Fashion and Functionality - Topic of the day 12/11/23
Do you value fashion over functionality? At what point do you draw the line or do you believe both can be balanced seamlessly.
238 Replies
I live a gentle city life so functionality really just means dressing for the weather which isn't difficult
I dont much care about optimizing the most functional outfit possible, but if something is dysfunctional to the point of being annoying, my concerns over fashion evaporate pretty quick. That said, I rarely wear anything which would really push this issue so my experience is limited
Fashion, like most art forms, is inherently unfunctional
I've walked miles around a city in converse.
90% of functionality for me is choosing appropriate shoes. Otherwise, idgaf
hell I've walked miles around a city in suicokes
can you speak on this a bit
when i lived in minnesota, id wear like 4 layers when other people got the same results out of one puffer jacket. so functionally the puffer wouldve worked better but wearing 4 layers didn't make it too inconvenient so it was fine. liked the way i dressed at the time too so it worked out.
during the summer i used to only wear pants cause it was during the mfa period where everyone was heavy against shorts, but now my stances has changed and conveniently the most functional 5 inch inseam shorts are also the ones that align with my fashion goals.
Its like the difference between an artist and a graphic designer. Fashion, as an art form is like being an artist in which you make something to create a statement, challenge a point of view, or express an emotional idea for the purpose of expression. Clothing versatility is like graphic design where the intention is for functionality, readability (wearability) and causing least upset with the customer base
The more “fashion” a piece gets the less inherently functional it is
Whether the materials being used (not machine washable), the colors (not versatile for other wardrobes), the silhouette (sweaters that have open holes), or even details (EG pockets have no real use because no one is putting shit in there and just make it bulky), the elements that make something cool or fashion-y are not there to provide utility and rather tend to subtract from it
I'd disagree, so much of fashion has its roots in explicitly functional garments
Workwear/Militaria, and even Ivy to an extent are all drawn directly from garments that were made first for functionality
and then became/were repurposed to be fashionable
Throw some westernwear in there too
Think thats too narrow a view of "fashion"
Ive never been convinced about a single definition of "Art", if fashion is considered art I feel it would be the same philosophical quagmire
to each their own
I've always loved people finding really nice functionality in items that were not explicitly designed to be "functional". Like yes of course basically anything you buy at REI is going to have enough pockets and "perform" really well as a jacket/shoes/pack. But I love finding less obvious items that turn out to be super functional.
A poor example, but I love my leather DR as a travel jacket bc I can layer under it well, it's a hardy jacket and has a bunch of really useful pockets. Even other DR jackets I've tried have paled in comparison.
And what makes the actual item vs the spinoff of it more fashionable isn’t that it’s more functional though. Military inspired garb is inherently less functional than actual military garb
The snaps instead of buttons on all westerns are (allegedly) a functional choice to clothes would rip away more easily if they got caught on something.
I would say that achieving basic functionality with clothing is very simple, and then optimizing functionality for certain people/uses/environments versus adding stylistic elements is the next step. These aren't mutually exclusive of course.
Military inspired outfits incorporate other elements that would definitely not be useful on the field
Vs actual full camo
It's genuinely difficult to find or create clothing with no or intentionally limited functionality
I could talk about this forever but I think the definitions we use of function and form in both design and fashion are severely lacking and fail to define what is or isn’t “necessary” and presuppose that humans have any ability to make decisions objectively which they simply do not
functionality very critically requires a point of view
for this reason I have to disagree that fashion is inherently unfunctional
in the same way that good fashion requires a point of view
So many of those garments are worn unchanged from their original state though: Cargos, Carpenters, Field Jackets for example
This is the most salient point
v interested in more detail here since I'm pretty sure I agree but I haven't thought about it as much as you probably have
Function is entirely relative
^
I was wandering around an art museum and wondering... why do all the modern pieces of "art" (not necessarily "modern art") have this aura of "high art", art for arts sake, while in the exhibition next door there are ancient arts, which are simply historically/culturally significant artifacts but are mostly examples of practical items done exceedingly well
It is fully meaningless without context
Any object or even any concept can have causal effects and therefore function
I don't do anything so I don't worry about functionality
^^^
I think @The Teenage Gentleman lol has a fun article along these lines
https://alittlebitofrest.com/2023/02/05/dressing-like-a-journalist-a-primer-on-spencers-style/
Ethan M. Wong
a little bit of rest
Dressing Like A Journalist: A Primer on Spencer’s Style
Extra, extra! Read all about how Spencer likes to dress!
CDBs in the louvre in 1k years
I put on my silly little boots to run my silly little errands
I've seen plenty of modern art in museums that is not "art for arts sake" fwiw anyway
There's like a billion works of philosophy on this idea
don't think thats relevant to this thread
The idea of function wrt fashion is basically about if you can carry your shit and you don’t freeze to death or get heat stroke and basically every other thing depends on the specific context to a much higher degree
Slash litcrit
Exactly bishop
EG isn't the only company selling clothes with pockets
This is a good question, because I think there are actually two different academic schools of thought as to why humans developed clothing. The first and most obvious one is to keep warm, i.e. as we moved to be upright and lost our coats of fur, we decided to steal from other animals to make fur coats. But then there is also that school of thought that clothing right from the outset was a form of decoration - similar to body paint and tattooing, people developed clothing to express themselves, show power, and make statements. So I think right from the outset clothing has been both functional and an artistic expression
Is expressing your personality to others a function?
In animals it is
Why not us
Is making yourself happy a function
Idk I think it’s in the museum bc of context. Andy Warhol pop art vs kid on MacBook pop art type deal
I also greatly dislike the false dichotomy of function vs form
100%
The prompt is about sacrificing added functionality beyond the basic function of a garment in favor of increased style/form/etc and my answer is that basic functionality of a garment is good enough that it is not a meaningful sacrifice to look cool all the time
In that viewpoint anything that doesn’t actively hurt you is function
sometimes the line does get crossed through where the fashion becomes very unfunctional like charli mentioned. hence the suffer for fashion.
Even in the strictest sense function and form both inform and play off of each other
I also did this one! https://alittlebitofrest.com/2021/05/16/menswear-can-be-practical/
Dieter rams had a specific design philosophy but the way that people seem to understand it is not compatible even with his own work
Oh I think this is the article I wanted to find!
No even that could be function, which is why I think it’s silly to talk about broadly
isn't this an argument for everything in a museum?
He was led by function but the idea was that the form highlights and elevates the function not that it ignores beauty
its so broad its meaningless
Sure but his design philosophy is used to sell products which would serve under the definition of function
In the grim wisconsin tundra i cannot be swagged out january-march cause there will be days it hurts to breath outside. I wear wool baselayers to extend the time i can get away with nice clothes, but past a certain point its snowpants, bunny boots etc. i dont know how anyone lives well north of me.
This is a great article and one that really pushed me more in the tailoring direction. Viewing even these "fancy" garments as inherently functionals and just wearing them as functional clothing
I think he would argue with you
Ya so it’s still art in an art museum
honestly the line really is just about what you want from your clothes. and most of the time you can always have a bag that can carry what you need lol.
Do we really need a bunch of performance from our clothes? Most of the time we just need pockets and basic weather relevance
I think he wanted to make beautiful functional objects and selling them was serving that purpose
As someone who wants to make beautiful functional objects
His whole purpose in his job was to create Braun products no? I’m sure if he wanted to make more beautiful and less functional products he would do so
I disagree
But he operated under the confines of a company
Yes because you have to if you want to make things
I think explicitly yes he would say that but implicitly Braun’s selling point was their design language
They’re making mass market consumer goods
I would bet everything that in a world where he had access to all resources he would still make stuff with the same philosophy
His writings are about good design
Wasn’t that they had the most efficient/cheapest/highest grade products but they had the prettiest within its functionality
Not making money
Ya sure, but I think that he would’ve had the Lemaire to Braun’s Uniqlo U
This just seems like an exclusionary definition for the sake of being exclusionary
I don’t understand the analogy or the point of it honestly
"Thats not real art cause it has confines on it"
Function does not preclude anything is basically my point
Idk I think his philosophy was make a beautiful product that sells
I don’t know why you think that
Because sell products are not among his rules for design
isn't it a "if you build it, they will come" type of thing? I'm far less informed here but it seems like good design on a functional product simply will sell
No people still find things boring
even if they work good
i think the sells is more of a byproduct rather than the main focus. like a mentality that people would opt for the product that looks better and serves the same function
His principles of design is customer facing
products are about customers though
Objects are about people
What design principles are not?
Function is about the interactions between person and thing
This is fundamental
Yes and dieter rams principles are specifically for designing products that sell
Obviously he's focused in a industrial/product design area but what are you designing for if not for people?
yourself/institutions
You cannot make principles about the construction of the object that do not address the person if you wish to communicate with them
I think there’s a difference between designing for art vs people
Which is why there’s the difference between art at a museum and art on a Facebook ad
One is graphic design and one is art
am I not a person? Institutions are made of people. I don't see how those are different
I think you have a view that design is capitalist inherently but it is just pressured more obviously by capitalism
There’s a difference between vintage military garb that can be used in a cool outfit vs an avant garde piece that has to be used in a cool outfit
I am a person who yearns to make objects
Institutions have power over people but do not always represent their interests is what i'm trying to say beans
I have no inherent desire to make money
I communicate with people through object
Again this just feels like you want to excluding thigns from being "fashion" or "art"
I get joy and satisfaction from seeing the way that a person and an object can have a relationship
The capitalist element is not design
You are still designing for some specific groups of people and their interests. Whether they're grouped as an "institution" or as a "target customer base" doesn't seem to make much difference to me
Well yes!
i think an aspect that should be included in the fashion, functionality convo is convenience. i mean you can put that under functionality but theres a certain amount of inconvenience in doing a certain function people accept for something that looks better.
boo
i think there is a difference imo. for example designing something to be shipped easier vs more usable
where also materials play a big part
I agree that design and art are different I just disagree about how and what makes design design
Question- would anyone distinguish between a "Designer", including whatever implicated relationship that means to industry and marketing, and a "Fabric Sculptor" or some other term which dosnt imply selling their work as a commodity (or advertising for their brand, etc)
Definitions are by definition exclusionary?
Competing groups of people/users with competing view points is part of the trade-offs made in the design process
didnt really read the past 100 messages, so sorry if thats not relevant
Again, it's about the PoV
Yes 100% which is my thesis
This is true, but also represents a way a designer is abstracted from the people they are designing for in the end. There's a degree of separation via institutions.
As someone who dabbled in photography there’s a MASSIVE difference in photo style and intent in people who are great at wedding photos vs their portfolios if they were to apply to art school
I wouldn’t hire an editorial photographer for my wedding and vice versa
but my wedding is front page news
I just think you have a view that comparing extremes being easy means that comparing the middle of the spectrum is easy too
It's art if I think it's interesting and not art if I think it's uninteresting. Me specifically though, not you.
I wouldn't hire a woodworker to tailor my jackets? I don't get this. Different people do different things all the time
eh fair. But art (and fashion as an extension) is very broad and I don't think related to functionality (cough duchamp cough)
Or tangentially related to functionality and design
i don't think something being designed to be functional precludes it from being art
I think half the people here would agree regardless of the many strands of discussion
"Functionality" is such an empty term though (as Bishop has repeatedly stated/explained)
Less tersely I don't see how a different style of something like photography precludes it from being art. Is editorial photography not its own art?
Perhaps there is an issue in what is considered art... is wedding photography art even though its not artsy? This is why I brought up artifacts being considered art, not trying to be expressive in themselves, just an expression of a refined craft. "art" is too illdefined a term to be thrown around, imo
That’s a false equivalence though, a photographer who specializes in art vs wedding photos is not the same as a cobbler vs tailor
why is wedding photos not art?
Another example of art vs design is Spotify wrapped 2021 which I argue is good art bad design
Artist isn’t expressing themselves, they’re doing it purely for functionality
Sure there’s stylistic elements
I could have been more clear, I believe it should be, even if its not the same motives as more abstract art
But that factors in them getting paid to do their “style”
I don’t think wedding photos are art.
again lets remove capitalism, since some people would likely happily capture photos of say a friends wedding purely for them
Unless specifically it is up to the discretion of the photographer
I disagree, I think they're just mostly bad art
No such thing as bad art
Yes, and that’s the intent of the artist not the subject (client)
No it’s not art, good wedding photographers are insanely talented
so the same photo is art or not art depending on the photographer's mindset?
And they usually have an art portfolio
Off topic but if my top genre was hauntology I would stop listening to music
The intent of the medium yes
Like it's over for me
ya i disagree with that
This design vs art
If it's bad it's not art 
I think I understand your distinction now but I still don't think I agree
Does considering something art not also require a pov
Why is there even an attempt to define this
I don’t expect everyone to agree but that’s just what my view is
There’s been an ever-growing sentiment in philosophy for around half a century and which is currently at its peak regarding the relationship between people and objects and how this divide is likely unnecessary. The school of New Materialism argues for a view that objects themselves have vitality and their own agency so if everything is just “people communicating” you’re leaving out the inherent power of objects themselves (there is room for this to be a dicey position because, of course, we cannot remove ourselves from the position of observer). Functionality in regards to fashion (or design, going back to Charli’s original example) viewed in this manner could be considered solely observer focused on-top of being rooted in commerce, rather than either being communicative on a human level or viewed through the lens of the object's form.
As someone who has had a difference in an art portfolio and a regular portfolio
Like POV can be important but I don't think its the only thing that defines something as "art"
it can be sometimes
but not always
I think John Cage hit the issue on the head with pieces like 4'33", really makes one consider "what is the art work", is it the idea behind its creation, is it the actual sounding or physical result, how does the audience relate to the creator and to the artwork, and most importantly, does it matter?
"New" Materialism
Looks inside
Spinoza
His monism influences people like Bennett yes
We're just rediscovering modernism at this point
I don't think your "regular" portfolio isn't art tho, which seems to be your position?
like obviously the fountain is probably not art if it wasn't arranged and displayed as art, but is that not the same thing with clothes to circle back?
Like wearing vintage milsurp vs the design intent, because it was designed to be functional does that make it not art?
even though it is now being used in a "Fashion" context
blurring fashion and art a bit but 🤷
what the fuck is going on in here
What is art is a topic with no answer so it’s not worth trying to figure it out here, I’m just defending design as not purely or inherently capitalist
Aesthetics really gets the people going
all my clothes are strictly functional. i need all of the drip
or i drown
from what i heard, youre too tall to drown
mew wearing a lifejacket in a landlocked state: It's functional
When you wear shitty sweatpants and a t shirt water immediately fills your lungs
Just like there is no clear or true definition of art, there isn’t one for design either
No it’s a job portfolio
Military clothing was designed for a purpose. Wearing it in a non-military fit is adapting it to work for you which is self expression and thus art
The piece wasn’t created as an art piece
Wearing it to look cool vs wearing it to gun down baddies is fashion vs function bc you don’t need the camo/pockets/longevity
Given all the debate over art and absolute crickets over function it's p clear which mfad values
Me wearing gym clothes outside of the gym: Behold. My art. (/s)
well put
its true if i step outside in this i will perish
The fashion police will arrest you immediately
Although they haven't been seen in Bushwick in a long time
I do think the mainstream obsession with "function" in garments is horrific. Sneaker dress shoes. Lululemon "chinos". Try to find a decent mainstream clothing brand for men that doesn't talk about some bullshit like "go from the boardroom to the driving range"
Which is particularly sad because so many more interesting clothes have great functionality
Convenience and efficiency obsessions create some of the worst shit
General male inability to engage with self-expression at a meaningful level so you end up finding one pair of pants you like and buying them in all 15 colors as "self expression"
I like to express myself with 15 pairs of near identical blue jeans with defining details such as +/- .5 ounces, orange stitching instead of yellow, etc. etc.
Combined with modern capitalist and service tendencies to aggressively shepherd people onto the same and efficient happy path. I think a lot of individuality is lost. Even with the typical MFAD house style there's a wide range in which people wear and utilize OG107s
I’m going to present a little anecdote about functionality in garments from my life, stemming mainly from my Barbour jacket.
I own a Beaufort, and it has a very large game pocket along its back side originally meant to hold the spoils of shooting. However, this antiquated function that can serve no purpose in my life is put to use almost everyday, carrying books, sandwiches, loose papers etc. It is a form of functionality that does not make the garment ugly, as it makes sense in its original context but it also serves a much different purpose very well and makes my life a lot easier. In conclusion, old clothes with a lot of pockets for different things are immensely versatile whilst not sacrificing their aesthetic value.
You can appreciate form over function without looking down on people that value function over form
You express yourself through your clothing and that's great but it's not everybody's path and that's okay
attacking my 5 pairs of grammici pants 😭
Not the best phrasing on my part. My point is more along the lines that I don't think this many people (men specifically) value function over form that much and that there are lots of external pressures that I disagree with that are often hidden from people thru dark patterns and capitalism
I don't think it's possible to make that value judgement without at least partially treating it as a universal. Anything else would be insincere.
Then don't make a value judgement
It's not difficult to avoid saying which is universally better by saying which is more personally meaningful
👍
It's actually very difficult! We can see in practice that making a judgement for oneself is taken as a universal, even if it's not stated as such by the person making said judgement.
I will say that, generally, these questions of theoretical aesthetics are valuable, however I wonder what practical impact they have on my life. I find my personal answer in practice. Live your life, make your craft, express your art, and you will find the balance of practicality and theory which makes sense for you. In my experience, the more secure I feel in my own direction, the less I am bothered by other people's differing approaches. And its easier for me to enjoy others work without judgment. Though I realize not all have the same perspective
My biggest reason for wanting to dispute the usage of “function” is because it often leads to ideas about what is valuable or necessary to live, like it leads to unnecessary judgement of the self and others for doing things or buying things we deem as non functional
Or what we decide is the acceptable bare minimum for life
Yes you need food and water and air and shelter
But what else do you need
Damn y'all popped off
Real
If I do not have at least one aesthetic experience a week I will wither and die
And why are we so quick to eschew the other things especially on behalf of others
Deconstructing "function" is a fun rabbit hole I went down when I first got into fashion
I hear this all the time in the Pnw, "why would you spend x money on this clothes when you could've bought a more practical Arc'teryx that's actually worth the money"
I want to compile all of bishops thoughts in this thread and paste it on the substack
This is getting away from the topic but when I hear functionality re fashion it's usually my friends figuring out how much I spend on certain things and trying to understand why
Like others here, I live a pretty mild city life and there's something fun about purposely skewing functionality. I pretty much commute everywhere on bike to the point that it plays a big impact on my wardrobe. A few years ago I got tired of carrying an extra load of clothes around and decided that unless I'm doing a seriously high-mileage day, there's no reason not to wear heavier and less functional clothes that I enjoy while biking around the city. Things like denim jackets/jeans, boxy sweatshirts, OCBDs, and boots are a clear deviation from the functionality of lycra, cleats, and warm polyester layers. However, they're all more than functional to wear while biking as long as I pay attention to fit (raglan sleeves and straight legged pants are key). I've learned plenty along the way of what is heterodox but surprisingly viable. I love biking in my boots due to the extra traction in the sole and there's something seemingly ridiculous yet so natural about riding in 28oz balmacaan that gracefully floats behind me like a cape while pedalling through the snow. That being said, there are definitely points where I've been too careless in discarding function. I'll never forget the first time I went for a ride into work wearing my new Bedale on a crisp spring morning, only to arrive with my clothes drenched in sweat due to the lack of breathability.
Like why do I have to justify a "fashion" jacket when you're carrying around a stack of keyboards to the hangout that are each >$500
I also generally dislike the analogies to other hobbies that are more gear-oriented. Like "oh you spent $2k on a PC so why judge me for the clothes I buy?" I find it reductive unless the other person is also into something with a more aesthetic tilt like instead of being obsessed with keyboard switches it's about cute/fun/custom keycaps. They still don't get "it" and no common ground is found
but it's like, my PC is on the low end of gaming rigs and I can still run everything I want very smoothly
I think it’s funny that I am scrutinized for buying a $80 tee when my friends buy league and valorant skins
I think it's important to focus on the joy and fun of it and I prefer to evangelize that aspect rather than an angle of "actually these pants are super worth it bc they're engineered"
I just say I think it looks cool and that's that
I want my clothes to be functional in that they last for a good while, and I need comfortable shoes these days, but other than that it's fair game
I think it’s rare for there to be non aesthetic aspects of clothing, and I think most examples are probably to do with accessibility
Everything becomes aesthetic if it’s visible because of the nature of people
do we know when humans started wearing clothing? I think we know when we lost our body hair, but not sure we know about clothing.
I listened to a really interesting podcast on this recently but I can't remember which one! Been trying to find it. But vague answer was yes, we can make a pretty good guess based on archeological finds, such as cutting / scraping tools used on hides, and also discoveries of the first threaded needles
I can't remember the timescale off the top of my head, consensus seems to be around 170,000 years ago though!
omg this topic! It's like asking a programmer about vi vs emacs.
I think it dovetails with my interest in furniture. I like beautiful furniture, but I find that furniture that isn't functional is less beautiful to me. For example, I find that Frank Lloyd Wright's furniture (and his architecture, for that matter) prioritizes form over function, and that makes it less appealing to me as a result. Whereas a Sam Maloof rocking chair is beautiful, in part, because it it looks like it WANTS you to sit in it and enjoy it.
ah, this was the podcast episode! Highly recommend, it was really interesting https://open.spotify.com/episode/4B9v8PwWtBfl63ypho5uod?si=XUXDX4nuSgKOHR9SbyZpRw
Spotify
The Origins of Clothing
Listen to this episode from The Ancients on Spotify. Clothing has been essential for human evolution. From protection against changing climate, through to the driving force behind technological innovation in the production of fabrics and agriculture.In this episode, Tristan with the help of Ian Gilligan, delves deep into our prehistory to uncove...
An example from clothing: Wearing a tee that's 2 sizes too big looks sloppy. But wearing a tee that fits you but is generously cut looks good. Superficially, the two tees could be very similar in size, but the tee that fits you is more functional, and therefore more beautiful, for reasons that I don't think are totally subjective.
this only works if you view fashion as a social utility and not an art form to express, subvert, or experiment with
I worked in construction and just like everywhere, there are social elements at work as well
Hmm...I guess I would say that even pure art has social utility. Expression, subversion, and experimentation are all valid and useful things.
My point isn’t that function doesn’t exist, just that it exists in combination with aesthetic almost always
Yeah, my work has just got new "uniform" for factory floor people and everyone is complaining that it looks terrible
That's not it's intended function, but it's important to people
100%. I got into building furniture because I was interested in function AND aesthetics, and I don't think I've ever seen them as separate.
I find it funny when people buy things "for function" that's way beyond their needs like someone who drops immense cash on Arc'teryx for the odd day it rains.
At the end of the day we're all just rationalizing buying things that make us feel good. When some use fashion and others use functional, they're both just words for describing the brain giving us happy juice for the thing we bought.
That's what design is, really after all
Maybe, but it seems difficult and arbitrary to draw a line between needs and wants.
That's what I think Bishop was touching on here
https://discord.com/channels/1116793467654381685/1183815462384042047/1183819960380829776
There are aesthetic scrubs but surgeons don't really have the option to wear them in the or. I'm sure many would if they could though.
For example, I need warm clothing in Chicago. So I bought a winter coat. It kept me warm, but it was big and heavy. Then, one day, I found a Patagonia puffer on sale. I bought it, but felt like I was being silly and indulgent because I didn't need it. But I loved that jacket and wore it all the time. It was warm enough for all but the coldest days, and much lighter and easier to throw on.
Why arent they allowed?
m65s have a lot of non-aesthetic functions. I don't think anyone in fashion is wearing them for their intended purpose
isn't anything visible an aesthetic consideration?
OR scrubs are usually provided by the medical center a procedure is being done at. They are washed and sterilized and you get them from a big vending machine and then return them at the end of the day. They do this to prevent fomites (anything that might carry a microbe that can cause an infection) from being brought into a sterile environment. Because they wash them so often they're also the most comfortable fabric on earth.
I think what people are saying is you can't pick one over the other like the way the post is worded
Agreed. And my contention is that you don't have to. Although, that's obviously false. 🙂
I just want to see somebody wearing this bullshit changing a tire on the side of the road.
welcome
I will say that since going down the MFA rabbit hole, I am more liable to wear things for the sake of appearance rather than functionality. Sometimes I manage to annoy myself, but mostly it's fun.
I think it’s more just discussion sparked by the post not arguing the specifics of the question
I can be annoying about the original topic too if you like, dressing practically is as much aesthetic as dressing impracticality because it also communicates something about you and your values
But the motivation of the individual is often affected by the perception whether they realize or not
Which is why I think about this topic, I think there’s a lot of - self delusion is too strong but - belief that we can make decisions based purely on function and I don’t think it’s true
There are certainly people who approach things from that mindset though, that they make choices based on real needs
And I don’t think that’s a bad thing, I just think it can lead to devaluing of how others make decisions based on a different framework
Definitely. Pre-MFA James looked down on people who were interested in fashion and clothing, which I think was stupid in hindsight.
Or, at least, arbitrary of me.
FWIW the reverse of my point is true too, people often act like they don’t care about function at all and only aesthetic, but like in New York, the aesthetic is part of the social scene
And therefore functional
Obviously flexing what "functional" means to different people, but I agree with bishop
but even with a puffer, you can choose aesthetic things like color.
and, of course, color can sometimes be functional.
all black with colorful shoes non-aesthetic🤔
Colorful shoes are an under appreciated benefit of running. I got to wear red shoes EVERY DAY.
Functional, too, because red shoes are obviously faster
Oof, big one for me. I pretty much hate any decoration that's not functional. I love the idea of a uniform. Something like in a futuristic sci-fi movie. But in reality, I don't want to look like a weirdo so there's no way in hell I'm gonna wear a band collar. Even though collars make no sense IMO, for example.
But then again, I've been enjoying fun patterns and colors more. I justify it by being strategic. Plain ass fit, like all black, but with a flowery orange shirt.
I'm obsessed with creating the perfect, high quality, sustainable, small closet. I'm always iterating and looking for ways to reduce it and improve quality. I don't love synthetic fabrics, natural is the way to go, mostly. But synthetic fabrics are kind of necessary for poor weather, luckily I live in a pretty warm part of the country so I don't need much winter gear.
I guess it's all a balance but don't @ me because I make my own rules, and that's what I love about clothes. It's like, one part of my life I can fully control. Anywayyy...
I totally did not realize how long this discussion was, I just saw the title this evening and got excited. But. Really interesting conversation going on. Rereading now.
I've been thinking about this, since my default really is wearing functional clothes. Though I'm not as adventurous as I used to be (gonna have to build back up strength to do even day hikes lol). I assume bishop wasn't being literal but might as well say, there's more to functionality than not getting hurt. Even if it's not literally hiking/skiing all day, or sitting still in a blind, just trying to sneak up on wild animals in city parks or deal with temperature swings on the daily, a whole pile of things matter. You notice a lot more comfort/ergonomics issues the more you push yourself. I notice how much noise any clothes make!
Funny thing is, I started wearing higher rise pants than ever before this year because I think they look cool, and I guess for me they're a lot better for comfort outdoors 😛 Sticking with pants, I've found myself rather liking some seriously oversized cinched at the waist pants looks particularly that Japanese guys pull off and I was wondering if I'd want to do that too. I think at least for now, the answer is no... I get really uncomfortable with that level of obstruction in movement and I'm sensitive to stuff piled up on my waist. But at least I can 'compromise' so to speak and get some pants with very generous fits, too long inseams that I can cuff pretty hard, and slightly loose waists - so I thrifted exactly that recently. Got to recognize my personal limits.
i know that feeling
Change of pace, but I was trying to think of functional things that lost their function and became aesthetic.
Button down collars, high heels, ticket pockets.
Maybe jeans and chinos
technically button down collars are still "functional" in the sense that it prevents your collar from flying around
True. I'm not sailing off cape cod, but I am in Chicago, which gets pretty windy. 🙂
Functional for that epic roll 
watches, in general