Fashion does not define. It is instead a term that demands definition.
Fashion does not define people, or society, or anything’s value, but it demands people’s definition of fashion from their side. It stills demands definition, it does not a true definition. Fashion does not limit people, nor should people limit fashion. Fashion isn’t just Catwalk, successful designer or clothing, there is more.
I agree with what he says in this aphorism. It is very hard to define fashion and what fashion could do——the varieties are in a wide range. Fashion could be relating to business even politics, it was never a pure thing, it migrates in so many other industry and being used by them. Tools does not do the job, people do. It’s not fashion that separated people, but it is being endowed different meaning by people. For example, in the middle age, what a person dresses is the most obvious to separate their social class.
Fashion is made manifest in material forms. It demands study in the same way that ancient artifacts as made meaningful by archaeologists: through careful excavation.
Fashion is be seen through real-life product, just like history could been seen through ancient artifacts. However, it was never easy to find ancient artifacts even for professionals, it requires a lot knowledge, experience, and a bit luck.
I agree and disagree at the same time. The front half I’m have no debate on, however, the second half I feel a little conscious about. Fashion isn’t that much like archaeology. Ancient artifacts only become lesser and lesser, but fashion renews, it will always have a unlimited future for creativity never die. However, finding fashion is the similar process, it is a “excavation” process. If you dig into a fashion direction that is groundbreaking, a revolution , just like a never been found dynasty’s treasure is front of you.
