Someone please defend/explain this to me.
― Alex in NYC, Thursday, 20 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― nabisco%%, Thursday, 20 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Ernest, Thursday, 20 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Dan Perry, Thursday, 20 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― geeta, Thursday, 20 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
Jesus Christ.
― jess, Thursday, 20 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 20 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― nathalie, Thursday, 20 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Josh, Thursday, 20 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― JoB, Thursday, 20 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 20 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
Look, I'm no hip-hop fan, me. Never really considered myself their target audience (and yes,...I'm an old man of 34), but my question is a genuine one: how/why does anything think this trend is even remotely clever, "phat", "fly" or otherwise when it is clearly a stupid -- let alone probably UNCOMFORTABLE --- way to wear one's clothes?!?! I'm still waiting for a proper explanation.
But suppose we take the cookie person's assesment that they're merely doing it because non-hip hop folks or oldsters (like myself) don't approve/understand/"like" it --- it seems to me that said end could be accomplished in a more efficient, less uncomfortable way. Going out of your way to wear an extra layer of fabric, worn in an impractical manner that impedes movement and looks frankly silly SOLELY in the intent to piss off/confuse people outside of the loop merely suggests that you're trying too hard.
At some point, utility must rear its head.
― Dare, Thursday, 20 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
and when has fashion been about utility?
― mitch lastnamewithheld, Thursday, 20 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
Sure: if we don't watch out those silly folks will start doing something really ridiculous, like knotting pieces of cloth around their necks and letting the free ends dangle toward their crotches, solely for the purpose of identifying themselves and evaluating others as part-of or not-part-of a certain sociocultural group.
Quite. This brings to mind some other fads: That preppy '80s thing of draping a lambswool sweater over the back with the arms knotted over the shoulders; that hateful '80s habit of wearing a jacket with the sleeves rolled up to the elbows - mostly sported by rock stars, I don't recall it being a particularly street thing; the 501s ripped-to- shreds-at-the-knees, again in the '80s; and (going back a bit now) the vogue for having 'blakies' or 'a quarter iron' embedded in the heels of one's brogues/loafers/'box gibsons'
― David, Thursday, 20 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
The fact remains: the sheer impracticality of this fashion trend (discomfort, impeding of movement, silly-looking) renders it stupid, regardless of sociocultural connotations.
Me, I'm one o' them fogey lefty types who can't understand why somebody'd pay money for shoes or shirts that loudly & by name announce the name of their manufacturers, so I figure I must be a big fashion dimwit. Bring on the runway full of halfshirts!
― John Darnielle, Thursday, 20 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
I see more kids in the street sporting this trend than actual musicians.
And, for the record, I always hated Pavement.
― Asymmetrical Shroom, Thursday, 20 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Andrew, Thursday, 20 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Sean Carruthers, Thursday, 20 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
Do not pass Go. Consign yourself to a lifetime of polyester and sweltering Florida sun.
― Mark, Friday, 21 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
Rule 1: No clothes obv Rule 2: You CAN wear shoes if ground and/or activity permit Rule 3: If v. cold you can wear i. hat, ii. shoes and socks, iii. sweater, iv. NO PANTS OR UNDERWEAR!! EVAH!!! You can wear what you like on yr arms and legs AS LONG AS WE CAN SEE YR GENITALS!!! Rule 4: It is all totally natural and not at all pervy AS LONG AS WE CAN SEE YR GENITALS AT ALL TIMES!! Do you SEE!!?? RULE 5: As cook at a barbie tending hot spitting fat etc, you are allowed to wear a pinny PROVIDED IT IS SEE-THRU AT GROIN LEVEL!! Rule 6: WHY DO YOU NOT PLAY TENNIS LIKE THE OTHAHS!!?? ARE YOU SUBTLY MOCKING OUR NATURIST WAYS!!??
― mark s, Friday, 21 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Alex in NYC, Friday, 21 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
I think you already answered your own question ;)
― Ben Williams, Friday, 21 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Josh, Friday, 21 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
Mark S. sed: "alex since you apparently do not accept the following answer — viz they do it to amuse themselves and to annoy others and to define their mini-community and fit into it and exclude others who think not as they - what kind of answer are you looking for, exactly? why do YOU think it happens?"
Actually, Mark -- that's the most insightful and plainly worded response to this question I've yet to read on this thread. Most responses have been seemingly reactionary/defensive answers (how * DARE* I inquire with a derisive tone about something related to hip- hop!) I guess I have my initial answer. The question I'm left with, I suppose, is why that particular style? Who thought it up and decided it would be cool to wear shirts the wrong way? What did it beat out? "Let's see, shoes on hands? Nah...ummm...shorts undone? Nah, been done. Underwear on head? Nah...I'VE GOT IT: ONLY WEAR HALF MY SHIRT AND LEAVE THE REST SLUNG AWKWARDLY OVER MY SHOULDER! GENIUS!"
Stop calling me "Dude." What are you people, surfers?
― nathalie, Friday, 21 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― nabisco%%, Friday, 21 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Dave225, Friday, 21 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Tracer Hand, Friday, 21 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
For a start, Mark S., touche! I did indeed ask for someone to "defend/ explain", so you're absolutely correct. I stand down on that one.
Nabisco sed: "I don't think 'It's cool because you don't like it' was at all defensive. And I think my tie analogy was sarcastic but not defensive either. And I think the phrase 'simply a statement of pointlessness, not fashion' invites the following analysis: (a) fashion is by definition pointless, except that (b) the point is to do pointless things with other people that define groups and communities and associations that do have points, thus visibly including and excluding others, the latter of which brings us back to (c) it's cool because you don't like it."
Tough to argue with that one, although I don't necessarily agree with the theory that fashion is completely pointless. Fashion in itself is a bit too amorphous to pin down, but I believe it serves a myriad of purposes. It may often be trivial, but I don't think I'd call it categorically pointless.
Nathalie countered: "But isn't definining it as cool, taking it on face value (or whatever). It is more an expression and have value/ relevance. Obv not to dude Alex. It expresses an ideology (just like safety pins/shoulder pads/... do)."
I think the difference between the half-shirt phenom and the safety- pins/shoulder pads was that here is a trend that actively demands that you hamper your own movement and potentially make yourself uncomfortable. I suppose the act of putting safety-pins in your clothing (or elsewhere) also presents a self-defeating impediment, but not entirely to the same degree. Shoulder pads, meanwhile, didn't impede ambulatory movement, they just supplied a specific look (and I don't think anyone wore shoulder-pads to signify alleigance or membership to any specific community, but I could very well be wrong about that).
I think a better analogy would be another bit of the celebrated `77- era Punk wardrobe, the bondage pants with confining straps....certainly not designed for comfort nor convenience.
― tyrone jackson, Friday, 21 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― o. nate, Friday, 21 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Martin Skidmore, Friday, 21 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Chris, Friday, 21 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000000E49.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
"I'll not worry about restating the obvious problems with your fairly restrictive view of what 'fashion' is"
I don't think my view of fashion is restrictive at all (but then, I wouldn't think so, would I!) I said above that I think it's a hard thing to adquately define, and that it serves a myriad of purposes.
But regarding my statement: "when it flies directly in the face of all that's practical, it becomes simply a statement of pointlessness", I meant that when the short-comings of a particular trend outweigh its "wearability" (is that a word?), then it simply becomes a self- defeating and pointless act.
I trust you're not wearing a hair shirt.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 21 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
This half-worn shirt could mean, "I can't be bothered to put on my clothes completely. I am a very busy person." Or is it something else?
― Jester, Saturday, 22 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― A Regular Poster Using an Alias, Saturday, 22 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
Stupid fashion conformity is the Elder Gods' method of identifying the various meat herds on this particular planet. We have found the the local monkeys don't react well to physical branding, so we convince the you to adopt identifying marks to determine age, feed, and fat content. For example, bell-bottoms and tie-dye mean a fine vegetarian and macrobioic fed cut of quasi-sapient, with a fine herbal infusion. The current "urban" look signifies a well-marbled, malty carcass, bulked up on our latest designer drugs, and fattened nicely on re-processed human meal obtained from our fast-food troughs.
Sorry if this is coming as a bit of shock to you Terrans. Didn't ever wonder why we allow such idiots as yourself to live? We're not philanthropists, after all. Keep up the good work breeding indiscriminently, and remember not to exercise- it makes you stringy.
B. Shoggoth, R'lyh Terrestrial Ape Meats Ltd
― Bob Shoggoth, Saturday, 22 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Alex in NYC, Saturday, 22 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Color Me Arthur, Saturday, 22 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
No, there really is no way to avoid the inexorable "bolt to the head", once marked. However, it is possible to enter the former in the "pets or food" category. Try a rite of supplication to the Elder Gods Miles Davis or Jaz Coleman. Robes and T-shirts sporting their eldritch sigils may be purchased at better music and/or occult stores.
B. Shoggoth - try our tasty "Boy-band on a Stick"
― bnw, Saturday, 22 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Ally, Sunday, 23 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Mr Noodles, Sunday, 23 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― minna, Sunday, 23 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Tom, Monday, 24 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― nabisco%%, Monday, 24 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Dan Perry, Monday, 24 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Alex in NYC, Monday, 24 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Tracer Hand, Monday, 24 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)
― Mark, Monday, 24 June 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)