Did anyone enjoy Cayce's reaction to Tommy Hilfiger's cloths as much as I did? I never wear Tommy for exactly reasons she mentions.
Also, I remember reading somewhere that wearing a visible brand was sign of low class. The higher up the class chair you go, the less visible the brand is. A good example of this is the difference between Armani A/X (A/X appears on everything), and upscale Armani.

Very good point. What are your thoughts on Juicy and their track pants with the word "Juicy" all over the rear? Those are pretty popular.

Absolutely hate them! Can not believe they make things for men now too.

*LOL*

When I read the passage on Hilfiger [since I could not actually identify it if I saw it] I conjoured the nasty sport t-shirt with loud emblazoned number. (Worked for me!)

This kind of "fashion" is just shorthand display, with no thought, heart, or soul.

quote:

Originally posted by mikethecat:
Did anyone enjoy Cayce's reaction to Tommy Hilfiger's cloths as much as I did? I never wear Tommy for exactly reasons she mentions.
Also, I remember reading somewhere that wearing a visible brand was sign of low class. The higher up the class chair you go, the less visible the brand is. A good example of this is the difference between Armani A/X (A/X appears on everything), and upscale Armani.

Hmmmm

This link is begging for you to click on me.

LN

quote:

Originally posted by Meru:
Very good point. What are your thoughts on Juicy and their track pants with the word "Juicy" all over the rear? Those are pretty popular.

In Japan (and in Italy) there is widespread use of English on Tshirts and other garments, often making no sense at all. Sometimes the combination of words is just serendipitous but at other times it is quite unsettling; such as the time I saw a 4 or 5 year old girl walking through Narita airport, her left hand clutching her tiny rolling suitcase whilst her other hand was being held by her mother (I assume). What I found disturbing was that across the butt of her tiny velour tracksuit was the phrase "Pick the fresh".

WARNING Link above contains giant squid image.

LN

Funny - I've always heard it as Engrish.

Same difference*, surely. Not sure if one term is considered more offensive, though - if it even registers over there.

Squid warnings - heh.

_*sorry!

I'm glad to see somone made this observation before about brands on expensive cloths LeitzNoctilux. What I find interesting though is a previous post claiming that non branded cloths are cheaper.
Perhaps there is a base level of desperate consumer, and that if you rise far enough above that level, or fall far enough below, you no longer find brands?

Or perhaps excessive concern with brand names is a middle class* thing? Another way of saying the same thing, I guess.

_{* For some reason typing the words middle class makes me want to spit. Something about disliking the category itself (not the people in it), like that feeling Cayce ascribes to Americans, that class as a concept feels essentially wrong, somehow.}

quote:

Originally posted by colin:
Or perhaps excessive concern with brand names is a middle class* thing? Another way of saying the same thing, I guess.

_{* For some reason typing the words middle class makes me want to spit. Something about disliking the category itself (not the people in it), like that feeling Cayce ascribes to Americans, that class as a concept feels essentially wrong, somehow.}

I think maybe the middle class (and this makes me want to wretch, too) wants to disassociate themselves from lower classes by proving they can buy something in a higher price range. Not only that, but they aim for what they perceive as an upper-class standard, which is wearing brand name clothing. It is what they perceive to be upper class, not the reality of the situation, seeing as how the brand names on clothing aren't seen plastered across the chests of millionaires. This concern with brand names, it is part of the struggle of the middle class to either be more or at least perceived as more, not through actions or words, but through their money. Brand name=more money spent=status. Sure, it's tasteless to want everyone to know, but it's also tasteless finding so much value in what others think of you and how much money you spend.

On second thought, what I said above doesn't ring quite true. I think rich people are also quite concerned with brands. However, lower down on the fashion food chain people are probably concerned with showing their friends that they chose the right name, while higher up they want to show their friends they chose the right name, but without giving the impression they needed to see the name to know it was right. It's also a social gateway. You can use an expensive suit or dress to filter other people, based on whether they recognize the brand or not. (Yes, very shallow, but such people exist, do they not?)

quote:

Originally posted by colin:
On second thought, what I said above doesn't ring quite true. I think rich people are also quite concerned with brands. However, lower down on the fashion food chain people are probably concerned with showing their friends that they chose the right name, while higher up they want to show their friends they chose the right name, but without giving the impression they needed to see the name to know it was right. It's also a social gateway. You can use an expensive suit or dress to filter other people, based on whether they recognize the brand or not. (Yes, very shallow, but such people exist, do they not?)

Yes, they do. And those are my relatives. *LOL*

quote:

Originally posted by colin:
You can use an expensive suit or dress to filter other people, based on whether they recognize the brand or not.

This is the the point of Cayce wearing the Buzz Rickson. So here we are, back at the beginning again...

Oh-ho. Well, yeah, I guess. Though I'm not sure how much active filtering she does with it. It could be interpreted (along with the rest of her CPU package) as a strong anti-fashion statement. The narration of the book tries to suggest that this isn't true, and that Cayce is not so much anti as non, but I think we've already hit on the point in several threads that the narrator cannot necessarily be trusted.

P.S. I liked you better as a superhero. Could we at least have a BunnySentinel?

I'd say it was passive filtering. After all, if she was really anti-fashion the cigarette burn wouldn't have 'spoiled' the jacket.
Or maybe you could argue that every time she saw the cigarette hole she'd be reminded of Dorothea so the 'spoiling' and the fashion aren't unlinkable. I don't know now!


ps. The Bunny is only temporary. I'm just doing it to tweak AC for about 24 hours or so. Don't tell him!

LN's

quote:

In Japan (and in Italy) there is widespread use of English on Tshirts and other garments, often making no sense at all.

in australia it's a trend at the moment, young men who buy their tshirts from jeans chains all have (not)punk screenprint/graffiti style mass produced nonsense all over them.

I was looking through this months Vanity Fair, no really, not just staring at the cover, and I noticed an ad inside for Calvin Klein jeans.
Now CK has never been known for being subtle in their ads, or hesitant to flash the logo. However the jeans worn in this ad had their logos conspicuously torn off! Is being obvious that you are too cool for brands the new trend? I've heard rumors that after PR came out a bunch of hipsters were trying to claim they all thought of it first, but now it's reached the level of a national ad campaign.

Which is exactly the kind of thing that makes me glad I don't do fashion in the first place.

...

Not that I had any choice in the matter.

The problem is, thanks to Adam and Eve, we all do fashion, whether we like it or not.
Oh, what's with the name change?