Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Clothes

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby Julio » Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:08 am

INNIT wrote:---


thanks for this info. bales here are likely the huge 1k bales you were talking about, broken down and sold by suppliers (because we have bale suppliers here) at various weights. i've seen 45 kilos as an average, but i wouldn't be surprised if there were bigger bales available elsewhere. i've thought about purchasing bales before, but it's essentially gambling with clothes and i'd rather not do that.

another thing about bales here is that they're sold by country of origin. by default i look for places that stock up on hong kong/japan bales, just because those have the most interesting yields to me (for obvious reasons). US bales haven't really given me much of anything, and pretty much all the vintage military/workwear etc. that could come from such places is instantly pulled aside and sold at a high price. sellers by this point have become familiar with things like that. by extension, i see thrift shops change the prices of certain things depending on the brand (because of course there's no escape from that either). once they learn about what people are looking for they get sold for higher, put on a "selected items" rack so to speak. interestingly enough they seem to be able to distinguish between fakes and original products, too. at least for supreme. not always, but often enough.
there's definitely a chunk of people who are doing first call/first buy type setups at certain thrift shops here. or i'm assuming because i've seen boxes after a "new arrival" that have peoples names on them, clearly repacked and all.

got me thinking hard, especially reproducing consumerism, because that's essentially what all of this is, no?

what i wonder at this point is what effects it might have (if any) on a country that already has a textile industry. any thoughts? that's an angle i didn't consider at all, but it definitely makes sense that it could stunt local textile & perhaps even garment production.

soniccapitalism.jpg
  • 0

Julio
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 5:06 pm
Reputation: 1736

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby bels » Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:07 am

I'm of the belief that there are like probably a couple dozen clothing collections that could be claimed to have any power outside of the 'look dope' framework, which I'm deeply of the belief is basically dictated by economic factors (dope='wealthy') with about 1% left over for childhood trauma based 'taste in aesthetics'
  • 2

Image
User avatar
bels
Yung Winona
 
Posts: 4960
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:43 pm
Reputation: 18238

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby popcorn » Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:27 am

bels wrote:I'm of the belief that there are like probably a couple dozen clothing collections that could be claimed to have any power outside of the 'look dope' framework

agree w the rest, expand on what you mean by having power? to exact social change? to sell things that wouldn't otherwise sell?
  • 0

User avatar
popcorn
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 5:38 pm
Location: goldheart mountaintop
Reputation: 1439

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby titkitten » Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:20 pm

Julio wrote: what i wonder at this point is what effects it might have (if any) on a country that already has a textile industry. any thoughts? that's an angle i didn't consider at all, but it definitely makes sense that it could stunt local textile & perhaps even garment production.

man i kept trying to answer this question and getting ahead of myself. long essay below.
Spoiler:
context: i'm an economics phd student.

if you've taken an intro economics class, i'm fairly confident that you will be taught that under certain assumptions (the "frictionless benchmark", just like the one in newtonian physics), the market is efficient, i.e. it manages to achieve the most optimal outcome (put another way, if you were Almighty Lord Dictator and you got to choose who got what and who did what, you wouldn't be able to do any better than the market). this result is the first welfare theorem. it's a fairly simple yet loaded idea because in the past it's been used as justification for laissez-faire policy, i.e. real unflinching adherence to literal capitalism. however, it is now fairly widely accepted that the assumptions needed for this result to actually be true don't hold in the real world, so you're left trying to pinpoint a) which assumptions fail and how, and b) the best policy to deal with it.

in regards to a), without any guidance or structure, you could theoretically tell any story, as long as you choose the right assumptions that end up making your story true. in reality, there are a whole lot of gaps between the real world and the "frictionless benchmark", and it's a mess trying to determine the relative importance of each of the frictions and how they interact with each other. in the end, while "research economists" may use intuition and theory to formulate a plausible story, they will need to use data to measure the magnitudes of these frictions. as for b), policies themselves create new frictions, so the course of action after having determined a) is not usually straightforward either.

that preamble was just to say that the below is a list of what i think are reasonable guesses for a), but i can't be sure because i haven't seen any real data. won't say anything about b).

the first real friction i see is that companies need start-up capital and must pay other fixed costs (like to rent a store or build a website). this overhead prevents everyone from entering the textile industry. if that were not the case, i.e. the industry were competitive, then it might be ok that there are lots of cheap/free donated clothes, since the locals with good fashion designs, or clever ideas for producing clothing efficiently, would be able to coexist with the cheap/free donated clothes through their ability to offer something new and innovative to the local consumers. however, if it isn't free to start up a business, some smaller-scale potential operations wouldn't be able to cover their overhead because of the competition from the donated clothing, and would have to exit the industry (or never enter to begin with). that of course will result in less activity (e.g. fewer jobs) in the local textile industry.

another friction is that clothing is not a perfectly competitive industry, i.e. each supplier has some market power. a monopoly is an extreme version of market power, but as long as a firm is selling something for which you can't get a perfectly identical item from somewhere else, it has market power. a distributor of these donated clothes has market power, and its presence will prevent some local businesses from surviving.

taken together, i think it's not crazy to assume that it probably has a negative impact on the local textile industry. honestly i can't really tell a compelling story about why donated clothing may be good for the local garment industry, besides the fact that locals may have access to cheap donated clothing, and so they can spend resources elsewhere (paying for education, opening a business, etc), but since i don't really think clothing makes up a big chunk of people's expenditure, it probably won't generate huge savings or have a sizable positive impact for the local clothing industry.

however, that's just focusing on the local garment industry. in the end, we care about the welfare/quality of life of the locals, not their textile industry. a big/successful textile industry may be one way to improve the quality of life of the locals (by creating jobs, small businesses, etc), but it is not the only way. for example, you could also argue that cheap clothing is cheap clothing, which is good for local consumers! they can put their savings towards other uses like above. it is not necessarily the case that every country should have a textile industry -- if they already have other big, developed industries, having donated clothing frees up people's time to work in those other big, developed industries. it's like they can choose a few branches of the tech tree and really build those up, instead of having to waste tech points on each branch to cover the basics. this argument is similar to the argument for international trade -- e.g. Canada can focus on making maple syrup because it's getting avocados from Mexico and similarly for Mexico; if they couldn't trade, Canada would have to have some people making avocados (which grow worse in Canada) instead of maple syrup, or not have avocados at all. effectively, trade allows you to "borrow" the industrial productivity of your trading partners (e.g. Mexico's climate and local knowledge of avocado farming) and in return you lend them yours (Canada's climate for maple trees). you are not constrained to having only what you can produce yourselves. however, this argument in favour of cheap donated clothing relies on easy transfer of people between the textile industry and other industries. otherwise, workers who want to work or are trained to work in textiles may suffer because of job loss. if there are lots of these people, the results can be devastating (see: U.S manufacturing workers suffering from Chinese import competition, something that brought up a lot in the last presidential race). in the end, while i can't conclude for sure that donated clothes are good for welfare, it's safer to say that it will cause inequality in welfare. that's a whole other issue.

in terms of the ethical judgement, it is not only the locals of the destination country we care about. their standard of living will surely be taken into consideration, as well as inequality among them, but maybe you also care about the environment -- and then you would have to consider that shipping used clothing to another country may be less environmentally impactful than having that country expand its own textile industry (and make brand new clothing). (but maybe it isn't.) and then you would have to personally decide whether you care more about the impact to the quality of life of locals, to the inequality in the country, or to the environment. economics can't decide that one for you (:

i hope that wasn't too confusing -- i tried to stay succinct and simple, there was just a lot to say. definitely happy to clarify or answer questions.
  • 10

Image Image Image
User avatar
titkitten
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2015 3:02 pm
Reputation: 851

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby INNIT » Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:21 pm

titkitten wrote:----

that was dope.

imo, the thrift shop narrative amplifies consumerism in overdeveloped nations by providing consumers with an "altruistic" way to offload their shit. i think you're right in identifying that this altruism may not be totally misguided (i.e. people in other nations do get cheap/free clothing), but it ultimately produces a cycle in which people give away their stuff to buy more stuff. hence the phenomenon of "thrift store regulars" who donate and shop multiple times a week. the reason thrift stores flip their entire inventory every few days is to appeal to this very client base. its kind of disgustingly exploitative in a way, as it allows low income people to live out unsustainable consumerist fantasies that enrich... rich people. and its all very intentional.

anyways, the real reason im posting is bc i want to ask you a question. tbh, i kind of parrot the "thrift stores inhibit textile industries" thing without actually having an real information on how this works, or the importance of textile industries to economic development. i've always been under the impression that capitalist development is somewhat linear at first in that it requires the establishment of certain "core" industries (textile being one of them). is this some sort of contrived fantasy that i've thought up?
  • 2

User avatar
INNIT
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 2:42 am
Reputation: 1206

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby titkitten » Mon Aug 20, 2018 1:01 pm

INNIT wrote:imo, the thrift shop narrative amplifies consumerism in overdeveloped nations by providing consumers with an "altruistic" way to offload their shit. i think you're right in identifying that this altruism may not be totally misguided (i.e. people in other nations do get cheap/free clothing), but it ultimately produces a cycle in which people give away their stuff to buy more stuff. hence the phenomenon of "thrift store regulars" who donate and shop multiple times a week. the reason thrift stores flip their entire inventory every few days is to appeal to this very client base. its kind of disgustingly exploitative in a way, as it allows low income people to live out unsustainable consumerist fantasies that enrich... rich people. and its all very intentional.

anyways, the real reason im posting is bc i want to ask you a question. tbh, i kind of parrot the "thrift stores inhibit textile industries" thing without actually having an real information on how this works, or the importance of textile industries to economic development. i've always been under the impression that capitalist development is somewhat linear at first in that it requires the establishment of certain "core" industries (textile being one of them). is this some sort of contrived fantasy that i've thought up?

you're bringing up great points about how thrift stores may impact the origin country too, and i'd love to hear your opinions since you have real world experience with how these things actually play out.
Spoiler:
i was going to respond by saying that economists are moral agnostics in the sense that they rarely question a person's preferences. preferences are taken as given, and they try to think of systems and policies that maximise happiness based on these preferences. so, concretely in this example, if somebody wants to have new clothing each season, there's no discussion about whether that person should have those preferences; they are just accepted and worked with. the reason is that once you start dictating preferences, you can easily formulate a perfect world where everyone is happy -- hey, everyone should just prefer to eat garbage and wear the same clothes every season! problem solved. i do think it's generally a good approach to keep things clean, and moral judgements or recommendations for self-improvement should be left to those with expertise like philosophers and psychologists, but i do wish there were more interdisciplinary action among those fields. anyway, that's to say that economics doesn't have the answer to everything.

my immediate reaction to your comment is that thrift stores provide a mediating service for people who want novelty in their clothing. they're a centralised platform for people to come together and exchange clothes, especially if the store pays for received clothes. otherwise, how would you find people looking to swap/trade clothes? and even if you did, you'd have to go to each of these people separately, instead of one single place. likewise, people who go to thrift stores to find and flip valuable clothing provide a service, too -- you don't need to go and search through racks of clothing to find the cool thing. naively, it's all fine. the problem i see is that this whole cycle of activity actually changes people's preferences. while they may not have wanted to wear new clothes each season before, seeing other people doing it teaches them that they should. is that why you say thrift stores are exploitative for lower income people? does it enrich the rich because thrift stores pay very little for clothing so huge profits accrue to their owners, especially because they've generated the need in lower income people to buy novel clothing (effectively creating their own demand)? are there lots of "thrift store regulars" who come frequently to sell their old clothes and buy new ones?

in terms of economic development/growth, it's not actually my area of focus so i am unsure. my general feeling is that we don't have a super solid idea of how countries actually develop, since it's hard to separate a lot of different things. for example, most of current western developed world went through the industrial revolution together, so there's a time period effect there. now that the industrial revolution has happened, and humanity has industrial knowledge and technology, is it necessary for each developing country to go through that change themselves? it's unclear. humanity went through an agricultural revolution but today there are some countries with practically non-existent agricultural sectors. (again, i'd attribute that to trade.) what makes it tricky is that we only have a few case studies (which, to make things worse, are all very similar). everything is murky in economics because we rarely have rigorous experiments -- you can't just get some identical countries, randomise which policies they use, and see what happens...

i think there is agreement that the keys to growth are institutional and technological advancement. institutional advancement includes good legal systems (for enforcing contracts and property rights), transportation networks (well-maintained roads! paving!! make a huge difference!!), communication systems, and finally education; technological advancement includes physical capital accumulation (like computers, structures/building/infrastructure), human capital accumulation (through various education and training programs), and finally innovation. i guess the implicit argument in the linear development story would be that "starter" industries (like textiles and manufacturing) help a country achieve these changes -- a large manufacturing (or textile) industry encourages physical capital accumulation, maybe successful firms would pay for employee technical training or other types of education, or more successful companies could put pressure on the government to develop better public infrastructure (e.g. roads, plumbing) and legal systems to protect their company/earnings/stuff. i'm not sure it's the only/best way to encourage these fundamentals along though. there's been plenty of discussion about some developing countries "leapfrogging" certain developmental/technological stages, and i think the 1800-2000s western template of development may not be the only one possible. (examples: singapore and south korea.) especially right now, when the technology for more advanced industries already exists and globalisation is prevalent, developing countries can foster high-level industries without ever having had the lower-technology ones, for example through hosting foreign subsidiaries. economists used to think democracy was the only political system able to systain economic development until china happened. but i'm pretty far out of my scope of knowledge at this point, so i can only guess, but i think even the experts have not reached consensus.

i also do want to mention that economic growth is not everything if what we really care about is welfare. even if manufacturing and textile industries super reliably cemented the fundamentals needed for economic growth, they can be dangerous, exploitative, or "dirty" industries, especially at the beginning. an economic leader may want to choose a slower growth strategy if it prevents pollution, unsafe working conditions, or other things that matter for human welfare besides economic growth. i think that was the idea behind singapore's big push for a financial sector. inequality is another consideration -- a country's gdp could be very high with little effect on the majority of its population.

i'm sorry i couldn't give you a straight answer, but they're hard questions ):
  • 3

Image Image Image
User avatar
titkitten
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2015 3:02 pm
Reputation: 851

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby CheerUpBrokeBoy » Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:49 pm

i swear GQ editors spend their entire lives incubated in a sterile white room any time they're not writing articles or making videos

they finally got around to making a video about work pants and this guy who's paid to be an authority on style readily admits he spent more money tapering his 874s than he spent on the 874s themselves. i really shouldn't expect more from GQ but this is a new low
  • 4

Image
User avatar
CheerUpBrokeBoy
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:29 pm
Location: online
Reputation: 2074

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby vice » Mon Aug 20, 2018 9:45 pm

i thought kanye's suit with the slides looked cool

  • 5

User avatar
vice
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:06 pm
Reputation: 104

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby INNIT » Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:58 am

titkitten wrote:
my immediate reaction to your comment is that thrift stores provide a mediating service for people who want novelty in their clothing. they're a centralised platform for people to come together and exchange clothes, especially if the store pays for received clothes. otherwise, how would you find people looking to swap/trade clothes? and even if you did, you'd have to go to each of these people separately, instead of one single place. likewise, people who go to thrift stores to find and flip valuable clothing provide a service, too -- you don't need to go and search through racks of clothing to find the cool thing. naively, it's all fine. the problem i see is that this whole cycle of activity actually changes people's preferences. while they may not have wanted to wear new clothes each season before, seeing other people doing it teaches them that they should. is that why you say thrift stores are exploitative for lower income people? does it enrich the rich because thrift stores pay very little for clothing so huge profits accrue to their owners, especially because they've generated the need in lower income people to buy novel clothing (effectively creating their own demand)? are there lots of "thrift store regulars" who come frequently to sell their old clothes and buy new ones?


i don't think that thrift stores teach people to hyper-consume, i think that our culture does that just fine. i think that thrift stores enable lower income people to hyper-consume. most large thrift stores have discount systems that allow people who donate to receive a % off of their next purchase, based on how much they donate (e.g. 1 bag = 5% off). it's very common to have people who are both regular donators and regular shoppers; they're donating things that they bought from the thrift store so that they can buy things from the thrift store. and of course, the fact that regular shoppers are going to have 30% off discount cards is built into the pricing. it's a planned strategy, it's pretty gross

it's interesting that you mention that economists don't question morality/preference. the sum total of scholarship that ive read on "economics" has been marxists critiquing neoliberalism, so it's always (to me) seemed very concerned with ethics. at any rate, don't ask the philosophers for help and certainly do not ask the psychologists.

titkitten wrote:i also do want to mention that economic growth is not everything if what we really care about is welfare. even if manufacturing and textile industries super reliably cemented the fundamentals needed for economic growth, they can be dangerous, exploitative, or "dirty" industries, especially at the beginning. an economic leader may want to choose a slower growth strategy if it prevents pollution, unsafe working conditions, or other things that matter for human welfare besides economic growth. i think that was the idea behind singapore's big push for a financial sector. inequality is another consideration -- a country's gdp could be very high with little effect on the majority of its population.


totally with you here.
  • 3

User avatar
INNIT
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 2:42 am
Reputation: 1206

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby fun_yunchables » Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:07 pm

maybe its confirmation bias but my story stuff is the only stuff i own that looks better the more curry i spill on it

(also please forgive me for spilling curry. i love curry and will atone for my sin)
  • 3

coolest lame guy u'll ever meet
User avatar
fun_yunchables
 
Posts: 665
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:39 pm
Reputation: 4536

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby CheerUpBrokeBoy » Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:04 pm

i like when a fashion retail site says what size the model's wearing but not the model's height or weight. it's so clueless it's kinda charming
  • 1

Image
User avatar
CheerUpBrokeBoy
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:29 pm
Location: online
Reputation: 2074

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby bels » Sat Aug 25, 2018 2:55 am

I like it when fashion sites have a section for "leg wear"
  • 2

Image
User avatar
bels
Yung Winona
 
Posts: 4960
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:43 pm
Reputation: 18238

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby bels » Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:07 am

We're in a golden age my friends, a golden age of yoox brand names

waiting for D5M and LNCCC
Image

Do you enjoy this game?
Image

What 90% of this forum is
Image

What 90% of the people on this forum who think they aren't in the above 90% are
Image

Something for the paleo crossfitter in your life
Image

Something for the countdown watching crossword solver
Image

Yes, fellow earthlings I like to wear clothes.
Image
  • 11

Image
User avatar
bels
Yung Winona
 
Posts: 4960
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:43 pm
Reputation: 18238

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby qalandar » Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:12 am

Speaking of DSM I just came to see if there was any JJ, collection is tiny. They also shrank the PH collection and unfortunately I was £2,600 short so couldn't buy the long mac coat ...
  • 1

The world needs more people who appreciate and not just consume

_insta _tumblr

❁ (◡‿◡)
User avatar
qalandar
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 8:49 am
Reputation: 1139

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby rjbman » Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:33 am

can always share the pic(s) in viewtopic.php?f=2&t=838
  • 0

"Let's be vagabonds." - Yohji Yamamoto
User avatar
rjbman
 
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:34 pm
Location: IL
Reputation: 6513

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby CheerUpBrokeBoy » Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:46 pm

respect to pusha t for always tagging the brands in his IG pics. if he was 15 years younger he'd be a forum poster for sure
  • 2

Image
User avatar
CheerUpBrokeBoy
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 11:29 pm
Location: online
Reputation: 2074

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby weqe » Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:49 am

honestly just buy used to justify my own consumption to myself, as much as I know how little impact it has on reducing waste and being more ethical. if we follow the chain back far enough there really is no way to avoid exploiting someone (workers farmers sweatshops etc.) so i might as well be part of the less-harmful first world consumers.

the subcultural stuff that comes with thrifting is nice, but ultimately pretty masturbatory and not a great reason to continue accumulating more stuff that i don't have time to wear
  • 3

[{[*#~&< /BLEH |BLEH| BLEH\ >&~#*]}]
User avatar
weqe
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:03 pm
Location: Pittsburgh!
Reputation: 981

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby vice » Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:42 pm

really don't like bowties at all
  • 1

User avatar
vice
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2015 5:06 pm
Reputation: 104

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby bels » Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:59 am

Image

I bet wikihow is full of huge untapped reservoirs of inspo
  • 14

Image
User avatar
bels
Yung Winona
 
Posts: 4960
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:43 pm
Reputation: 18238

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby fun_yunchables » Sat Sep 22, 2018 10:21 pm

  • 3

coolest lame guy u'll ever meet
User avatar
fun_yunchables
 
Posts: 665
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:39 pm
Reputation: 4536

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby kickingthefly » Sun Sep 23, 2018 5:25 am

random teen reps me online in obvious bid to get me to buy his overpriced grailed clothing
Image
  • 1

kickingthefly
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:16 am
Reputation: 158

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby kickingthefly » Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:11 pm

@rjb yeah i thought her comments in that thread about textures were astute, i can see why she's drawn to lee bul who (i think) tries to conceptualise historical development/ 'the future' in very material terms . i presume Alita BattleAngel and GITS are games? do you know them?
  • 1

kickingthefly
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:16 am
Reputation: 158

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby rjbman » Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:10 pm

ya as innit said, gits = ghost in the shell. a live action remake of the 1995 anime came out last year and was poorly received

she did a wonderful thread about what it could have been and it is a constant source of inspo for me.
  • 1

"Let's be vagabonds." - Yohji Yamamoto
User avatar
rjbman
 
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:34 pm
Location: IL
Reputation: 6513

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby INNIT » Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:07 am

also donna haraway is an actual character in the gits anime film, or something
  • 2

User avatar
INNIT
 
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 2:42 am
Reputation: 1206

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby kickingthefly » Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:00 am

looking very quickly at that thread i'm a bit underwhelmed tbh. certainly the art stuff. 'get a load of cutting edge artists to collaborate' yeah ok and then your mood board is lee bul (fine) olafur and jenny holzer (???) plus some really naff looking orangey futurist scenes. similarly light striking a prism, i suppose this harks back to 70s bio optimism type things, whats that film where he has spaceship garden and the two droids.
ok you want to be true to the original (like all fanbois) but seems a bit management consultant-y, big picture phrases with shaky research/ ppt slides backing it up
i suppose im saying that if curator at my gallery came up with that id be like hmm she didnt spend long on it
  • 2

Last edited by kickingthefly on Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
kickingthefly
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:16 am
Reputation: 158

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby Julio » Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:35 am

feels relevant to share rn
  • 3

Julio
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 5:06 pm
Reputation: 1736

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby rjbman » Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:28 pm

so my issue w/ gits 2017 was that it seemed like they picked out the scenes that folks loved from the original (falling from the roof, the garbage man fight scene, the spider tank final battle) and strung them together with hamfisted bastardization of the prominent themes of the original, mixed in with the tv show (stand alone complex) 2nd season villain / lover.

essentially, it missed the forest for the trees, and replanted all the trees in a new place w/out any of the bushes, flowers, walking paths, clearings, or birds.

also there was the whole backlash about scarjo being cast as an asian woman (criticism that i agree with but not a dealbreaker for watching it) that they tried to explain away in-universe with scenes clearly filmed separately and shoved in (way worse than just being obtuse about lack of representation)

I think the point that stuck most with me was all about looking forwards from today and extrapolating a future that isn't all dystopia. I don't think that gits 2017 moved this forward at all, just copied the existing future from the 1995 anime. However I'm also sure that if they had materially changed it, there would have been a huge backlash too, so idk. But maybe this idea can be given new life in a spinoff or something.

sorry for rambling a bit

edit: also, do you have a link to that screenshotted thread?
edit2: https://twitter.com/monikabielskyte/sta ... 1113240577
  • 2

"Let's be vagabonds." - Yohji Yamamoto
User avatar
rjbman
 
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:34 pm
Location: IL
Reputation: 6513

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby kickingthefly » Tue Sep 25, 2018 5:28 pm

i think there's probably a lot i don't get here, having not seen either GITS or even really knowing much about science fiction. one thing i didn't understand is the post-dystopian vision you refer to above, her saying ' i want the future to be hopeful' - i'd be interested to know what informs this. for example lee bul's vision of imaginary/material futures are sort of recursive (this is my reading of course, don't presume to speak for her); she loves the idea of trying to construct new societies etc but seems to think they are always doomed to fail- this is connected to much of her life being spent under successive governments that started out with optimism but became dictatorships.
i suppose i'm just skeptical on the basis that one hears 'technology is rilly cool and will deliver the intersectional future' constantly as the mantra of every on-message corporate marketing machine, i just hope monica's optimism is based on more than this?

i'm not sure how to link the thread, it was on errolson's twitter 2 days ago so you could check back? (some teen txted me almost as soon as he posted it lol)

(BTW ANYONE IN BERLIN?? Lee Bul's exhibition opening/party this friday 28th- drinks + FRZNTE DJ set, come along
https://www.facebook.com/events/273696099901332/)
  • 1

kickingthefly
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:16 am
Reputation: 158

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby norman » Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:35 pm

seeing the OG gits with no previous understanding of that universe or it's history, i felt insulted by how the new one left no stone unturned and rushed the whole legacy in a sub 2 hrs movie (was it sub 2?) ghost, just like akira, is a deep mindfuck from start to finish where you really have to sink yourself into that world to understand what's going on. not to rehash well-discussed subjects, but i think that the BR2049 was more successful at adapting to the world that we live in today. the bits about san diego being an endless trash heap and all of the inner empire being covered in grub farms felt far more believable than the relatively polished bond-esque evil villain settings that GITS3.0 presented. i mean the tits in the new one werent even as good as i expected!

tl;dr lil uzi vert should have been in the new GITS
  • 1

everything i post is a joke
User avatar
norman
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:45 pm
Reputation: 149

Re: Random Rhetorical Hypebeast Fashion Thoughts

Postby rjbman » Fri Sep 28, 2018 6:00 pm

kickingthefly wrote:i think there's probably a lot i don't get here, having not seen either GITS or even really knowing much about science fiction. one thing i didn't understand is the post-dystopian vision you refer to above, her saying ' i want the future to be hopeful' - i'd be interested to know what informs this. for example lee bul's vision of imaginary/material futures are sort of recursive (this is my reading of course, don't presume to speak for her); she loves the idea of trying to construct new societies etc but seems to think they are always doomed to fail- this is connected to much of her life being spent under successive governments that started out with optimism but became dictatorships.
i suppose i'm just skeptical on the basis that one hears 'technology is rilly cool and will deliver the intersectional future' constantly as the mantra of every on-message corporate marketing machine, i just hope monica's optimism is based on more than this?

i'm not sure how to link the thread, it was on errolson's twitter 2 days ago so you could check back? (some teen txted me almost as soon as he posted it lol)

(BTW ANYONE IN BERLIN?? Lee Bul's exhibition opening/party this friday 28th- drinks + FRZNTE DJ set, come along
https://www.facebook.com/events/273696099901332/)


ok I am sorry that it took so long for me to get back to this!

The New Idea that I never considered before following along with Bielskyte is that our fictional stories influence and are influenced by reality. A couple famous examples: geosynchronous satellites were science fiction (Arthur C Clarke) and then became reality, and cell phones etc cite things like Star Trek as what led them to create them. Bielskyte's point is that if the only futures we make stories about are dystopian hell holes, that's the direction that the future will default to. So wanting a hopeful future is rooted at wanting innovative goals to aspire to for not just her but for humankind as a whole. Not pitfalls to try and avoid without a goal in mind.

I think it's fair to say that her arguments about "the future doesn't have to suck" definitely appeal to techno-utopians, but she's made the point in at least one thread that technology alone can't save the world or promote equality; it takes real and deliberate action to correct the past and make the future better. Link: https://twitter.com/monikabielskyte/status/925341740231462912

This is the first I've heard of Lee Bul so I can't really speak to anything broader there.
  • 2

"Let's be vagabonds." - Yohji Yamamoto
User avatar
rjbman
 
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:34 pm
Location: IL
Reputation: 6513

PreviousNext

Return to Tags

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CARkr, wiggly--woo and 15 guests