Fashion is not necessarily spectacular (though it often conforms to the theory of the society of the spectacle), it can also be demotic, ordinary, mundane, routine, and humble. It is the stuff of the enthnographer and the anthropologist.
Essentially, this aphorism is stating that though fashion is often seen as a spectacular and glamorous artifice, and we associate the word fashion with beauty, it is just as much an essential and mundane element of our lives. As such, it would be suitable to be considered from an anthropological standpoint, as it is extremely telling of someone’s life. I agree with this aphorism completely, as it acknowledges and does not discredit fashion’s aesthetic association, but also implicates fashion as a greater tool and need in society. The glamorous Versace ensemble on a red carpet says just as much, if not less, about a person/current society than an everyday blue jeans and Brandy Melville tank top that is more or less considered the current uniform for teenage girls.
Fashion can be about confirmation, of self and others. But it is also about anxiety, ambiguity, and worry. As an aid to understanding psychological complexities it is unsurpassed.
This aphorism touches on a concept that was touched on in lecture when attempting to collectively define fashion– the way in which fashion serves as an expression of one’s identity, and/or conformity to a larger group. This second element of conformity has to do with the anxiety mentioned in the aphorism: worry about fitting in, worry about standing out, etc. However, this mention of anxiety could just as easily touch upon the sexual/gender anxiety that is intrinsic to fashion: the validation or rejection of heterosexual norms and expressions. The aphorism goes on to say that fashion is the absolute most valuable tool in one’s arsenal that can be used to understand a person’s psyche, but this part I don’t necessarily agree with; though it can be extremely telling about aspects of a person and is unquestionably invaluable, I would not necessarily argue that it’s objectively the most valuable tool to “understanding psychological complexities”.
