The pace of fashion and style

mind you having seen diagnosis murder repeats someone in 1997 dressed like 1992 would look equally bizarre

When thew raver-baggy pant thing just wouldn't die, I kept doing the math of "I did that 10 years ago, so it'd be like Disco-Dude wearing his leisure suit in 1987".

also high-waisted pants are back in fashion (for reasons I cannot personally understand), and highlights are out in favor of rich, vibrant solids. jesus nabisco. read one Vogue!!

at least for awhile:

http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/08/28/sports/395_agassi.jpg

FRIENDS PREMIERED IN 1994, ALLY, AND WEREN'T NOBODY ROCKING HIGH-WAISTED PLEATS IN 2004 NEITHER

sorry, posting from a fashion trade show and this shit is EVERYWHERE right now.

if you saw someone dressed like verveman plodding down the road today you probably wouldn't give them a second glance, whereas in 1997 someone dressed in 1987 clobber would probably look a tad daft

yeah OK i am really just talking about the last decade (as evidenced by our friend mr. agassi up there the 1990s were really a different country from mr. verveman) although even with that i am stretching Hermès lady's point; she basically said the fashion world moves more in three-year cycles now than in seasons. i should have pressed her on this point. maybe it is because global distribution/marketing/penetration/saturation takes longer than a regional or national saturation would? (cf. the impractically-sized US getting around to the idea that a dollar coin might be a good idea around, oh 2089 or so)

and they are wimmin :(

http://www.allsaintsi.com/

suggestions on a post card

I mean, you're absolutely right about the early 90s being an entirely different universe, fashionwise and just plain culture-wise -- thing is, I didn't really notice that until a few years ago, while watching documentaries about Clinton's election. And I kind of suspect people slightly younger than me will get to have similar moments concerning the late 90s, the early 00s, and now.

it would, it seems to me, be far stranger for consumer fashion and style to change at a constant pace over the decades than for it to sometimes be fast and sometimes get sorta stuck. i reckon we're in a slow spot but yeah i'm not sure about it. (which is why i'm asking the question!) (fwiw the hermès lady was about my age)

Which sub-group in what high school in what country?

http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/images/graph_of_punctuated_equilibrium_2.gif

no one i knew when i was at school/6th form regretted missing 1986 and went out of their way to buy any 80s records beyond the smiths and stone roses, if at all, i mean i've recently dealt with 18 year old bluetones apologists FFS

"you mean you could have gone to knebworth? but you didn't?"

and most of those shitty bands are still releasing records and appearing on the front of the NME

Another issue is stuff like this changing so quickly among certain groups that they arrive where they began in a period of just a few years.

yeah, you're right!!!

i TOTALLY remember notorious BIG and the wu tang rocking flourescent bathing ape shoes and pink louis vuitton rugby shirts!!

and i thought your point was about clothes and fashion, not culture. or do you fancy yourself a canny enough observer to make totalizing statements about culture?

The Hermes lady was right.

what is more totalizing, saying fashion and style have some internal clock that regulates them and ensures a steady drip of change or that there are periods of slowness and fastness with style and fashion? why is that so controversial? (and yeah, i'm not leaving black people out here! should i???)

dickie ashcroft is not really comparable to a woman (like Rachel) as he's (not really) dressed in a very plain way. i think for me it does look outdated cuz it reminds me VERY much of the 90s (blokey oasis rip off fashion - tosser did really nick that style from the gallaghers)

i'm busy reading anna wintours bio. wot an ice queen.

Haha I did! But then I was somewhat out of step with the times 10 years ago I guess, it wasn't the norm. While BritPop was happening I was mostly pissed off about shoegaze bands turning shite (some might say they always were, but I loved Ride pre-Carnival Of Light).

!!!

stick to yer guns, DG, yer correct!!

1996
Going out: Guilt, repression, class consciousness, elitism, traditional society, duty, restraint, decorum, bottling things up, deferred gratification, introversion.
Still coming in: Emotion, instinct, self-expression, atomization, immediate gratification, focus groups, marketing, psychoanalysis, the self, the now, extraversion.

2006
Going out: Emotion, instinct, self-expression, atomization, immediate gratification, focus groups, marketing, psychoanalysis, the self, the now, extraversion.
Coming back in: Guilt, repression, class consciousness, elitism, traditional society, duty, restraint, decorum, bottling things up, deferred gratification, introversion.

Now, that's a polemical stance, and somewhat exaggerated. But if there's something in it, it's a vast change.

I think you're onto something..

That is slightly a completely true statement though so what point are you making besides being hyper-sensitive about hip-hop fashion???

http://www.needhamcongregational.org/graphics/sermon_art/03_dec/bigpic93.jpg

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000002BNB.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

‘the single most homogeneous group in history; result of improved technology and expansion of global marketers; purchase common products; share common experiences; listen to same music. Truly a global generation.'

YAMS (young adult males) an increasingly diverse and segmented group; more difficult to appeal to 'en masse'

they broke down the "YAMS" segments for Marlboro this way:

Macho Hedonists - 21.3%
'50s Throwbacks - 25.5%
Enlightened Go-Getters - 29.8%
New Age men - 23.4%

You must have missed this
http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c133/XCuPiDx143/BAPES.jpg

http://www.menshealth.com.ph/images/cover.jpg

http://www.busybusybusy.com/images/davidbrooks62d.jpg

don't they're talking ducktails

ditto for indie rock: someone dig up that fucking paw paw bears indie girls photo killy posted to the noise board the other day. sorry, but indie girls in '96 were not dressing like starchild mcmoonflower or cher in her gypsys tramps and thieves days.

I've seen "hip hop dudes" wearing hoodies like that... only they look like STEREOLAB ALBUM ART WTF

<quote>What we're living through is a period of intense conformity. It is the great paradox of the age.

This was pointed out to me once by a man who ran a focus group, and it's the reason I made The Trap.

He said, "Everyone out there" - and we're looking through the mirror - "thinks they are an individual. But actually more and more people are exactly the same. Not only in how they dress, but how they feel about themselves and about each other." They talk in the same language.

And I researched it, and it's true - he's completely right. We live in an age where we think we're completely individualistic, but actually, we're more conformist than we have been since the 1960s.</quote>

Adam Curtis speaking to The Register, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/20/adam_curtis_interview/page3.html

bah

Tracer, are you sure that's not just a function of age? I.e., you grew up on the culture of the 80s as bedrock, and thus felt all changes through into the later 90s as capital Changes; everything since seems like a minor revision, such that the world of your teens and early 20s seems still extant. But -- possibly -- if you were born in the mid-to-late 80s, the 90s would feel like bedrock, the 00s would present all manner of exciting changes (stripes! leggings! dancepunk!), and then the 10s would start to seem like nothing much was changing anymore.

at 22 I'm probably a bit younger than most of you, and maybe because of that I do see 97-07 as a time of big change (Verveman fits with now, though, but as someone aiming for that largely immutable archetype of the rock star [although still being left with a few remnants of his era], is that so relevant?), but at the same time the gulf between EVERYTHING and the late '80s - early '90s is crazy. Maybe it's that it's the only period that isn't embraced in the pluralistic, slow-moving fashion of today? And maybe that's changing, with high-waisted trousers and all. But really, Joey, you're wearing a leather waistcoat! What are you thinking!

that curtis seems a massively smug wanker

blrkugh what I wore in highschool in 1998: baggy cargo pants, loose sweater, floppy hair parted in the middle.

I for one can't be more thankful that they make clothing fitted now, even if it's hard to find the good stuff. I remember in the mid 90s we all made fun the pictures in the textbooks from the 80s where everyone was wearing super-skinny clothing. Oh how values change.

i just found this old post of mine, from five years ago. things haven't changed that much. i.e. people wearing these things would not be seen as strange.

slavish imitation of past summer fashions in a desperate grasp for ritual and meaningfulness (aka wearing old clothes because everyone is too broke):

yes geoff, mesh AGAIN
blinding white "peasant shirts" AGAIN
magenta AGAIN
white studded belts AGAIN (of course this never quite goes out of style, especially w/turquoise t-shirt, everyone should wear this look whenever tempted to go "mesh")
super-frilly "Easter baby" shirts AGAIN

even more fucked-up blue jeans that look as if the wearer has had ammonia spilled down the inside of his or her crotch area

not nearly enough baggy and shapeless tops that almost fall off the shoulders, i love this look

not enough "friendship pins"

and nothing can stop the indomitable stomp of the mecha-female robot office warriors and their 3-inch block-heel square-toed black boots, watch out because they are clomping for YOU

i fear even more pubic cleavage, and not nearly enough full-on crotch showcasing (yeah i guess the ammonia jeans count but i hate them!)

-- Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 19 May 2003 20:32 (4 years ago) Bookmark Link