After many years of lurking this board...

After many years of lurking this board, I have come to the conclusion that the reason why it fluctates in quality from one extreme to the other is due to a secret class war that bubbles beneath the surface of both fashion as a whole and fashion as it relates on a personal scale.

Those of a higher class are those who believe fashion is a medium of art in the sense that fashion is made to envoke emotion through design. People who carry the weight of this title inately often tend to be slightly wealthier, well informed, well read and have an intelligence significantly higher than those of the lower class.

The lower class cannot differentiate between 'clothes' and 'fashion'. They see fashion as an arbitrary label. This leads to them denying the existence of art in the form of fabric which then prevents them from valuing anything else on God's green earth.

They refuse to acknowledge this fact however as to do so would cause them to reform their entire being, something that is understandably hard to do. The most common misconception these people hold is that they cannot AFFORD to understand art.

Now this is what interests me. Does ones interest towards art lead to understanding which leads them to sucess in every other aspect of their life which allows them to purchase the things they love?

Are people with such an ability superior to those of the lower class who are devoid of said ability to obtain a thirst for art?

Yes.

To surmise, those of a low IQ need to stop trying to destroy those of a higher intellect and aspire to be like them or this board will reach it's full potential.

bump

is that Zoolander 3?

you're bumping this fucking drivel? get the fuck out of here

>Now this is what interests me. Does ones interest towards art lead to understanding which leads them to sucess in every other aspect of their life which allows them to purchase the things they love?

>Are people with such an ability superior to those of the lower class who are devoid of said ability to obtain a thirst for art?

>Yes.

are you brown?

fashion is literally a meme

No.
Nice retort though

The problem is, besides money, people don't care enough to buy nice clothes. It's basically "I need to look more presentable" whether it be a grungy look or a preppy one. It's not about that "muh art" it's about clothes that don't look like shit.

People that can afford nice clothes don't really come here since board quality drops and stays there for a long time while barely going up. This is what those other forums are for (forgot what they are called, SZ comes to mind). Then, you have average joes thinking that this place is about clothes, not fashion. And honestly, they aren't wrong. Actual fashion discussion is at an all time low. Luckily I'm in the rog discord so I myself still have a decent outlet. But with discussion plummetting, it's no surprise people don't want to return.

Fashion as art is an acquired appreciation, much like classical music and fine(r) dining. It's not for everyone, and they honestly don't even care. This isn't the place to be anymore if you care about fashion as an art versus simply being a practical means to look good

If you're not gonna make money or fix the community with all those books and philosophy, i think you're just in the 'phase'.

What can one man do to save this community other than shed light on why it's so awful?

>retort
I'm assuming you don't deserve one. You're clearly so far up your own ass that there's not any reasonable hope to actually change your mind of anything.

For the sake of argument, however, I'll say that one's interest in art and design has little, if any, relation to their personal success.

>Those of a higher class are those who believe fashion is a medium of art in the sense that fashion is made to envoke emotion through design. People who carry the weight of this title inately often tend to be slightly wealthier, well informed, well read and have an intelligence significantly higher than those of the lower class.

>The lower class cannot differentiate between 'clothes' and 'fashion'. They see fashion as an arbitrary label. This leads to them denying the existence of art in the form of fabric which then prevents them from valuing anything else on God's green earth.

I'd argue that there's a middle class that you're completely ignoring, which most people in the world are a part of, that put a normal amount of effort into the way they present themselves in order to fit in. They don't treat fashion as a statement of their personality, they're simply aware that some clothes look better than others. They constitute the majority of this sort of cultural involvement spectrum, which you seem to be insisting isn't a spectrum at all, rather a type-a vs. type-b dichotomy.

(1/2)

On both ends of the spectrum, of course, people become more radical in distinct ways, but neither is particularly more intelligent or successful than the other.
On the more art-conscious end, people are perhaps more likely to go to concerts, use drugs recreationally, work in the service industry, etc.

On the less art-conscious end, you've got the desk job types, video game enthusiasts, people who like cars or motorcycles or sports or whatever.

Both ends have examples of massively successful people: musicians and artists on one side, tech giants on the other. The Zuck and Steve Jobs are particularly good examples because they're outwardly anti-fashion.

The real shortcoming of your argument is that their is no way to quantitatively assert or disprove your point. You just made a series of generalizations to justify your ridiculous sense of superiority.

>inately
>envoke
>fluctates
>ones
>sucess

You know, some people consider language an art form. I'd assume you do, since you specifically mention being well-read as a characteristic of your imaginary higher class. Does your linguistic failure prove that you're a low-class subhuman? Not necessarily, it only indicates an indifference towards language as an art form. Although, I must say I'm amazed at what an arrogant, entitled little faggot you are, to think yourself so smart on your big internet soap box, posting this tripe that you expect other people to read and take seriously, while you can't be asked to fucking proofread it.

> too long; did not read
> lol

>1)
The middle class are just as bad as the lower class in regards to appreciating fashion as art form
>2)
I tried to be succinct as possible so what I had to say would fit into the OP. Also i'm not a writer nor do I claim to be. Despite that however i'm still able to articulate my points eloquently enough for you to respond.
>3)
If generalisation I have made has been 'generally' correct. Proof? The state of this board now in comparison to what it was.
>4)
Your argument about both 'sides' having sucessfull people is invalid as you don't understand what the 'sides' are in the context of my original post.

I'm not talking about people who disregard fashion entirely such as Mark Zuckerberg who just wears the same t shirt and jeans every day. I'm talking about people that only wear athletic gear or fast fashion as in their view anything more than that is unwarranted and distasteful despite it being the complete opposite.

Those people who don't aspire for more never make the most out of their lives when it comes to higher pursuits as they're view on art has been abolished due to either a low intellect or self loathing.

They aren't sides per se. They are tiers of human and you appear to be on the bottom if you couldn't understand my original post.

Subhuman.

Literally every time someone posts this it means they've read the OP but didn't understand it
I hope you realise everyone knows this

You mean other than complaining? You can improve. You have the capability to make threads so make use of that.

...

OP really showcases the real issue with this board.

No not the low-iq bullshit he spoke of but the arrogance of perceived superiority, that is always just an illusion on this board. No one here ever dresses well and only few spark any meaningful discussion.

Problem is that there are people like OP who believe that fashion can be contained into an idea that is right and immutable. Worse is, they think they know this answer. Picture a child that gets a great idea and then relentlessly judges everyone by it.

Besides classes are no longer a valid indicator of good taste and haven't really been since ww1. There are poor and rich with a horrible taste, without even mentioning the awful mediocrity of the middle classes.

I think you made a mistake using the word "class" in the first place, as it has a strong connotation with material wealth. If I understood your idea right, what you actually wanted to say is that you believe people of higher ambition and aptitude are more likely to pursue higher goals in life and appreciate art more, fashion included.

Bullshit. The majority of the important fashion movements of the 20th and 21st century have involved wealthier people taking shit worn by young working class people and making expensive versions of it. Fashion is bottom up right now, not top down.

Plenty of poor people wear cheap shit that looks cheap because they feel that they can't afford "nice clothes" but just as many rich people have no fucking clue how to put their expensive shit together or how it should fit.

Also, this is an underrated post.

Understanding that issue is the first step to fixing it. Making "better threads" won't affect the underlying issues, you will just be faced with silence and rejection.

I think you will not be understood because of your choice of words such as class.

Making clothes can be art
Buying and wearing clothes is consumption
You are contributing nothing

eat my weenie

Of all the NYRBs, why that one? I've read 100+ and thought that one was easily the worst.

>surmise
Bro you gotta look up those ten-dollar words before you misuse them.

My sides

Look at the previous meta threads. Full of people looking for the underlying issues. Consensus is barely reached and no realistic solutions are proposed, other than jumping ship. Making a thread does address the issue at hand. Take the /diy/ threads for example. These seem to be reviving, or at least garnering, the creative spirit of Veeky Forums and encouraging others to grow into their own style. The amount of response in the threads is on topic and supportive. However, if we look at the previous runway threads, we see that a lot of them get few replies before getting archived or that they steer away from the topic.
How come? Better said: How do I elicit on topic response? Fair question. What do you think?

I think diy threads are tailored to the "class" OP says currently inhabits this board. A lot of it is "how to imitate this thing which is currently in".
I think the problem with most of the runway threads just don't cause any discussions because it's just a bunch of pictures. It's not analyzed or substantially criticized for a lack of knowledge and ingested in fashion as an art form.
There is still a difference between a thread where people do something creatively like drawing shit and one were they discuss art.

So what would you do to get discussion going?

It requires people actually discussing the fashion which requires at least two people with a certain level of interest and knowledge on the subject. It also requires people preaching to the masses. As much as I hate some of the old trips who did this because they were full of shit half of the time they at least put effort into a wall of text that made them look half intelligent and dispensed some knowledge to create discussion. Look at Veeky Forums for a good example of what the board could strive to be. There is plenty of shit posts and only a handful of popular books and topics are actually discussed but people come there to share their thoughts on literature and they actually have thoughts. I think 99% of Veeky Forums don't have any thoughts on fashion that go beyond what does or doesn't make you get laid or look autistic.

>Does ones interest towards art lead to understanding which leads them to sucess in every other aspect of their life which allows them to purchase the things they love?
Art is, what is generally considered, an aestethic way of expressing a situation, opinion or emotion. By understanding art one focuses on the complexity of the aforementioned expressions and therefore gets a better understanding of them. While goals and so success is a personal matter it could be possible that your goals change when one understands art and the expressed complexities.

As a result of understanding art your reasoning behind buying a certain piece of clothing could change. One could only buy clothes because you are required to wear something, while after you buy something because it fits into your artistic interests. So one could first not be interested into clothes at all, or buy clothes for different purpose (see reply below). I find it difficult to say if buying clothes that fits your artistic interests is 'buying something you love' while 'buying something thats immensily pratical' isn't.

>Are people with such an ability superior to those of the lower class who are devoid of said ability to obtain a thirst for art?
General superiority does not exist, but is mere a sense of perspective. A woodworker is 'superior' to an economist when it comes to building a table, for example, while an economist is 'superior' to a woodworker when it comes to solving economic problems.

Ironically you answer your own question before hearing the opinion of others, yet you make the impression that you are part of those with a higher IQ.

pt1

I agree with you. Almost everyone buys clothes for a practical purpose, be it comfort, warmth, build quality or as a status symbol. The definition of fashion' in terms of clothes is "prevailing (generally current) style of clothes" when the 'prevailing style' depends on the culture associated with. This means that any piece of clothing can not be seen as fashion in a factual way, because fashion is a matter of opinion.

Besides that fashion does not have a connection with art by definition. Expensive fashion does however, which is why fashion is often linked to artistic and expensive.

>The Zuck and Steve Jobs are particularly good examples because they are outwardly anti-fashion.
While both are anti-fashion in the sense of not conforming to the 'current style' in the culture in which they live(d), they wore clothes for a practical purpose: as a status symbol. By deviating from the norm in making a atypical choice in terms of clothes, they show that their status is above of what is expected of them, and therefore given a higher status by others. A higher status has a positive influence in your persuation, likability etc.

pt2