today i'm trashin' fashion.
so today i'm wearing my most festive item of clothing, and no, it's not one of my mother's borrowed quacker factory sweaters. it's my pair of vans made to look like jack-o-lanterns, and i couldn't be happier in them. aside from the giggles they garner on the subway, the sheer audacity of a 22 year old sporting something that was no doubt intended for the petite feet of, say a five year old gives me more pleasure than my first fifth grade orgasm.
onto bigger and duller things. observing all the sartorial goings on overseas, i.e. milan and paris, my embitterment has caused me to really think about fashion. the force that governs something we see every day. you know, the industry that pays me what some may refer to as a salary.
after pondering why fashion is the "it" of the moment, contributing flimsy plots and shallow inspiration to books, movies and television shows alike, i've come to a conclusion: fashion is so highly regarded by so many simply because it's so criticized. the protective layer in which we drape our bodies is always under such intense scrutiny we end up spending more time, money and effort caring for it than we do for our skin. and this opprobrium extends to fashion in all its forms--as art, as personal choice of exterior decoration, and as mere functional shielding against the external elements. additionally, this formidable force fashion is ends up spontaneously generating its own set of rules and regulations, a governing body of laws that ensure all wearers of clothing, basically 98% of the world's population, are constantly monitored by their own insecurities and abide by such militant enforcers we call "trends."
federally-imposed laws prevent people from being naked in public, and those same institutional rules and regulations have given birth to a petty brood of superficial, fickle and fiercely harsh laws that govern, and subsequently protect, the opinion, rather than the function, of the society that exists around how people choose to abide by the law of "no nudity." it's not simply a matter of covering up--just as the revolution shall be accessorized, so should your conscious decision to be a law-abiding citizen. these laws of fashion are less lenient than the constitutional ones that mold and support our nation. self-appointed fashion police are constantly chattering disapproval and criticism and arbitrary reason for change from our TVs, movie screens, and pages of in touch and us weekly.
so basically, the laws state, "one must wear something on the exterior of one's body to shield the rest of the world from the potentially unsightly presence of one's pee-pees and boobies," then in the most demonic form of nepotism, sic their bratty paris kardashian kids on the legislation aspect, yielding "who wore it better" and pushing red carpet coverage from intellectual discussion of awards to be presented to whose clothing designs one sports, and all the catty rivalry that's accompanied.
the fact is, fashion, what wikipedia describes as, "styles and customs prevalent at a given time" is inescapable. it's as difficult to avoid as it is to relate. you know, everybody "loves" fashion. you could have a job picking out discarded items of clothing out of the staten island landfill but as long as your title reads something like, "sanitation fashion extractor" you'll never be short of the oohs and aahs of admiration. whether or not one consciously subscribes to the tenets and statues of fashion, they're still slowing at store windows and leafing through vogue in the checkout line, and for what? because marc jacobs' fall '09 line matters more to them then they care to admit, and even though they may be sporting hot pink elastic waistbanded sweatpants in that very checkout line, they're confident in the fact that someone else out there looks worse (according to the laws of fashion) than they do, and that's ok. right?
whether your pret-a-porter is saint laurent or a snuggie, you can't escape the laws of fashion by virtue of the necessity of clothing.
i'm a real hater today.