Firstly, what a very interesting topic and what smart insights everyone has posted thus far:
Quote:
|
tangerine: No major style change ever started with people buying what was being offered as the season's fashions. Grunge, like much of the 60s counterculture style, came from people rejecting commercial offerings and putting together looks made of thrift store or military surplus clothing. [...] As long as people feel they can only wear what is offered in the clothing stores, there will be no change.
|
I totally agree: change doesn't usually come from the top down in fashion - sometimes it does, but more often than not it comes from the "street" or youth culture: flappers, hippies, disco, punk, grunge, etc.
But the hipster generation of now seems to
accept their looks and identity from the media more than ever before - perhaps because life IS more mediated than it ever has been in history. We can be a bunch of navel-gazers. Kids go to Urban Outfitters, H&M, Zara, etc and construct a look from there. I don't see any outstanding subcultures at the moment. Like Daphne said, the last real one was grunge. Now, even the goth culture has been co-opted, so wanna be goths just go to Hot Topic to define themselves. It all comes from the outside, externally.
Quote:
|
Mulletproof:they do have a voice but maybe it's the fact that it seems to intentionally not want to rebel against anything and just go with the flow what makes it seem like it means nothing?
|
Maybe going with the flow suggests
apathy; think of the current statement of the day 'it is what it is" - what does that even say? Nothing. It loops back on itself, it's passive. There is nothing to rebel against in a statement like that. This creates for incredible stasis. It's quite sad imo.
There is SO MUCH to rebel against right now. You'd think with occupy movements, global warming, capitalist market crashes, etc etc, someone would rise from the ashes and scream "change!" Sadly, even the phrase "game changer" has become cliche, so that even
change itself is marketed; indeed, wasn't that a political slogan recently?
Quote:
|
agee:To me this is a form of fashion cannibalizing itself. [...] I just wish (foolishly so) that, unless it is the Oscars, Emmys or Golden Globes, that emerging celebrities, at least the ones with thick skin, be left to their on devices when it comes to what they wear for appearances, and if they want to wear jeans and a tee shirt or their mother's confirmation dress, let them do so
|
OMG, I totally agree. People are so hyper-critical of celebs, and when a celeb looks nice sometimes we complement not the person him or herself, but ask who his or her stylist is!
This desire to have everyone look "right" borders on "fascist" imo. A big question that relates to this is whether or not media globalization naturally leads to homogenization.
Maybe what it comes down to right now is the submersion of INDIVIDUAL VOICE and a strong sense of IDENTITY in a field of sheep. And yet, in a time when identity seems to be constantly destabilized (are we who we are in RL who we are online as well?) there is also a huge desire for authenticity (look at the increase in biopics, memoirs, reality t.v., and nostalgia as evidence).
As a culture maybe we know we long for something real, something authentic, to break through. We sense it in fashion, during the shows. Who will actually SAY SOMETHING? Who doesn't put marketability (i.e., sales) or gimmick (i.e., look at me, the showman) first?
Personally, I hope something comes along soon. I follow culture - music, art, film, literature, fashion - religiously, watching and waiting for the next maverick who will stir the pot from a place of authenticity - not just for the sake of stirring the pot itself (e.g. Gaga, or Marc Jacobs), but due to some inner need. In other words, someone who designs or creates music or writes from a place of anger or pain or love - not to sell (out).