/fa/ - Fashion

wearing all black is a timeless style.

>>6897460

ITT
A newfag who mixes lifestyle with trends trends last no more than 6 months 99% of the time

>>6897460
ok
name some new trends then

>>6897508
Oh lol at the name

>>6897508
top lel

>>6897508

king of mouthbreathers

shitposting
oppa OP style

ey ey ey eyey ey

OP is too poor to afford any raw denim besides unbranded

i agree with some of the other things tho

>>6897565
yea man raw denim is crazy expensive right?

Lists

>MA-1 Jackets
>Flyknits
>Roshes
>Running shoes

J cuts
Stacks
Asymmetry
Draping
Layers
Monochrome

a-am I troll yet OP?

>>6897460
Carol Christian Poell
Paul Harnden
LUC
Anything by M.Altieri

>>6897508
did he say taht mask was a good conversations starter?

>>6897873
these arent trends outside of stylezeitgeist

also M.Alteri isn't m.a+

Fuck you! I was wearing all black before you faggots ruined it and I'll continue to wear all black when you guys have shuffled off half a year late to your next bullshit fad.

>caring about trends and not wearing whatever the fuck you want

>>6897908

no fuck you goth phaggot

>geobaskets

what that guy User wears

>>6897508

ultimate autism

>implying snap backs, fitted hats and five panels will ever go out of fashion

>listening to juicy j
>2013

>gothninja
>rick owens
>especially geobaskets

Saw a thread the other day where some kiddo had saved up all his pocket money for a pair of geobaskets.

Look, if you are not rich and you can buy designer wear, then by the time it trickles down to you, it is no longer fashionable. This is how designer fashion works. It is supposed to work like this because these items are prices to exclude you, not to include you.

If you are not very wealthy, you do not get to enter into the realms of current designer fashion. This is the whole fucking idea.

So forget chasing the latest designer shit if you can't afford it, it's a game you're not supposed to play.

>>6897929

yep, almost all my stuff is older/past season, like none of it is very "fresh"

>>6897943
this isn't accurate

infact, complete bullshit

>>6897943
>it's fashion look it up

>>6897943
saved for future b8

>>6897849
>MA-1 Jackets.. damn i-is this true

>>6897986
no they are timeless

>>6897943
>>6897957
Honestly, this can be true. Many people no matter how they are interested in fashion will never have the money, connections or clout to literally get something right off the runway. Many pieces only reach people like us because the truly wealthy did not want it immediately.

>>6897460

ITT:

>Hurr I wasn't invited to the party durrr
>fuck you guise
>You look like shit city boiz!
>I'm not posting fit LOL!

>>6898012
it can be i true if youre ignorant and/or stupid.
i dont know what point youre making with whatever else youre saying but ive never bought anything off the runway (or in season haahahahahahahhahhahaah) but that doesnt mean anything.
the whatever which is effectively 'we live on wealthy peoples scraps' might be realistically true but is something mirrored in many facets of life and isn't worth thinking about.

>>6898025
Never said it was worth thinking about, just pointing out that there is a grain of truth in anon's trolling.

>>6898029
nebulously related to his post, it's not reinforcing the point - meaningless in all perception.

>>6898034
That would make your rebuttal equally meaningless.

>>6898043
autism

>>6898051
Buzzword

>>6898043
you're getting confused

>boat shoes
so what gives then? it's spring in the south now, what do I wear with my shorts?

>>6897957

You are incorrect.
In fact, there's a word for it.
It's called Post-Modern fashion, and it's not a new phenomena. So I guess you're the one full of shit now aren't you?

>>6898104
>Post-Modern fashion
>serious context
lol

what's called post-modern fashion?
i like to call it transcended contemporary design V____V

>>6898120

I think the label post-modern fashion is a joke too but that's more or less what it is and why it was invented. Everything the guy you called bullshit on said is true and if it weren't then there wouldn't have ever even been the label post-modern fashion.

>>6898098
Some loafers.

Cole Haan preferably.

Boat shoes are beyond retarded.

>>6898130
some random sweaty nerd over the internet doesn't define what's 'fashionable' for me.
i dont feel excluded because i cant consume, i can easily access resources to exp. a much more visceral involvement.
you dont need to be wealthy.
design appreciation doesnt have a requirement and if it did it certainly wouldnt be defined by someone so misinformed.

>if it weren't then there wouldn't have ever even been the label post-modern fashion.
something doesnt exist universally because you consider it to be true.

>>6898166

I'm not the one who said it, I would have never thought of a label as pretentious as postmodern fashion, let alone transcended contemporary faggotry.

Might want to watch it when you're turning left into getting rek't.

>>6898166

>Overrides existing definitions with dumbass self-made labels
>Calls people misinformed when they use the correct terminology

>>6898174
>transcended contemporary faggotry
you missed the joke...
>what is satire?

i never said you were the one who wrote it i only involved you in your own comment.

>>6898179
>>6898174

>>6898183
Yo turnleft, what's that animu?

>>6898179
>>6898174
>more than 2 people missed the joke
this isnt reddit

post-modern fashion has a arbitrary definition...it doesnt mean anything but 'pseudofashionistas' will attempt to credit the term assuming it identifies some sort of discrete, specific market.

>>6898191
Mind Game by Studio 4C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_4%C2%B0C
heaps of really worth while screen caps in it but i didnt want to destroy my exp.

since when does /fa/ give a fuck about trends? really, if you've worn any of the things OP named because of a trend, or don't were it anymore because it ain't, you're in the wrong place.

>>6898183

Listen dude if you don't think that fashion has traditionally been a luxury for the wealthy then you are in dire need of picking up a fucking book.

There's not really anything I can say to change your mind if you're going to spout such bullshit.

>>6898203

lol /fa/ is nothing but trends, they just take it to the nxt lvl

>>6898205
how you define fashen is incorrect

luxury fashion is for luxury markets but i describe fashen as an artistic movement based in design practice which any population can exhibit

>>6898211
having said that luxury doesnt imply a cost to attain just a status on process.
i could sell a gold bar for $1, does it then stop becoming a luxury?

>>6898214
>forgot pic

>>6898201
Aight, thanks.

>>6898211

Fashion is a product of its era, and when you look back through history at the styles and fashions of the time you will find they were all defined by those able to afford to do so through every age ever.

You make your own definitions for everything don't you?

>>6898216
lain :))))))

>>6898219
Before the 1900's, only the richest of the rich could afford dressing up, now everyone can.

>>6898223
How come you're always in the same thread I am?

>>6898219
its cause, like turn said, your definition of fashion is wrong. what you're talking about is just fashion for the wealthy

"Fashion is a general term for a popular style or practice"

there's what you're talking about, and then there's also popular styles or practices for those of a different social class

>>6897943
this is partly true.

but there's this neat way around it called ebay.

>>6898219
>Fashion is a product of its era,
good start
but rather - fashion is a product of environment, it's not dictated by some arbitrary self imposed time scale.

>when you look back through history at the styles and fashions of the time you will find they were all defined by those able to afford to do so through every age ever.
incorrect
that is only relevant to very small populations and hasn't been relvent for maybe 80-120years(?).

design is the means of finding a practical solution for a problem
fashion is derived from design
fashion is the personification of experiences and obstacles.

poor peasants could never afford to be involved in frivolous circle jerking of embroidery so defined their fashion as a practical means to getting through their day easily
the rich minority would circle jerk where the silk on their panties were sourced and how many buttons they could fit on their vest.

there is actually a huge discussion we could go w/ this on how fashion is perceived and what it means and how its changed throughout he years but tbh im not really in the mood because you seem stubborn but to just sort of brush you off and remind that your wrong...

your idea of fashion is decadent and ignorant.

>>6898227

That's true, and that's partially the point since this concept has lasted longer than even the 90's. To backtrack to the beginning comment that started a debate, he had stated that you don't need to go and buy the top name designers to be fashionable because that stuff isn't made for them.

Turnleft sperged out at this thought that you could be fashionable and buy a cheaper product and called bullshit.

>>6898240

Nope, you're the one who originally said that you have to buy the most expensive stuff to be fashionable bud.

>>6898244
what

>stated that you don't need to go and buy the top name designers to be fashionable because that stuff isn't made for them.
>thought that you could be fashionable and buy a cheaper product and called bullshit.
i dont remember implying that
god your comprehension is dreadful.

>>6897943
it's just a cultish devotion to something. kinda like how /mu/ kids who weren't into music before champion NMH.
you tell the real fans of the respective mediums by how little they drone on about these subjects i.e rick owens and fucking nmh

>>6898246
find the quote, i dont think i ever implied that fashion is related to a disposable income.

>>6898248

Read the original comment again dipshit.

>>6897943

And you're the one who went on to say it's wrong to go for something cheaper than the top designer fashion.

>>6898249

But listen, if you want to think saving up your lunch money for months to buy geobaskets is the way fashion is supposed to work, that's fine.

I'm pretty done talking to you, it's really confusing since you try to invent your own form of English.

>>6898251
what??
find the quote and the implication
i have nothing to lose by making you backtrack
tbh im getting a sense of satisfaction.

>>6898253
what??
whattt????
how did this escalate so quickly?
how have you perceived everything so badly?
are you he same game who thought i was being sincere w/ 'transcended contemporary design'???

relax, breath in maybe watch some porn or s/t

>>6898259
>same game
>same game
>the same guy ._______.

>>6898256

>Original Comment: Why save up for designer fashion when it's not made for you.
>turnleft: This is bullshit.
>Me: Actually he's right
>turnleft: Listen, I follow my own dictionary and interpret my own meanings to words so you might not understand

That's pretty much the synopsis of this entire discussion. And no, I don't give a shit about your definitions when it's irrelevant to the original argument in the first place.

Things are made for a demographic of people who can afford them, the Google Glasses sure as hell aren't made for the poor, and neither are Geobaskets. This isn't just marketing, it's common sense, something you are lacking in abundance.

>>6898265
lmao
wowwww, more niave then i would have thought

>ave up for designer fashion when it's not made for you.
I dnot think any designer has a market consisting of a single person...so nothing will be MADE FOR ME per se.
if i like something and am in alignment with its idea, i'm interested, thereby as far as im concerned it's made for me.
i also think i remedied this point w/
>some random sweaty nerd over the internet doesn't define what's 'fashionable' for me.
continues to be bullshit
you continue to be wrong
my definition is more accurate than your definition both by actual definition and popular definition.

the demographic is whoever is interested and can afford them, otherwise the designer wouldnt pubicly publish them.
geobaskets arent made for the rich, they arent or for the poor theyre made for...whoever is interested and can afford them

if people with common sense are this wrong im more than happy to be lacking

youre a sperg, kill yourself.

>>6898214
Luxury goods: an economic good or service for which demand increases more than proportionally as income rises. Just because you sell it for $1 doesn't mean you changed its value. Luxury does imply cost to obtain (on average) that is the definition.

>>6898278

the problem is that the people youre arguing with are conflating "made for" with "marketed to"

which are both entirely different things

geobaskets like you said, are "made for" who ever is interested in buying them, just like any product

but geobaskets are "marketed to" consumers of luxury goods

>>6898278

So much autism. Keep living in your fairy faggot dreamworld bud.

>>6898279
>Just because you sell it for $1 doesn't mean you changed its value
thats the point i made

>Luxury does imply cost to obtain (on average) that is the definition.
nothing in your definition implies this
it states demand, not price - you can price a luxury good at anything you feel but it wont change its status from being a luxury good just because of the price.

also, the economic definition isnt the popular definition.

>>6898278

>my definition is more correct than literal definitions

Why would anyone ever argue with someone so right in their own delusional mind?

To the newfag that say fashion is for rich people, you are right but you also seem ignorant to the fact:
You wear a Channel outfit from last season and you are laffed at big time
You wear a Rick (or any other designer who followed his footsteps) outfit with pieces from 1998, 2005, 2009, 2013 etc and you are hailed as a connoisseur, a baller a real motherfucker you gain street creed with those in the know and you can keep wearing the items till them break appart.
Something you can't do with anything else in the real fashion world, you need to stay up to date if you wanna be respected etc.
Avant garde plays by dif rules than classic fashion I mean the idea of haute couture for Rick Owens is his furniture which is made of marmol and dead animals.

>>6898310
refer to
>>6898217

definitions
>>6898219
>>6898240

you also misread my post
i implied my definition was more closer to the truth than his when compared to the literal and social definition
not that my definition is universally the most accurate for everyone.

is eurotime badcomprehension time?

>>6898302
luxury implies demand which influences cost therefore luxury implies cost to obtain
>theoretical example that backs up turnlefts personal interpretation of word meanings

>>6898328
refer to the image

in any case, the economic definition you provided isnt appropriate.
furthermore a luxury good isnt defined by demand
a rick owens fur cockring is a luxury good but is not in demand however still has a high price?
>inb4 u try 2 argue a fur cockring is not a luxury.

>>6898338

Fur cockring is the first thing you've said that I can take seriously this whole time

>>6898338
a fur cockring has no demand, people dont want it so it is not a luxury good. maybe you are saying it is a luxury good because it would be expensive? or what? you have no fucking idea what you are saying or

>>6898369

>people dont want it so it is not a luxury good

i dont want a bentley, but that doesnt change the fact that they produce luxury cars

>>6898369
without considering market demand do you think a statue made out of solid gold to be a luxury?
if it is not a luxury what is it?

>tfw my 300k ring is just a commodity ;_;

>>6898338

Dude you were originally arguing with back in here, popped out to have my lunch. You've really lost your mind at this point and I'm a little disappointed, who would of thought that a namefagging autist on /fa/ would come up with such nonsensical gibberish. Color me shocked.

>>6898405
just stopped in from fucking my 10/10 model gf in my mansion to say that u type like a fucking NERD LOL

>>6898405
refer to
>>6898292

>colour
ur not even a europhage
ur america
america time is 7am..
why are you having lunch @ 7am
go 2 sleep u tard

raw denim is soso
work boots r gr8

obvious bait right here but w/e wearing all black is GOAT fashion but to do it u need to be pushing an actual avant look and have nice aesthetics etc u kno

i think v rarely some floral and other print 5 panels r nice but i would never wear them unless it was like a casual summer ting at the beach w/ the homies or w/e u feel me

>>6898410

>trailer mansion

>>6898395
its made of gold though which has a value due to demand therefore it is a luxury. fuck mate, every one of your theoretical situations are useless.
>>6898392
just because you dont want the bentley doesnt mean a shit load of other people dont? plus the value comes from cost of time, materials, and the cost associated with inventing a fucking sick looking car in the first place. all these costs add to value which is why it is luxurious.

>>6898431

>just because you dont want the fur cockring doesnt mean a shit load of other people dont? plus the value comes from cost of time, materials, and the cost associated with inventing a fucking sick looking cock ring in the first place. all these costs add to value which is why it is luxurious.

ol

>>6898431
fur has a value due to demand too. so a fur cock ring would be a luxury no?

>>6898431
>without considering market demand
autism B)))))))))))))))))))))))))))

>value comes from cost of time, materials
>a fur cockring has no demand, people dont want it so it is not a luxury good.
fur is not a luxury material B))))))))))

u provd all our points 2 b tru
thx u

>>6898440
kekd. but the cost of the cockring would still be nothing including all those factors when compared to a bently. cant really compare a cock ring and a bently. keep trying though

>>6898451
what would be the point of considering without market demand in the first place? posing that question puts you on the spectrum.

>>6898455
>only things above 'x' can be a luxury
go onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

>>6898464
to prove that market demand doesnt indicate luxury.

>>6898455
yeah because they cant be compared unless they cost the same amount of money right?

you disproved your own argument just leave you dumb fuck

>>6898467
You faggots still arguing? If luxury goods had low prices, compared to the more economically valued goods for that item, then they wouldn't be luxury goods? Prove me wrong (protip: you can't).

>>6898477

BasedProphet overcoming centuries of inbreeding to call somebody a dumb fuck.

>>6898495
a 150$ pen is a luxury

a 5000$ car isnt

this isnt hard to understand

>>6898495
>more economically valued goods for that item,
english only

>>6898499

Might want to move back to discussing cock rings. Money isn't really your forte.

>>6898502

Which version of English, the Merriam-Webster definition of English or the TurnRightIntoAutism version of English?

>>6898499
You misunderstood what I was trying to say. 150 dollar pen is a luxury because most pens are 1 dollar. A 5000 dollar car would not be a luxury compared to a 1 million dollar car. You need to compare the price ranges of the same type of item, not between items.

>>6898512
a fur cock ring probably costs more than a plastic one im no expert tho

>>6898502
you can't understand normal sentences now? k.

>>6898510
which box do i click for both?

>>6898512

So explain how a $300 fur cock ring is not a luxury compared to an 80 cent plastic one.

>>6898516

>im no expert tho

Perhaps not in wearing and application but can you tell us how they feel? We all know you know what you're talking about(for once) in that field.

>>6898523
like the softest little angel is giving ur cock a hug

>>6898526

Not what your asshole feels like; the cockring -in- your ass, retard.

>>6898521
It would be. You actually just contradicted your trip buddy turnleft who was saying that price didn't indicate luxury. This gon' be good.
>inb4 turnleft does a barrel roll
>inb4 turnleft publishes the TurnRightIntoAutism dictionary and sources it in his reply

>>6898529
turnleft was the one who brought up fur cock rings being a luxury you dumb fuck

youre the one who disagreed with him

>>6898540
No actually I wasn't. And turnleft said they were only luxurious because of muh rickowens, not price. But even so, what I said is before is true... you contradicted him. Don't try and save his asshole, I want to see the autism reply

>>6898529
if sruli recht does a barrel roll can we pretend it;s me?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9ckzhgcl2Q
@1:15

>>6898545
damn i wasnt aware that regular fur was bougie while rick fur was luxurious

is this sort of like how raf simons gold is patrician but regular gold is pleb?

>>6898540

You're the one who hopped in the thread the second cocks were mentioned. You're like Beetlejuice just with mongling cocks and not as good looking.

>>6898545
no you tard you've been wrong throughout the thread and continue to be wrong

thank you fuuka for archive.

>>6898555

He's not the guy you've been arguing with this entire thread. I am. My only posts in the last hour have been -

>>6898554
>>6898528
>>6898523
>>6898510
>>6898508
>>6898496
>>6898405

>>6898431
3 tripfag replies, pic so relevant
archived win

>>6898572
no dude you're the same guy
as far as im concerned 2 stupid people are = 1 not-stupid.

>>6898581

>5 people think I'm a dumbfuck
>They must all be the same person

Your fairy faggot dreamworld serves you well dude, wear your delusions like a suit of armor.

>>6898589

>>6898412

>>6898572

>>6898405

whyd u have lunch at 7am?

>>6898581
>>6898502
>2 stupid people are = 1 not-stupid
>english only
>mfw

>>6898589

In the TurnRightIntoAutism version of English this might be construed as a compliment.

>>6898603

I can have lunch whenever the fuck I want to have lunch what does it matter to you? Also maybe have you considered it's not 7 AM around the world?

How does your idiocy even manage to outdo itself on such a regular basis? You're like a steady free-fall of dumb.

>>6898603
not the guy but do you realise people who are english second language may also use the word color either because they are lazy / dont give a fuck or they were taught that way in school.

>>6898620
onyl america uses color.

why am i stil in this thred
it's 1am
gung2b

fav thred this wek

>>6898629

How your brain is still receptive enough to keep you breathing is frankly the bigger question and nothing short of a miracle.

ITT: Weiners an cock rings

ITT: Weiners and cock rings

>>6897838
more expensive than most washed denim, yeah

>>6899001
ikr, why the fuck did i read this entire shitty thread

>>6898166

>ad hominem

Nah, bro, you win

>backwards baseball caps

>>6897873
god damnit how fucking retarded are you

not one of those designers is even remotely popular outside of stylezeitgeist

>>6898203
lmao says
>afap ricky

I'm getting so tired of pattern pocket tees and camoshit

>>6898250
/mu/ doesn't even talk about nmh anymore
/mu/ doesn't really devote itself to anything for more than two years because they have all the music in the world to talk about. Notice how if someone posts a chart in a chart thread of just /mu/-core they are criticized, kind of like "dressed by the internet".

>>6897460
black lip stick

>>6899459
it started interesting and we hoped turnleft would say something worht reading again after the first comment

nope

I fucking hate how all the tripfags purposely revert to typing shit like "hehe gun to bed guyz, gud thred" in the middle of arguments.

twerk does this gay shit all the time. . . If you guys lack the motivation/knowledge/ability-to-reason needed to prove the validity of your stance, then don't be so god damn vocal of your stance in the first place. fuck.

This fucking thread.

>>6899574
This.