6 ms·

Why did clothes ever become NOT boring in the first place? Clothes are above all something that warms/protects/hides us from the world. Aesthetic contemplation

by iammjm 2y ago

Why did clothes ever become NOT boring in the first place? Clothes are above all something that warms/protects/hides us from the world. Aesthetic contemplations are really just an afterthought. Also, "fashion" is one of the stupidest things ever, like oh hey, you should now replace your perfectly good clothes every season because someone says so??

space_oddity 2y ago
It’s wild to think about how something so simple - just a way to shield ourselves from the elements - has become this huge cultural phenomenon
makeitdouble 2y ago
Your argument could be read as beauty not mattering. For a different POV, countless animals will risk their life to look fabulous/make themselves stand from the pack to leave a legacy. Arguably fashion could be one of the most important thing to people. PS: on a side note, even in technical circles where we could expect more detachment from appearances in general, a lot of comment will revolve around "X looks dumb". As in "I'd look dumb taking a photo with an iPad" or "who would wear VR googles around people and look like an idiot". People are social animals, and they care about how they look.
- vouaobrasil 2y ago
  However, we should use our intelligence to find ways to curb the extent to which clothing has become an obsession, becaue the clothing industry is unsustainable and creates enormous amounts of waste and pollution. With our big brains, surely we can find ways to differetiate and display our styles without so much waste? Or perhaps we should just go back to trying to make AI think like us...
  - snowwrestler 2y ago
    Picking clothes that make us look good, and frequently replacing our clothes, are really two quite different things. You don’t have to do the latter to achieve the former.
  - Clamchop 2y ago
    You could say that being green, or appearing to be, is in fashion.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    As the same pattern arises in every domain, I don't see it as an issue with clothing in particular. We have depleted environmental resources and polluted with no bound in every field that didn't have extreme regulation. I don't think we're obsessed over almonds and yet their production is wastingso much water in critical regions. Right now it's cheaper to buy a new trouser than to have it repair by a local craftsman, and the fashion trends you are observing are also engineered and managed at an industry level, down to the color they'll want to push the next year. TBH he answer could simply be regulation and bake the externalities in the price of the clothes. Some people will still change wardrobe every 3 months, but most won't have that luxury, and our views will adapt to that new reality.
- floydnoel 2y ago
  i like this argument- fashion is left over animal spirits. the less rational (and more animalistic) we are, the more that fashion matters to us. that would explain the drop in extreme fashion's popularity also as people become educated.
  - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    > the less rational (and more animalistic) we are, the more that fashion matters to us Rational and animalistic are usually synonymous. Humans, on the other hand, tend to be far less rational. Thus, the more rational we are, the more fashion matters to us. Or vice versa.
navane 2y ago
What's the point in surviving if no one wants to mate with you, evolutionary speaking. Is your type, dating wise, someone who is warm and dry?
- bluGill 2y ago
  > Is your type, dating wise, someone who is warm and dry? My type is someone who has enough excess wealth to support my kids. Of course what this means is different for different animals, and in the case of humans different styles of raising kids, and different genders. In our modern world we don't think like this, but in 1700 a man could rape a woman and she would have no choice but to bare the child (if one happens), and then society would raise the child (in some cases she could drop the child off with the shakers or similar) - the important point is in this case the man only minimal cost to the child but there are a lot of costs on the woman. Thus women generally need signals that this man will stick around to feed her an can afford, that while the man needs to know the women's body will result in a baby being (as opposed to all too common dies at birth). Warm and dry is the very minimum you can ask in a potential mate - anything else will die before the child is born and thus you don't pass those genes on. However if you can find someone who has enough free time to not only be warm and dry but also well decorated that implies they have plenty of excess time making warm and dry clothing for the child who then won't freeze to death. Of course different climates have different warmth and dry needs.
- stronglikedan 2y ago
  Warm, yes. Dry, quite the opposite.
mcphage 2y ago
> Aesthetic contemplations are really just an afterthought Aesthetic contemplations are never an afterthought.
gklitz 2y ago
> Clothes are above all something that warms/protects/hides us from the world. Aesthetic contemplations are really just an afterthought. I think it’s the exact opposite. Would seem like the transition our species had made to require clothes in the areas we live came after we had the clothes needed to migrate to those regions. The first humans to strap leaves to themselves likely did so for athestic reasons not for warmth, that would have come later. Though I’m no historian so this is just speculation.
itishappy 2y ago
> Clothes are above all something that warms/protects/hides us from the world. Not sure that follows. Most places have a climate that would allow us to get by without clothes if we so desired (at least for part of the year), but few do. On the other hand, farmers and their families used to use flour sacks to make clothing, and when the flour companies realized this they started making patterned sacks. Flour companies didn't do this for fun, it was a desirable feature that increased sales. > Also, "fashion" is one of the stupidest things ever, like oh hey, you should now replace your perfectly good clothes every season because someone says so?? Agreed, but nothing stops us from keeping fashionable clothes around for a long time. "Sunday best," for instance.
- achierius 2y ago
  Note that the "wearing flour sacks" was not some perennial tradition of farming families: it was a necessity of the times, i.e. the Great Depression / dust bowl, where many many farmers were forced into destitution.
  - itishappy 2y ago
    I'm sure it's a bit of both. Feed sacks weren't worn by the affluent, but it would have been cheaper to use unpatterned fabrics. People went out of their way to select attractive patterns and match them with each other.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      With mass production attractive patterns were cheap for the flour companies - they were already pattering the sacs with the brand name so it was almost zero extra cost to put more pattern on the bag. If patterns actually costs them much they wouldn't have done it. People who have a choice between two $1 bags of flour will choose the nicer on for the nicer clothes they can make - but if one bag as $1.05 they would choose the cheaper one.
Shared404 2y ago
I don't think clothing is any more boring than computers or photography or painting or drawing or running or cooking or martial arts or reading or woodworking or cars or makeup or any other hobby. Which is not to say all of those interest me, but is to say any field is going to be interesting to some but not to all. For my case, for most of my life I hated thinking about clothes, hated anything other than big hoodies/jeans/jackets, saw it as purely utilitarian. Eventually after some soul searching and realizations/some new medication, I have discovered that I quite like using my clothing to express myself, my mood, what I'm doing, and so on. Fast fashion is very dumb though in my opinion. No reason to be wasteful and throw things away, but there's a middle space that can be very rewarding to explore - the first time I put on a skirt was quite literally life changing.
criddell 2y ago
> you should now replace your perfectly good clothes every season because someone says so? Is that what you do? If not, then that's a bold move setting up a strawman as you try to start a flamewar.
rikthevik 2y ago
Clothes are an important part of how we communicate with each other. It's an important part of the human experience, right up there with art and music. By having this opinion (and I assume dressing plainly) you are sending your own message to people about what's important to you.
carabiner 2y ago
> Also, "fashion" is one of the stupidest things ever, like oh hey, you should now replace your perfectly good clothes every season because someone says so?? Have you ever encountered the world of javascript frameworks?
TheGRS 2y ago
Personal tastes and preferences and opinions aside, clothing is a pretty important aspect of communicating. Easy reference point is Mean Girls: On Wednesdays, we wear pink. In that scenario its simply a means of communicating conformity and support for the group. Seasonal tastes change because tastemakers set them, and people who want to be in the zeitgeist follow suit. And even in sub-cultures where one is just trying to communicate their distaste in fashion, there are usually unofficial dress codes. At nerdier conventions I typically see screen t-shirts riddled with pop culture references, or standard issue polos + khakis that communicate a sort of "I'm professional and I don't want to overthink my wardrobe". They're also the only place I see utility kilts, which definitely communicates something. Einstein famously had several copies of the same outfit, because he didn't want to think about dressing, but he found one that worked for him. And I've seen several engineers copy this approach - communicating efficiency and I'd argue at least some desire to emulate an Einstein.
julianeon 2y ago
Fashion was a major driver (possibly the main one) of the Industrial Revolution. The economics of it kicked off the modern tech-based society we live in today.
redpandadolphin 2y ago
Let me guess you're a Star Trek fan? Clothes, as with many things in life, can be a form of artistic expression. What's so wrong with that?
harimau777 2y ago
You might be mistaking modern "fast fashion" with more traditional understandings of "fashion". There is nothing about fashion that requires clothing to be replaced every season. In fact, much of what we now think of as fashion was actually a form of recycling. All of those fancy ribbons, collars, and smocking we associate with Victorian fashion? Those existed to cover up repairs, allow worn out parts to be replaced, and to allow clothing sizes to be adjusted when it was handed down. More generally, fashion is a powerful form of self expression that allows someone to project to the world how one wants to be perceived. Eliminating fashion because it's impractical would be like eliminating art as impractical.

by iammjm 2y ago

space_oddity 2y ago

It’s wild to think about how something so simple - just a way to shield ourselves from the elements - has become this huge cultural phenomenon

makeitdouble 2y ago

Your argument could be read as beauty not mattering. For a different POV, countless animals will risk their life to look fabulous/make themselves stand from the pack to leave a legacy. Arguably fashion could be one of the most important thing to people. PS: on a side note, even in technical circles where we could expect more detachment from appearances in general, a lot of comment will revolve around "X looks dumb". As in "I'd look dumb taking a photo with an iPad" or "who would wear VR googles around people and look like an idiot". People are social animals, and they care about how they look.

vouaobrasil 2y ago
However, we should use our intelligence to find ways to curb the extent to which clothing has become an obsession, becaue the clothing industry is unsustainable and creates enormous amounts of waste and pollution. With our big brains, surely we can find ways to differetiate and display our styles without so much waste? Or perhaps we should just go back to trying to make AI think like us...
- snowwrestler 2y ago
  Picking clothes that make us look good, and frequently replacing our clothes, are really two quite different things. You don’t have to do the latter to achieve the former.
- Clamchop 2y ago
  You could say that being green, or appearing to be, is in fashion.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  As the same pattern arises in every domain, I don't see it as an issue with clothing in particular. We have depleted environmental resources and polluted with no bound in every field that didn't have extreme regulation. I don't think we're obsessed over almonds and yet their production is wastingso much water in critical regions. Right now it's cheaper to buy a new trouser than to have it repair by a local craftsman, and the fashion trends you are observing are also engineered and managed at an industry level, down to the color they'll want to push the next year. TBH he answer could simply be regulation and bake the externalities in the price of the clothes. Some people will still change wardrobe every 3 months, but most won't have that luxury, and our views will adapt to that new reality.
floydnoel 2y ago
i like this argument- fashion is left over animal spirits. the less rational (and more animalistic) we are, the more that fashion matters to us. that would explain the drop in extreme fashion's popularity also as people become educated.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  > the less rational (and more animalistic) we are, the more that fashion matters to us Rational and animalistic are usually synonymous. Humans, on the other hand, tend to be far less rational. Thus, the more rational we are, the more fashion matters to us. Or vice versa.

navane 2y ago

What's the point in surviving if no one wants to mate with you, evolutionary speaking. Is your type, dating wise, someone who is warm and dry?

bluGill 2y ago
> Is your type, dating wise, someone who is warm and dry? My type is someone who has enough excess wealth to support my kids. Of course what this means is different for different animals, and in the case of humans different styles of raising kids, and different genders. In our modern world we don't think like this, but in 1700 a man could rape a woman and she would have no choice but to bare the child (if one happens), and then society would raise the child (in some cases she could drop the child off with the shakers or similar) - the important point is in this case the man only minimal cost to the child but there are a lot of costs on the woman. Thus women generally need signals that this man will stick around to feed her an can afford, that while the man needs to know the women's body will result in a baby being (as opposed to all too common dies at birth). Warm and dry is the very minimum you can ask in a potential mate - anything else will die before the child is born and thus you don't pass those genes on. However if you can find someone who has enough free time to not only be warm and dry but also well decorated that implies they have plenty of excess time making warm and dry clothing for the child who then won't freeze to death. Of course different climates have different warmth and dry needs.
stronglikedan 2y ago
Warm, yes. Dry, quite the opposite.

mcphage 2y ago

> Aesthetic contemplations are really just an afterthought Aesthetic contemplations are never an afterthought.

gklitz 2y ago

> Clothes are above all something that warms/protects/hides us from the world. Aesthetic contemplations are really just an afterthought. I think it’s the exact opposite. Would seem like the transition our species had made to require clothes in the areas we live came after we had the clothes needed to migrate to those regions. The first humans to strap leaves to themselves likely did so for athestic reasons not for warmth, that would have come later. Though I’m no historian so this is just speculation.

itishappy 2y ago

> Clothes are above all something that warms/protects/hides us from the world. Not sure that follows. Most places have a climate that would allow us to get by without clothes if we so desired (at least for part of the year), but few do. On the other hand, farmers and their families used to use flour sacks to make clothing, and when the flour companies realized this they started making patterned sacks. Flour companies didn't do this for fun, it was a desirable feature that increased sales. > Also, "fashion" is one of the stupidest things ever, like oh hey, you should now replace your perfectly good clothes every season because someone says so?? Agreed, but nothing stops us from keeping fashionable clothes around for a long time. "Sunday best," for instance.

achierius 2y ago
Note that the "wearing flour sacks" was not some perennial tradition of farming families: it was a necessity of the times, i.e. the Great Depression / dust bowl, where many many farmers were forced into destitution.
- itishappy 2y ago
  I'm sure it's a bit of both. Feed sacks weren't worn by the affluent, but it would have been cheaper to use unpatterned fabrics. People went out of their way to select attractive patterns and match them with each other.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    With mass production attractive patterns were cheap for the flour companies - they were already pattering the sacs with the brand name so it was almost zero extra cost to put more pattern on the bag. If patterns actually costs them much they wouldn't have done it. People who have a choice between two $1 bags of flour will choose the nicer on for the nicer clothes they can make - but if one bag as $1.05 they would choose the cheaper one.

Shared404 2y ago

I don't think clothing is any more boring than computers or photography or painting or drawing or running or cooking or martial arts or reading or woodworking or cars or makeup or any other hobby. Which is not to say all of those interest me, but is to say any field is going to be interesting to some but not to all. For my case, for most of my life I hated thinking about clothes, hated anything other than big hoodies/jeans/jackets, saw it as purely utilitarian. Eventually after some soul searching and realizations/some new medication, I have discovered that I quite like using my clothing to express myself, my mood, what I'm doing, and so on. Fast fashion is very dumb though in my opinion. No reason to be wasteful and throw things away, but there's a middle space that can be very rewarding to explore - the first time I put on a skirt was quite literally life changing.

criddell 2y ago

> you should now replace your perfectly good clothes every season because someone says so? Is that what you do? If not, then that's a bold move setting up a strawman as you try to start a flamewar.

rikthevik 2y ago

Clothes are an important part of how we communicate with each other. It's an important part of the human experience, right up there with art and music. By having this opinion (and I assume dressing plainly) you are sending your own message to people about what's important to you.

carabiner 2y ago

> Also, "fashion" is one of the stupidest things ever, like oh hey, you should now replace your perfectly good clothes every season because someone says so?? Have you ever encountered the world of javascript frameworks?

TheGRS 2y ago

Personal tastes and preferences and opinions aside, clothing is a pretty important aspect of communicating. Easy reference point is Mean Girls: On Wednesdays, we wear pink. In that scenario its simply a means of communicating conformity and support for the group. Seasonal tastes change because tastemakers set them, and people who want to be in the zeitgeist follow suit. And even in sub-cultures where one is just trying to communicate their distaste in fashion, there are usually unofficial dress codes. At nerdier conventions I typically see screen t-shirts riddled with pop culture references, or standard issue polos + khakis that communicate a sort of "I'm professional and I don't want to overthink my wardrobe". They're also the only place I see utility kilts, which definitely communicates something. Einstein famously had several copies of the same outfit, because he didn't want to think about dressing, but he found one that worked for him. And I've seen several engineers copy this approach - communicating efficiency and I'd argue at least some desire to emulate an Einstein.

julianeon 2y ago

Fashion was a major driver (possibly the main one) of the Industrial Revolution. The economics of it kicked off the modern tech-based society we live in today.

redpandadolphin 2y ago

Let me guess you're a Star Trek fan? Clothes, as with many things in life, can be a form of artistic expression. What's so wrong with that?

harimau777 2y ago

You might be mistaking modern "fast fashion" with more traditional understandings of "fashion". There is nothing about fashion that requires clothing to be replaced every season. In fact, much of what we now think of as fashion was actually a form of recycling. All of those fancy ribbons, collars, and smocking we associate with Victorian fashion? Those existed to cover up repairs, allow worn out parts to be replaced, and to allow clothing sizes to be adjusted when it was handed down. More generally, fashion is a powerful form of self expression that allows someone to project to the world how one wants to be perceived. Eliminating fashion because it's impractical would be like eliminating art as impractical.