Comments on Street Fashion in Seattle

When did frumpiness become so trendy?

She's got a good eye, and takes a great photograph. I do wish the commentary was a bit more fun. But, she's very much in the tradition of The Sartorialist, letting the pictures speak for mostly themselves.

I hate to be a naysayer (not really, though!), but Pike/Pine is so disappointing. There is a lot of interesting/adventurous fashion going on in Seattle, but that girl shoots some of the most pedantic stuff—like people in malls. Or maybe it's just that boring fashion hangs around only in the places she seems to go. At any rate, other cities' street fashion blogs are chock-full of creative people wearing actual clothes, creatively, in their actual lives. But one has to dig for those kind of dressers. Pike/Pine seems to be content with trends that show up in Seattle after the rest of the world has put them to bed.

Sorry. Had to be said. I've had people tell me that they try to comment with constructive criticism on that blog, and she totally deletes or doesn't approve those comments.

Unfashionable fashion!!1!

I agree w/ MM @ 2, the commentary could be more engaged (or insightful?) ... Also agree w/ Tommy @ 1—startling how frumpy Seattle is.

But, this is a cool Seattle blog. I vote to put it on Friends of Slog list!

@3 I have to agree with most of that, Nick. The sort of Club Monaco couple at the mall? Ick. Her point of view is pretty mainstream. And deleting critical comments? That could not be more lame.

Hmmm... fashion blog in my future? Will you help?

Yeah, Mark; I've been wanting to do a proper Seattle fashion blog for a while, but since Pike/Pine stepped to the plate, I found the idea of doing a similar blog a little combative.

But, like, it's sort of getting dire up in there, or up in here, or both.

you know I'll always help with that Mark

@1, fashion today looks like a contest on who can wear the least flattering and attractive clothing, or to look like the most dorky kid possible from the 80's. it'd be sad if it wasnt so funny and easy to make fun of.

I thought this blog was refreshing for being nice, not mean spirited like something from Vice or something. I imagine The Stranger wishes that they hadn't included the ability to comment on Slog/Line Out!

sorry, biggest dork from the 20's 60s' and 80's wrapped into one.

I don't think it's combative. Is there such a thing as too many good fashion choices? I think not.

@10, I agree that the "nice" tone is refreshing, but I think I'm more interested in a constructive dialogue, and I'd like to think others are, too. Vice is a different animal—full of ravenous, misogynistic, hateful creeps. Those have no place in any dialogue, in my opinion.

@9 What is easy to make fun of is using the "unattractive clothing contest" argument, which people who are not into fashion have been throwing about for all of recorded time.

I'm sure Jesus said it to Mary Magdalene.

tell me what is flattering about wearing tights when you're 50 lbs overweight. Shit, girls with ugly chicken legs shouldnt wear tights period.
tell me how wearing a vest, a shawl, a scarf and tight straight leg jeans is the most complimenting to the woman's form?

fashion isn't something that is mystical and immune from outsider critique. thats what people in fashion don't realize; just because you care more, doesnt mean you have always have better insight into what is attractive and pleasing to the eye. in fact there are times where people in fashion are so high on their own supply they do things that look horrible but are so proud of themselves and so afraid to critique one another.

Fashion isn't immune from outsider critique, but if you don't comprehend fashion, your thoughts regarding it are null. Sorry.

There's just no shortage of bitchy queens inside and outside of fashion Bellevue Ave.

furthermore, I realize fashion isnt all about looking your best. sometimes it's to make a statement, to mask, to project an image. but when that image projected is "I want to look like I follow clothing trends that place an emphasis on how unnatractive the clothes make me look " you open yourself up to all the abuse you deserve

if someone within fashion can actually explain what it is without using circular logic, or self referential terminology and neologisms, then I am all ears. until then a fashionista's opinion is just as valid or invalid as the next person.

Bellevue Ave, no one's sure why you've gotten so worked up, but at any rate, your arguments are a tad myopic (though, understandably) in that they assume that fashion is entirely about what is "flattering" or "attractive" or making people look flattering and attractive. What makes a thing attractive or "pleasing to the eye" is the person doing the looking. There is no inherent and immovable order to any aesthetic, even though there appears to be consensus in Western Civilization about things like geometric/mathematical proportion. The notion that certain proportions are beautiful and others are ugly is entirely received information, passed through culture.

Fashion outsiders and fashion insiders both care equally about fashion; it's just that, many times, they're having entirely different conversations. If anyone is abused for looking frumpy (a fairly valueless observation, deep down), it says more about the abuser than the abused.

Since you don't understand it, why pay attention to it at all? Your opinions here matter as much here as mine would in a forum about geothermal electricity.

It's clearly something you are frustrated with and take personally, but why? Just ignore it. No one demands that you participate in fashion. Let it be, man.

Anything different is good.

Classic Capitol-Hill look

who is this??? looks familiar.

http://www.pikepine.com/2006/11/espresso-vivace-capitol-hill-seattle.html

the problem then resides in how one comments on fashion then nick? by what measure are we to evaluate fashion so that there might be some form of objectivity, or rather where one doesnt think their subjectivity trumps another?

the aesthetics?
the statement?
the coordination?

sniggles, do you understand fashion? because if you do explain it to me. If people are so well versed in something surely they will be able to explain why things are fashionable, what people get out of certain things being fashionable, and what determines these things.

One of the things I like most about fashion is that it's quite subjective. Which is why I'll never argue about it.

The only thing about fashion that can be spoken about with objectivity is the craft and the construction. The rest of it is, like all art, entirely sensual and deserves to be treated with subjectivity. That is, a comment on fashion can (but need not!) call into play relationships between memory of and knowledge of anatomy, history (recent and ancient), architecture, politics, culture.

But if you look for objectivity and substance in such abstractions, you're in for disappointment. The best anyone can do for a constructive dialogue in fashion is not merely to bring something to the table but to choose the proper table at which to sit.

So what drives one thing to be much more accepted as fashionable versus another?

and why is there vitrolic discrediting of certain things as unfashionable by people who claim to be in to fashion? if there are people that recognize the inherent subjectivity of art, why the aformentioned contradiction?

Well, Belle, I think the scope of your questions is too narrow. The points you make are not merely about fashion, but about everything aesthetic. I don't know the answer or if there is one, but to me, it's a question of like minds—input/output. If two people are given similar input when they're young, chances are that a discussion on a topic down the road will be predicated on shared language and shared experience. When fashion people are able to have a dialogue about fashion, it's because they share something in common with each other, and it always feels better to be in agreement about something than in disagreement. When you couple that with the fact that choosing trends or agreeing on fashionable-ness are nothing terribly harmful or detrimental to mankind (with the exception of maybe use of resources), the acceptance of one look over another is probably accidental and circumstantial.

The vitriol isn't everywhere. Most of the vitriol is from fashion news readers, not from fashion news makers. People like to define groups of inclusion, but they do so by also defining groups of exclusion. It helps a lot of people feel like they have a home when they can, as an ensemble, say "Not that."

I should state that the dialogue I enjoy having about fashion is semiological. I like symbols and meaning. I don't find it all that interesting to have a fashion blog, for instance, that highlights normal or simple or imperative; I'm interested in what's extraordinary, complex, interrogative.

That is not to say, however, that normal, simple, and imperative don't have their place and that they aren't important in the overall discussion. In fact, most people do better in that realm. It's just not the discussion I care about, personally. Neither has value above the other.

This is exactly the matter that bothers me though. The exlusion of certain opinions that differ from the status quo's acceptance of something that might be completely accidental or circumstantial.

After being thrust into an environment where fashion was the main focus of lives of quite a few people, I grew sick of the petty, fickle nature of the people and trends they tracked. At times it was at the exclusion of rational, proportional thinking.

Hate the people, not the fashions. That could be my motto.

If you're concerned with the possibility that your peers might view you negatively for what you wear or because you disagree with their opinions on fashion, then either you need new peers, new clothes, or new you. And I know I'm not telling you something you don't already know, but the status quo is generally very, very ignorant about matters of subtlety.

Well that's the rub. I don't surround myself with peers that would place importance on that. In fact it's kind of strange that I have carved that aspect out of my life almost completely.

But the part of it that's interesting to me, and something i reflect upon, is this; Why don't I follow it, why don't I accept a lot of it, and why do I look down on people that do, and why do I find my life so unenhanced by a lot of fashion?

Why don't I get a kick out of a new jacket, or a $130 pair of jeans? Why do I only care about business attire (golf included), such as a great looking suit? why are my aesthetics slanted towards elegant simplicity?

I ask myself these questions to better understand the way i am. and why others are the way they are.

Nick - please do start a Seattle fashion blog. I too wanted to like pikepine, and I do read it, but I agree it's disappointing -- and I see so much interesting fashion on the streets here. Plus how she won't allow any comment that's even just a little bit critical is lame.

I like the Pike/Pine blog. I'm not a very creative dresser so it gives me some ideas. Plus, I admire people who know how to put an outfit together. Usually, the most fashionable people get their stuff a thrift stores or dress inexpensively and maybe have one pricey item like a coat or a pair of boots.

I'd just like to see her post more often. I know there's more folks out there who haven't had their fifteen minutes of fashion fame.

To me, the clothes you wear don't mean shit. Your personality comes out in conjunction with or regardless of what you're wearing. That's that.

Nick and Bellevue Ave: you two should just sleep together and get it over with, sheeesh

Okay...

pikepine's idea of fashion:
lots of layers! (extra points for more than one scarf)
tight pants
thick rimmed glasses or big sunglasses
fake retro t-shirt
or people who work at the mall that are obviously work in the fashion industry and are paid to look that way.

boring!!!!

Go Fug Yourself does a pretty good commentary: http://gofugyourself.typepad.com/go_fug_yourself/2007/07/the-misfugducat.html

Maybe some consider it mean but they do give a "well-played" occasionally. plus, gentle comments are boring and suspicious, like someone's trying to sell me something...

I think the photos on Pike/Pine are pretty boring, but maybe that's because Seattle's fashion/style scene isn't exactly NY or London. I much prefer

international (def wish they had a seattle photog): http://www.streetpeeper.com
copenhagen: http://www.copenhagenstreetstyle.dk

Wow. I missed the chance to get in on that with Nick and Bellevue. I can't speak of it as eloquently as they can, but to me it's not about cues and symbols. To me it's about craft and artistry and "beauty" however loosely that may be defined. The historical and political references are often fascinating, and fashion is by its nature a bit rarefied and navel-gazing, but I think it all has to eventually come down to the clothes.

@33 But business attire isn't fashion, and golf clothes aren't fashion. They're influenced by fashion, and they can inspire fashion (see Ralph Lauren's life work of ultra WASP-y looks that are so fawning they verge on camp).

@42 Thanks for the streetpeeper link.

So I guess comes the obvious question; What is fashion and how do you define it?

In regards to what I see, if business attire is a form of fashion or a subset of fashiion, you could equally say that the clothes young people wear arent a subset of youth fashion, so on and so forth. there are norms (trends) within each subset that are more or less kept intact. and there are overarching trends that broach all subsets at different times.

As I see young adult urban/suburban fashion today, it's like a dadist 'outsider art' collage that seems bent on taking old style ideas and mishmashing them with other old style ideas. It isnt so much about what looks good, but more about what is daring and defy's aesthetic convention. But the problem is, the defying of aesthetic convention becomes it's own aesthetic. it's no longer a clever juxtoposition of clothing from different era's or the embrace of outsider fashion. that's why i see things on the street today that just boggle my mind, not only for the complete lack of aesthetic taste, but also for the almost total lack of daring to defy it in new ways. the secondary problem to this though is that if i am no longer intrigued by defying convention, i fall back on other ways to evaluate it; aesthetics, symbolism, function...

this leads me to another question; what is the purpose of fashion? also, in some regards isn't it to defy convention?

I cant speak of the symbolism as I need to regear my brain to start thinking of clothing more in that way, but at the moment all the symbolism I can muster is negative.

Aargh. I just finished a long reply to your above message, and it got lost in the ether.

I can't define what fashion is or what it's for any more that I can define what dance is or what it's for. It's an art. Fashion is also separate from fine art. But I'm not an academic.

For me it's about craft, history, design, and the striving for beauty.

I do wonder why it seems to irritate you so much. I'm not into golf, but it doesn't piss me off that you are.

It's the mystery of it that makes me seemed pissed at times. There are certain concepts in fashion that I love (simple, expertly-made elegance.) I am an analytic person by nature and when there exists concepts I don't understand I like to pursue an understanding of it.

The other problem posed is that one can consider it art, but at the same time I can readily identify what makes certain pieces of art better than others, through an evaluation of the elements of design, theme, mastery of medium, etc.

Within fashion and style I can not do that, especially among people that consider themselves to be fashionable, because they are measuring fashion from a perspective that I can't figure out and oft times they can't explain to me.

fashion throws a curveball in there; the social acceptance of fashion and the reliance of that to propagate it almost solely. the other fact that it is built on a necessity of life (clothing) is also different than many other forms of art (despite what some musicians and painters might claim).

also, I think another thing that frustrates me is that I get the convention of classic fashion aesthetic but people who concern themselves with fashion oft times seem to be only about avant garde convention rule breaking.

but they arent really breaking any rules, they are simply establishing new ones for new ideas of fashion while the classics still remain. and how often is classic redefined?

For instance, why are big glasses popular in the young adult subset? Do they compliment the face? do they say something about you besides you wear glasses? Are the expertly crafted? Do they perform a function that smaller glasses can't? are people who doing it trying to turn a stereotype on it's head or embracing the stereotype as a representation of themselves?

It's things like this that frustrate me because not only does it not make practical sense, it also does not make aesthetic sense, nor does it symbolically mask or enhance the person.

Many painters and musicians would consider fashion not art at all, but "high craft" at best. And I'm not going to get into that, because I've been struggling with that issue for years. Is it art or is it craft? I have no freaking idea. And don't really care very much.

As far as it seeming impregnable, I have to come back with the quote attributed to Louis Armstrong about the meaning or purpose of jazz -- if you have to ask, you'll never understand. I don't mean to be flip about it, but there is a common language about fashion, and to a certain degree a shared sensibility. Like a taste for opera, or fugu. I've found that people either get it or they don't, and attach no intrinsic value to either condition. My husband is the love of my life, my world, but he could give a rat's ass about fashion. We get along fine.

It's fashion! It doesn't have to make sense! Playfulness and a sense of humor are pretty much required.

Big glasses? I don't know what it means. It looks cute on some of the kids, it looks slavishly trendy on others. I don't know why. Some people have style, some don't. Some people feel that wearing big glasses looks right just now, some people wear big glasses because they see people who they think are cool doing it. What difference can it possibly make to you if you don't think it's attractive? Why do you care? It doesn't have to be justified. It's just a trend. It's harmless in every way.

but heres the rub on purpose. asking for purpose doesn't necessarily detract from the enjoyment or criticism of the art, especially relative to other forms of the art. I might not get the purpose of Bitches' Brew but I enjoy it none the less, and I realize it many times better than Benny Goodman.

by the same token, if you are claiming that there is a mystical, esoteric understanding of fashion, then it shouldn't come as a shock when people call bullshit on it. Especially if people are calling bullshit on it for actual techincal, aesthetic, symbolic, social reasons, not because they "just dont get it."

This is what I'm getting at with big glasses. Having pinned down the reasons i think they are stupid, you fall back on to "it's just a trend, and harmless" but...
i should take liberty in pointing out that the fickle nature of fashion is something that detracts from it's worth as an art, but perhaps not craft.

Art doesnt have to be justified, but it also isn't something free from criticism simply by being art.

and if fashion doesn't have to make sense then why are some things fashionable and others not? why are there taboos on certain combinations and styles? If there is no standard by which to evaluate something, why are people dedicated to forwarding certain forms over others.

My head is hurting.

I think there are arguments to be made for Miles, and there are arguments to be made for Benny Goodman. They served distinctly different purposes. I'm not convinced one was appreciably "better" than the other. I'm not a true jazz hound, I don't understand a lot of it, and I can live happily with that.

There are arguments to be made for Ralph Lauren, there are arguments to be made for John Galliano at Dior. They work in high fashion, like Miles and Benny worked in jazz. They speak different dialects within a common language. If you are familiar with their work, you might have opinions about how successfully they speak that language. Your opinion my be based on an emotional reaction or a technical appreciation or something else entirely. It's all valid.

You seem to hate big sunglasses on the youngsters. Fine. I can tell you it's a matter of taste, I could go through what they seem to be referencing historically, I could find out what is technically the "best" of these sunglasses, but I can't tell you what jazz means or is, and I can't tell you what fashion means or is. It just is.

I have to stop. I've spent entirely too much time on the slog today.

If all the reasons for something are valid, then all reasons against should be equally so.

I can't type as well as I can talk. And my need for a beer is strong.

I have enjoyed this, however.

Im drinking a beer right now!

I, myself, would never invalidate any of your arguments. In fact, I would extend them. You seem to be under the impression that some jazz is inherently better than other jazz or that some art is inherently better than other art. This simply is not true. It only becomes true when you and I agree to evaluate similar aspects—virtuosity in all its forms, adherance to a set of also-agreed-upon rules, execution of a set of known skills, context and subtext both engendered and imposed.

Fashion can (but need not!) be evaulated on those terms, but I am inclined to mix those elements with the elements of, say, an inside joke. Inside jokes are funny in the truest sense, but only to those who agree on the terms and on the bisociative qualities of the joke.

Big glasses—I don't wear them. But your rhetorical questions about them are loaded because their presuppositions. What is a compliment to a face? Whose face? Only Teutonic faces? Should these faces be of an particular shape in order to warrant a particular shape of glasses? Do glasses themselves "say" anything about a person, or is it the person merely imagining some abstraction brought on by his memory/knowledge/sensory experience of the glasses which is then translated into a projection (which is finally received by any number of observers, who have their own memory/knowledge/experiences)?

What makes something or some things fashionable is interesting, I agree, but not because of some malicious gang of snobs constantly evading your evaluation in order to make you feel bad, but because these fashion tends to arise from a collective unconscious and clump around locales and age groups. When people speak of "fashionability," they tends to think that someone is picking trends arbitrarily, when in fact, fashion designers basically design their collections in closed quarters or social groups, and then fashion journalists view the disparate collections and purposely seek out commonalities among the collections so that they can create editorial filler based on these trends for the next six months. The more that people read such publications, the more that certain trends will appear to be fashionable to them and show up in their daily lives. And why do people adopt these trends so readily? I think it's rather simple: it's an adaptive trait that fosters inclusion, group bonding, protection of the individual by the group.

These elusive qualities, esoteric qualities, abstract qualities of which you speak—these elevate both craft and art and unify them by forcing a silence and by taking the mind outside temporality and spaciality—the realms where most would agree it belongs in the long term if one is to function sanely. The elusive quality is antithetical to logic and impervious to attack or criticism. It is elusive because it is strictly personal in its evocation of subtlety.

Blah. It's so hot right now, and I can't keep typing at this time. But I could continue having the discussion forever.

There's none better than the Helsinki street fashion website:

http://www.hel-looks.com/

Hey Nick!

I realized a lot of what you said after thinking about it a while last night. For instance the evaluation of certain elements of design, music, etc are totally dependent on the people evaluating them, and agreeing on what they are trying to evaluate. The criticisms have merit, but only matter if the people are you are pointing them out to weigh the area of criticism importantly (like functionality).

I've never believed that fashion is arbitrary or contrived until it's reached some point where people simply adopt it because of complete lack of alternative choices.

I really appreciate you taking the time to explain some of this to me, as now I can appreciate some of it a bit more, but still laugh at people, maybe even with people.

being fashionable is the ability to recognize the feathers that will get you laid by societal standards. being stylish is creating those standards.

ps that blog could just be called "people I think are cute"

Less Is Always More

What is remarkable about this site is how UGLY the people of Seattle are.