Give me one (1) good reason "thoughtful" hedonism/egoism

>>9056979
first, tell me what the fuck is that person wearing, then we'll talk.

>>9056991
Rick Owens, baby

>>9056979
>rick owen '''''''''''''fashion'''''''''''''
/fa/ has become a joke, i can't believe people actually dress like this.

>>9056994
It's an image from a designer photoshoot, and that's a model. Next to no one wear those clothes off the runway

>>9056999
i should fucking hope not.

>>9056999
then why make them?

>>9057003
>>9057001
As a kind of art exhibition and to draw attention to the clothes he sells that are better suited for day-to-day wear

I really didn't think that image was going to distract from the question this much

>>9057004
all he's done successfully is make a twat out of a model. besides, rick owens is all overpriced leather garbage, all the same stuff.

>>9057018
I'm just explaining why that occurs in the world of designer clothing, I'm not even defending Rick

It was just an image I had saved that I randomly chose

>>9057004
it's so stupid though. what is the place for fashion in your philosophy?

fashion = fascism

>>9057025
>>9057022

>>9057022
well now you know what happens when you choose an image more interesting than the thread topic

>>9057004
>here's some clothes i made that you'll never wear, look at them before you buy my jeans, plz

>>9057032
I know that rule well, I just didn't think that image fit the bill

>>9057033
And painters make works that you will never buy or most likely see in real life but you can still enjoy them if you like what they've made

>>9057046
just post a pair of anime titties next time desu

>>9057050
Alright, will do

>>9056979
Because it's still derived from the myth of self-interest.

>>9057091
What aspect of self-interest is a myth?

>people getting buttflustered over one of his most tame designs

jfc you are some sheltered fucks. I bet you go to the museum to see a picasso and think "durr this isnt art, stoopid millennials" because you're so ignorant you dont know abstract art has been around for 100 years

>>9057096
Trying to define either "self" or "interest" makes both concepts fall apart.

>logic
>good
>real
top kek

>>9057105
>some rags on some whore
>muh art

puh-leez

>>9057121
I really really hate that approach to philosophy.
>hurr i can abstract every concept into oblivion, that means emotion and base experience should be done away with and not taken into account

I can feel good. I can feel pleasure. As abstract and meaningless as you can make it seem, I feel that.

>Philosophy is just ethics

What dumbass "philosophy" school did you attend?

>>9057178
welcome to the bleak land of postmodern thought, pleb. now try chewing on new sincerity.

>>9057193
Good point, but I think it was implied that I am referring to the area of philosophy that deals with ethics, behavior, societal roles, how to view situations, etc

>>9057178
If you're not going to abide by the rules of language, why should anybody take anything you say seriously?

>>9057195
NS is for fucks, nothing's wrong with doing sincerity like they used to

>>9057199
Because the dilemma is that this is not an issue that concerns linguistics, yet I can only communicate it to you through language. You are fixated on the tool and not the intent. That isn't a bad thing to do in itself, but when it distracts from the question at hand instead of clarifying it, you have gone too far.

>>9057199
Why shouldn't they?

>>9057208
No, the issue is that you do not communicate any intent because you elect to use terms that have no meaning.

>>9057202
>t. i don't understand new sincerity

it's not as simple as being genuine, it's being genuine in spite of the knowledge of it all being meaningless. all the sarcasm is just a byproduct of this, hidden in the sarcasm lies the heart, using it as a method of communication in the bleak world itself. cmon. even babbies know this.

>>9057218
>have no meaning
Fuck off anal autistic

>>9057218
t.never felt happiness

>>9057218
And yet I never used the terms "self" or "interest."

You extracted those words from what I said because you understand that they are related concepts. That proves that you understood me and that you are needlessly abstracting things

Fucking post-modernists, I swear to god.

File: BOYI'LL.png (317KB, 408x408px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 408x408px

>>9057234
>mfw he's right

>>9057234
try new sincerity, friend.
(note the "friend" at the end, the sarcasm that is actually genuine)

>>9057252
Please do tell me how I could have correctly asked the question I posed in the OP

>>9057252
>insincerely telling someone to try new sincerity
You are a blight on your species.

>>9057260
>implying that it was insincere
i genuinely want you to try new sincerity. the point is that you have to mask the communication with a seeming sarcastic smirk. the problem is that unless you're thinking in new sincerity, you get things muddled up. so when i say friend, you think it sarcastic, and it sounds sarcastic, but in fact, i am being genuine, it wouldn't make you even consider what i say, wouldn't even bring it to your attention without that little keycard.

the point is that you can't get the post-modern cat back into the bag. it's out there, and it's hissing and foaming, and needs hugs, sincere, happy hugs. but you need to get scratched a little first, and might need to grab the cat with a little force.

>>9057277
I refuse to do ANYTHING that contributes to the tumorous cancer that is modern-day irony and insincerity. I am not afraid to let my ideas be attacked directly instead of obeying some ridiculous dogma and hiding behind an impenetrable wall of irony, obscurity, and blame-shifting like a fucking coward.

>>9057290
why are you so worked up? i'm not that other guy. please calm down. it's not a wall of protection, it's a key to get through OTHER people's walls built up in response to the horror of post-modernity and the fearful state that abstraction brings upon us. it's not about protecting the self, it's about communicating with others in a way that they won't scoff at or ignore, because they have no choice to do otherwise without feeling like hypocrites.

>>9057290
You sound like a bitter nerd.

>>9057234
Why are you saying this now though? Do I need rephase my response even though it was accepted that the OP was about self-interest for the past few posts?

>>9056979
>recognizing that helping others can indirectly help you, knowing some self-control will lead to greater overall pleasure
This just assumes that "pleasure" is some kind of ultimate goal.

>>9057297
>why are you so worked up?
Because I am really frustrated by the effect post-modern academia has had on the philosophical thought process. Philosophical post-modernism leaked out of the realm of linguistics and tainted the water of every philosophical area of focus. It renders every question and thought "wrong" and drags the big ugly heaving subject of irony into every conversation, conversations that should have NOTHING to do with irony.

Am I overreacting? Of course. I haven't yet figured out any way to solve the issue and it's not a good feeling.

>>9057303
>This just assumes that "pleasure" is some kind of ultimate goal.
That's the fucking point, that's the philosophy in question. My goodness gracious, it's almost like you're compensating for the fact that you have no argument against hedonism

>>9057320
Hedonism is dead tho. Killed by the Experience Machine thought experiment.

>>9057317
i just told you, you can't get the cat back into the bag. to fight against that is to fight against the current of the culture you exist in. i mean, think about why DFW killed himself, for instance! it's frustrating to me as well, but what choice do you have? to pretend that it doesn't exist will only serve you with alienation. i'm in the same boat, but i think sincerity is key, but how to reach sincerity beyond this knowledge and doubt inherent in abstraction? by turning it against itself, warping it around and giving the irony and sarcasm and hypocrisy and impregnating it with a thick and creamy load of meaning and fulfillment. look even at comedy, stand up comedy, (the smart kind), where analysis of an instance that we all have thought, moments we all share, but didn't think to express it, or weren't brave enough to face it without acknowledging the irony of it all first, and in the end, sharing with people like yourself the idea that we're not different. communication, if you will, meaningful communication. but we must go through the motions before this is accomplished, unfortunately. i think there's a light at the end of the tunnel, no matter how ridiculous that sounds.

>>9057317
in the end, the real frustration here is the inability to communicate with someone without resorting to psychological warfare at every turn.

>>9057331
The Experience Machine is completely ridiculous and in no way kills hedonism. It may be one of the worst thought experiments I've ever read.

Nozick didn't actually provide a single good reason not to plug into the machine.

>We want to do certain things, and not just have the experience of doing them. "It is only because we first want to do the actions that we want the experiences of doing them."
Horseshit, doing something is ONLY experiencing it. To believe otherwise is essentially an arbitrary appeal to nature.

>We want to be a certain sort of person. "Someone floating in a tank is an indeterminate blob."
You would not know that while plugged in. You would feel completely like whatever kind of person you'd want to be, providing that person is what is most pleasurable to you.

>Plugging into an experience machine limits us to a man-made reality (it limits us to what we can make). "There is no actual contact with any deeper reality, though the experience of it can be simulated."
You would not know that while plugged in. If the experience the machine was giving you did not feel genuine and thus subtracted from the pleasure, it wouldn't be the same machine proposed in the experiment.

It's all essentially an appeal to nature

>>9057397
i don't know what the experience machine is, but i like the utility monster. kind of a practice in empathy.

>>9057401
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine

Robert Nozick has a machine for you that will give you any pleasurable experience you want if you plug yourself into it. Sounds great right? I know I'd be perfectly fine with plugging in and staying there forever.

WRONG! Nozick knows what you REALLY want. Allow him to explain to you why you're actually wrong and don't know what you want. Nozick graciously tells you what to want.

>>9057397
Experience machines already exist: the heavens of various religions.

>>9057424
And everyone still wants to go there

Because religions have an unspoken hedonist agreement

>>9057413
psh. this is literally part of the movie The Matrix. humans built a real life simulator and created machines to tend to them while they're plugged in, hence why seemingly brilliant AI can't just reach escape velocity with enough energy from the human batteries and just float around in space and gather energy from suns.

anyway, this is a pretty dumb argument, people have already chosen this, by watching tv, eating food until they're massive blobs, etc.
besides, isn't pleasure a fulfillment of a desire? wouldn't this fulfillment include the sensation of being accomplished in actions? yeesh, this is probably the least convincing thought experiment i've seen.

some self-control won't cut it

>>9057457
easy out
i leave emcees with doubt
my name is booty brown and i'm proceedin

>>9057424
>>9057434
No, the Christian heaven is not an 'experience machine'. The Christian heaven is God's Kingdom, and it is painful and extremely uncomfortable to those used to sin.

>>9057033
>>here's some clothes i made that you'll never wear, look at them before you buy my jeans, plz
>heres a few supermodels that will definitely be your wife, and here are explosions behind you that will definitely happen, if you buy this car

>>9057004
>I really didn't think that image was going to distract from the question this much
Its a good answer to your op.

Retarded fashion is a good argument against hedonism/egoism

>>9057218
>No, the issue is that you do not communicate any intent because you elect to use terms that have no meaning.

How do you know that the terms do not have meaning? How do you know that you are not just ignorant? That you think you have found a profound trick, that you have pulled back the veil, standing outside the cave, speaking to an anon in it, when really the veil you pulled, was one layer of onion, and it is you who should be crying, and it is you who shall consider your self cut

>>9057317
>Philosophical post-modernism leaked out of the realm of linguistics and tainted the water of every philosophical area of focus

How... How are there not people that say "That doesnt make sense, that is incorrect, that is meaningless, pointless, incoherent, unproductive, there is no reason to do that, this is not a constructive contribution to this field of intellectual and physical realization"

Are you talking about the /pol/ cultural marxist pc prof from a different angle, same thing? You think liberal arts professors are idiots? Something is lacking? they are teaching wrong info? The curriculums are wrong?

But what does what mean?

>>9058032
it was a moment of frustration, don't worry about it, he's figured it out now.

>>9056979

>"thoughtful" hedonism/egoism

this just strikes me as a nice way of saying "I don't give a shit about anyone but myself but also I am too afraid to actually live that way"

File: 1482459901319.jpg (546KB, 974x1024px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 974x1024px

>>9057234
>>9057218
My nigga you just got blown the fuck out

Does anyone else have a problem with high fashion as a means of self-expression?

It's so outrageously expensive and inaccessible that any artistic vision becomes overshadowed by how out of place you are.

>>9058200
high fashion is made by fashion designers to be enjoyed by fashion designers. It's just a circle jerk thing, like a video game general on /vg/

>>9056979
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAfAH1OvdoE

>>9056994
fashion is art on the body. A large subset of fashion isn't actually designed to be worn day to day, or even at all.

t. I studied fashion and design

>>9058509
>implying that a fucking shirt could ever be anything more than a shirt

>>9058517
http://www.irisvanherpen.com/
http://www.alexandermcqueen.com/
don't fucking embarrass yourself.

File: heh.jpg (27KB, 363x310px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 363x310px

>>9058522
this is literally the dumbest shit i've ever seen. you should be ashamed that you think this is remotely redeemable in any sense. i genuinely feel sorry for you.

File: hehahahahehaheahahahaa.jpg (871KB, 920x1381px) Image search: [Google]

871KB, 920x1381px

http://www.alexandermcqueen.com/Item/index?cod10=39720043PV&siteCode=ALEXANDERMCQUEEN_US
1200 bucks for a wal-mart sweater

also, this fucking picture. you think this retarded shit is art? bitch looks like she rolled through a barbershop with glue on herself.

>>9058548
spoken like a true /lit/izen. suck salt.

>>9058564
>being this butthurt over fucking clothing
look, i know this is probably your life passion or something, but c'mon. some fuzzy vulture on stilts is just silly as fuck and you know it. if you experience intensely poignant moments from gazing at stuff like this, you need to check yourself. I went to the modern art museum the other day, and an artist was displaying his gallery, he was with a crowd of people, speaking about one of his pieces, it was a macbook cut into fourths and pasted together again at random, he expressed how this was his brain, and that it was symbolic of his mind during the art process. i laughed. very loudly. people looked at me angrily, a fat man in a stupid jacket i've had for years, i could see it in their eyes, "how could this idiot loser laugh at this?!" they said. People like this really think they're superior, and it's the funniest fucking thing in the world. that 1200 dollar wal-mart sweater is the exemplification of this. it's your chopped up macbook.

>>9058583
You do realize you're basically admitting to being a fucking retard, right? Even toddlers can appreciate aesthetics, and being too stupid to recognize talent, even if it isn't something you really care about or like isn't a virtue. Get your shit together.

File: IrisVHerpen010713-0478-LRG.jpg (395KB, 920x1379px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 920x1379px

>>9058597
>you realize that you're a retard because you don't think utter bullshit is genius like i do, obviously i'm superior to you in every way!

okay buddy, i'm sorry your plastic vulture isn't compelling in any way.

>>9058608
Iris van Herpen is one of the most celebrated avant garde fashion designers in history. You don't have to like it, but don't pretend you're anything else other than a pretentious fuckwit who thinks calling something bullshit is the same as having a valid opinion.

>>9058620
>t. i paid a lot of money to learn about how the emperor's clothes are really amazing

yes yes, now go buy a 4,000 dollar pom pom dress.

>>9056979
Logical in terms of what

>>9058620
Explain what's interesting about that Iris van Herpen fit.

Genuinely curious.

>>9056979
Because other people will not cooperate with you until you cooperate with them.

/thread

>>9056979
>helping others can indirectly help you, knowing some self-control will lead to greater overall pleasure
Because it's not true, even where there's a correlation it's not a reliable causation.
>you're going to have to convince me of the merits of morality first
if you're not willing to accept the idea of morality existing as something that can authoritatively instruct your actions without requiring any exterior justification, you may as well just go and be a edgy faggot nihilist like you very clearly want to

>>9057413
Studies on the experience machine have pretty consistently found that some people would do it and some wouldn't, which indicates that overwhelming experiential bliss is sufficient incentive for some people while others have other overriding concerns and/or place less value in what the experience machine offers.

File: tumblr_m9lw9xhigP1qm86p7o1_1280.jpg (299KB, 932x1400px) Image search: [Google]

299KB, 932x1400px

>>9058649
Iris van Herpen is, like I said before, an avant garde designer. She uses a lot of new materials for her works, and has a lot of bio-futuristic vibe to her stuff. She kind of like the HR Geiger of fashion. Famously, her snake dress. Her sets are pretty fucking amazing too.
Check out this one, from 2014. She vacuum sealed models for aesthetic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e99eAilOb6Q

File: IVH-Cathedral-dress.jpg (266KB, 595x894px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 595x894px

>>9058649
>>9058746
That wasn't very good.

What I meant by new materials is that she's very experimental with the materials she uses, often being the first to use newly developed materials, or also just materials you wouldn't think to use, like wood. I think she was also one of the first designers to implement 3D printing technology, when it first came out.

As far as comparing her to HR Geiger, the more I'm reacquainting myself with her stuff, the more it fits. It is very bio-futuristic, and detailed, and impressive to look at, but also vaguely unsettling. Angry space chic, that kind of thing.

This is her "micro-cathedral" wooden dress.

>>9058779
but she's wearing a block of wood.

As someone who browses both /lit/ and /fa/ this thread is embarassing.
OP is completely failing at philosophy and /lit/ is completely failing at fashion. And both parts remain oblivious of their ignorance.

>>9058836
and a book is just wood pulp
I don't know what you're trying to say

>>9058840
>failing at fashion

>>9058509
where'd you study?

>>9058848
yah but the wood pulp has squiggles on it that tell me about dragons and theological moral systems and russian aristocracy. what does that block of wood do?

>>9058850
In münich. At a 200 year old masters school.

>>9058849
Don't ever reply to me again.

File: awkfused.gif (1MB, 245x155px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 245x155px

>>9058854
Are you... are you not seeing the intricate designs? The delicate work? The deconstruction of gothic architecture applied to the form?
I'm legitimately confused. Are you trying to imply that it isn't impressive?

>>9058866
yep. i see no purpose to this wooden toothpick strapped to this meat toothpick. no aesthetic merit whatsoever.

not seeing how this can even compare to squiggles, either.

>>9058862
make me

>>9058874
>yep. i see no purpose to this wooden toothpick strapped to this meat toothpick. no aesthetic merit whatsoever.
then I can't help you

>>9058876
didn't ask for your help.

a shirt is still just a fucking shirt after all.

>>9058200
I'm beginning to consider how immoral it is to advertise the pure and genuine self expression of designers to the super rich, as well as the romanticisation of modelling, branding and disingenuous manufacture. You either have the taste and appreciation of design and aesthetic for the body that you can't/you refuse to buy into high-fashion, or you choose to express yourself through low-fashion imitations of the original designs.

Also interesting to consider, a very small percentage of fashion students have any genuine appreciation for reference to conceptual or contemporary ideas of any kind, there is merely a shallow attempt at recreation. Am yet to meet somebody that studies fashion and talks or creates a fashion piece of any value or substance. They're all quite hollow.

t. go to Central Saint Martins, arguably 'best' fashion school in the world.

>>9058874
>yep. i see no purpose to this wooden toothpick strapped to this meat toothpick. no aesthetic merit whatsoever.
You're unable to read architecture and fashion. That dress is to you as a book is to an illiterate.

>>9058881
>a shirt is still just a fucking shirt after all.
stubbornly ignoring evidence is not the same as not being presented with evidence.
fuck off.

>>9058886
are you the guy who was complaining about post-modern thought earlier?

>>9058892
sadly not, just joined the thread

>>9058887
>read fashion

actually i love buildings. huge fan of mosques.
no, i just don't see anything in "fashion". it's a joke. same thing has happened with other art forms, it's a fucking joke.

>>9056979
>spends years on /fa/
>can think of possibly 2 threads that were comparatively as interesting as this one, and it's based off of a casual inclusion of a rick owens fit

/fa/ hands down worst board on here.

>>9058899
you're an embarrassment. listening to you makes my teeth hurt.

>>9058893
shame. ah well.
maybe i'm just a moron who can't "see" the inner beauty of fashion, still convinced that it's trash and any "talents" would be better suited elsewhere. maybe it's my natural abhorrence of vanity inherent in fashion, it's not a "piece", it's a fucking shirt, you're wearing a god damn shirt, you want to make something out of wood? put it on a pedestal, don't staple it to someone who hasn't so much as rubbed a cheese doodle against her tongue in 6 years.

>>9058907
i hope you get that problem looked at. it must be difficult to survive. with such a weakness.

>>9058907
seriously though, you're just like chopped macbook guy, it doesn't matter if it's a can of dogshit if you act entitled enough about it, transform it into a work of art by assigning it some sort of prestige around the basis of a story about the chicago fire and how that affected the ancestors of the people who spun the thread that holds the ornate neckbrace made of goat dung.

>>9058911
i'm inclined to agree, partially, i do appreciate the beauty but i also think any sort of investment in something that luxurious is selfish, and an industry based on vanity under the guise of self-expression is ridiculous.

I came to university with an interest in fashion as an artform, but after interacting with possible 'future' fashion designers, I've lost faith.

Also, some models I know are just genetically bound to looking that skinny way, I am to an extent, but you do raise a valid point on the shallow nature of the modelling industry, which would struggle without the fashion industry, and vice versa.

>>9058924
A lot of modern art (and fashion) is inaccessible to those of us who aren't familiar with it through involvement because it's in a dialogue with itself. If you join a conversation and only hear the word "urinal" then you're not going to always understand what the conversation was about. If you see Duchamp's Fountain without knowing the context then of course it's going to look stupid. Do you see how that might translate to fashion too? Paradise Lost would seem very odd if you didn't know the context of The Bible.

>>9058928
i mean, sure, i can look at that wood piece and see where you see beauty, but i can't help but notice the waist behind it, the weird brown shorts she's wearing, hell, a "micro-cathedral" sounds cool as hell as a concept, why can't the designer just build that? i'll be kind and concede that yes, there is creativity that can be afforded to any format of materials or even sounds (i refuse to believe some of that /mu/ core shit is even real ) and that of course there is beauty that can be used, but i guess i worry that beauty is being outsourced here, and there's far too much shit that's being "called" beauty, and i'm expected to just grin and nod like an idiot when i really don't think it's worth a damn. i understand where you're coming from, and i acknowledge that i've been a bit of an ass, but i do hold firm that that bird thing on her with the little skulls is fucking stupid, and i can't help but feel revolted. obviously an easy doorway into criticism of the fashion industry is that it's just that, an industry, something that mills out "piece" after "piece" at the expense of the people who succumb to anorexia and make my mother envy them to the point that she vomits every fucking day. yeah, that's an easy criticism, but it's probably just the postmodern artistic style that has taken footing wherever you can imagine, down to a fucking thing that is typically intended to keep your dick from swaying in the breeze.

>>9056979
>thoughtful" hedonism/egoism

Not everyone identifies with this line of thinking. What do you do with psychos?

>>9058955
actually i didn't know much about the bible when i read paradise lost, and i enjoyed it quite a bit on its own merit as a work.

isn't it a bit annoying that you could see the urinal, hell, even use it, completely oblivious to the fact that it's "art" because some guy has a story to tell about it? i mean, shouldn't art have some intrinsic property? like, i dunno, beauty? is a urinal beautiful? going back to the macbook, is that somehow art because it's chopped up in a coarse way and reassembled with some superglue, all because some guy with a douchey moustache says so in front of a crowd of douchey moustaches?

>>9057256
Should I kill myself?

File: art i tellsya.jpg (64KB, 704x704px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 704x704px

>>9058980
no.

here's that "piece" btw.

>>9057285
this is cool.
i like you.
stay around a bit, please.

>>9058986
oh, i will. i will.

>>9058970
>i mean, shouldn't art have some intrinsic property? like, i dunno, beauty?
I think you're misunderstanding art on a basic level. Art is a commentary to the viewer. Beauty isn't a requirement. Beauty is more of a byproduct. I think a lot of people have this misconception, and that's why a lot of people don't like modern art. But art has always been a product of the context of it's time. A lot of art, like klimt, schiele, van gogh, the blue riders, picasso- all of these things don't seem like anything amazing and experimental now, but at the time of their conception, these were the forefront of artistic innovation, often met with scorn and derision.

art is about expression. not beauty.

>>9058970
You don't need to know about it in great detail but if you had been unfamiliar with Christianity entirely, Paradise Lost would have been gibberish. More so if you didn't speak English.

I think you're getting weighed down with what art "should" or "shouldn't" do. It seems like contemporary art is more focused on being thought provoking and building on or responding to the ideas of other similar art as well as society or whatever. Sometimes that's beautiful to you, sometimes it isn't. There's not much point trying to argue about it, or getting upset. People are still making beautiful things; they're just not being put on display at Tate Modern.

>>9058102
kek

>>9058998
art isn't about expression or beauty, unless you stretch the meaning of both to mean 'the artist is expressing his understanding of how to paint still lives' or 'the artwork shows the beauty of ugliness'

>>9058962
oh yes i totally agree with you, there's definitely some shit that I think is horrific, but just because it's attached to the idea of 'avant garde' fashion i'm -supposed- to appreciate entirely, fuck that.

no worries, i know this might be a stretch, but if the bird piece makes you feel revolted, could you consider that a reaction like that is intended? Is it that the piece sticks out in your mind, a product of it's process? If not, that's cool, just a thought.

I'd much rather the 'industry' took a step towards artisanal and sustainable appreciation of materials and form, I appreciate the works of a brand called Too-Good, much more than the works of say, IVH or Rick Owens.

And I'm feeling for you man, and your mother, it's horrid that it has this effect on people.

I'd be much happier if the whole concept of fashion evaporated indefinitely. Sometimes I think we should all wear unbranded boiler suits constructed by your local government, because in the end what's the difference, you got to cover your body in most climates anyway.

>>9059010
Neither of those things make any sense.

But yes, art is about expression. I firmly believe that art is an attempt by the artist to express an idea. it doesn't matter what that expression is supposed to be, whether an emotion, a political ideal or a recreation of a memory, but without the expression, it can't be art.

>>9058583
you are my hero, anon.
keep on the good work.

>>9058998
well, i guess i'm one of the derisive scorners. i'll accept that place in history, at least i have one in that context. in the end i'll call my criticism artistic.
>>9059002
i concede the point that context is important, but we're talking about things that aren't even necessarily changed in any way, and are thus proclaimed art, if only for the post-it note on the side. these things could be confused for utilitarian things, and yet they're called art with a dab of paint or two? let's just say this, there are those who are fraudulent in their expression. how about that? that there are those who have taken the aspect of being a salesman and turned it to junk they found on the street, spraypainted it, called it art, and sold it for 4,000 dollars a pop because someone took the bait. if you'll at least concede that there are people who are willing to take advantage of the good nature of, shall we say, artistic people, i'll be satisfied at the very least.

>>9058998
>art is about expression. not beauty.

Not sure anybody is qualified to construct a comment like this, but I do agree with you

>>9059030
>Neither of those things make any sense.

that's my point. but you are arguing along the same lines as 'the artist is expressing his understanding of how to paint still lives'

it's such a non-argument. you may as well say art is about existing.

File: 1_160524170436_1.jpg (272KB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1000x563px

>>9058840
>>9058849
>>9058862
kek

on a side note, I really like how fashion designers are themselves plainly dressed, most of the time.
almost as a writer would dress,

>>9059058
that's a photographer

>>9059025
i think we have at least come to a happy medium, and i understand what you mean about creating something that is meant to elicit a reaction of some sort. I suppose that is one of the main purposes of literature. I guess I shared a bit too much about my mother, and it's not fair to put the blame on the fashion industry as a whole for my mom's insanity. so that's what it is.

I remember in school when the teacher would say "Well if we were all the same, the world wouldn't be any fun, now would it?" and I always felt the smart ass rise up in me and think "well, then there wouldn't be any fucking war, now would there? what if everyone was exactly the fucking same and didn't have any time for expression since everyone else already knew what everyone else was thinking.. etc" i just railed against the idea that individualism is worthy of praise just for the sake of individualism, as though that makes up for all the trash. I had an edgy motto for a while, where i would ask, "is any piece of art, any creation of man worth the rape and torture of a child?" I know it's a stupid and unfair question, but i still think the answer is no, whether or not i have the bravery or ability to stop or change the trade of this very thing in our every day lives is a different story i suppose.

In the end, I do think new sincerity is really key. the idea that we need to face these abstractions and use them to our advantage to communicate genuine thoughts and ideas to each other, rile each other up and get to the meat and bones. Isn't communication the fucking point, of art, of all the shit that we do that isn't shitting and eating and sleeping?

>>9059037
There absolutely are cynical scam artists like you describe but don't you see? It's irrelevant because by doing that it becomes a comment on how shallow/commercial the art world is or something and actually becomes art through that. Arguably that is at least partly what Duchamp was doing/saying with the urinal.

It's like The Stranger or The Trial. They're not exactly exciting stories but they're communicating more ineffable.

I'm not trying to persuade you to appreciate contemporary art, personally I enjoy it simply because I enjoy the feeling of bewilderment at how fucking strange it all is. Just... they are doing something, it's not totally inane even if you or I don't really get it. Let them get on with it, there's no point trying to force your preconceptions of art on them.

>>9059078
oh it's extremely entertaining, to say i don't get a kick out of worm girl up there would be a lie. but i guess i just like expressing myself in a critical way, more to get a laugh than anything else. made for a nice conversation so far.

>>9059078
also, i find it funny that i'm damned if i do, damned if i don't. the word art is so fucking vague that i can't escape it, if it's trash, it's a symbolic example of trash, if it's amazing, it still has the same label of "art" on it as the trash does. seems like a damned worthless term, something that has been abstracted to smithereens. I mean, I get it, it's all very clever, but god damn it.

>>9059114
Yep. Post-modernism, mate.

>>9059070
Of course, don't worry about it, I'd probably attempt to do the same if I was in your situation.

That's quite interesting, and i know that the objectivism meme is frowned upon here, but I do think sometimes that art and creation is above morality, but sometimes i think that i'm thinking like a cunt. Also, a question like that is quite hard to manoeuvre around, but I do think you've got a point.

I wholeheartedly agree, for instance, there's a debate among some writers at the moment about the stigmatisation of certain fashion houses that are not producing collections that are in some form a criticism or comment on Trump's recent executive actions. I think that an attempt of a comment would be reasonably frivolous, and almost too easy. But maybe we shouldn't bring politics into this. I sometimes think it wouldn't do fashion any favours to descend from the platform it's created to comment on politicians.

>>9056979
>hedonism/egoism (recognizing that helping others can indirectly help you, knowing some self-control will lead to greater overall pleasure)
Or in other words "Hedonism is perfectly logical because I am moral and because I see value in virtue ethics"

You have no original thought and you should kys.

>>9059118
i'll kill the dragon with my sword of infinite jest.
>>9059124
well, can art and creation be above morality? that gives an interesting aspect to god, if creation is above morality, that takes care of the whole "you bastard, you put me here and expect to punish me for it the whole damn time?" thing. neatly sewn up. i don't think i agree though. i would say based on a little work, that art is expression, and expression is inherently selfish, can a selfish act of creating art be above morality? was jeffrey dahmer above morality when he did artsy fartsy stuff with the bodies? was it worth the trade?

politics is a whole new can of worms, but i always just assuage my disagreements with the knowledge that the average joe, you or i, (social leaders with ulterior motives be damned, regardless of political position) generally just want people to be happy, for the whole place to be well maintained and for our loved ones to be safe. when i look at it that way, the real problem becomes figuring out a system to make that happen, and it lessens the idea of a battle between people who genuinely want what's best for people and themselves. in the heat of the moment, that shit is impossible though, those bastards have to learn and learn good and shut up.

>>9059066
that's an actor, actually

>>9058622
>yes yes, now go buy a 4,000 dollar pom pom dress.
You mean, you go buy 4,000 dollar dress from him, for your wif...oh...

>>9058881
Fashion is about artful expression, aesthetics are important in the world, there is design, function. Consider the peacock. Consider the Leopard. Consider playing god and designing a body, or the 'skin' or 'cape' that adorns and celebrates it. Or says something about the human condition and/or the world. A picture of a model wearing high fashion says more than a 1000 words, and there are many pieces of clothing objectively more valuable and worthy of love than many many books.

>>9057303
>This just assumes that "pleasure" is some kind of ultimate goal.

What else is there?

>>9058928
>I came to university with an interest in fashion as an artform, but after interacting with possible 'future' fashion designers, I've lost faith.
Similar thing happened to me, my whole life I wanted to be a great music composer, compose symphonies that will be celebrated for 100s of years, I would dream everyday and night since I was a child, it is all I want, I will do anything, but then I got to conservatory and the other 90 or so freshman students were so bad, that it made me not want to do music anymore, why does beethoven and mozart and bach matter or mean, if these 90 freshmen poopyheads exist. They were Definitely not better than me, that was not the reason I am reconsidering my passionate dream, if thats what you were thinking... they were just so below me, it hurt

>>9059701
but in the end, it's just a mean to an end :
sexual reproduction

>>9059727
They say never study what you love.

>>9059727
In what way where they bad?

>>9059727
booooohhooooooo, it's soooo saaaaaad
just play in a punk band ffs

>>9058984
It really represents how the art student can afford to destroy their expensive computer, but also symbolic of the art student sacrificing themselves, and the machine, and their money, for their art, and how the tools are intrinsically attached to the final product work, this piece skips the middle man

>>9059748
money laundering is best art

>>9059733
that doesn't devalue it though.
this is what irritates me. Nothing at all has any inherent value. It's value is determined by how we consume it. So "it's just pretty" or "it doesn't do anything" really gets my goat. Pleasure is a very profitable commodity.

>>9059733
>but in the end, it's just a mean to an end :
>sexual reproduction
Thats the materialist pessimistic low dimensional satanic animal beast perspective: spiritually, eternally, the concept of shape, form color, beauty, transcendence, exists, and some fashion designers tap into that, showcase and express that.

>>9059744
>>9059743
>>9059734

I was attempting to sarcastically snidely sneeringly deride the anon I was replying to

>>9056979
Rational anarchism, where you realize that power structures aren't real and that everything they do is ultimately the result of individual choices, but also realizing not everyone feels like you do thus leading to a life lived around the behavior of others without blame or worry, is the ultimate philosophy.

>>9059759
1/ Read the Dao De Jing
2/ Compare all available translations
3/ ????
4/ Profit

>>9059755
>money laundering is best art
How does that work, is it only to escape taxes? Or get illegal money into the light?

I have a million dollars, I have a nephew who is an 'artist', I show the government I am giving him a million dollars for his painting (tax deductible for donating to a retard?),

He writes on his income: 1,000,000.

That is taxed. Then he gives me 999,999,900?

The government doesnt say, 'where did you get that original million dollars from'? (because it helped them get it)

File: FUG.jpg (48KB, 495x410px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 495x410px

>>9057290

Based

>>9058955

Good art seldom requires a context. Reducing the value of art to its context is ultimately a relativistic, thought killing view.

>>9059848
striping art of the intention of the creator is big question. Can you do this? Is it morally ok? Does it devalue the art?
Good art is often enhanced through its context.

>>9059733
>but in the end, it's just a mean to an end :
>sexual reproduction
And yet, people hang images of animals in their home, and wear their skin and fur for aesthetic purposes

>>9059864

Good art is often enchanced through its context, but great art is universal and transcend its historical context.

The formalist approach to art is the only correct one. Contemporary interpretations are killing art as they engulf the object in complicated (and fallacious) hermeneutics and render the object itself irrelevant. If everything can be art, and if interpretation is what gives value to it, and if interpretation does not require the object in the first place (as it can be imagined), then the object is without purpose. Contemporary art is purely intellectual. There could be no new art, the museums could be emptied and it would not change a thing as the only thing that matters is the intellectual discourse used to reflect on the ''art''. It's not hard to see how this kills art.

If art is about expression, then why the need for such prolix justifications? It's clear to me this is nothing other than a fear of the ascending and increasingly esoteric natural sciences whose depth is so great that it is escaping the limit of human thought (technology overtaking us). The solution found was to make art (and the humanities) as obscurantist as possible and filled with incomprehensible jargon, in the same way the nature sciences are inaccessible. This can only serve to kill the human sciences and art (although this is an hyperbole).

One simply has to look at how the human sciences are mocked (along with the students) and how even the educated fail to grasp most contemporary art. Something this inaccessible is doomed to failure ; your average person despises contemporary art and yet has no interest in the arts outside of that. Clearly even the uneducated are aware of some deeper mechanism going on...

context and intent are only used to explain failed art, but like explaining a joke, it's probably still not funny.

>>9059949
This is true. The "it can't be quantified, therefore it has no value" is a fallacy that's very much ingrained into our society. The over-analysis of art is a product of this, I think.

It's agony trying to have a discussion with a person who thinks like this, but in the end, I think it can be traced back to what a person can connect with.

It's the same as people who are unironically anti-feminist, or think mental illness is a meme. You have to have a certain ability to apply abstract thought to a more or less abstract concept beyond (or despite) what they personally experience.

Like,
"I work with a woman and she earns more than me" becomes "women already have equal rights and they're just complaining"
and
"I sometimes get distracted and I don't have ADHD" becomes "ADHD isn't real, you just need to focus"
and then finally
"I know this is art, because it's a painting and it looks like art and it's nice to look at" becomes "I don't know what this is, and it's ugly, so it's not art."

In the end, this is something that can't be imparted on a person from an outside source. It has to be an internal realization that your experiences and what you know don't encompass the whole.

This is, I think, the single most thing for a person to try to break through.

>>9060031
being a vocal feminist in america is divisive and disgusting

>>9060053
I mean actual feminists. Not lunatic vocal minorities or SJWs

>>9058779
honestly this is impressive

I think it is the number one path to personal fulfillment. That doesn't mean it is objectively the best, unless you believe that pursuing your self interest is the most logical thing to do.

>>9059949
>Good art is often enchanced through its context, but great art is universal and transcend its historical context.
are you from 1950? art literally IS context, your backwards thinking is like a modern scientist trying to tell people the planets revolve around the earth

>>9057025
>fashion = fascism
I know this is bait, but you should kill yourself anyways.

>>9057135
>whore
stop projecting, anon. it's not nice

>>9060252
It is, isn't it? To be honest, I never liked fashion. But when I left "high school" I didn't know what I wanted to do, so I just googled "design school" and the first result was a fashion school, so I applied. Fashion is amazing. It's a brutal industry with so much variety in what gets produced how and why that you can't hate it if you're even a little bit creative. It really is art on the body.
Especially fashion history. Clothes really are important to humans, and evolve and change and represent our ideals.

>>9060591
Guys, I think she cares about something. You know what to do.

>>9060591
i liek fur bikinis

>>9060726
hold up
>>9060772
you're trolling.
BUT. LISTEN. I'm willing, ask me about fashion, and I'll answer. I know all sorts of cool stuff.

Like the correlation between width/height of a dress and the religious implications of the time. It's unironically really fascinating stuff.

>>9060786
ok, tell me something sexy i don't know
(and i really like fur bikinis)

>>9060816
Okay.
(fur bikini's are fine, don't worry anon)
alright. So I don't know how sexy this is, but in the renaissance as the people became more and more open, the neckline on women's dresses went lower and lower... until people started getting more anal retentive. Then the necklines started getting higher again towards the end of the renaissance.


>>9060823
Well, that's called the male gaze. They wear it because it's sexy. It's a sort of quasi nakedness. Heels (which used to be worn by men as well for the same reasons) lengthen the leg, and accentuate the muscles of the leg, which makes them sexier and curvier.

>>9060848
it's comfy talking with you

>>9060848
do girls dress for themselves, guys, or other girls?
how was it through history?

>>9060861
That makes me happy

>>9060873
Well, it's like this. It's always been sort of 50/50. Dressing well is always for other's to see, but only in a selfish kind of way. The point is to feel good about oneself, which is furthered by compliments from others. But also "look how rich I am"

Earlier only the very rich could afford to change their clothes everyday, and then they'd do it 3-5 times a day (depending on when you're talking about). For a long time, this was a very internal kind of process, the outfits would be 100% fancy. But then they discovered that only what other people saw really needs to be fancy (which is when suit vests started to have different backs from the front)

Now a days, it depends on the woman. There's always the element of "I want people to think I'm fancy" but it's also a very internal kind of thing. People care about themselves now more than "society", so it is more about feeling good about how you look.

"I don't dress up for boys, I dress up to look at myself in store windows" comes to mind.

>>9060916
what about you?

>>9060916

i picture you in thigh high socks with an old sweater and i like you
good night
see you around

>>9060967
About me? You mean what I wear?
Well, if I'm honest, I had a quite traumatic childhood. It wasn't rape or anything, but I do tend to dress like a child would. My coats are always oversized, for example. I have low self esteem, so I try to wear clothes that hide me. I also don't have much patience for pain, so I wear comfy clothes. Jeans, t-shirts. That kind of thing.

>>9060995
that's not entirely wrong.
sleep tight anon.

>>9057397
I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR YEARS DESU

>>9058731
That still doesn't kill hedonism

File: boring.jpg (18KB, 259x320px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 259x320px

>>9058888
>8888
>and he is right too

>>9058731
Yeah, that's because the problem does not work as a thought experiment. People refuse to believe that the experience would be the same as doing it in real life because of an inherent appeal to nature.

If there was an actual machine that did that and everyone experienced it and knew what it felt like, the only people who would not accept it are those who would assume avoiding the machine would ultimately bring them more pleasure.

>>9060786
why did Hillary Clinton's fashion people choose those weird monochrome suit-like things?

>>9060031
>The over-analysis of art is a product of this, I think.
But you can't over-analyse art. You can see it in different contexts, and at different levels, but you can never over-analyse it.

Some art is best appreciated simply, but that doesn't mean there should ever be a cap on analysis.

>>9059989
what a bad viewpoint

>>9059949
>if interpretation is what gives value to it, and if interpretation does not require the object in the first place (as it can be imagined), then the object is without purpose

I don't think that logically follows. Just because the art is the origin of the discussion and analysis and not the only thing that matters, doesn't render it purposeless.

You are free to look at art and do what you will with it. Appreciate it without intellectualizing it in any way, write a 1,000 page book on different ways to contextualize it and the discussions it spurs. Either way, it serves its purpose for the admirer.

>>9061080
Well, the thing you have to take into consideration is that women can't be sexual in a "serious occupation" because it'll always be focused on regardless what the topic is or what the women is talking about. Secondly, Hilary Clinton is past "acceptable sexy age". A monochrome pantsuit is really her only option. It's a suit, it's androgynous, and it's serious. The problem comes from the fact that she's a women. I know how it sounds, but just think about it. Every single male politician also wears monochrome suits. It really is the fact that she's a woman. I'm not judging, I'm just stating facts. I've seen similar stuff on /fit/ in regard to the fact that arnold is old now, but it is how it is. As far as what Hillary can wear. She can't win.

>>9059118
More closely related to modernism and Realism

>>9061152
She can't win elections also.

>>9059138
Are Byzantine mosaics a selfish act of the artist? What does art express? The divine? The will of the patron? Genius? Craft? Itself/its form? Is trying to cause a societal revolution an
'expression'? Is serialisation an expression? Is the objective recording of sense-data in a photograph expression? What is expressed in a landscape painting, or a still life?

Is all expression art?

>>9061193
Mm. She won the popular vote, but let's avoid political discussions.

>>9059748
>Contemporary art as symbolic and expressive

Have you not been paying attention to art lit for the past 50 years?

>>9059848
All art requires a context.

>>9061152
But clothing doesn't have to be sexy to be appealing or attractive. Maybe it is because we are used to seeing men in full suits that we accept it without questioning it, but when tasked to come up with something you'd think it would be something that would come across as serious, distinguished, AND appealing to the eye.

Most male politicians wear dark, well-fitted suits with occasional bright undershirts. This is why Trump stands out in a bad way when he wears ill-fitted suits, too-long ties, and a shitty toupee.

But Clinton stuck out like a sore thumb because the pantsuits were always bright and boxy, and the monochrome aspect just highlighted them more.

It just seems like it doesn't work in any way. It isn't fashionable, it isn't something common people can relate to, and it isn't even something you'd expect to see from a successful businesswoman.

I do hear what you are saying though.

>>9061211
>I do hear what you are saying though.
thank you, that's all I ask for.

But in regard to the relative garishness of women's suits, especially in a political setting, I think it has something to do with femininity. As in they're still trying to bring in a certain femininity into a otherwise sterile, reductive uniform. Women have been "more able" to wear colorful clothes. A bright red dress next to a black suit, for example. Wearing a colorful suit is sort of combining the two.

>>9059949
The formalist approach to art results in object fetishisation and complicity with the art market and institutional politics.

The interruption of art by language in the 60s was the best thing to happen to art. It was the new avant-garde that moved against the dominant ideology of object fetishisation.

Post-object art is not the death of art. The avant-garde is not the death of art. To the purist, an art form must remain separate from other media by concerning itself only with the conditions of its own medium. Similarly, with the avant-garde, art remains pure by being separate from life, even if 'anything' from life 'can be art'.

>>9058200
Fashion isn't self-expression at all
It might be on the designers part but dressing yourself is not self-expression really

>>9061419
>but dressing yourself is not self-expression really
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
I'm sorry anon, but rule one of communication:
Nothing is not communication.

Everything you do, down to how you part your hair, how often you clean your shoes, it's all communication. It says something about you. Whether you prioritize money or time, or whatever. It doesn't matter. Fashion is one of the most prominent ways we communicate, considering it's what strangers see of us most.

>>9061419
Look. This opinion is so baseless I can't take it. Self expression through what we wear happened before we, as a species even tried to protect ourselves. Homo sapiens invented jewellery before we invented clothes.

That which sets us apart from animals as a species is our obsession with self expression. From tattoos to jewellery to clothes. Clothes are who we are. And it's so ingrained, so obvious, that we don't think about it. We assume it's nothing more than fancy, but it's not. Clothes are who we are. Every single person prefers a certain style to another. You wear different jackets than your mother does. Expensive, practical. Leather, synthetic. With pretty patterns or monochrome... Its what we are. We wear what we are.

>>9061443
Well I admit that was bit of a hyperbole but it's not in the way lot of people into fashion (/fa/ for example) sees it. It's not voluntarism in that it's not entirely out of our free-will, your need to express yourself and your creativity.
At the end of the day you are wearing desings of someone else and what you wear is dictated as much by the weather as the societys expectations and social pressure.
It's especially relevant in the current fashion scene where it seems it's more important to be not seen in certain clothing than to be seen in something else.

>>9061460
Look, I studied this. We literally learn:
Nothing is not communication.
It doesn't matter if someone else designed the pattern. We still picked that pattern out of a thousand possible patterns. Or if we didn't look at the patterns. That's still says something. That says that the patterns aren't as important as the practical application, you understand? Not caring about something is as much as a statement as caring about something. If you clean your shoes every weak, it means you care about what your shoes look like, and if you don't it means you don't care what your shoes look like. BOTH are a statement on YOU as a person.

Fashion is a rich person's game.

I'm really enjoying this threads and what some of you have been saying.

I enjoy fashion but I struggle to see the purpose in it from the perspective of my own consumerism. There's something so empty and unrewarding about wearing cheap mass produced wears and feeling like it is an expression of myself.

What do anons feel about expressing yourself through the work of other people's' labour and efforts? Like fashion for instance. I'm not a fashion designer, I don't make my own clothes, although it was much more common in the past... the world has changed.

Why do we build identity around something we haven't achieved for ourselves? Does money afford us that privilege?

Another thing I like is purchasing clothing second hand - it gives the item a soul and a story which I enjoy far more than buying something new.

I struggle to come to terms with fashion in its current state I suppose and have a complicated relationship with it on an internal level.

>>9060507

No, it isn't.

>>9061115

Yes you can. An art object is a finite object.

>>9061148

What's the point in generating an art piece if it's ultimate value is found in the intellectual masturbation justifying its existence? It's an unnecessary cog in the machine.

>>9061254

What are you talking about? Contemporary art is literally ''complicity with the art market and institutional politics.''

''Post-object art is not the death of art.''

It plainly is. Conceptual art is a playground for empty word games, just a desperate attempt to even out the power balance between the natural vs the human sciences.

>>9061460
>it's not entirely out of our free-will
nothing is, pal

>this thread is still alive

i really like that this thread almost completely abandoned OP and went straight for the picture OP posted, with my fpbp, that prompted a huge philosophical discussion on art and fashion, with proddings from me here and there. i love when i can be a seed that can bring on a conversation like this.

>>9062057
>What's the point in generating an art piece if it's ultimate value is found in the intellectual masturbation justifying its existence? It's an unnecessary cog in the machine

a)because some people don't appreciate art in such a "intellectual masturbatory" way.

b)because it is a conversation starter

c)because it is a way to express a complex idea, and breaking down that idea as it relates to the piece can be rewarding

d)because it gives physical representation to abstract ideas

>>9062057
>Contemporary art is literally ''complicity with the art market and institutional politics.''

Some of it? Sure. Just as some 'modern art', i.e. art produced in the modern period, in response to specific historical conditions of what can be called 'modernity', is complicit with the dominant ideologies of the time: Nazi art, Socialist Realism, the inter-war return to order. But that isn't to say there was no avant-garde of the 20th century. And there is, and has been since institutional critique, 'post-modern' (i.e. post-form) art specifically created to avoid commodification. But still, you'd be hard-pressed to find a formalist work that isn't complicit.

I'm using Conceptualism with a specific art historical meaning. I think a lot of the problem with your argument is you are using terms based on what you believe them to mean, rather than referring to any art historical debate or concrete use of these terms to refer to measurable art movements, styles, or theories.

But if you think that's obscurantist, while making up your own terms to confuse yourself into believing things that aren't true, then yes sure.

>>9062057
>An art object is a finite object.
I don't see how that is relevant

> just a desperate attempt to even out the power balance between the natural vs the human sciences
or people simply make associations between the piece at hand the the ideas they've encountered in their lives and find it to be good fodder for thought and conversation. That theory seems to deliberate and cynical.

It almost seems like a non-cognivisism about a certain way to appreciate art

"your way of appreciating are is nasty to me therefore it is invalid and based in jealousy of the natural sciences"

>>9061903
Same, friend. I hope I can make my own clothes one day and I've already altered some of my t-shirts to make them more personal. But some cool lady convinced me to appreciate fashion by talking about buying 2nd hand. You just go through the racks, decades of different styles, and develop one that represents something that seems to fit you. You don't have to do it as a way to show off or to spend a bunch of money.

You just have a chance to find something you feel comfortable wearing and which reflects your personality.

>>9062245
>or people simply make associations between the piece at hand the the ideas they've encountered in their lives and find it to be good fodder for thought and conversation.

This, to me, is the success of contemporary art. For example, objects like ready-mades imbued with a personal history put on display. Objects created in idiosyncratic styles put on display. Works dependent entirely on audience participation. Some may accuse contemporary art of being obscurantist but it's really honest, accessible, and resonant art.

File: 1480708419458.jpg (264KB, 1066x1600px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1066x1600px

>>9062057
>it's ultimate value

it's its, not it's

Fashion is a way to contextualize the physique. Besides going to the gym, eating food, and pawning CRTs on Ebay, the individual has a four-dimensional wavefunction associated with the remainder of its existence. To define this existence to an astute observer it is necessary to abandon convention, because cheap cotton/polyester t-shirts and cotton/elastane jeans are optimized for the unspoken consented upon rituals of daily routine.

>I'm a writer, it doesn't matter what I wear

as long as you have access to large quantities of barbiturates and map anything you haven't personally experienced to that experience, you're probably right.

>>9061460
>>9061479
you're both right, they're not mutually exclusive
>>9057397
agreed
>tfw I will probably die before a decent experience machine is invented
>>9059070
>well, then there wouldn't be any fucking war, now would there
agree with your sentiments
Whenever people bring up free will as a response to theodicy I die a little bit inside

>>9059070
>I do think new sincerity is really key. the idea that we need to face these abstractions and use them to our advantage to communicate genuine thoughts and ideas to each other, rile each other up and get to the meat and bones

wasn't this essentially Rorty's main point?

>>9058962
>or even sounds
I'd say especially sounds, but /mu/ is my homeboard

File: Michel-Houellebecq.jpg (29KB, 625x625px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 625x625px

>ywnb this effay

>>9057121
just because you can't formally define it doesn't make it meaningless

>>9062504
he looks like macs mom from always sunny

>>9058874
you're just being obtuse on purpose you conceited fuck

>>9062533
Yeah, but I get his point, though. If you are defining self-interest in such a way that it is conscious of looking out for your future self and looking out for others so that you have friends (happiness) and favors down the line, then you are getting pretty far away from a traditional understanding of hedonistic egoism.

>>9062554
That's because when people think of hedonism they automatically associate it with the most near-sighted version where instant gratification is all that matters. Obviously, to maximize pleasure, you need to use a variety of strategies that may include self-control

>>9057003
Why write "Infinite Jest" if most people will never read it?

>>9057457
>>9062588
this

>>9060998
>>9061009
i slept well, thanks

sorry about your childhood, anon

don't worry if you dress like a child, i sense you're still a child, and a very cute one, i'm sure

don't grow up too fast
beware the sugary sweets
sometime bitter is your friend

don't smoke too much
drink plenty of water
sleep anytime you can

you'll make a beautiful human being, and you are everything that's right in the world

i'd really like to cuddle in bed with you right now, sweety

take care

File: images.jpg (6KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 259x194px

>>9059784
this

>>9062427
i mean, it seems childish thinking back, but i still can't argue against some of those moral judgements i now deem edgy and crude. what else is there but individualism expressed through bashing someone's brains out with a shovel?
>>9062458
dunno who rorty is. i just took the whole new sincerity term and pulled something directly out of my ass to associate with it. feels like right though, really.
>>9062466
well tou might know what i mean when i say some of that /mu/ stuff is just ridiculous shit posing as art, listening to a guy for 3 hours, recording the amplified sound of testicular rearrangement, it becomes a form of art to even interpret some of the bullshit in these various mediums. where the hell will it end?
>>9062552
well, yes, but if you read further, i make concessions and have a fairly good conversation in the end. hell, i even apologize for being a little too liberal with my criticisms.

File: folder.jpg (49KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 600x600px

>>9063188
>dunno who rorty is
based on the ideas you've been pushing, you need to read all the way through Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity

It might be my favorite book and it essentially spelled out new sincerity in 1989

>>9063188
I have to disagree with you here. Noise music and drone are great genres. With noise there is just all this creativity in the ordinary. Ordinary people using ordinary objects to creatively express real things, and unbound by the norms of music. Some really great stuff comes out of it. Its even better live. For instance, Aaron Dilloway uses a wire in his mouth, tapes, and his chair to create intense musical soundscapes. Seeing it live the passion of the music comes to life in a truly unique way. With drone, you can just get lost in these long, expansive repetitions and swallowed into the reverb. Its strange, but there is definitely something there if you are patient and willing.

>>9063169
you're fucking creepy

File: shrek-002.jpg (159KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1920x1080px

>>9058009
Dam bruh

>>9063212
thank you for the suggestions on both fronts, really.

i'm not exactly saying that all the mu noise stuff is junk, or anything like that, just reiterating the old complaint that i made above about there being soulless scammers using the vagueness of artistic expression, and to the point of it being so impenetrable to some that it becomes a method of cultural alienation for people wishing to share in something ultimately hollow.

>>9063234
this, what in the fuck?

>>9063212
yeah, looking into him, rorty is cookin with fire. i'll have to get this. thank you again. it'll be the only philosophy book i've ever read.

>>9063249
>soulless scammers using the vagueness of artistic expression
I don't know if you mean scamming for attention, because there is NO money in noise. Even Dilloway, who is pretty well known in the noise music scene, is hurting for money enough that he screamed at my friend about deciding not to buy his album.

If anything, I'd expect more soulless scammers to populate the mainstream radio.

I mean, I see how some people are using music as a way to fit in and gain some kind of street cred, and they fall into shit music like chvrces to look cool. But people who get really into it mostly get into for genuine reasons. And its not exactly easy to gain respect among musicheads just by putting out something that sounds weird. You have to do something that is really new, which isn't very easy.

Also, it could be a little of a case of outsider perspective.

When people hear scientists talk in jargon, they can think they are trying to just sound smart. When I was talking to a philosophy grad student about some philosophical concept or another using philosophy jargon, she thought we were being pretentious. When my mom watched a Needle Drop review, she thought he sounded pretentious. It could just be a case of, I have no context for this, so they are probably pretending.

>>9063273
Well he has a background in analytic philosophy, so the first section (contingency) kind of jumps right into some reasonably complex stuff that he spells out more thoroughly in his first book. So it might be a bit much at the beginning if you haven't read philosophy before. By the time this book gets to the third part, though, he is essentially just doing literary criticism.

Also I'd recommend trying not to let Rorty disillusion you too much. He is almost universally hated in philosophy departments because of how much he grew to dislike the institution of philosophy. He has pretty radical views on language, and essentially founded the school of neo-pragmatism, so he is kind of "out there". I've seen it before, and it's easy to kind of get sucked into Rorty's way of thinking after reading him, and just hate Realists.

I'd just recommend not letting him scar you from really hearing out Realists and other more mainstream philosophers. Maybe try reading one of them for your next philosophy book (I'd recommend Bertrand Russell)

>>9063234
>>9063249
ok, maybe i went overboard with the cuddling part?
i was just being honest, though

>>9063301
No, all of it was too much. You're fucking creepy and need to stop.

>>9063301
new sincerity desu

>>9063275
well, i can't argue with that. you've made some good points. i do still hold the opinion that there are still pretenders, perhaps in the sense that there are those who follow the passionate, as you say with chvrches, where they get absorbed in the idea of being cultured, and end up being cast into alienation, though that turns my eye to the consimer of art rather than the art or artist themselves, maybe it's the followers without passion that make me feel so uneasy about the given art. i dunno. like i say, most of this is stuff pulled from my ass, acting on an impulse and trying to explain my thoughts afterwards. i suppose it's a dangerous life to live, but i end up learning more that way when people contradict me, giving me new viewpoints does nothing but benefit me in the long run.

>>9063308
oh you.

>>9063305
why?
because i like this anon and want her to know it?

>>9063313
k Humbert

>>9063313
1 you know nothing about anon, so you can't like her
2 you're obviously fixating on the fact that she's a woman
3 you obviously think she's a child? Which is creepy on about 8 different levels
4 you posted a poem
5 you said you want to cuddle with her

you sound like as serial killer/pedophile. You sound like you look like a serial killer/pedophile.

>>9063329
hey, what do looks have to do with this? what are you, shallow?

>>9063320
Anon, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul.

>>9063305
As OP said :
>I really am open to changing my mind but if you use the concept of morality in your argument, you're going to have to convince me of the merits of morality first.

>>9063335
You're the one who wants to cuddle with a stranger because they implied they were female

>>9063329
>childs are crepy
ok

>>9063329
i know nothing about you, but i don't like you, tho

>>9063340
kek sorry i forgot this board was gay exclusive

gentlemen, let's settle this at once
choose your weapons

>>9063340
not the same anon.
>>9063337
is it morality that would require you to wish for someone your age in mind and body? isn't it more of a practical thing that you'd want someone to share your mind with in a genuine way? i suppose you could just be a child yourself, stunted somewhere, longing to play with someone at your level. i hope you can grow up, not for morals sake, but for your own, it might help you to lead a more fruitful life, and as a bonus let you avoid the persecution that a pedophile must bear.

>>9063310
>i suppose it's a dangerous life to live, but i end up learning more that way when people contradict me, giving me new viewpoints does nothing but benefit me in the long run.

That's really the way to be. I wish it was easier to be this way outside of anonymity. Not being able to just be willing to be wrong or be honest about being ignorant about something is exactly what creates the pretenders.

I was a fringe part of a left-wing group in college and all the relationships I had with activists I got to see them behind the scenes. Before you really get to know them to the point of intimate trust, they are spouting off unchangeable opinions with as much confidence and conviction I have ever heard. But in those honest talks they all expressed anxiety and worry about being completely wrong about everything. All except for the philosophy majors. I really think there is something about the nature of philosophy (read:modern/analytic) that makes people more willing to be wrong. Less attached to an abstract idea as an identity and more respect for other people. Philosophers are trained to take whoever their talking to's point in the most intelligent possible way, and it leads to a lot less posturing.

>>9063359
i am 40, happily married, father of two (2) amazing and beautiful daughters
we cuddle in bed all together right now as i type this
feels good desu

>>9063359
>wish for someone your age in mind and body
I dunno this seems a lot like you are forcing what you want on others.
>If you want to share mind and body with someone not your age then I will shame you

Personally, I have almost not age limits.

If I am impressed by a woman, I am willing to go down to 6 years younger and up to 60 years older than I am. Why is that a problem if there is a consent?

>>9063365
i guess it's the difference in what you're dealing with, media and art and such is easy to posture over, since it's all left up to opinion, so you can batter each other with little risk, politics would be a bit more risky, since it's a bit of a career dealing in people's lives on a grand scale, i wouldn't be able to help but feel anxiety with such a burden behind what i say and the influence i could exert from such a position, and philosophy is just for people who want to work all that out, isn't it? it's closer to the arts, for some i would think, though i imagine there are plenty who think the world rests on the propagation of their ideas. maybe some more stress should be taken from politics, take some of the weight away and put it on the philosopher's backs, make em sweat a bit. it's interesting for me wondering how much philosophy shapes the culture that consumes it, and whether or not the culture shapes the philosophy and it's just an interpretation of the culture as a snapshot. which came first, the chicken or the egg?

yeah, anonymous communication was a godsend for me as a youth, only beatings i get are intellectual ones now.

>>9063378
That's really interesting anon. Where do you live?

>>9063381
if you're concerned with consent, you're concerned with morality. also, that demands the question of the capability of a certain age group to consent. i had a similar argument with a guy advocating animal fucking, and the acknowledgement of consent. got down to the barriers of communication and the lack of an ability to objectively determine consent as a party biased for it to exist. i doubt you want that convo, eh? you're just shitposting right?

>>9063388
You also want to cuddle?

File: 1386726538368.png (251KB, 684x757px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 684x757px

>>9056979
Just because helping others can indirectly help you, doesn't mean it's the most effective way to help yourself. I am sure if you were to quantify the expenditure of effort against the 'help' gained you'd realize a direct and directly serf serving route is most economical. You sound spooked, anon.

>>9063388
France

>>9063392
I mean not really. I know I'm concerned with morality, I study it. I can't really get into defending it right now, as I'm about to sleep. But I totally know about the problem of children not being able to consent. For me, its a case-by-case thing depending on maturity, but I don't think anyone under 17 should be having sex with anyone over 19. That's why I capped it at 6 under for me. But even then, she'd have to show real maturity, which is fine by me, because maturity and intelligence are already a prerequisite for me.

My point though is that the post I was responding to was browbeating people who have relationships outside of their age group. I was just trying to defend the practice.

>>9063421
you're a cool guy
sleep well

>>9063385
>it's interesting for me wondering how much philosophy shapes the culture that consumes it, and whether or not the culture shapes the philosophy and it's just an interpretation of the culture as a snapshot

I'm inclined to say that a bastardized version of philosophy shapes the culture that consumes it. And also to say that philosophers (like everyone else) are trapped by the culture of their time to some degree (hence why Kant thought it was impossible to rape someone you are married to and that people who live in warmer climates are unable to think straight).

>media and art and such is easy to posture over, since it's all left up to opinion
Yeah its really messing with my liberal ideals. I think I support finding a way to better privilege information that is fact-checked get society to trust and accept information from such a place. Disagreement over things is great, but we need to find a way to agree on the basic facts as a society.

>>9063433
wanna cuddle?

>>9063440
any time, bro

>>9063421
to this, i was trying to argue with a guy gimped with avoiding the moral argument, i think i failed spectacularly there. i was just trying to provide reasons for people to avoid babyfucking that didn't resort to the age old 'cuz it's wrong', considering the guy made OP's stipulation. and we all know i'd lose a morality argument cuz i'm a pleb.

>>9063438
well, there's the big problem we all want solved, an establishment of common ground! which is probably why abstraction in philosophy has taken on so well, when you're quibbling woth people over meanings and terms, you never have to face the truth, eh? sounds vaguely orwellian though, having a system from which information that is inherently trusted by the populace, likely people who defy it are punished in some way or another, no way that could go wrong. but i see what you mean.

i mean politically i'm probably a reactionary capitalist pig or something of that nature, so it's hard for me to talk about it, since i'm confident that no system is ultimately incorruptable and that capitalism thus far has afforded me a veritable paradise, so it's hard for me to want to dismantle it. anyhow i assume you're the one off to bed, so farewell! nice chatting with you

also i would bet if you established common ground you'd probably have established some sort of objective truth, and half the god damn battle is won right there.

>>9063438
>I'm inclined to say that a bastardized version of philosophy shapes the culture that consumes it
Wanna elaborate on that?

>>9063468
probably through the filter of interpretation that the philosopher themselves would use to explain their philosophies? just a guess.

er, wrong again, maybe the bastardization is the hoi polloi trying to comprehend the philosopher correctly?

>>9063470
But in a way I feel like the philosophers aren't alone with their ideas, like the new sincerity that's been discussed a lot in this thread, after hipsters and the culture around it, everything being ironic and now with the internet culture and it's post-postmodernism, I feel like there are lot of people who are longing for new sincerity without really even knowing it is a real philosophy and thing that exists. I mean it in that they have the pure idea and philosophy and the feeling they need it but they lack the tools to communicate and express themselves in that way because the surrounding culture is riddled with irony an insincere.
So really it's not so much the philosophers job to explain the philosophy (necessary anyway) as it is to put it to good use and make something out of it.

>>9063487
well that's what i was saying before, that i was just pulling it out of my ass, extrapolating on the term itself and a bit of memery about DFW and what have you, and it turns out it's pretty close to what the established philosophy is. (which at first stroked my ego) but then brought me to that point as well, wondering whether or not culture shapes the philosopher shapes the culture, or is it a little of both?

>>9058746
thankyou for sharing this, great runway. she's a qt, too

>>9063501
>or is it a little of both?
Well I think that's what I was getting at, the need or idea of philosophy raises from the surrounding culture, the philosopher develops and pushes the philosophy forward and in to the culture and the philosophy changes the culture.
If you consider early caveman religions as philosophies I don't think you really can divide the two.

File: pret-a-porter-viktor-rolf-07-10-2009-8103_L.jpg (44KB, 600x900px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x900px

>>9063522
Dunno if you are interested but here's something I really enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61NzBYJ5Dro
Viktor & Rolf in general is just something I really like, not necessarily particularly 'deep' in ideas but there is child like playing with the clothing that I just love. And it's all visually beautiful and stunning and if you can appreciate the craft itself, it's crazy to what they have to do to achieve what they do.

File: yohji+rick.png (3MB, 1514x1000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1514x1000px

>>9059058
yohji yamamoto and rick owens are always in their own clothes I feel
raf too, for sure.
but yea not their most extravagent pieces (that said, extravagent pieces are usually one of a kind runway pieces)

File: zettai ryouiki.png (399KB, 1552x462px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 1552x462px

>>9063534
what about this?
Dress Made of 100,000 Dressmaker's Needles
http://mymodernmet.com/dress-made-of-100-000-dressmaker-s-needles/

>>9063534
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyG0YsLtKAk
Another just really interesting show, it's even better if you are familiar with Aitor Throup's work at all but it's cool either way. Video is kinda shit but can't find better sadly.

File: a-scent_colombe_issey-miyake-768x1024.jpg (118KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 768x1024px

>>9063542
That's so cool, haven't seen it before.
Here is something that is personally really inspirational, Issey Miyake dress, on the back, the square fabric opened and on the mannequin with the buttons closed.

>>9063534
holy fricking ship that is just amazing,
never seen anything like it.
The pieces on the way are so dynamic and full of action.

File: 1477678085596.jpg (2MB, 1280x782px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x782px

>>9063541
all of them i guess, but that's usually very plain
and what's more, they usually define some kind of uniform for themselves, like Gaultier or Lagerfeld

>>9063534
>>9063541
>>9063542
>>9063544
>>9063547
where are you studying, anons?
is it worth it?

File: tumblr_nr7gi828551s6ecygo1_500.jpg (46KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x333px

>>9063549
I think one of the interesting things about is how the models are the canvases, they are all wearing dull blue dresses, kinda reminiscent of the traditional french blue chore coats, under the actual art pieces, which are the paintings. Most haute couture shows feature the models with heavy make-up accessories and hairdos as to accentuate and fit in to the clothing they carry, and it's the same here, except they all look very plain, very little make-up and simple pony tails. Cause they are the canvases, canvases look the same, they are literally carrying the paintings.
And I love how the clothes hanged on the wall are stunning on their own, something you could expect to see in any art gallery, the 3 frame piece is especially just insanely good.

>>9063588
god, I fucking love fashion

File: viktor and rolf fw15.png (719KB, 962x527px) Image search: [Google]

719KB, 962x527px

>>9063588
This one is also so good, it looks like the model kicked the painting in from behind and decided to wear the frames. It's so playful and anything but serious, like something out of a cartoon.

File: ViktorRolf_Couture_spring_summer_2017_collection2.jpg (69KB, 700x506px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 700x506px

>>9063605
The latest show was also great. Like a kid had pair of scissors, glue and whole stack of Vogue's and just went to town with them, part of the dress from here, another from there, maybe a frilly shoulder pad from that outfit, and the just add those all to a paperdoll.
And at the same time these are sorta really punk, there is the DIY patch aesthetic but instead of ratty converses and patched black denim it's all done in very elegant women's dresses with traditional colors and subtle tonal changes, the holes in the clothes framed with gold. And the message about recycling is also there, though more obvious if you are familiar with Viktor & Rolf's earlier work.
But to be honest the discussion earlier was lot better, this kinda derailed to me raving about things I like which is whole lot more boring.

>>9063534
wtf i love fashion now

File: kintsugi.jpg (225KB, 1162x850px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1162x850px

>>9063642
Okay this is the last post I sperg about fashion I swear, but I think the gold in that coellction framing the patches of clothes and holes in the clothing is fairly straight forward wabisabi thing, which communicates the recycling and DIY idea great, subtle detail but essential to the idea behind the collection.

>>9063552
besides being the (wo)man behind the brand, they like to be the face of the brand.
iconic silhouettes are memorable to the public!

>>9063560
chemistry
yea, I've got a good job outlook
fashion has priority no. 2

>>9063547
that's also amazing. I feel like I've udnerrated Issey Miyake for too long.

>>9063588
blowing my mind a bit, >>9063592 conceptualised my thoughts right now.

>>9063642
>this kinda derailed to me raving about things I like which is whole lot more boring.
no one's complaining anon, keep posting

>>9063653
>wabisabi
yea that makes dress no. 3 in you previous post even more special. ty for this

File: PATTERNITY_BILLOWING-PLEATS_Issey-Miyake-SS85-995x1024.jpg (326KB, 995x1024px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 995x1024px

>>9063662
>I feel like I've udnerrated Issey Miyake for too long.
You absolutely have if you don't appreciate him, he is straight up genius.
>yea that makes dress no. 3 in you previous post even more special. ty for this
Also as far as the wabisabi goes, asymmetry is also one of the characteristics, which is pretty obvious on that show. Though I think one of the more important characteristics of it, natural aging and the visible wear of time is not really present there, but then the references to Viktor & Rolf's older works might be their way of communicating that link to something older.
Aitor Throup is another favorite of mine, I really recommend watching this: >>9063544
Even though the video is long and awful quality, it's such an amazing show. And he is kind of an oddball in the traditional fashion scene, he doesn't do 2 shows a season and everything made under his name are very limited runs.

this thread is like a derailing roller coaster that somehow lands back on its track and then leaves its amusement park to explore the countryside
i like it

>>9063689
it's fairly amusing to watch and participate in over the past two days, from making /fa/gs rage to shaming pedophiles, it's been a wild ride. too bad it literally has nothing to do with literature.

File: tumblr_nspgvgh1jS1tb1rtco1_1280.jpg (345KB, 1280x721px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1280x721px

>>9063686
Here is a sketch of Aitor Throup on his graduating collection "When Football Hooligans Become Hindu Gods"
It was like this whole comic type narrative and story of group of 8 football hooligans who go to far in their violence and kill a young child accidentally. This event wakes them up to the violence and negativity of their culture and the hooligans transform in to Hindu gods in order to redeem their souls and settle their sins.
To be honest there is probably not as much philosophical or that "intelligent" design in this but the story and Throups designs just resonate with me in lot of levels so I enjoy his work a lot.

>>9063707
best thread around, tho

Seeing people appreciate fashion really makes me happy. It's such an underappreciated medium.

File: aitor hooligan to hindu god cover image.jpg (127KB, 450x507px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 450x507px

>>9063710
And that transformation is the theme in the clothing, he designed 8 ouftifs that all transform somehow, from looking like traditional football casual clothing to the hooligans representing the 8 hindu gods, physically changing their appearance and spiritually making change from negativity and violence to something productive and positive.
'Outifts' is not the word to use with Throup though, to me at least he doesn't really seem to design clothing as much as he designs characters, it's more apparent the more familiar you are with his work. And I think that's one of the things that make his work seem like something out of a comic book, you see these designs and there is immediate sense of narrative to his clothing, it's not just clothes.

>>9063725
damn right.

File: aitor4.jpg (28KB, 550x287px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 550x287px

>>9063733
Football casual turning in to a Narashima, lion headed Hindu god,also known as Great Protector and what's more fitting than large parka with fur lined hood to protect you.
Another thing I feel like adds to Throups 'comic' narrative is how he often displays his clothing, it's never on models or hacking from hangars in racks, it's 3 dimensionally hung or put on mannequins made out of wire on display like art pieces, it sorta takes the comic idea of still 2 dimensional image and displays it in 3d, still, often framed just like comic book panels.

File: 405.jpg (49KB, 405x607px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 405x607px

>>9063751
Dynamic, full of movement, yet still, in 3 dimensions and framed. Maybe I'm reading too much in to it and the framing is there just to attach the mannequins to something but I always saw the comicbook influences in Throups work.
And the 3 dimensionality is another thing that's very common in his stuff, he designs anatomical clothing that allows free movement and works with how human body is shaped naturally. And that's what fashion really is, it's about one's body as an extension of self expression.

>>9063751
>>9063751
yeah, but it's still just a fucking hoodie.
you fucking weirdos. you're the same as gene wolfe aficionados
>muh artistic meta
>it's art cuz its expression
you make me sick.

really though, this is silly, you should at least be quibbling with someone. although it might be best to let this thread die gracefully. it's no use beating a dead horse. a dead horse beating, now there's a fashion idea! imagine her in a harness, dragging a cart, some guy beating her mercilessly, all on the runway, and you could have her wearing shoes in the style of horseshoes, and what not. see? i'm a fucking fashion genius. pay me. also you could put some neet h in there for allusion's sake. to get those brain gonads sizzlin.

File: abf496e47a3a94bef85930a75bbe6d28.jpg (15KB, 236x445px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 236x445px

>>9063775
This demonstrates the three dimensional and anatomical designs of Throup pretty well.

>>9063779
>convertible onesie footpads

>>9063776
why are you even trying? Obviously, there are a lot of people who like fashion. You don't. You have no insight, you have no intention of attempting to understand it, you have no interest in learning or listening to anything about the subject, so why don't you just shut up? You're not going to convince anybody of anything, except that you're intent on remaining willfully ignorant.

>>9063544
those ombre hoodies are fuckign amazing
not impressed by the antromorphic movements of the puppets though, felt like it could havke been more natural/realistic.
very interesting and beautiful concept though.

>>9063787
>not thinking the horse fashion idea was brilliant
you just don't understand art, you plebeian.

(isn't this much more satisfying for you than talking about how much you love blaw blaw onesies and panties?)

>>9063794
No. It's like listening to a toddler tell you vegetables are stupid because he doesn't like the taste and everybody should just eat peanut butter sandwiches.

File: 2012-06-17-15-03-09-aitor-throup-7214.jpg (110KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1200x800px

>>9063776
Here is a horse that was never alive by Aitor Throup
>not impressed by the antromorphic movements of the puppets though, felt like it could havke been more natural/realistic.
I actually believe that was completely intended, I'll probably get in to that, I'm just writing whatever comes out really so dunno when I touch it though.

>>9063806
>completely intended
I felt that it would be, too. just wondering what a more "organic" movement would do to the clothing
speaking of which - the clothing is so gosh darn diggly beaut

>>9063803
oh my, to the defense of your worm lady and hindu hoodies with the might of a blighted paladin! come now, it's silly to live your entire life wasting time on fucking clothes! plus, the hilarious presupposition that wearing a fucking onesie is art is more pretentious than imaginable. why wear a dress made out of a fucking painting? there's so much that's better, like corduroys!

>>9063810
shit. you've been trolling me the whole time, haven't you? and I fell for it like a rube.

>>9063813
dude, i'm fpbp. i've been on this thread for two fucking days, carefully tending to this garden, stimulating conversation, bringing out the best conversation i can, working tirelessly. you're god damn right i'm gonna troll you when you post pandaman onesie shit.

File: 83af50e65a8d0347519ff52f6a5d2eb8.jpg (52KB, 350x500px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 350x500px

>>9063806
Here's another design from the Hindu Gods show
I think the three dimensionality and the technical and movement aspects of his clothing come from the football casual clothing in general, he is hugely influenced by hooligans and their clothing, brands such as Stone Island and CP Company are 'traditional' casual wear and they feature 3 dimensional cuts and technical fabrics. Also one of the CP Companys trademarks is the goggles in the hood of the jackets, if they were added to please the hooligan crowd, so they can hide their faces and not be caught or recognized or if the casuals chose CP Company for those features is something I don't actually know. But similar masks and hiding ones face is also characteristic of Throups work, lot of the Hindu gods for example featured hoods that transformed the wearers to the animals the gods were associated with.

>>9056979
Am I the only one who thinks those clothes look cool?
The lack of pants is kind of jarring but beside that it looks sweet. Would wear/10.

>>9063829
and here we have spooky executive kratos, to intimidate with the skulls he took from the fabric entities of zyklon-7, beheading them with his sharp and manly jawline.

>>9063829
And sure enough that circle closed when Throup designed a jacket for CP Company celebrating jacket model called 'Mille Miglia's 20th anniversary. Probably the most stunning feature of the jacket is that it's state of the art technical materials, despite looking like used vintage garment. The process to make it look so was actually something Throup and CP Company researched and invented just for the jacket, it's 3 layer Gore-Tex treated with process called 'Tinto Terra', which uses natural pigments of soil to give it worn look. Perfect to celebrate 20 year history and showing it in the garment.

>>9062225

These are pretty weak reasons for filling museums with urinals and feces.

>>9062245

If an art object is finite, there is necessarily a finite amount of things you can analyze about it. The same could be said of the world at large. So yes, there is in fact such a thing as ''over analyzing'' something.

It's not bad because it's nasty to me, it's bad because it's bad art. (inb4 circular reasoning) I've already explained my reasons.

>>9062241

Are you perhaps trying to deny that a VAST majority of contemporary art is rooted in left leaning politics and often far left leaning politics, which is actually the dominant ideology? The language games of the French Theory is also an ideology charged project.

It's not ''Some of it''. It's an extremely significant portion of it.

Thinking removing the object removes the complicity with dominant ideologies is folly, since the tools used to analyse the art in question are ideological and their path of interpretations are also ideological (and as I said, it's usually the same ideology, you know which one).

''Conceptual art is a movement that prizes ideas over the formal or visual components of art works. An amalgam of various tendencies rather than a tightly cohesive movement, Conceptualism took myriad forms, such as performances, happenings, and ephemera. From the mid-1960s through the mid-1970s Conceptual artists produced works and writings that completely rejected standard ideas of art. Their chief claim - that the articulation of an artistic idea suffices as a work of art - implied that concerns such as aesthetics, expression, skill and marketability were all irrelevant standards by which art was usually judged.''

>>9062421

I'm not even talking about fashion you idiot.

File: 3-3_cp-company6-950x535.jpg (79KB, 950x535px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 950x535px

>>9063844
Forgot the pic.
But I think the casuals, the masks of CP company and the casual culture of hiding ones face is important to this comment: >>9063791
> felt like it could havke been more natural/realistic.
Hiding one's face wearing massive jacket gives someone very intimidating and inhumane look, hiding ones face especially so. It's effective tool used by popular culture (Storm troopers) or just riot police in real life, face is the most expressive part of human after all, if you can't read that, you don't know the intentions of someone and it makes you unconsciously uncomfortable. The masks also tie to the comic book elements, with superheros and villains wearing masks to hide their identities. And that inhumane element of it, I believe is big part of Throup's design ethos. He so often portrays his clothing on mannequins in dynamic positions, like they are frozen to place, it gives them very uncanny quality, it's clearly in the shape of a human being but there is no one there, it's just empty shell. It's like contemporary animated armors from myths and legends, the clothing themselves are very technical and state of the art in that sense, protecting one from urban elements. And that's why I think the movements of the dolls in that show were unnatural on purpose. The clothing itself is anything but natural and they represent that sorta uncanny inhumane aspect of what inspires Throup in his work in general. His work is like those Hiroshima shadows in 3D, there is no human part to them anymore, just ghosts in empty shells.

>>9063707
>too bad it literally has nothing to do with literature.
We could change that though
https://www.heddels.com/2015/03/william-gibson-interview-buzz-rickson-line-tech-wear-limits-authenticity/

farewell to a beautiful thread, far more beautiful than any fashion designer could ever comprehend, though it has not the topic of lit throughout, as it exists, in indelible text upon my soul, it has become a work of literature. fare well o gentle muse.

>>9063867
>genreshit
>lit
one more reason to damn the fashion world as objectively worthless tripe!

File: NewOrleansPT2_rt.jpg (43KB, 630x400px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 630x400px

>>9063859
Man I feel like I'm not very good at communicating what I tried to say here. But basically the lack of humans in displaying his pieces is recurring theme in his work. The fact that the movement is so awkward and unnatural just continues with that very theme, it's not natural because there is nothing organic about the dolls. There never were any model, there is no human in there.

>>9063876
>people don't even have to wear the shit anymore, and it's still called fashion.

when will you see the bilge you've been swilling is bfucking bullshit?

File: AitorThroup-2.jpg (84KB, 752x1005px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 752x1005px

>>9063880
>people don't even have to wear the shit anymore
That's not the point though, it's just his way of displaying his clothes and communicating the ideas behind them.
I think this is more of a thing that would rise that question: >>9063542
As it's something you can't actually wear

>>9063662
would you use your chemistry skills for fashion?

>>9056979
So, did you change your mind about hedonism/egoism being the most logical philosophy? Some valid arguments were made.

>>9063974
maybe during cleaning garments, else no.
why?

>>9063876
>>9063859
love your rundown on masks and their implementation, I now also see what the movements did.
>His work is like those Hiroshima shadows in 3D, there is no human part to them anymore, just ghosts in empty shells.
is very eerily true

Ready-to-wear is good enough, desu

>>9063828
Damn man you really need to read some philosophy or at least some SEOP and get rid of the ideas you came up with in that OP

>>9057032
so much this

>>9065103
i don't know. underwear out of a spray can? an edible dress? a bioluminescent swimsuit?