Abercrombie & Fitch

[Johnny]

It's funny Faust - your comment about the beauty inherent in an object (but not necessarily knowing why) - that's something I've thought about in almost exactly the same way before. I remember looking at a weed in a car park and wondering why people would [almost] universally think of that weed as being ugly but think of an orchid as being beautiful. Absolutely objectively there's no basis for the distinction, but it's one that everyone on a subjective level appreciates. I don't have an answer. Is it all to do with nurture - that you're taught that flowers are nice so you think that they are. Or is there an inherent indefinable quality in an object that makes it appealing. If so, why do some people like Baby Phat and some like Les Hommes? I suppose the Baby Phaters don't think about concepts like subjective evaluation as against objective aesthetic appeal, they just think that it's cool to look like a daft tart that drives a big cadilac and has an army of hispanic maids. That's probably a whole different conversation but maybe Faust is right about the idea of quality (at least for "made" things) - that quality provides the inherent value (not monetary). That a thing has beauty if in its production its been thought about, hand made, toiled over, personalised....

 

[softgrey]

Originally posted by purplelucrezia@Dec 2 2004, 11:50 AM
but to me... true style is what makes you want to just dance! If Uggs and trucker hats make you do that, then I'm not going to stop you. Style is what you make it.

[snapback]447529[/snapback]​

well...imho...style is a personal and individual thing...and if you look just like the person next to you...then you do not look like an individual, you look like a clone...and in my opinion...you have no style...

but if it makes you happy...then i'm happy for you...(but you still have no style)...

 

[purplelucrezia]

Originally posted by Johnny@Dec 2 2004, 12:02 PM
That a thing has beauty if in its production its been thought about, hand made, toiled over, personalised....

[snapback]447543[/snapback]​

But that weed wasn't... There's also a beauty that's inherent within simplicity.
And y'know something? I didn't like this season, but even I'll admit that labels like Roberto Cavalli have put out some wonderful creations over the years. In that same way, Costume National, for example, does become rather tedious after a while. I think that we need to remember to keep our minds open and not pass judgements about a particular label because "the masses" may approve.

 

[purplelucrezia]

Originally posted by softgrey@Dec 2 2004, 12:09 PM
but if it makes you happy...then i'm happy for you...(but you still have no style)...

[snapback]447551[/snapback]​

Since when have I worn trucker hats?

 

[mikeijames]

to be honest, i haven't read all of the posts here but i think that we must not forget that abercrombie is not just about fitting in, it's also about conspicuous consumption. while much of abercrombie these days finds itself logoed to death, abercrombie gained popularity as a reaction to the obvious designer fashion of the early nineties. i think that abercrombie has served an important role in getting middle class american society to identify a look instead of just a logo.

for those with money, there was nothing more rebellious than using your parents credit cards to buy up layers and layers of distressed clothing. i mean there was such an exclusivity about abercrombie because even if you recognized it, you had to wrap your mind around the idea of paying seventy dollars for a pair of torn shorts. it immediately separated the poor from the rich.

these days i think that many high fashion companies are reaping the benefits of this fashion education.

 

[Glamourina]

wow, this thread has gotten deep...

what can i say that hasn't been said before? i too got sucked into the abercrombie/american eagle cesspool back in middle school when everyone had to look the same and paying $32.50 for a shirt with "abercrombie & fitch 1892" on it was the ultimate in style. it's basically clothes for people who think that wearing it will make them look wealthier, yuppier, snobbier, etc. it's clothing for people who lack the mental capability to make their own decisions and only wear it because the coolest people in 8th grade wear it, omg! sadly it's easier for people to follow the herd (baaaah) and do what everyone else does rather than follow their own hearts and just be themselves. hence why abercrombie/american eagle/gap/etc have millions of mindless loyal followers. yay for conformity.

 

[softgrey]

boo for conformity!!...

 

[purplelucrezia]

Very true, Glamourina, I think the majority of humans have gotten "sucked into" that at some point or another. Someone earlier one said that my post was a good example of that... Honestly, though, it was just me stating what I imagine a number of others have gone through. It's all part of a search to discover your identity, since many of us here express it through what we wear. I'm not going to lie and say that I've always known about so much of this fashion-wise, or even that I do now. Only that I'm trying to learn as we speak, and that I still try to wear what I personally find appealing.

 

[softgrey]

Originally posted by purplelucrezia@Dec 2 2004, 12:10 PM
Since when have I worn trucker hats?

[snapback]447553[/snapback]​

c'mon purple...that was a universal 'you' ...


i know YOU wear bows...

 

[purplelucrezia]

Originally posted by softgrey@Dec 2 2004, 12:16 PM
c'mon purple...that was a universal 'you' ...


i know YOU wear bows...

[snapback]447565[/snapback]​

 

[helena]

Originally posted by Johnny@Dec 2 2004, 01:02 PM
I suppose the Baby Phaters don't think about concepts like subjective evaluation as against objective aesthetic appeal, they just think that it's cool to look like a daft tart that drives a big cadilac and has an army of hispanic maids.

[snapback]447543[/snapback]​

There are so many new threads in this debate - so many interesting ones. I like how this has grown organically from a fairly simple question. You can really see everyones personalities clearly on this thread. How very odd. Thats a great thing about tFS - we ironically aren't blinded by each others looks - we see the personalities first which is such a rare thing.

 

[Fade to Black]

Originally posted by Johnny@Dec 2 2004, 12:02 PM
That's probably a whole different conversation but maybe Faust is right about the idea of quality (at least for "made" things) - that quality provides the inherent value (not monetary). That a thing has beauty if in its production its been thought about, hand made, toiled over, personalised....

[snapback]447543[/snapback]​

I agree 100% with this...which is why I get frustrated when I see people drooling over a $60 BBC shirt just because it's endorsed by the right people, when quality wasn't even a priority in making that item.

Regarding the original topic:

I'm not a fan of those suburban mall brands at all...my school is basically one big Abercrombie & Fitch catalog and to be honest I find it quite repulsive. I'm not a fashion expert by any means, as I'm still learning a lot of things about clothes and defining my own style...but I had to make an observation: I don't mean to generalize, but is it pure coincidence when I talk to some of these people who swear by the cookie cutter college style that their personalities seem completely vapid and empty and that everything about them screams conformist? To be very honest with you I'll admit I do have a snob mentality towards these people, but this mentality is in response to their own smug ignorance and being content to fit in without any sense of individuality...and anything else outside that mold they fit in is just alien to them, namely good taste. Or maybe I'm just delusional. I've kind of tried as hard as possible to stay away from fitting under that category because I see those people and I see something that I genuinely despise, not just the clothes but the whole lifestyle in general. Which is why I actually prefer to be alone, doing my own thing rather than fit in with a crowd that I don't feel comfortable with anyway.

eh you don't have to pay me any mind, that wasn't really an interesting or funny statement, I just had to get some thoughts off my chest that I've been harboring for the past few years.

 

[softgrey]

i suppose this thread has become relevant here...

http://www.thefashionspot.com/forums/index...?showtopic=9218

 

[softgrey]

I've kind of tried as hard as possible to stay away from fitting under that category because I see those people and I see something that I genuinely despise, not just the clothes but the whole lifestyle in general. Which is why I actually prefer to be alone, doing my own thing rather than fit in with a crowd that I don't feel comfortable with anyway.

[snapback]447655[/snapback]​

[/quote]

i think that's great!...
i do some of my best work when i am on my own... B)

 

[faust]

Originally posted by mikeijames@Dec 2 2004, 12:11 PM
for those with money, there was nothing more rebellious than using your parents credit cards to buy up layers and layers of distressed clothing. i mean there was such an exclusivity about abercrombie because even if you recognized it, you had to wrap your mind around the idea of paying seventy dollars for a pair of torn shorts. it immediately separated the poor from the rich.

[snapback]447555[/snapback]​

i'm sorry, but that does not sound rebellious, that sounds decadent and even to some degree arrogant.

 

[mikeijames]

Originally posted by faust@Dec 2 2004, 01:41 PM
i'm sorry, but that does not sound rebellious, that sounds decadent and even to some degree arrogant.

[snapback]447681[/snapback]​

there is a certain type of rebellion because lots of parents found the idea of spending good money on old-looking clothes absurd. it is of course decadent, most conspicuous consumption is. conspicuous consumption and arrogance find themselves often times confused. (buying a sixty thousand dollar fendi fur: conspicuous consumption or arrogance?)

 

[Fade to Black]

Originally posted by faust@Dec 2 2004, 01:41 PM
i'm sorry, but that does not sound rebellious, that sounds decadent and even to some degree arrogant.

[snapback]447681[/snapback]​

hmm...i guess you could say the same for high fashion brands like Undercover and Number (N)ine, which has items that go for 10X the price of an Abercrombie shirt and is even more ripped to shreds But strangely, it doesn't really bother me when someone buys a distressed item of clothing that looks unique and well made with a touch of personalization. Maybe I'm just biased towards certain brands.

 

[faust]

Originally posted by Fade to Black@Dec 2 2004, 01:45 PM
hmm...i guess you could say the same for high fashion brands like Undercover and Number (N)ine, which has items that go for 10X the price of an Abercrombie shirt and is even more ripped to shreds But strangely, it doesn't really bother me when someone buys a distressed item of clothing that looks unique and well made with a touch of personalization. Maybe I'm just biased towards certain brands.

[snapback]447694[/snapback]​

Yes, I could. I was just looking at the Raf Simons's (whom I hold in high regard) bomber jackets (and another type of jacket, which I can't really describe. in russia we called it "alaska" jacket. it's a popular type made of polyester with a hood with faux fur, zipper and buttons closure. juicy did them last year, they were very popular) that looked identical to something you can buy in an Army/Navy store and I don't get the appeal of it either.

But you also pointed out the difference. It could look almost like something you could buy cheaper, but not quite the color, silouehtee, fabric, etc...

 

[orlem]

Originally posted by Fade to Black @ Dec 2 2004@ 01:45 PM
hmm...i guess you could say the same for high fashion brands like Undercover and Number (N)ine, which has items that go for 10X the price of an Abercrombie shirt and is even more ripped to shreds  But strangely, it doesn't really bother me when someone buys a distressed item of clothing that looks unique and well made with a touch of personalization. Maybe I'm just biased towards certain brands.

I notice something funny about that on ebay. There were two Alaia skirts that were so similar, and one with the label missing and one with the label still in it. As far as I could see the one with the label missing was probably more expensive in the first place because it had a higher silk content and the other one had a higher wool content. But of course the one with the label in it sold for much more even though they were both obviously Alaia. For me the striking thing is that Alaia is not for the mainstream; maybe it is more so than Undercover but the masses don't really know the difference between Alaia and Abercrombie, or at least they don't notice it enough to be worth hundred of dollars of difference to impress others. So having the label inside truly is something that only the buyer only will know, but the buyer still cares.

So even among the nonconformists, there is conformity...? I like to think that if there were two identical skirts, except one missing the label, I would bid the exact same, but maybe it would be hard to keep that mindset...? As much as anybody believes in nonconformity...?

 

[purplelucrezia]

Originally posted by seraphelle@Dec 2 2004, 02:16 PM
So even among the nonconformists, there is conformity...?

[snapback]447754[/snapback]​

I seriously do not see how they even are non-conformists.
They're only conforming to a less publicized label.