Two aphorisms in my own words:
1. “Fashion is not necessarily spectacular (though it often conforms to the theory if the society of the spectacle), it can also be demotic, ordinary, mundane, routine and humble. It is the stuff of the ethnography and the anthropologist.”
Despite the implications fashion gives based on societal constructions, fashion in definition can be as simple as the definition of “clothes” or “coverings.”
I think that fashion is a product of clothes and art. One time my teacher told me that one of the subjects that makes an civilization a civilization is the existence of art. If they some art forms , they are considered a civilization. It’s human nature to be creative in any way. So mixing creative with function was bound to happen in a society. In the case of fashion, clothes turns someone into walking canvas, or a projection of some sort. On the other hand, the embellishments, adornments, and manipulations can be absent from the clothes. This is where they’ll only serve their function and are considered as mundane or humble. However, it also depends on the mind and eyes that are looking at the clothes. The simplest and ordinary detail, either functional or not, can appear as a detail of fashion spectacles.
2. “Fashion does not define. It is a term that demands definition.”
Fashion is not a concrete subject. It us abstract and still evolving into many forms.
Since there are so many designers and artists and other creatives in the fashion world, they bring multiple ideas to the stage. Each one has their own definition of fashion. It can be really similar or vastly different. On top of that, they all manifest these ideas and definitions in different ways. This variety of fashion ales it impossible to define. It’s like trying to grab air when defining fashion.