As with most things, whenever I get a bit of the writer’s block, I turn to the New York Times for “inspiration” I find that the sycophantic, almost teenboppper-ish way it approaches the “problems” of upper middle class white society and culture to be invigorating.
And so, clicking on the “MOST POPULAR” listings, I found this article, which opens as a critique on our consumer culture and outlines a burgeoning anti-consumer — or at least “thoughtful consumer” — culture, a movement no doubt galvanized by the recent economic troubles and the ever-present need for Americans to out-smug one another.
One couple began giving away and paring down their possessions and now “live in Portland, Ore., in a spare, 400-square-foot studio with a nice-sized kitchen.”
The article veers about, after this Zen-like anecdote, before, in classic New York Times fashion, it start quoting various Ivy League researchers who have done just this sort of thing and that, in fact, you need not worry about having to spend less to be happy. I’ll leave it to you to do most of the heavy reading (four pages! Jesus Christ I’m not a scholar!) but suffice it to say the article recommends that you take that trip to Tibet rather than buy that discount Sherpa you saw on eBay.
But one point in the article struck me, not only because I’m a style “blogger” who has a “blog” in which “opinions” are “printed”, but also because the point was a direct exemption of the article’s thesis.
I like that for two reasons. First, I agree. There are many who are fashion lemmings, they follow whatever is out there and will blindly, fiercely go wherever the crowd and Vogue takes them. Then there are the fashion artists, those who would suffer for their chosen craft and self-proclaimed religion, and see getting dressed every morning as nothing short of holy ritual. I like to consider myself in the latter group, even unto when I pull on my Spiderman jammies.*
The second reason I like is because I disagree. I disagree because to say that fashion somehow has some kind of special ‘pass’ on materialism is laughable. Fashion IS materialism. To say that fashion people are exempt from the materialism because the derive special pleasure from their purchases is like preaching to an alcoholic about his drinking problem before going home and sating your porno addiction with a 10-hour wack-a-thon.
But I don’t think the two ideas are incompatible. There is a move towards simplicity, even in the fashion world. The 100 Thing Challenge might cause some fashionistas to shut their laptops, grab a rifle, and dig in in front of their closets (“You can take my Gucci when you pry it from my cold dead hands”), but I think it could be an interesting challenge. And it WOULD be a challenge, considering I probably have 80 pairs of shoes alone.
So, if you had to, what items would you want to keep or toss in our clothing arsenal? What guidlelines would you use? You’d have to have a lot of basics and neutrals for maximum flexibility, and ideally high quality pieces that can take a beating. This challenge would be easier for men, who generally can look stylish with a pair of dressy shoes, some decent slacks, and a button up shirt. But the question remains: can it be done?
Man I straight janked that NYT article.
*Spiderman is, on the Grand Cycle of Heroes, just “out” enough to be cool, but not quite in enough to be mainstream. Ironman and Batman are the in heroes right now. The Hulk is out (damn you Ang Lee). Thor is a bit too radical. Also, Spiderman is emo as a motherfuck.











