. I know a lot of people in the US consider Metallica metal because they once were metal incarnate. However, these days they're just wet noodles.
As to how "offensive" Taylor Swift or Metallica are- like I say in another comment, who cares? Maybe I enjoyed being offensive and doing offensive stuff when I was 14. I have grown up somewhat since then. I still listen to my Metal. There must be something else there, don't you think?
Or I'm just a very boring person, of course. It must be all the computers.
Also, of thinking that Metal fans are uniformly interested in how "extreme" their music is.
Personally, I care that the songs I like are memorable. Not that they are extreme.
As to how interesting they are to outsiders- so? Who cares? I listen to my stuff, you listen to yours. I won't even compare my music to others'. That's the kind of thing that gets you thinking about why you're not more fashionable and then you end up like modern-day Metallica.
The "normies" have a very odd perception of metal and metalheads, as if we're some kind of satan-worshipping cult that sacrifices live animals at concerts.
I blame media demonization and the inherent distrust of everything that seems "different".
I just want to drink beer and listen to heavy music :-)
You could also add in here Gang music, which often includes real-life references to actual crimes that are happening right now or have happened, particularly with lower-level rappers.
There's a group from the UK, "67" who constantly have group members in and out prison and still play big festival stages. That's more extreme IMHO
I never thought of it a separate sub-culture. Many metalheads (from thrashists to blackers) wear vests/jackets padded with favorite band logos, so it's just a small, not even mandatory part of metal sub-culture (which in turn has many sub-sub-cultures). Recently I started seeing skaters and hipsters wearing something like that too. Or do I miss something?
Just to be clear: I meant the battle jackets as a hint for the fact that metal is my subculture. I didn't mean that there's a secret society of battle jacket wearers that form a separate group inside the wider Metal subculture.
Ah, now it's clear, I thought maybe I missed something. Metal subculture is probably considered "boring" by mass media/fashion as it's nowhere as exotic as described in this article or others seen less often. Even in my "shithole" country there's no lack of metal gigs and open airs.
Heh, Google "Mongrel Mob Patch". It's a New Zealand gang that has had their patches mass-produced in China. Wearing them in NZ is generally a bad idea, but you'll be OK abroad (even as close as Australia in most cases, unless another local bikie gang takes interest in you).
I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw a guy probably in his 20s in Tokyo wearing a similar patch (same gang) in 2014 from a gang that has a notorious reputation in NZ (albeit largely subsided since the 90s with their loss of control and reputation all over NZ) and a standard "battle jacket" (first time I've heard them called that).
Generally it's such a shame that society is made to ridicule anyone who is wearing or behaving in a way that is out of fashion. Anything between just-recently out-of-fashion to grandma-old-style is seen as either bad taste or says something not-so-nice about the person wearing or doing it. I would love to see people feeling more free to wear that thing that was in fashion 2, 10 or 20 years ago. The world is strange, let's keep it that way.
I think feeling constrained by what other people think of your fashion is very much a factor of your self-perception and the community around you.
I don't think people ridiculing others for their fashion choices is all that common past teenage years, but I may be wrong.
Looking at the subjects of this article, I don't get the feeling that they are dressing unfashionably - on the contrary, they are making extremely specific and thoughtful fashion choices, probably spending more time and thought on it than people that just go and grab whatever the latest thing is on Zara racks.
You may be surprised, but even grandma-old-style can be very fashionable. Fashion is very much about who is wearing it, why, and how. It may not matter as much "what" you're wearing, as "why" - like modern art in some ways.
Fashion is basically another non-verbal communication channel we humans use to signal a large number of clues to fellow members of the species.
In my experience some of the most toxic criticism short of physical violence comes from not acknowledging what someone believes are logical conclusions.
So wearing a dress is fine if the person wearing it is willing to concede at every moment that they're being socially deviant. The moment that you just wear a dress and make no attempt to justify yourself in terms of larger culture is when things get bad. Wearing a dress and acting like it's no big deal is an affront to the logic of someone who knows for a fact what you're doing is deviant..and they're convinced that you deep down know it too. You're more or less saying they think wrong in a very fundamental way. That gets people very upset.
Dunno, if I saw a guy wearing a dress I won't see it as "deviant" at all. I might glance for a second, acknowledge, and continue about my business. I don't care what people wear. That said, many people _do_ care, which I don't really understand. Unless it has racist/sexist/prejudiced text on it, wear whatever you want.
It's deviant in the literal sense - that is, it's not normal. I don't the he was trying to pass moral judgement or suggest that the dress wearer is some sort of pervert.
If you saw a guy in otherwise ordinary circumstances wearing a dress and didn't think it was unusual, well, you lack situational awareness.
And yet... make it plaid and put a belt and sporran on it... you've got a kilt, which is very masculine and likely more accepted (esp at formal events).
I think the distiction you may be missing is between fashion and style. Anyone can be fashionable by buying what's in season or mimicking a celeb. Being stylish is what's beautiful and admirable.
You don't even have to be a mod, rocker, or any of these subcultures. You can be an old bloke on a Segway rocking a Fubu shirt and cargo pants and completely transcend the streetscape.
My favourite stylish people integrate a sense of fun and playfulness to what they wear, but I think the most defining element of style is risk. Having the balls to say you're different.
Well, many forms of art are more interesting precisely because they have to work within constraints. In this case, the constraints, things like "your clothing has to cover your buttocks and your chest," are not particularly limiting anyway.
Agreed. I think the effects are seen more in whom a person associates with. People who wear and are particular about a certain subset of clothing tend to appreciate other people who do the same.
To some extent though can you blame people for this form of cultural trolling? Some people will get violent with anger over what someone is wearing. Having the power to expose such a ridiculous reaction is probably very satisfying.
> Generally it's such a shame that society is made to ridicule anyone who is wearing or behaving in a way that is out of fashion
I mostly agree. However, there are biological and economical reasons for this that are deeply anchored, such as for example that it allows us to more easily distinguish friend from foe, and almost instantly skip forward a few leaps in trust levels when communicating.
When you're doing the financial paperwork --your implication is right though. At that point they are not technically "salespeople" but closers who are trying to get you to buy additional things.
Fashion can be used to signal many things: group membership, hobbies, political/philosophical views. Additionally, like other forms of art, it can also be used for intrinsic aesthetic expression.
The fashion industry like the luxury automobile industry or the art industry is based around selling status. Unfashionableness an industry release cycle designed around planned obsolesce.
Well there have been some straight up expensive "luxury" phones over the years. Apple in that regard is perhaps more in the BMW or Porsche end of the scale.
On a semi-regular basis I see people unironically dressed as cowboys, Merlin-style wizards, lumberjacks, semi-mythical shamans with skull-topped staffs, wearing nothing but a speedo and work boots, barefoot flower-power hippies, in kilts, with vest and shoes covered in gold sequins/glitter, in Victorian coats and top hats and monocles, men in dresses and heels, women in tuxedos, old men dressed like teenage goths with purple nails, etc. etc.
I haven't been to San Francisco in a very long time. And that's one of the most beautiful things I've read in a long time.
I struggle every day with the mask I put on for others+. Embarrassment or shame over my own hobbies or interests, even when there's nothing to be embarrassed or shamed by. To witness those people living their lives on their terms like that...it makes me tear up just thinking about it. No, seriously. I'm close to crying right now. How great it would be to be in such an environment where people felt completely free to be themselves. Maybe I could take it in by osmosis.
The northeastern USA is wonderful in its own way, and I found it more livable than the Bay, but the wonderful weirdness of San Francisco can't help but make me feel wistful.
Then you should check out Planetary some time (origin of the quote). It's a wonderful comic series about investigators who uncover and document the hidden history of the world, which happens to consist of clever remixes of pop fiction tropes from across cultures, genres and eras.
Nice. I'm actually working out of a library today with the Planetary Omnibus, and I keep intending to set aside time while I'm here to start from the beginning and take notes. Such a rich world and I generally can't take enough time to read very far into it, I keep losing track of what happens along the way.
My favorite piece of advice to teenagers, who seem to keenly feel that unrelenting pressure to fit in: Everyone is weird. If you choose to try to hide your weirdness, and you'll feel shame. If you own your weirdness instead, and you'll feel pride.
Conversely, as someone who has spent a majority of their life as a non-conformist, the exercise of feeling comfortable in your own skin can be quite empowering.
Not that it's an inflation of ego, but knowing you can convince others of your intelligence regardless of your physical appearance is a healthy challenge.
To be honest though I think this is where a lot of the resentment of non-conformists comes from.
A conformist feels on a gut level that you're doing something "for attention" and resents you for that.
Of course even if that were true such resentment is ridiculous. But to me I think there is always an element of "cultural challenge" in non-conformity (even if say 99% of a man wearing a dress is deeply personal choice).
Come to Berlin! ;)
These people are doing the opposite of what you say, though, they dress and behave in a way that makes them even more omologated than Joe and Jane. The way they look and present themselves takes over their life.
Dressing in a way that society easily accepts might sound like omologation, but in the end it frees up your time and let you focus your attention on more important things.
You might look like the plainest midwestern dad, but maybe in your spare time you learn sanscrit and make mandalas in your basement. Maybe you’ve traveled to the remotest Amazon region and met the last member of some indigenous tribe.
If you dress like these people, well, there’s a good chance that your entire life revolves around the costume you’re so painstakingly crafting.
Because Sanskrit knowledge remains and mandalas still “mean” something when you undress. The line separating all three is thin though.
For me personally, and sorry for my view if it displeases someone, people of fashion look like they’re selling something in more way than others. This is because I met maybe too many people of fashion and/or subculture who really didn’t found their way yet and too many generic-looking men who are invaluable in their experience and deeds. I’m aware that this view is just a false negative that sometimes happens true or positive.
"Omologation" must be a German word, because the closest one I can turn up, "homologation," is apparently car jargon. Perhaps you mean "homogenization."
Yep, sorry, it's actually my Italian kicking in here.
The false friend is "homologation", which in Italian means what you found, but can also describe a cultural process that brings to homogenization, indeed. Thanks for the correction.
The most fashionable thing anyone can possibly wear is the least fashionable thing. It's an incredibly potent counter-signal. Haute couture is deliberately, wilfully hideous.
Not anyone, only those lucky enough to have sufficient inherent attractiveness to outshine anything they could put on. When those have established a new aesthetic (either top-down/haute, or bottom-up/street), the industry comes in and skillfully polishes away the rough edges so that the basic idea can also work on the less fortunate, who will then for a brief period be able to enjoy a "pretty by association" halo effect.
Sceptics sometimes consider the fashion lifecycle to be some kind of artificial conspiracy made up by the industry to create demand, but I think it is more an emergent phenomenon of human interaction that could only ever be subdued by extreme scarcity or by draconian regulation (e.g. rules applying to lower classes in many feudal society).
Old people look old not because of their outdated fashion style but because of their age. Kind of obvious, but we really like to forget that, over and over again (maybe to distract us from our own aging). When isolated from the aging payload and put on fresh bodies (sorry for the cynical wording), time-tested styles work remarkably well. On top of that is a short window where the last generation using a given style has just disappeared from the streets enough to to avoid confusion, but memory of wrinkled faces is still fresh enough to make youthfulness stand out by contrast.
I've seen a few young adult females wearing some 90s style retro sportswear alongside with modern clothes (e.g. a Nike retro windbreaker) and I remember I found them (the persons) quite pretty.
Given how cyclical fashion trends are those people wearing bell bottoms today might be seen as especially fashion forward in a couple of years. Who knows?
On the flip side of that, the human brain seems to be willing to jump through serious hoops to both be shamed and leverage shame against others who fail to conform. We've got such a strong biological urge to fit in precisely because those who don't perish.
Interesting about the Mods one of my (now retired) MD's was an old Mod and had a realy realy nice collection of museum quality restored 60's scooters - which he probably enjoyed more than his Lexus
Wow. There's a great portrait here, not just of the subjects but of the artist themself. The mixed-subculture couple, the way these groups are run reminds me a lot of my adventures in the nerd convention scene. There's a lot of people looking for meaning there, for something to be good at even if it's just being themselves.
I think the modern world is dehumanizing and alienating to a lot of people, and they're just struggling to try to find themselves - these subcultures, perfecting "the look" - are a way of feeling unique and special. They're a thing to have pride in. They're tribal in a way that's self-determined, making them both more welcoming and less prone to the kinds of charismatic capture that bring an end to "tribes". On the other hand, that makes them more ephemeral than blood-tribes - there's no permanent tie.
There's an interesting contrast with those blood-tribes, though. What happens when you leave? Leaving groups is common - questioning your very identity is something everyone should do, frequently. But it's also hard and painful. I think there's a lot in common with the people in this recent article about leaving cults: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16198465
Ultimately, I believe associating too strongly with an identity is really harmful, that you're vulnerable to both being manipulated and to losing your faith, in yourself and humanity. It's hard to prove, though; there's only anecdata, and much of that is dirtied by people trying desperately to convince themselves that they're okay and that if only everyone tried it they could see how great their cult is.
When I read "Recently, though, a photographer pointed out another theme: that these subcultures are loaded with machismo. It rang true in a way that made Owen rethink the work."
I was immediately reminded that the US itself ranks pretty high on the Hofstede masculinity index:
Anyone else thought about "spending all his money on film"? :-D
That is also a statement in and of itself these days. Anyone capturing pictures with film cameras instead of digital these days, is doing so very deliberately.
I miss seeing hydraulically lifted cars on the streets. Whenever they would pull up next to my Kia at the traffic light, I would hope they could show off a move or two.
I recommend Derek Ridger's work if you find Owen Harvey interesting. Derek has been documenting London Mod, Punk and club culture since the 70's and his style is much copied.
I get the impression my old subculture has more or less died. Goth doesn't seem to be much of a thing in the UK any more.
The annual festival at Whitby still happens, but I've rarely heard of any new music in the genre.
What's left of the music scene seems to have been subsumed into metal (which is fine, the metal crowd are decent people, if a little uncouth ;)
And those that really enjoyed the dress-up aspects of it have meandered into steampunk.
Something I have never understood. Why dress up / acquire certain things, in order to conform to some random pre-designated style?
Also, in my experience, if someone puts a lot of effort into their superficial image or appearance, they tend to be boring and uninteresting underneath that, which makes sense.
> in my experience, if someone puts a lot of effort into their superficial image or appearance, they tend to be boring and uninteresting underneath that
Some of the most interesting artists and musicians I know also put a lot of effort into their personal appearance. I don't think attention to appearance is correlated with depth of personality in any real way.
Making your person a piece of art.. Thats a cool idea. I like it.
I'd say someone like Daniel Lismore[1] is doing interesting stuff there. But the people in the article, replicating the standardized patterns, its like they are making themselves into those paintings that come in rental flats.
Also why strive to turn yourself, which is all you have, into a thing? Like, you may as well instead decide to be a post-box and sit on the street accepting peoples mail. It seems like such a big sacrifice to me.
Daniel Lismore's work is entirely derivative of the late, much missed Leigh Bowery. I don't mean to knock Lismore, but Bowery was more radical, more brilliant and did it all 30 years ago.
In my opinion, the ur-example of living art is the incomparable Gilbert and George. It's simply impossible to separate Gilbert from George from the work.
> Why dress up / acquire certain things, in order to conform to some random pre-designated style?
Why speak english and not invent your own language? Clothing and appearance is (also) communication. And to be understood, some of the signals must be common enough.
I belong to this community, to this generation, to this area/country, to this social class, etc... It can also project ideologies, affiliations and aspirations. Once upon a time for example, in Western Europe, some intellectuals adopted the Mao suit. It was a very strong political statement.
Moreover in many cases I doubt your assertion that these styles are random is true. There is a history behind most of them, and this is what imparts them meaning.
I doubt clothing could be a full human language. A human language is a remarkable thing. Our language ability is one of our chief adaptations as a species, with it I can conjour the precise and bizarre notion of a purple bus-driver giraffe with those few mere phenoms.
I would imagine we must have some systems for interpreting information about other humans from their accoutrements, but I would also imagine that they surely cannot be as highly developed as our language, as the technology to have different 'styles' or even clothes at all is relatively recent. Also as a bit of anecdotal evidence I present that, any healthy human growing up around at least one other human will develop a spoken language, or adopt the language of their peers. In contract there are examples of people growing up in societies with clothes and style who do not develop any particular style sense.
So I posit that this style language is relatively limited and only certain pre-arranged messages determined by society can be communicated by it. Also it seems extremely prone to misinterpretation . Both parties must be aware of, and agree on, the pre-arranged signals for it to work.
Which is why I personally dont even consider it. With such a limited and error prone language how could I accurately communicate anything meaningful, or personal, or that I particularly value, about myself. Also why would I would I want to blast out this signal to all and sundry?
> Which is why I personally dont even consider it.
So, assuming you're a man (bear with me if you aren't): are you so open-minded and rational that you do consider female clothes in your shopping too? Do you look at women's watches and glasses too? Do you often wear pink?
Here is my guess: you don't. You may think you're completely disconnected from the social cues inherent in clothing/accessories, that you consider clothes as purely functional. But chances are, in practice, you really don't. Signalling your gender "to all and sundry" as you put it, is one of the major non-verbal cues that clothes provide. It's part of those "random pre-designated styles" and is taught from a young age, and understood by everyone. Your tastes reflect that, whether you consciously acknowledge it or not.
You don't see men in robes, for example, in modern western cultures, whatever their potential comfort/utility/beauty, they simply are not considered for men in day-to-day life. Even though, there were periods and cultures where they were perfectly fine for men to wear.
I'm not the person you were answering but I subscribe to similar utilitarian views and must say, if it wasn't shunned by society to the point of risking to take a beating, I wouldn't mind wearing a skirt in summer. In fact, I already do wear some plain beige skirts at home because I find them far more comfortable than pants and the airy feeling is nice in hot climates.
It's far too dangerous to wear a skirt outside as a man so I wouldn't do it. I as a person don't care much for clothing beyond physical well being/comfort/utility but society is very judging and a times very dangerous for certain choices.
Yeah I agree with all that.
In terms of what other people think, I am just a stoic about it, that is outside of my control. In terms of what I wear, I have always gotten more than enough clothes as christmas presents from various relatives to keep me decent.
Though quite recently I started mountaineering and discovered the specialized clothing for that. Its the 1st time Ive ever been interested in clothes, the feature-list on them greatly surpasses anything else. Eg A jacket which is water resistant, breathable, wind-resistant, tear resistant, very light, flexible and comfortable, affording a full range of motion, with lots of pockets and also adjustable vents. Though I am a small man and have actually bought a womens jacket cus it fit better and was cheaper.
I think when you're little, figuring this stuff out helps you figure out yourself. Affiliation helps you build out your identity. Most of us don't have an opinion about everything. The group identity can help you figure out what questions are worth asking and suggest answers.
As you grow, I think you need less and less of it. I still self-identify in ways that I don't actively practice. But more and more I think of my identity as an accident of circumstance populated by an accidental consciousness without much that makes it unique except my particular ordering of vices. I also don't see what making a big show of belonging would buy me now, in a world so completely ambiguous and shaded in grey that it feels like any positive statement can be twisted into some horror and our only refuge is a constant state of agreeable equivocation.
Maybe if enough of us see it this way, we can turn this perspective into a stylistic pre-designation and await an enriching conformity.
it’s a signal of belonging to a tribe. you’re expressing allegiance and shared identity with the in-group, that you have chosen because you value what that community is oriented around.
My grandma, tired of always putting on makeup (and not very good at it), paid to have her makeup tattooed to her face about 20 years ago. She requested "aqua" for the eye shadow color. The artist, having never tried to tattoo eye shadow, was concerned about "what if that color goes out of style?". My grandma just replied "I don't care".
Edit: Oh and tattooed make up always goes over well in a surgery room. "Excuse me ma'am, you were requested to have removed all your make up prior to surgery".... Good times.