Unintended irony in street fashion

For the first time this morning I saw a street style blog post with a picture of someone who had not dressed up trying to be fashionable or ironic. It was the first time I've seen the photographer make the decision that the person was going to be those things. Here it is:

http://com-onpeople.blogspot.com/2009/03/housein.html

Seeing the above really shocked me. Housein is not trying to be fashionable or cool! Who knows why he ended up buying that jacket, but it wasn't because it made him giggle. But still he was wearing a jacket that a hipster might buy because it made him giggle, and so the photographer photographed him. So I guess intentionality is now moot in the production of sartorial irony? Will everyone become un-P.C. like me and start taking pictures like this?

Interesting how, obviously, Housein's unironic orientation towards clothing goes right along with a completely different set of values. Whereas the legginged-out girl a couple posts above him reported her inspirations for this outfit as "Santangela,pulp,common people,1991," Housein's were his country, family, and friends. No hipster raised in the United States would ever say this. And yet, it's a much cooler response, in my opinion, than any of the rather boneheaded ones that most people spout when asked.

I've been spending some time with my friend's crowd of international-relations students here in D.C., and one bit of fashion trivia which they frequently cite is the Third World's position on the fashion food chain--how apparently after clothes have made it all the way from the manufacturer through discounts and more discounts at department stores, to second-tier bargain stores like T.J.Maxx, to thrift stores, they finally make it (seasons, years later) to poor countries in big bags, and people there shop by fishing things out of the bags.

The resulting outfits are representative of the trend I wrote about here called "Beautiful Ugliness," in which the goal of an outfit is to create an effect of aesthetic dissonance. However, I was completely wrong about this idea. Instead of being created on purpose, the new aesthetic dissonance will be created by accident; and instead of acting as a fashion catharsis for the "problem" of collage Late Modern culture, it will expose the fact that the "collage" is an illusion, a false construction of affluent Westerners trying to explain and contain the surging multiethnic, multicultural richness and vitality of the world beyond its ken--and to assuage its guilt over destroying the continuity of the past by obsessively recycling it.

This Beautiful Ugliness is the first modern fashion that the American-born cannot attain--or that at least very few of them can attain--because the prerequisite for it is a certain attitude: one that prompts a person to instinctively list as his inspirations, "My country Bangladesh, my family and my friends." Though hipsters and celebrities, especially M.I.A., dressing up in a version of Beautiful Ugliness, they still can't help doing it all on purpose. They have learned aesthetic preferences which it's very hard to unlearn, and have aesthetic associations that may never be wiped clean. They are doomed to look at Husein's jacket and think, "1980s. Ironic." They just can't wear this style!

Of course, is it a style? Does an aesthetic have to be intentional to be a style? I'm not sure. It does to be a "fashion" -- but all traditional cultures have extremely well-developed styles, and those emerged not from a designer's sketchbook but from centuries of evolution, elaboration, and perfection. Now they're gone. And what the descendants of those cultures have left to work with are the cast-offs of the culture that demolished them. And, repeating the pattern of unconscious evolution, the style that's emerging expresses much more perfectly the reality of the modern aesthetic than its rich overlords do. That is real street style.

Can-collector costume

I always get transfixed by the clothes of the Chinese-American women who collect bottles and cans in downtown New York. Though definitely the result of poverty and with the main goal of utility, these women's outfits are quite beautiful and fascinating.

First of all, they just have their outfits DOWN! They are always dressed from head to toe in an utterly functional, comfortable-looking combination of layers. In the winter, this often means an assortment of cotton jackets piled on top of each other, with socks ingeniously made into wrist-warmers. But look at the picture here, taken recently in warm weather: She's wearing a short-sleeved top, and seemingly underneath a dark-red long-sleeve top. But I could see from closer up that what appear to be sleeves are actually arm coverings, home-made out of other cloth and with elastic at both ends to keep them on!!! They must be for sun protection, cleanliness, or both. Whatever they're for, they provide adjustable, easy-to-remove coverage and look amazing. Then there's her smock: these women always wear one. It's again a very functional, thrifty garment to wear. And yet it also adds another layer to the collage of clothes, making the whole outfit look more rich and almost exotic. The sun hat, too, is functional, but gives this woman and others an added dignity -- affirming, somehow, that they too are workers with a job to do and a role to fulfill.

Above all I love how all the different parts of these women's outfits work together. They always clash, possibly because the women can't afford to -- but my hunch is that they don't care to -- match their clothes to one another. It's not that they're oblivious to aesthetics: it's quite clear that they prefer certain prints (florals, paisleys), colors (pastels, muted neutrals and primaries), and styles (boxy jackets, especially traditional Chinese ones, and elastic-waist pants). But they're operating with a completely different eye for how these things should go together.

The can collector aesthetic is effectively very similar to Beautiful Ugliness, only from an opposite direction. Unlike a post-hipster who would have to combine clashing items self-consciously, these women -- and poor non-Westerners and marginal Westerners across the world -- put anti-matching, anti-fashion outfits together totally naturally. They don't have to force themselves to ignore what a rich Westerner can't help but see as contradictory, inappropriate, potentially-ironic juxtapositions of style -- because they don't have anything invested in those styles not clashing. So while they probably don't see their clothing as beautiful, neither do they see it as "wrong." And that puts them way ahead of typical affluent Americans, with their concerns about putting together right-wrong outfits, at great expense, which will just have to be given away or thrown away when the next right-wrong fashion comes along.

The can collectors don't care about any of that. They're just surviving. And they've come up with a clothing style perfectly oriented towards helping them survive. In this sense, their style is not just like Beautiful Ugliness, but also New Sportswear, in that it's all about functionality and performance. That's the most modern way to dress.

It's my belief that these women are actually, in a way, better-adapted to living in New York City than the expensively-suited office workers who pass by them and pity them every day. They really see clothes for what they are, and use them for exactly what they need. And they look more amazing than anyone else.

I see the girls walk by dressed in their summer clothes

The darkness isn't going to go if you turn your head, though.  More darkness is on the way.  In fact it would be appropriate, if you see a red dress, to paint it black, because black and more black is what we're going to be seeing this summer.

That's right, here it is, my favorite time of year: time to make the New York Downtown Young Ladies' Summer Fashion Trend Report.

It's all about separates, neutrals, minimalism, utilitarianism, lots of skin, and a tough attitude.

All the outfits worn by New York Downtown Young Ladies are a variation on this theme:

• white, black, gray, denim, or khaki short shorts or short skirt, high-waisted
• + white, black, or gray top of some kind
• OR black or white sundress BELTED AT THE WAIST -- NO empire line
• potential vest, layered shirt, or jacket in white, black, or denim -- NO SWEATERS

Guidelines for accessories:

• sandals, esp. gladiators or anything with an ankle strap, leather NOT jelly, espadrille, or other, TRUE sandal NOT FLIP-FLOP -- OR leather or canvas black/white/neutral lace-ups OR boots -- tough boots as motorcycle or winkle-picker, NOT round-toe scrunchy
• NO bag -- OR utilitarian bag - backpack, fanny pack, or as last resort TRUE handbag (no shoulder straps and especially NO HOBOS)
• the best accessories have some sort of significance or symbolism: for instance, political pins, wedding rings, friendship bracelets
• earrings are long and made of feathers or fringe or are hoops or simple studs but are NOT chandelier.  multiple ear piercings are good.
• chokers

Grooming:

• hair: should not be styled -- it should be air-dried and left in its natural state.  If it's frizzy in its natural state, it should be frizzy; if it's flat, it should be flat.  your growing-out bangs should be in your eyes.  don't trim your hair.
• makeup: pretty skin, some mascara.  NO EYELINER.  lip balm.
• no nail polish

Underwear

• I was a little wrong about bras.  it's OK to wear a bra, but it shouldn't be a heavy-duty bra.  It should be a garment and not an undergarment.  it should show -- the straps should show, or the color should show through your shirt.  or you can wear it on its own -- if it's a sports bra.  that could be really cool, actually.

The following are forbidden:

• irony
• color
• notions of "luxury" or "glamour"
• boho

Other notes:

• the right denim is old, thrifted, men's denim -- ideally a little torn.
• don't try to be sexy.  it's an election year, get over yourself
• shoes are going to be getting more and more utilitarian.  sandals this summer will give way to sneakers this fall and hiking boots and flat boots this winter.  notice how the nineties are coming back?
• also in that vein: perhaps instead of long hair, a bit of a sinead/ani moment?
• this winter the black turtleneck will succeed these black winter clothes.

Political hip-hop style

I was waiting for something like this. I saw an amazing, amazing Obama shirt this afternoon. It was in the window of a tiny hip-hop boutique on 28th near 6th Avenue: this big black shirt with a picture of Obama (shot from below, like in all the web site photos) giving the thumbs-up, and surrounding him the giant words "YES" (above his head) and, below him, "WE CAN," in puffy gold glitter fat bold type. There were other hip-hop-style Obama shirts in the window, too, but this one was the winner.

Tons of blacks and Latinos in their teens and twenties were psyched to wear the Obama stickers I and other volunteers were handing out at the Puerto Rican Day Parade on Sunday. Lots of people passed me waving these stickers around and then would circle back and say, "Oh, Obama. Yeah, I want a sticker."

What youth culture, black culture, and entertainment culture media will the Ice Cold Obama influence infiltrate next??

Tinted glasses, haircolor for men, nun casualwear

Great people-watching on the downtown 6 train today.

I saw my third man wearing tinted prescription glasses (not sunglasses) of 2008. The first two men were wearing yellow-tinted glasses and I saw both of them on St. Mark's. One was wearing a very nice suit and the other I don't remember that well but was generally a bit nebbishy-chic I think. This man on the 6 today had pink or "rose"-tinted glasses. He was a short, plump thirty-something man wearing a tight blue-and-yellow-striped long-sleeved polo shirt, lots of rings, and a gold bangle bracelet. Like with the other 2 men, I was too afraid to ask him what the deal was with his glasses. I didn't like his as much as the yellow glasses because they were very high-style, whereas the yellow-tinted glasses on the other men were otherwise very normal and I thought that was cool. What's the deal? Is this a fad? Does it have to do with insisting on one's own subjective experience of reality?

Second: I saw a tall businessman, also in his thirties, in a nice suit, with platinum-blonde hair that I for some reason did not buy as his natural haircolor. I started wondering whether he'd started going gray and was dying his hair back blonde. His face looked older than his hair, somehow. Then I saw it in a different light and the blonde looked more believable. It was hard to believe someone that nicely-dressed would be *tacky* enough to dye his hair. Then I wondered whether it wouldn't just be very punk rock to dye one's hair, if one were a man. Natural colors that were just a little bit off would be cool. A reddish tint on a natural light brunette, black on natural dark-brown hair.  Here's a redhead from Face Hunter who went Manic-Panic-red with great success.

Then I saw what I think must have been a nun in a nun's casual-wear ensemble. Do nuns have special casual-wear uniforms?? The all-over light-blue color was the main reason I thought she had to be a nun. That and most of what she was wearing was handmade: handmade light-blue knee-length A-line skirt with white embroidery (obviously done by one of the automatic stitch functions on a sewing machine -- scallops and zigzags); a light-blue V-neck cardigan, baggy fit, definitely hand-knit; white blouse looked like it could have been hand-sewn; and then my favorite, this chunky beaded necklace of alternating white and navy beads. This with tan hose and black-on-black cheapo sneakers, maybe Reeboks. And a short pageboy with bangs. She was doing the crossword. Is this an approved nun's holiday ensemble? Or was this woman just some sort of wacky Holly Hobby? I love spotting handmade clothes. They always just leap out at you. They look so original, and so wrong.

2nd Update: Camouflage

I wrote earlier about the street trend of camouflage prints here and here.

This second update is long overdue because I've been seeing more and new kinds of camouflage for over a month now.  Desert camo prints have been gaining on the woodland ones I saw most at first.  But more curiously, there are now lots of camo-like prints in mass market clothes.  I've been seeing women's tops and skirts in floral prints that copy the look and colors of camouflage.  I also saw a skirt with a print of a collage of faces that formed a camo-like pattern.  There has been a lot of pixillated camo on skater-type clothes for men, too.

The transmutation of camouflage into traditional fashion patterns can be read in multiple interesting ways, such as:

• A symbol of how the foreign policy topic of the war has come to be seen also as a domestic issue
  
• An echo of the trend in contemporary art away from the abstract (camo's blobs and squiggles) and towards the figurative (flowers, faces)
• A gesture of solidarity with the troops
• An anti-war statement
• A motif of national insecurity (we want even our pretty patterns to "camouflage" and protect us in daily life)

These patterns haven't actually been having that much success: I've spotted them a lot on sales racks and in thrift stores.  People may be a bit put off by the potentially very loaded message of these prints.  Or they may just find them ugly and difficult to wear -- which they are.  I can't tell yet whether this trend is surviving into spring, but if it does, I'm sure I'll write about it again.

Update: Camouflage

In December I posted about all the camouflage army jackets I'd been seeing around town.  Since then I've seen more and more camouflage, but remained unsure of what it meant. Today I read this article, which describes how gang members in the U.S. army in Iraq are sending flak jackets back to America for use in gang warfare.  It gave me a couple of new ideas about the source of the camo trend.

On one level, the camouflage trend may have come from a street trend: gang members started wearing the stolen camouflage flak jackets around, clothing companies picked up on this, and the trend was turned into fashion.

On a more abstract level, the use of camouflage as a print in civilian wear may be a symbol of how American corporations are using the war to make money.  Commercializing camouflage by bringing it into "fashion" could be a statement about the commercialization of warfare.

Hats

I noticed a strong trend in the March issue of Teen Vogue: it seemed to be full of hats.

To check whether I wasn't overestimating just how many hats there were, I went through and counted.  Sure enough, the issue contained 60 images of women wearing hats.  In addition, there were 23 images of women wearing some kind of non-hat head decoration: 5 flowers, 6 bows, 2 turbans, 6 tiaras, 13 headbands, 1 large pin, 2 feathers, 4 colored hair extensions, 3 sunglasses-on-top-of-heads, 1 visor, and 3 full-deployed hoods on hoodies. 83 head accessories in all.

This is a big deal.  That is way more hats and hatlike accessories than any magazine has shown in a long time.  It's definitely a trend, one that Teen Vogue's editors seem to be pushing and which therefore has a good chance of catching on.

What do all the hats mean?  Since hat-wearing is associated with the past, and particularly with Jackie O and the early 1960s, hats may be popular because of the recent Camelot nostalgia in coverage of the 2008 election.  They also fit in with the return to conservative dressing for fall 2008.  Recently young trendsetters have played around with hats as fun, often vintage-y accessories, and in recent years we've seen the trucker hat, the cowboy hat, the hippie headband, and the fedora have comebacks.

But I see hats and other head decorations as more than just another ingredient to throw into the style-mixing blender.  I group them with the veils, masks, and hoods that have also appeared on runways in the past few seasons; as such, they are part of an ongoing, long-range ideological fashion trend, as opposed to being a fleeting fad.

Hats are profoundly traditional, symbolic, ritualistic clothing items.  Throughout history they have been indicators of religious affiliation, class status, and even political belief.  Hats are carriers and indicators of meaning, and the reemergence of the hat signals people's waxing interest in meaningfulness.  This trend signals that people are interested in identifying with, believing in, and standing for something.  In this way, hats are very post-postmodern.

It's curious that hats are returning just as there's been renewed interest in JFK in the form of comparisons between him and Obama.  JFK was the first US president to go hatless; this choice caused quite a stir, for at the time the hat was a key component of standard business dress, and going without one was somewhat shockingly informal.  But I don't think the return of hats means a return to formality, because the trend toward informality is extremely strong.  For instance, Obama has recently been echoing Kennedy's hatlessness by often going tieless.

I think the popularity of hats has more to do with maturity than formality.  JFK's reason for not wearing a hat was that he thought hats made him look old.  At the time he was elected, America's idealism about the future was very tied to positive associations between youth and progress.  The same thing is going on today, except that youth is being conceived of in a different way.  Simply being young is not the point; rather, it's the capacity of young people to display maturity, and thereby to increase the credibility and value of youth culture as a whole, that is gaining attention and favor.

The fact that stylish young people are donning hats shows that they are ready to actively and positively participate in culture -- adult culture.

What will the new hats look like?  I can't wait to see.  I'm hoping that the "reference" hats we've seen recently, like the trapper hat, will give way to exciting original designs within the next year.

All-black is whack

The all-black look is overdone: most people agree with that. But lots of people love black and want to wear as much of it as possible. What's the best way to pull it off?

Lots of people compromise with almost-all-black, adding color in just one place like in a top or accessory. That's a little more interesting than all-black, but it doesn't have much personality, unless you're really good with the details. It's also hard to make it look balanced since the one spot of color draws the eye like a magnet, making you look poorly-proportioned.

It's best to flip the ratio of black-to-color so that black makes up the minority of your outfit. Just a dash of black, in an accessory or a single item of clothing, is enough to make an outfit pop. It also makes you look cool, because a restrained use of black shows you're not trying too hard.

The most modern colors to combine with black are neutrals. I've been seeing lots of people on the street combining black with natural-colored leather shoes, bags, and belts. This is a great look because of the strong contrast between the ascetic modernism of black and the earthy classicism of the neutral. It is also very easy to put together.

To make a black + neutral outfit even better, it's good to add some color in the form of a print. Once you've got one print in there, it's O.K. to add a solid color. But an outfit looks best with at least one print to play off against the solids.

I'm not saying no one can ever wear all-black. But very few people can pull it off. You have to be extremely intense to make it work. And you have to be a wizard at combining different textures and fabrics, because that's what makes an all-black outfit work. And you have to either be very good-looking or have very deep, cool, or clear coloring -- ideally both.

Handkerchiefs

More and more of the young men I know in New York are carrying pocket handkerchiefs.

My father was amused to hear about this trend and inquired whether these same men had also taken to making shows of crying in public just as fashionable gentlemen did in the nineteenth century. I had to say that no, they had not. Yet he made me realize that the growing popularity of the handkerchief does have overtones of Romanticism.

The reason handkerchiefs have come back into style is fairly obvious: They’re just one of the many foppish accoutrements that men have adopted as part of the Anglophile dandy look that’s having such a major comeback. But unlike the other popular accessories, such as hats, pocket squares, and custom-made shoes, the handkerchief has changed not just aesthetics but behavior.

Traditionally, men sniffle through colds and allergies and drip through sweaty summers. These bodily discomforts are seen as unavoidable, since no manly man would be seen carrying around a packet of tissues in his pocket or fanning himself with a piece of paper. Men in our society aren’t supposed to be fussing over themselves in that way. But now that handkerchiefs have become mainstream accessories, men are not just carrying them but using them, to blow their noses and wipe their brows. And while this rediscovered habit is a far cry from weeping at the opera, it is similar in that it’s a public acknowledgment of men’s sensitivity—just in a physical, rather than emotional, sense.

There’s a long-term trend towards the genders becoming more alike, and the readoption of the handkerchief is a sign that one symptom of the continuing feminization of men will be their increasing willingness to be seen indulging in the kind of self-care—even pampering—that has long been the exclusive prerogative of women. Axe body spray, for instance, while a pitiful version of the cornucopia of fruitily-scented products with which women shower themselves daily, is nonetheless an example of a product that would have been considered effeminate a few years ago but which is nonetheless quite ordinary today. It will be interesting to see what new ways marketers find to capitalize on men’s increasing interest in exploring and enjoying sensory pleasure.

Army jackets

Ever since it got cold this fall, I’ve been seeing men in army jackets all over New York. They are cotton field jackets with a “woodland camouflage” print. Some of them appear to be army surplus (probably the M65 Field Jacket) and some are reproductions with a twist such as screenprinting done over the camouflage pattern. I’ve seen them on thirtyish men of all ethnicities, most of whom have an understated, sort-of anti-fashion—but still stylish—style.

This is the second military jacket to be popular this year. The first was the M65 “fishtail” parka, which Prada brought back in fall 2006 and H&M and others knocked off early this fall. I attributed the reappearance of the fishtail parka to its association with the British Mods of the ‘60s, whose look had a mini-comeback along with the other recent ‘60s trends, and to the “urban warrior” look that was popular last winter. Associated as it is with the Korean War and the Mods, the fishtail parka does not seem like a direct reference to our current war in Iraq.

Neither do these field jackets. First of all, the men wearing them do not project a politically-charged fashion statement of any kind. Secondly, the print I’ve been seeing is woodland camouflage, not the desert camouflage all our troops are wearing. Do these jackets make a statement at all? Maybe they were bought for practical reasons, such as price (they cost about $70), the desire to avoid shopping (they can be found in any army-surplus store), a disinterest in fashion (they’re a uniform), or plain utility (although the outer shell is cotton, a warm, down-filled liner can be purchased to go inside). Or maybe men bought them to be environmentally friendly (buying a surplus item is a form of reuse/recycling).

I’m curious, though, about the “woodland” camouflage print. I hadn’t seen it around until recently, and I think its popularity must have some significance. Could it have to do with a renewed interest in nature and concern for the environment? Or perhaps an enthusiasm for hunting? Or maybe the jackets are a political statement after all, and the wearing of woodland camouflage, instead of desert camouflage, is a symbol of Americans’ desire to turn our military’s image away from the negative one it’s taken on in Iraq and back towards its traditional, more positive one.

I wonder whether anyone else has been seeing this trend, or whether they start noticing it after reading this. Please let me know (in the comments) if you spot it around or have other ideas or reactions.

Update 1/6/08: I am now seeing brand-new-looking desert camo on "cool dads" at Whole Foods and such places.

Update 1/11/08: Now seeing tons of camo-print hoodies and hats