 |
| Daniel Day Lewis in Carhartt Fashion. |
Smarsh sees "designer jeans yellowed with a wash" or "shabby chic" new furniture, or "urban men in plaid flannel shirts" who "let their hair grow wild and unkempt across their face and necks" as a laughable effort "to affect a laborer's style" (104-105).
Do you think there is something ridiculous and inauthentic about buying jeans that have been pre-ripped, distressed or destroyed?
Is a troubling kind of cultural appropriation at work when town people with office jobs wear clothes and drive vehicles that make them look they are kind of people who "work the land"?
 |
| Gigi Hadid in destroyed jeans. |
Are all people involved in some kind of "branding" no matter what they wear or what they drive?
Are we always signaling our cultural values through the clothes we wear and the cars we drive?
Is it silly to call some styles of dress more authentic than others?
I believe that it is very ridiculous that people in our modern society are constantly trying to give off the perception that they are something they aren’t. Growing up my parents were not well off financially and I never had name brand clothing and the clothing I did have was almost always a hand-me-down from another family which often came with stains and a very real “distressed look”. Often times my jeans had holes not from a store making them, but because I had to start working around my house at a young age to help out. These holes often times were look at with a snide glance and made me uncomfortable. Now as times have changed even from a 10 year standpoint people buy these jeans as a fashion statement with holes in them and I have never been able to understand it. Coming from an agricultural background myself I continue to wear those clothes that are necessary for the jobs that I perform. I hate when people who don’t know anything about my way of life attempt to look like they grew up in the same fashion that I did. To me it is somewhat insulting but at the same time it doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. I believe that clothes are often times used to make a initial judgement of the individual wearing them. More often than not though, the imitation of a certain style of clothes are easily recognizable from the real deal. I believe that people are always signaling where their roots are whether through obvious examples or subtle instances, where you grew up and your values are always on display. I don’t believe it is silly to call some styles of dress more authentic than others. Although someone may wear the same style of jeans as me, the signs of use show that mine have been used in a completely different fashion.
ReplyDeleteSeth I completely agree with you on the absurdity of buying clothes that have a cute “distressed” look with them. I cannot even imagine buying clothes with holes made into them, as I can hear my mother now scolding me for such a foolish buy. I think that there needs to be a stricter line between fashion and function, because I can go into a store and see quite the selection of nice-looking clothes that is actually wearable in everyday life. Even shirts are starting to have holes in them, giving them a more “worn in” look to them. There are some people who can tastefully pull of the look without making it seem as though they are trying to hard, but for me personally if I am going to pay for new jeans they are going to have no holes and be in good condition.
DeleteI think it is all a matter of opinion whether these trends are ‘ridiculous’. People will and always have worn clothing according to what they like, whether that clothing was authentic to their lifestyle or not, and I don’t think it should be considered cultural appropriation in this case. Personally, I would not buy clothing that was manufactured with holes in it or dyed to look dirt-stained, but clearly some people do, and though that is strange, I don’t think they are intending to be disrespectful in their clothing choices.
ReplyDeletePeople should be able to dress however they want without having others press judgement on them. It's ridiculous that a person that works in the city shouldn't be able to wear clothes better suited for the country. People often get too wrapped up in cultural appropriation, if anything trying to dress more like a culture that isn't yours should almost be a form of flattery. Unless of course someone dresses in an untasteful way and is meaning to be offensive. At the end of the day clothes are just clothes, something necessary for daily life. What people wear shouldn't be a problem.
ReplyDelete-Justin Chitty
I totally understand where Smarsh is coming from. Of course it would seem ridiculous to see suburbanite people dress themselves in clothes you’ve always seen being worn in a more occupational capacity. However, it seems a little overly dramatic to say that these people are wearing these clothes and trying to look this way to make a “class conscious fashion statement.” Some people just like how Carhartt shirts look, and others enjoy driving large vehicles. To call this issue a form of “cultural appropriation” would only serve to take away from the significance of actual cases of cultural appropriation.
ReplyDeleteWell Smarsh even makes the point that they were constantly trying to repair their clothing, to clean it, and even mentions how the men in her family meticulously groomed their facial hair. To say that the distressed clothing is a symbol of the culture is kind of just wrong. I think that's why Smarsh and her family found it so comical because the 'city people' were missing the mark. Clothing is affected by culture but it isn't the culture. You can wear carhartt to your office job but you won't know how the pasture of mud and cows smell, sowing up those rips and tears, or those evenings of scrubbing on pants trying to remove those stains. That is the real culture if you ask me and I don't think the clothing can appropriate that.
DeleteMitchell Potts