Thanks for your efforts to capture this—it’s emergent and needs to be grappled with by more people. There is certainly a difficulty in the “ability of a community to support nuance in criticism.” And what we’re calling a community is not one homogenous thing; it is brand marketers, manufacturers, retailers, consumers and pundits. Can it be any surprise that when a brand markets a visual idea and a pundit is critical in written form, the brand response is confusion? The brand is trying to reach a consumer that feels warmly to the message for an exchange of dollars. This critical discussion does happen, but it is behind the scenes with trusted colleagues and can be quite brutal. Most “brands” in this space (often only made up of a handful of people) are not in the habit of mixing these channels.
Let me extend a little further. I’ve noticed that in this community - yourself included - there is a real resistance to engage the field underneath. Most seem to wear their self-trained badge of courage and spurn any academic link at all. What marketer is reading and using concepts of social psychology of clothing? What designer is engaged in a meaningful way with historical collections held at universities? While we’re discussing nuanced critical dialogue in clothing, maybe we should start by learning something from Susan B. Kaiser of UC Davis first...she’s been writing about this content since 1985.
Thanks for this comment! Your point about the variety of the community is important, and something I hope I can tackle more cogently in the future. I also think the commercialism underpinning the community is important. Almost everything in menswear has the goal of selling product. Sometimes this is leveraged to dismiss criticism (it's not art, it's capitalism, so go away) and sometimes to justify it (it's not art, it's capitalism, and people need to know). More transparency about this would help everyone, I think. And more channel crossover, as you say.
I will say, to your last point, that there may not be one "field" underneath the community. I think I, for one, welcome any academic links anyone wants to subscribe to me -- I'm a teacher, after all, and I tend to come at clothing from an American Studies perspective more than anything else, reading clothes as signs and signifiers, cultural texts and personal identity markers within culture. I didn't train myself in this, I was trained within academia. However, you're right that that background means I'm also *not* engaging with other fields within the study of menswear and fashion, simply because I'm not knowledgeable in them. Jack Carlson is one person who *is* doing some of that, and does bring an academic interest and academic credentials to his work in the style world. I would love to see more academic links and high-level academic research brought to bear in menswear, but I also like how the conversation is a layman's conversation, and a consumer's conversation. Should Kaiser be a more prominent part of it? I definitely think so! Should less formal academic discussions of these ideas be seen as less vital and valid? No, definitely not.
Agree with your point above about a public consumer’s conversation - content that does not speak to the audience is naturally not in as wide circulation. That seems about right. Practice should enliven theory. Theory should also inform practice and that seems missing.
There is a tendency to enter style/menswear/apparel through passion and experience success based on taste, instincts or new ways to communicate a message. Soon follows a period of variations on a theme and an enlarged market following. But the public is fickle and when it moves on, or the trend wave under the brand wanes, professionals often struggle to evolve their practice and stay relevant. Isn’t this exactly where theory and some engagement with underlying fields would serve? It’s never too late to engage with branches of different fields, but in apparel/menswear there is a resistance to continue to learn, or maybe it is the sense that modernity requires we ignore what happened before.
As an example, you have made space writing about menswear theory and practice. Yet make a point to say “I’m also *not* engaging with other fields within the study of menswear and fashion, simply because I’m not knowledgeable in them.” Isn’t that the whole reason to begin? I’m asking rhetorically, but it seems there is a whole exciting world and at a time where people are writing and reading about menswear, we collectively are limiting the conversation to market dynamics—so small! Yes, let’s make that money and let’s also continue to be fascinated and passionate.
Thanks for your efforts to capture this—it’s emergent and needs to be grappled with by more people. There is certainly a difficulty in the “ability of a community to support nuance in criticism.” And what we’re calling a community is not one homogenous thing; it is brand marketers, manufacturers, retailers, consumers and pundits. Can it be any surprise that when a brand markets a visual idea and a pundit is critical in written form, the brand response is confusion? The brand is trying to reach a consumer that feels warmly to the message for an exchange of dollars. This critical discussion does happen, but it is behind the scenes with trusted colleagues and can be quite brutal. Most “brands” in this space (often only made up of a handful of people) are not in the habit of mixing these channels.
Let me extend a little further. I’ve noticed that in this community - yourself included - there is a real resistance to engage the field underneath. Most seem to wear their self-trained badge of courage and spurn any academic link at all. What marketer is reading and using concepts of social psychology of clothing? What designer is engaged in a meaningful way with historical collections held at universities? While we’re discussing nuanced critical dialogue in clothing, maybe we should start by learning something from Susan B. Kaiser of UC Davis first...she’s been writing about this content since 1985.
Thanks for this comment! Your point about the variety of the community is important, and something I hope I can tackle more cogently in the future. I also think the commercialism underpinning the community is important. Almost everything in menswear has the goal of selling product. Sometimes this is leveraged to dismiss criticism (it's not art, it's capitalism, so go away) and sometimes to justify it (it's not art, it's capitalism, and people need to know). More transparency about this would help everyone, I think. And more channel crossover, as you say.
I will say, to your last point, that there may not be one "field" underneath the community. I think I, for one, welcome any academic links anyone wants to subscribe to me -- I'm a teacher, after all, and I tend to come at clothing from an American Studies perspective more than anything else, reading clothes as signs and signifiers, cultural texts and personal identity markers within culture. I didn't train myself in this, I was trained within academia. However, you're right that that background means I'm also *not* engaging with other fields within the study of menswear and fashion, simply because I'm not knowledgeable in them. Jack Carlson is one person who *is* doing some of that, and does bring an academic interest and academic credentials to his work in the style world. I would love to see more academic links and high-level academic research brought to bear in menswear, but I also like how the conversation is a layman's conversation, and a consumer's conversation. Should Kaiser be a more prominent part of it? I definitely think so! Should less formal academic discussions of these ideas be seen as less vital and valid? No, definitely not.
Agree with your point above about a public consumer’s conversation - content that does not speak to the audience is naturally not in as wide circulation. That seems about right. Practice should enliven theory. Theory should also inform practice and that seems missing.
There is a tendency to enter style/menswear/apparel through passion and experience success based on taste, instincts or new ways to communicate a message. Soon follows a period of variations on a theme and an enlarged market following. But the public is fickle and when it moves on, or the trend wave under the brand wanes, professionals often struggle to evolve their practice and stay relevant. Isn’t this exactly where theory and some engagement with underlying fields would serve? It’s never too late to engage with branches of different fields, but in apparel/menswear there is a resistance to continue to learn, or maybe it is the sense that modernity requires we ignore what happened before.
As an example, you have made space writing about menswear theory and practice. Yet make a point to say “I’m also *not* engaging with other fields within the study of menswear and fashion, simply because I’m not knowledgeable in them.” Isn’t that the whole reason to begin? I’m asking rhetorically, but it seems there is a whole exciting world and at a time where people are writing and reading about menswear, we collectively are limiting the conversation to market dynamics—so small! Yes, let’s make that money and let’s also continue to be fascinated and passionate.