Theory of fashion

imho what is good all depends on three stuff: continuity, contrast, and anomalies but continuity moreso. i wrote a short guide that never got finished on this w.r.t. silhouettes. i can post it if you lads want

post a reference pic for example

Those fucking moon bot things that are hideous and take up all of the the cringe threads.

plinth boots or geobaskets? its moreso people just outright being clueless on how to build fits rather than them being bad as things in themselves

Sure, post it, chum.

here's the guide i talked about: pastebin.com/PNfhXvzx

be wary of typos here and there as the guide, as previously mentioned, is largely unfinished

It depends on the kind of red and green, if they're both like straight true red and true green it'll look a bit jarring, but olive colors can sometimes work with certain reds. Here's a color theory info graphic that might be useful for some people

I liked what you've gotten down so far user, and I'm interested in seeing in what the finished version would look like. The examples really solidify your points.

Also, nice quads

That guy is horrendously thin.
He should eat a sandwich or two

>That guy is horrendously thin
What are you doing here

>Why does some color combination appeal to my eye, yet some don't?

rolling my eyes
it's all about the trending of the now
burgundy & black stems from the recently trending purple. but both have already played out

Theres good pieces here sometimes but mostly i like to read the thinspo thread and the eyebags thread and laugh at the sheer amount of insecurity and body dysmorphia at every post.

I wear jeans, converse and shirts everyday to college btw. Maybe a jumper if its windy.

not really nigger, oversized top and side views gonna make him look even skinnier than he is he's just thin nigger not horrendously nigger thin nigger

rolling my eyes at you rolling yours nigger what do you mean played out nigger its not played out nigger trending nigger lmao no nigger no

thanks! i haven't done the texture and color section largely because i'm having a hard time grasping those concepts in terms of building fits especially with color. i'll try to brainstorm a little

They probably got appealing because of the context they're presented in and the lifestyle they're representing.
Or the more you are exposed people wearing this, the more appealing it will become for you, since your primitive brain areas will assume that this is the significant cultural wear of your perceived tribe and wants to protect you from being an outcast, risking being shunned from your village and dying from starvation by adjusting your styling preferences.

exactly, put red and green grapes on one plate and it looks amazing

Anyone more curious on how this applies to different skin tones/ hair textures?
Ive seen some fits that practically shine if it werent for their hair/ not matching with their skintine.

It's the same principle as how some people look better in silver and some better in gold, look up skin undertones

(1)

I've been thinking about this myself but my background is mostly in art and math. I get told that I dress boring in waywts but I like to think it's because I'm poor. I hope this isn’t too much to read because I really am curious about what you guys think of this. Sorry in advance for the amount of text.

If you pick up any design book, the first few chapters should discuss the grouping principles, which describe how humans take visual information to perceive a whole. If 3 dots are arranged on a piece of paper to form a line, the observer will immediately recognize this and mentally draw a line connecting them. Sometimes grouping principles take precedence over one another, depending how they're used in the design, but google "gestalt principles" if you want to learn more.

For a long time artists and architects and philosophers thought integer ratios were fundamental to beauty, and that's why leonardo made the vitruvian man diagram. People searched for a set of axioms for beauty but it hasn't held up that well to experiment - it definitely wasn't in vain, because lots of artists still use them today (my phone divides the screen into 9 identical rectangles when taking a picture), it's just that humans are fickle.

(contd)

(2)

Humans like to recognize things. We see faces in spark plugs and cows in the clouds. Beauty isn't limited to abstract images - we like the tangible thing that an image represents, or the concept, all the things that the observer associates with the image, each weighted by the strength of the association and the strength of their feelings. For example, when I notice dickies pants held up by a shoestring belt, I immediately think “this guy skates” and start guessing things about his personality and social background, based on all the skaters I knew in high school. Clothing derives power (cringy but idk what else to call it) from the strength of things associated with it – usually the subculture of those who wear it. This isn’t always the case (remember how shearling coats became huge in the f/w season following the batman movie with bane?) but usually the subculture is what does it. It’s why lookbooks are stylish and have settings instead of catalog, cold-blooded item descriptions – they’re not just selling clothing, they’re also selling an idea.

Your taste in art is informed by the art that you are familiar with already. It’s like a markov chain. Imagine how your taste in music has changed since you were a teen – listening to one band introduced you to another, and before you know it you’ve wound up listening to a completely different genre of music and you’re sick of the old stuff. Maybe you made some dramatic leaps from metal to jazz but that’s much rarer than the more gradual changes in preference. Likewise, unless you spend too much time looking through inspo threads, you don’t suddenly decide that goofninja is your thing after spending stacks on Japanese raw denim and red wings and flannels.

(contd)

(3)

When a fashion accessory becomes common among those who are not part of the subculture from which it derives its original associations, it loses its associations and becomes played out. I wouldn’t say it’s like a word being repeated until it loses its meaning, because if every single good skater on the planet has the same haircut and nobody else does, that haircut would still have power.
Idk if there’s a book that basically says all of this (if there is please tell) but again tell me what you think.

coolors.co/

these really should be in the sticky

yeah i wrote about this thought earlier. viewing clothing idealistically in the metaphysical sense makes the most sense to me and the process of building fits is largely a process of converting thoughts to clothing. as there are objectively bad thoughts there can be said to be objectively bad outfits - namely those that either have a crappy idea to base itself upon or one that is just sloppy execution-wise.

w.r.t. crappy ideas that lead to shit fits, it seems to me at least that taste isnt entirely subjective nor objective but has an objective bad and a semi-subjective good. im sure we can all agree that people who wear cargo shorts, crocs, and baggy polo shirts are not exactly the epitome of fashion and have bad outfits.

on the topic of associations in clothing, barthes wrote a lot on this. you can check vestoj which is a fashion studies blog for further info too.

...

Oh, are you and ? I'm nodding my head as I read the pastebin

i'm definitely going to check out those two, thanks a lot.

Are you new to Veeky Forums? Because it took me a second to figure out which of these posts belonged to you at first

Also it seem like you've been into this longer than I have and have a more formal education in fashion. Is that true? What's your story?

i just didn't want to reply to my old post because i wanted to start a new thread of conversation.

i've been here for a while, say 2 years more or less.

i'm actually a philosophy undergrad so i read these stuff mostly leisurely as my school department has different required readings. i've never read barthes tho as i want to tackle his influences before going to him in order to achieve a better understanding of him. i frequent vestoj though.

what shoes is it?

Pretty sure this would literally be considered the philosophical study of aesthetic, though I could be wrong. There is plenty of theory and info regarding it, it's an entire school of philosophy in and of itself.

though this is going to be a massive oversimplification of the field, aesthetics has mostly to do with the nature of things related to beauty such as "what is beautiful" or "what is color". moreso whats than the whys. the whys tend to be in field-specific disciplines such as fashion theory or art theory.

>Why does some X appeal to my eye, yet some don't

I lost a lot of time trying to answer and I still not happy with the what I got. Probably because familiarity + positive feedback + randomness.

i wish i never learned about this.

i'm a soft autumn (or autumn/summer).

i mean, it explained what i've intuitively known about what looks good on me (muted colors, olive, deep greens, mahogany, eggplant, navy, teal, light blue, charcoal, gold).

but i'm basically never supposed to wear black. and i love black. maybe it's doing me no favors and should only wear black bottoms and never black tops.

This is a good starting point for a real theoretical discussion about fashion. I think there is a distinct reflection of instinctual tendencies in fashion, which you can see in studies regarding women wearing red appearing more attractive and also in how sparkly clothing/jewelry attracts the gaze similar to water, an important evolved survival trait (those better at finding water are better at surviving etc.)

And then there are the massive cultural influences. For instance: embroidery, elaborate lacing, collars, ties, etc. all represent wealth due to the fact that they require more (practically functionless) fabric, which today doesn't affect production costs much but in 17th France were only available to the wealthy. Today, a lot of minimalism can be seen as a reaction to this long held trend I think. But this is only an fraction of how culture can and has affected fashion. Geography, music, language, all also play a huge role.

This is also hugely relevant.

And while I'm sure there are a wide variety of reasonable even correct me expectations, I think Rick Owens is a perfect example of fad induced fashion fueled by the tantalizing exclusivity of expensive attire: the Emporer's New Clothes effect, highly responsible.

*correct explanations

Rick is appealing in more than one way. most people just buy entry level super long/drapey stuff because it is all they can afford

i enjoy some of his pieces but the things he puts out on the runway are way too nxtlvl for me, so much so that they mostly just look bad

this. absolutely love his formalwear

people who hate him usually view the typical pod shorts, ramones, dl tee (not that there is anything wrong with that) as all there is to with rick

This is like asking, "Why does my latent homosexuality make me attracted to men?" Because it's what you, a human being (i'm assuming you fucking reptilian scum, you know who you are) like and are attracted to. Also look up color theory.

Y'know, a lot of people in society (mainly American society) make things like fashion design and philosophy seem like wastes of time that lack any kind of complexity. But in reality, it's so complex, and requires a lot of creativity. Not EVERYONE can just get a fucking sewing needle and make a gown, expecting some Vera Wang shit. You have to have creativity. With creativity, you're making a choice of how you want to present yourself to the world and who you are as a person. Without creativity, you're making a fucking dress.

>Rick Owens is a perfect example of fad induced fashion fueled by the tantalizing exclusivity of expensive attire
lol fuck off with this meme
you probably haven't seen a single collection of his and base your entire judgement off people on Instagram that add the odd geobaskets in with fog and off white
even if I didn't like rick, I couldn't respect anyone's fashion opinion if they can't at least recognise his incredible talent for transforming an ideology into the form of clothes
to dismiss his work as just expensive shit is straight up ignorant

But I own several Rick Owens pieces. I should have clarified that I don't mean to imply that his work doesn't have aesthetic merit. I just think that his popularity doesn't primarily rest on, quite literally, on his laurels.

why do tricksters always get so buttfrustrated whenever someone talks shit about ricky d

This has no right to be as funny as it is