How to Dress

[jay-ell]

Function, function, function. Fuck form.

[side_show]

Really?

Example:  ugly comfortable boots v/ stylish comfortable boots

[littlefallsmets]

If ugly and comfortable costs less/takes less time to put on/takes less time to maintain, ugly and comfortable all the way, yes.

If you're into form, by all means, mazeltov.

But unless form is at a nil cost, I gotta go function all the way.

I just wanna get shit done so that I can go back to watching a baseball game or listening to music or something.

Effort I would have to put into maintaining aesthetic choices is effort I could, instead, put into reading and daydreaming.

[Choop]

given the choice between two pairs of boots, given they are both the same price, comfortable, with identical life expectancies; the only difference being one is stylish and the other is not; i'd opt for the stylish pair every time.

[jay-ell]

If you're into form, by all means, mazeltov.

But unless form is at a nil cost, I gotta go function all the way.

This.

Especially since, by virtue of the fact that most people value form, ugly but comfortable boots are often (ultimately, when they don't sell and go on clearance) much less expensive than cute but comfortable boots.

I don't really scorn appearances as much as I pretend to -- I pay $40 every time I get a flipping haircut, for pete's sake -- but honestly, I dress for the life I lead, and that life includes a lot of kneading cookie dough with my hands on the kitchen floor, and not a lot of Manolo Blahnik pumps or what have you. (Case in point, I had to Google MB because I couldn't remember if he made shoes or handbags or whatever.)

So, Old Navy yoga ##### for the win.

ETA: Also, the things I find "aesthetically pleasing" are often not considered "stylish," so while I won't (publicly) wear something I don't feel is flattering to my shape or attractive in a general way, I don't pay much attention to what everyone else is wearing this season or anything. I buy new clothes when the old ones stop fitting or wear out; IMHO tossing things because they're "out of style" is a waste of money and resources. So as a rule, I try not to buy clothes that I can't see myself continuing to love for years to come.

[littlefallsmets]

True enough.

But most of the time, you pay an above-nominal extra fee for style, Choop.

[Choop]

and why shouldn't i? i like aesthetics, and form properly applied to function pleases me. it's more work and more effort and more investment to integrate the form with the function, and if the price is too high, i pass it up.

but then, i also look for deals on form-infused apparel that knocks some of that premium off. i bought an unused ralph lauren tuxedo for a hundred bucks last year from a rental clearing house; i also got a used brandless tux for seventy-five. the design differences between the two are immediately apparent, and reflected not only in how i look wearing each but how i feel wearing each. i consider that extra twenty-five dollars very well spent. (why two? in case i spill something, of course.)

[arkabee]

i'm generally function.
i used to wear Adidas ball caps exclusively, because they exclusively fit my head correctly and held together well.
i also get pissed that it costs extra to advertise for the companies whose clothing i wear.

eg. a t-shirt costs $10
a t-shirt with a company's logo costs $15

so, i pay a company $5 to advertise for them.

i would think to myself underneat my comfy adidas logo'd ballcap.

truth be told, though, my favoritest ballcap ever was a Camel cap i got free with a couple-three packs of smokes.
this would have been late 90s, because i remember i used to wear that hat while working as
Assistant Part Time Manager
at the KB toys in the mall.

in hindsight, maybe not the most appropriate work attire given the demographic,
however,
our smoke breaks were _right outside the store_ inside the mall.
so, yeah.

form follows function. this isn't to say that form is less valid than function, but that it must not attempt to be more valid. form takes function and joins with it to enhance or improve in accordance with the current aesthetic.

e.g. the lapel: it doesn't exist just to hold a dang flower or create a line. if it's windy or wet, raise that collar and fold that lapel closed to keep cool or dry.

i am far to lazy to have done anything other than wonder about this:
in Stephenson's "history" trilogy of the 1600/1700s,
in the sections about Versaille and the French Court and etc,
he says, or his characters say, that "fashion" (insomuch as the dictates of XIV's court) was a Court invention made by LeRoy in order to be used as a tool to keep the nobility in check,
because keeping up with all the fashion shit was so fuck*ng expensive and time consuming it helped keep a lot of them from plotting against him,
etc.

and that strikes me as so fuck*ng true, that deep down i assume it is false.

[CortJstr]

My friend Nick was recently lamenting how hard it is to find a hat with no logo on it. The one he finally found looks is military green and looks very Castro-esque.

I don't mind paying the "free advertising upcharge" if it's something I'm choosing to support like a webcomic or band or whathave you as opposed to "dammit, all the golf shirts in my size have a little alligator or polo player on them"

[side_show]

To me, form is often an indicator of quality.  To me thought put into design sometimes (though not always) follows thought put into construction.  If I look at ugly, functional boots v stylish comfortable boots, I then turn to quality, and (this is possibly psychological assumption based stuff) it often turns out that the stylish ones are also of higher quality - such as thicker grain of leather, more rigorous standards of construction, a warrenty on quality, etc.  While both will be functional on the same level, if they're fug, I tend to assume there wasn't much care put into the deal, and that they will fall to pieces way earlier.

For boots, being Canadian, it is a serious game.  What I do is shop for boots in the middle of summer at the high end foot wear stores.  I got the $250 pair of rad boots I wanted on sale for $60.  They are slip resistant to -40 deg C, waterproof, thick grade leather, arch support (removeable arch natch) and look snazzy.  I could have bought a fug pair by the same company with the same specs for $40, but they were embarassingly ugly vs the stylish pair for $20 more.  For a set of boots that will last at least 5 winters, and extra $20 to not be embarassed is nothing.

[Choop]

I doubt the invention of fashion is directly attributable to Louis XIV, though it's fairly well documented that his use of fashion as a tool amongst his aristocracy to distract them from his agenda. High heels and makeup were first worn by men. It rather amazes me that so many women still use - and many enjoy - these tools of oppression.

btw that ralph lauren tux retailed at $475.

[AugustWest]

i am far to lazy to have done anything other than wonder about this:
in Stephenson's "history" trilogy of the 1600/1700s,
in the sections about Versaille and the French Court and etc,
he says, or his characters say, that "fashion" (insomuch as the dictates of XIV's court) was a Court invention made by LeRoy in order to be used as a tool to keep the nobility in check,
because keeping up with all the fashion shit was so fuck*ng expensive and time consuming it helped keep a lot of them from plotting against him,
etc.

Have a can for a Baroque Cycle reference.  Love it.

[AugustWest]

To me, form is often an indicator of quality. 

Yeah, like how Italian cars are the best made.

[Choop]

often =/= always, the exception proves the rule

NEXT

[side_show]

Yeah, like how Italian cars are the best made.

I was talking about clothing, not cars or, say... architecture. 

I'm the daughter of an autobody teacher, so I think form v function when it comes to cars is pretty skewed in my mind anyway.  I mean my dream car would be a 64' Mustang convertible, and I live in the Canadian hinterland, where we have snow and dump buckets of salt on the road six months a year, so clearly for me form follows function there when it comes to vehicle preference too.

On the flip side, my preference with architecture is the opposite when it comes to form v function - the most stylized architectural spaces (to me) are often the ones that fly in the face of structural convention.  Structural convention that works and has for centuries.  I find that those fancy, odd structures I enjoy looking at are the ones where, when I visit them a few years post construction, have huge challenges with maintenance.  Where do I want to live?  In a functional space.  I favour 100 + year old character homes shaped like rectangles over some curvilinear, corner-less architectural marvel any day, even though the latter maybe purty.