Tbh most of these fits aren't good. It's just fandom. I agree in that the way fandom works is that fans idolize basically everything the person they're a fan of does. It's a big theme of this 'sletter. A lot of the people idolized do not dress well in any special way. If you think about it - the past 10 to 20 years in fashion culture were dominated by 2 to 5 very particular people who are "artists" AND fashion people. There's a reason for that - most other popular folks just put on random shit and then fandom does the work of putting meaning and intentionality on it. I personally don't think that meaning and intentionality is there in a majority of cases.
This reminds me of Charlie Porter’s book, What Artists Wear. To me, the outfits are practical and cool because the person wearing the fit makes interesting art/leads an interesting life.
I think context also plays a role here. Photos of director on set also look cool to me because they are in the middle of making art. Same goes with Picasso in a Breton amongst his paintings or people fly fishing with their waders and be-pocketed vests (Brad Pitt in A River Runs Through It might skew this one). Their clothes are just one component to the effect we ultimately perceive as cool.
A hyper-specific example that people might disagree with but one that really highlights the extremes of this idea is nurses. Scrubs are some of the most utilitarian, unassuming clothing items out there and I’d be confused if I saw someone attempt to make them a fashion thing. Yet for some reason scrubs and hokas or maybe some beat orthopedic shoes in the context of the work they serve looks cool to me (those athleisure versions are an exception for me though).
Workwear and the work that necessitates them is another example but they have more throughly been canonized in fashion over more than a century so the boundaries are blurrier. That picture of Daniel Day Lewis in Carhartt always makes the rounds. Now imagine if he were in some Cherokees and running shoes.
Kinda realizing I just did a materialist analysis of
Reminds me of Michel Le Doeuff’s idea of erotico-theoretical transference. Bit theory heavy, but it basically boils down to “I like/admire their work” gradually moving to “I like/admire them” and then to “I am attracted to them”. The more we like someone’s work, the more we run the risk of our minds’ turning bricks into gold for them in their capacity outside their works. If we don’t disentangle ourselves from these relationships, we hinder our ability to make proper judgements.
She wrote about that in the 70s and the context was a feminist philosophy polemic, but I think the ideas still work. (Haven’t read her essay in a while either so take all that with a fistful of salt.)
that's cool ! i can see the context where it makes sense for her to frame this as a negative / judgment-hindering dynamic, though in *this* context i don't see it that way!
I think others here have touched on it, but in a world of mass consumption namely of - those who are doing - (active) vs those who are consuming (inactive) the desire is to be the active. We desire to have a rich life. We imbue the attainable (clothing) with the value of the unobtainable (a life worth living). But one does not beget the other.
What hits home, and what I perceive your point to be, is that the honesty of doing shines through. There is a mindfulness to the task vs. the presentation of the task. Wearing a monk's robe vs. being a monk.
The zorched Nike look is something I’ve been recreating for my whole life. Always loved that look growing up on the style gods. Pristine shoes feel so off to me.
Ya I was off center on the pendulum for a long while with white af1 and the common projects ordeal.
The other recurring theme in all these examples is comfort and practicality. The Gandolfini, the Joon-ho, the Seymour-Hoffman - they're all BUSY ACTUALLY DOING THINGS not just LOOKING A CERTAIN WAY. I've been mulling on the Katharine Hepburn example for a looooooooong time also because of her trademark frizzy updo. On KH? Incredible. (And practical - again, she's busy.) On most of us regular folk? Not. ... But WHY not?
I kind of feel the same way about people who wear work wear, for work. Nothing beats Dickies white overalls that are actually covered in dust or paint. Or some thick-ass double-knee self repaired Carhart's that look like they've been on 900 job sites paired with a chunky steel toe boot. Not something I could rock on the weekend, but a silhouette that always catches my eye.
Furthermore, I think these fits look so good because the clothes have clearly been worn many times by the people wearing them. I think this hurts so many non-cool celebrities today who are obviously wearing things for the first time that were picked out for them by a stylist. Just check out any pic of Travis Kelce walking into an NFL stadium.
on-point piece, and made me wonder in this same vein, does doing/being evil POISON your swag? would roger stone read as “idiosyncratic and cool” if he wasn’t a world-historical POS?
I won't name names, but there's a certain subreddit and related content where nice, cool clothes and brands are usually discussed, but where the vibes are way off. A lot of the people there are aggro macho types who derive satisfaction out of shitposting and putting people down. Generally speaking even if I sometimes vibe with their taste, I find their fits phony and cooked because of the really bad vibes they give. It feels like they're trying too hard, are competing, and are wanting to be seen rather than just enjoying wearing dope shit.
There's a bit of overlap with bbsp type brands there, but it's a polar opposite in terms of coolness and kindness. I kinda hate most of the interactions there but I still look there every now and then to ask about sizing and fit of things, etc. On the opposite end of the spectrum I love reading bbsp and interacting with people in the comments and chats because yes y'all have mach 7+ taste, but more importantly y'all are nice, interesting and cool.
It's almost like Stone is wearing a costume at all times, so I think he just doesn't have swag in the first place. He's like a campy stereotype of John Updike, taking all these preppy signifiers well past 11. At the same time, his Nixon back piece would be kinda rad . . . if it wasn't Nixon.
But also I'm struggling to think of any swaggy POSes. Kim Jong Un kinda knows how to dress for a big guy, and EXTREMELY arguably Ye but that's it. One of the big questions in art is why actually-good conservative/fascist art doesn't exist, and I think it's because that mindset actively discourages deep self reflection. Having true swag requires at least in part a degree of thinking about what you're trying to convey and what works, whereas most of the big POSes who try to stake themselves as clotheshorses (Milo, Gavin McInnes, Connor McGregor, Jordan Peterson, etc) generally do so by buying the loudest, most-obviously-expensive shit and throwing it together without really thinking about it
That's my stance at least. Curious about the BBSP perspective
agreed in general about conservatism/fascism and self-reflection, but i also think it’s worth drawing a line between conservatives/fascists who are known for their creations (Ezra Pound, Mishima, etc) vs for being personalities (McInnes, Peterson, etc)
Tbh most of these fits aren't good. It's just fandom. I agree in that the way fandom works is that fans idolize basically everything the person they're a fan of does. It's a big theme of this 'sletter. A lot of the people idolized do not dress well in any special way. If you think about it - the past 10 to 20 years in fashion culture were dominated by 2 to 5 very particular people who are "artists" AND fashion people. There's a reason for that - most other popular folks just put on random shit and then fandom does the work of putting meaning and intentionality on it. I personally don't think that meaning and intentionality is there in a majority of cases.
This reminds me of Charlie Porter’s book, What Artists Wear. To me, the outfits are practical and cool because the person wearing the fit makes interesting art/leads an interesting life.
Oh we’re approaching some materialist analysis!
I think context also plays a role here. Photos of director on set also look cool to me because they are in the middle of making art. Same goes with Picasso in a Breton amongst his paintings or people fly fishing with their waders and be-pocketed vests (Brad Pitt in A River Runs Through It might skew this one). Their clothes are just one component to the effect we ultimately perceive as cool.
A hyper-specific example that people might disagree with but one that really highlights the extremes of this idea is nurses. Scrubs are some of the most utilitarian, unassuming clothing items out there and I’d be confused if I saw someone attempt to make them a fashion thing. Yet for some reason scrubs and hokas or maybe some beat orthopedic shoes in the context of the work they serve looks cool to me (those athleisure versions are an exception for me though).
Workwear and the work that necessitates them is another example but they have more throughly been canonized in fashion over more than a century so the boundaries are blurrier. That picture of Daniel Day Lewis in Carhartt always makes the rounds. Now imagine if he were in some Cherokees and running shoes.
Kinda realizing I just did a materialist analysis of
A beautifully argument, beautifully put. The ‘memeification’ of the concept of ‘ +/- Aura’ feels linked to this.
Reminds me of Michel Le Doeuff’s idea of erotico-theoretical transference. Bit theory heavy, but it basically boils down to “I like/admire their work” gradually moving to “I like/admire them” and then to “I am attracted to them”. The more we like someone’s work, the more we run the risk of our minds’ turning bricks into gold for them in their capacity outside their works. If we don’t disentangle ourselves from these relationships, we hinder our ability to make proper judgements.
She wrote about that in the 70s and the context was a feminist philosophy polemic, but I think the ideas still work. (Haven’t read her essay in a while either so take all that with a fistful of salt.)
that's cool ! i can see the context where it makes sense for her to frame this as a negative / judgment-hindering dynamic, though in *this* context i don't see it that way!
I think others here have touched on it, but in a world of mass consumption namely of - those who are doing - (active) vs those who are consuming (inactive) the desire is to be the active. We desire to have a rich life. We imbue the attainable (clothing) with the value of the unobtainable (a life worth living). But one does not beget the other.
What hits home, and what I perceive your point to be, is that the honesty of doing shines through. There is a mindfulness to the task vs. the presentation of the task. Wearing a monk's robe vs. being a monk.
love that
So if you end up with some cooked bbsp oboz in a men’s 11… holla 😉
The zorched Nike look is something I’ve been recreating for my whole life. Always loved that look growing up on the style gods. Pristine shoes feel so off to me.
Ya I was off center on the pendulum for a long while with white af1 and the common projects ordeal.
Those bball sneaks reminded me of another textural sneaker I once owned years ago: the Nike hypervenom. https://www.ebay.com/itm/395507952144?chn=ps&mkevt=1&mkcid=28
The other recurring theme in all these examples is comfort and practicality. The Gandolfini, the Joon-ho, the Seymour-Hoffman - they're all BUSY ACTUALLY DOING THINGS not just LOOKING A CERTAIN WAY. I've been mulling on the Katharine Hepburn example for a looooooooong time also because of her trademark frizzy updo. On KH? Incredible. (And practical - again, she's busy.) On most of us regular folk? Not. ... But WHY not?
Live the mindful life, and let it inswaggeth you.
I kind of feel the same way about people who wear work wear, for work. Nothing beats Dickies white overalls that are actually covered in dust or paint. Or some thick-ass double-knee self repaired Carhart's that look like they've been on 900 job sites paired with a chunky steel toe boot. Not something I could rock on the weekend, but a silhouette that always catches my eye.
big time
Furthermore, I think these fits look so good because the clothes have clearly been worn many times by the people wearing them. I think this hurts so many non-cool celebrities today who are obviously wearing things for the first time that were picked out for them by a stylist. Just check out any pic of Travis Kelce walking into an NFL stadium.
yes 1000% -- same thing with swaggy elders
one of the many things i’ve learned from BBSP is how much your soul rubs off on your clothes
finally a compelling reason to be a kind, well rounded person 🙏🙏🙏
hahah FINALLY
on-point piece, and made me wonder in this same vein, does doing/being evil POISON your swag? would roger stone read as “idiosyncratic and cool” if he wasn’t a world-historical POS?
I agree with this theory of the cooked evil fits.
I won't name names, but there's a certain subreddit and related content where nice, cool clothes and brands are usually discussed, but where the vibes are way off. A lot of the people there are aggro macho types who derive satisfaction out of shitposting and putting people down. Generally speaking even if I sometimes vibe with their taste, I find their fits phony and cooked because of the really bad vibes they give. It feels like they're trying too hard, are competing, and are wanting to be seen rather than just enjoying wearing dope shit.
There's a bit of overlap with bbsp type brands there, but it's a polar opposite in terms of coolness and kindness. I kinda hate most of the interactions there but I still look there every now and then to ask about sizing and fit of things, etc. On the opposite end of the spectrum I love reading bbsp and interacting with people in the comments and chats because yes y'all have mach 7+ taste, but more importantly y'all are nice, interesting and cool.
Spy Nation the most unbeatable commenters across all media !!
It's almost like Stone is wearing a costume at all times, so I think he just doesn't have swag in the first place. He's like a campy stereotype of John Updike, taking all these preppy signifiers well past 11. At the same time, his Nixon back piece would be kinda rad . . . if it wasn't Nixon.
But also I'm struggling to think of any swaggy POSes. Kim Jong Un kinda knows how to dress for a big guy, and EXTREMELY arguably Ye but that's it. One of the big questions in art is why actually-good conservative/fascist art doesn't exist, and I think it's because that mindset actively discourages deep self reflection. Having true swag requires at least in part a degree of thinking about what you're trying to convey and what works, whereas most of the big POSes who try to stake themselves as clotheshorses (Milo, Gavin McInnes, Connor McGregor, Jordan Peterson, etc) generally do so by buying the loudest, most-obviously-expensive shit and throwing it together without really thinking about it
That's my stance at least. Curious about the BBSP perspective
agreed in general about conservatism/fascism and self-reflection, but i also think it’s worth drawing a line between conservatives/fascists who are known for their creations (Ezra Pound, Mishima, etc) vs for being personalities (McInnes, Peterson, etc)
gotta meditate more on this dark inquiry
No better example, I would argue, than Irving Penn’s Small Trades.
oh true !
phenomenal as always