I agree with the third aphorism, “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 ethnographer and the anthropologist,” and disagree with the first one, “Fashion is made manifest in material forms. It demands study in the same way that ancient artifacts are made meaningful by archaeologists: through careful excavation.” These two aphorisms contradict each other; the first one argues that fashion must be made meaningful and studied carefully while the third one states that fashion does not always have to have meaning and can be purely functional. For example, uniforms and workwear oftentimes only indicate an individual’s profession and nothing about his or her personality, quirks, preferences, etc. I think fashion can feel intimidating and people often associate it with material wealth and privilege. However, the third aphorism argues that fashion is universal and democratic- anyone and everyone can participate in fashion. During the lecture, I remember someone saying that fashion only pertains to the “developed” world and not “third world” countries. This is false for many reasons and the third aphorism directly refutes that statement. I also know people who are not “into” fashion and don’t care about clothes- for them, getting dressed in the morning is neither enjoyable nor a creative outlet and is simply something that they have to do in order to exist in society. These people tend to gravitate towards “plain” clothes and avoid anything that is flashy or makes a statement. I also think that the first aphorism is very dramatic- it is ridiculous and unnecessary to treat every article of clothing or every piece of jewelry as special or something that must be carefully studied. For example, when I walk into a fast fashion retail store such as Forever 21 or H&M, I am very conscious of the fact that every item in the store is mass produced and therefore, lacks “uniqueness.” Even though I think that every piece of clothing has a “history,” I do not think that clothing can and should be taken apart and studied like an artifact.
