Fashion Friday: Function, Form, and Frivolity

In clothing and grooming, is there a clear distinction between choices you make because they’re functional, and choices you make for reasons other than function?

There was a recent debate here in my blog about fashion and clothing. KG was asserting that the choices he made about clothing and grooming were entirely based on practical considerations; Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden (damn, I love the Internet sometimes) was arguing that KG’s assertion was implausible, and that unless you dress like a hermit in a cartoon about hermits (my words, not hers), there is at least some element of vanity or non-functionality in your clothing and grooming choices. To quote the bits of the debate most pertinent to today’s topic (you can follow the whole thread here, embedded in other conversations about shellac manicures):

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden:

It doesn’t matter whether you cut your own hair or not: cutting one’s hair is a vanity.

KG:

No, it isn’t. I need to maintain a reasonably clean exterior in order not to offend others, notably my employers, and short hair minimises maintenance time. Functional reason.

Now, I’ve certainly bought into this “form/ function” divide myself, and have mentally categorized aspects of my clothing and grooming in terms of whether they were practical or frivolous. But KG’s comment got me thinking:

Is it really so easy in fashion and style to distinguish between function and form?

For starters: If you accept that “not offending others” is function… then isn’t “being attractive” also a function? In fact, aren’t those really the same concept, taken to different degrees? Aren’t attractiveness and inoffensiveness both attempts to shape others’ opinions of us by adhering, in some degree, to social conventions?

To give just one example: Being considered attractive opens doors, makes opportunities available. And not just in the world of sex and dating. Repeated studies show that people who are seen as more attractive are seen as more intelligent, more competent, more trustworthy, make more money, etc. That is so far beyond fucked up I can’t even see it with the Hubble telescope… but it’s still true. And that means there’s a functional purpose to dressing in a way that people find attractive. I’m very aware of this as a public speaker: I put a fair amount of thought into what I wear when I speak, since I know my appearance will affect how seriously people take me and how closely they listen to me.

So if your wife cuts your hair so you have a haircut that’s considered not-offensive, and I go to a hairdresser I love (hi, Deena!) at an awesome salon so I have a haircut that’s considered (I hope!) attractive… is that really so different? It seems to me that they’re pretty similar. “Attractive” and “not offensive” aren’t so easily distinguishable. They’re just different spots on the same continuum.

Plus, if you accept my premise that fashion and style are in some ways like a language, that they’re a form of communication and self-expression… then there’s an important functional aspect to their less- obviously- functional aspects. Communication is clearly functional. And fashion/ style can help us communicate. It can communicate things about our work, our subculture, our economic class, our sexuality, our age, our gender, our mood, etc… and how we feel about all of these things.

You know how they always say that at job interviews, you should dress as if you already have the job? That if you’re ambitious in your career, you should dress for the job you want, not the job you have? That’s a function. Being aware of the metaphorical “language” of fashion and style, and using it to say what we want to say — whether that’s “I aspire to be senior vice president” or “Take this job and shove it” — that’s a function. So wearing a well-tailored suit and a good pair of shoes can be very functional. It doesn’t serve the most obvious function of keeping you warm and protecting you from the elements, any better than a sweatsuit and sneakers…. but it serves the function of communicating a level of seriousness about certain kinds of work.

What’s more, “function” versus “form” in fashion can differ significantly depending on context, and on the wearer. I mean, if I spent $2,700 on a pair of Christian Louboutin beaded stiletto pumps, that would be frivolous to the point of being deranged. But if Jennifer Garner bought them to wear to the Oscars… that’s just part of her job. (Especially when you remember that, for people in show business, being seen as highly fashionable can garner a buttload of cash in endorsements.) If you’re a female movie actor, and you consistently dress in ways that people think are attractive, it’s likely to have a positive effect on your career: if you consistently dress in ways that people think are unattractive (i.e., if you keep winding up in Fashion Police), that’s likely to have a negative effect. Ditto — although to a different degree — if you’re a TV newscaster. If you work in public relations. If you work in the fashion industry (duh). The height of frivolous self-indulgence for some is just another day at the office for others.

And finally… does happiness count as a function?

In the comment thread in question, KG argued that comfort was a function. He argued that certain items — such as socks — were functional, even if they weren’t necessary for health and safety, because they were more comfortable on his feet than sockless shoes.

But if it’s functional to make yourself happier by wearing clothes that make you more physically comfortable, than isn’t it also functional to make yourself happier by wearing clothes that make you feel gorgeous? To walk down the street and catch people smiling at you? To walk around in colors that make you smile? To wear a dress that makes you feel playful and sexy and exuberant, and still somehow elegant and sophisticated? To wear a jacket that makes you feel funky and sharp and cooler than liquid nitrogen? To wear shoes that make you feel like a cross between Ava Gardner and Bettie Page? To wear shoes that make you feel like a cross between Johnny Rotten and James Dean? To wear jewelry that has a naughty secret meaning between you and your lover? To just give yourself a lift when you catch a glimpse of yourself in a mirror?

Comfort and beauty are both means to an end. That end being happiness. If it’s functional to make yourself happier… then why is it functional to make yourself comfortable, but not functional to make yourself beautiful?

Now. I’m not trying to say that, in fashion and style, there’s no difference whatsoever between function and form and frivolity. Clearly there is. There’s a difference between what I throw on to run to Walgreen’s for cold medicine, and what I put on to give talks and go to conferences, and what I deck myself out it when I go out to see a burlesque show.

I’m just saying that I thought I knew that that difference was… and the more I think about it, the more I realize that I don’t. The more I think about it, the more function and form and frivolity seem like a continuum. At best. Function and form and frivolity seem like a big, complicated, swirly mess, all mixed up together, shifting from one to the other dependent on who’s wearing it, and where, and probably what day of the week it is.

And I’m having a very hard time teasing it out.

Thoughts?

{advertisement}
Fashion Friday: Function, Form, and Frivolity
{advertisement}

64 thoughts on “Fashion Friday: Function, Form, and Frivolity

  1. 1

    In my opinion:

    Fashion is for the vain; vanity is frivolous.

    Paying for a haircut when you can get a friend to lop it for you when it becomes bothersome is vanity.

    Wearing non-functional items is vanity.

    Putting on perfumes and painting yourself is vanity.

    Acquiring items when you already have a item which does the same job is vanity.

    To just give yourself a lift when you catch a glimpse of yourself in a mirror?

    I’m not that shallow that I need to disguise what I am to give myself a lift; I know damn well I am what I am, and I could not thus fool myself.

  2. 3

    +1 to what Peter Grant said. If you look at John’s list, and you do the opposite of what he calls “vanity” as a statement against vanity, you double back around and become what you’re complaining about. Intent has everything to do with it. If I go out to the store in a bleach-stained T-shirt and gym shorts because that’s my comfy house outfit and I’m too lazy to change, that’s different than me consciously thinking “screw societal pressure, I’m not getting dressed up to satisfy The Man!”

  3. 4

    It’s a state of mind that can be adjusted or replaced.

    Think of purity as a concept.

    Ideally I would like to have a farm that grows crops, that I can use to make the finest materials, and design the best clothing that I want to wear.

    All of that would take time and training, but imagine all of us did it?

  4. 5

    In my life, functional clothing means, in part, clothing that I can wear to work without causing me to look like a slob and is at the same time comfortable. If I had a cloak of invisibility that would work well most of the time, but I don’t have one so I have to make other choices. The way I’m perceived by coworkers and the public is important to my employers, and therefore to me. When I’m not at work jeans and sweats are my chosen garments most of the time, purely for comfort.

  5. 6

    Peter Grant:

    I suppose one could argue that wearing strictly functional clothing is in itself a fashion statement, even if it is only a statement of disapproval.

    I suppose one could, in much the same way one could argue altruism is a form of selfishness.

  6. 7

    John Morales @ #1: I’m left wondering whether you even read this piece. You say that “Wearing non-functional items is vanity.” But the whole point of this piece is that it’s not easy to distinguish between function and form in clothing and grooming. Can you clearly distinguish between “functional” and “non-functional,” in a way that addresses the specific questions I raised here? Do you have any insight to shed on that question?

    If not — then please stay out of this thread.

    If you don’t personally care about fashion and style, that’s fine. But for many intelligent and thoughtful people, fashion and style are an art form, a form of communication, a form of self-expression, a source of beauty and joy. To lump all this together as “vanity” is not only insulting — it’s flatly untrue.

    I don’t want to spend this comment thread re-visiting old arguments about whether fashion and style are worth caring about. Fashion Friday is for people who find the topic of fashion and style interesting — not for people who want to take random potshots at it. If you’re going to participate in the conversations here about fashion and style, please spend some time first talking with people who care about fashion and style, or reading what we write about it. Thank you.

  7. 8

    Aside from job/professional settings, style serves a function in a peer group as well – people dress in similar style to their peers to consciously/subconsciously fit in, to get along with their group. Or because they’re the people you go to when you need advice like “my jeans wore out, I need a sturdier brand!” (Thank you, friends that recommended Luckys!)

    And in adolescents, fashion serves a function in the quest for identity, which is like what I just said, I guess, but more intense.

    Whatevs, I’m on my first cup of coffee. But I like the continuum idea.

  8. 9

    I think one can distinguish between physical functions and mental functions and social functions of clothing.

    For instance “is this jacket warm enough” is a physical function; “is it in a colour I love” is a mental function; “is it clean” and “is it fashionable” are social functions. I think the line between social and mental functions is fuzzy because for so many people presenting a certain face to society is a thing that really affects their mental state, for others less so.

    I don’t think you can opt-out of making social statements with clothing or having your mental state affected by your clothing; but I do think you can choose how to prioritise these different sorts of functions in your clothing choices.

    Generally when I say that I go for function over form what I mean is physical function – for everyday clothing I will every-time pick the ugly-but-warm jacket over the pretty-but-flimsy one. Because I simply can not afford to be cycling around in snow in a flimsy jacket. When I’m annoyed at clothing producers who put form before function I am again talking about physical function – clothes that are pretty and no doubt fulfil useful social functions for many, but which are clearly not going to be any good for keeping warm.

    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with putting a high priority on the social function of clothing; I do think there is a lot wrong with a society+clothing market system which makes it hard to make (especially if you are woman) clothing choices with high physical and social usefulness (especially in the cold). I also think there is a whole lot wrong with characterising clothing choices that don’t prioritise social usefulness bought at the expense of physical usefulness as “lazy”.

  9. 10

    “Function and form and frivolity seem like a big, complicated, swirly mess, all mixed up together, shifting from one to the other dependent on who’s wearing it, and where, and probably what day of the week it is. And I’m having a very hard time teasing it out.”

    Why bother teasing it out? You can do more than one thing at a time.

    Function, form and friviolity are things you can address, in different ways and to different degrees, with any element of life. They can be in different places, at different times, or in the same spot, simultaneously. It’s all good.

    Think about food.

    Somebody’s coming over to eat at your house. Rarely is this purely functional.

    Sometimes, of course, it’s more functional than others. If you’ve just come from the gym with a buddy, and you’re both ravenous, it doesn’t really matter if the ham sandwiches are especially tasty.

    There are few occasions when you would eat food that tasted ugly, but which served a purely functional purpose. It might be if you were on some leaf-and-twig health-food diet. You would probably eat it yourself, and not subject other to it. More often than not, you’d eat it alone, or independently of others if you’re in a group.

    But if you hold a dinner party, you want things to be delicious. You’ll go to some trouble to make sure that what you present is pleasing to the eye and palate. You might even dress up. It’s politeness.

    That’s the way my husband sees it. He’s Japanese, and he sees dressing appropriately as a form of politeness to others.

    We’re going to a piano concert tomorrow night, and I know that we’ll have our usual tussle about tie-or-no-tie, warm-gloves vs gloves-that-fit-in-a-suit pocket, and so forth.

    The Western idea that you dress to reveal something about yourself, or change what others think about you, would be anathema to him. Your identity is determined by other things apart from how you dress—it’s about where you fit, the groups and circles to which you belong, your relationships. That a change in clothes signals a change in who you perceive yourself to be, shocks him. Dressing in a conspicuous way that makes a statement about the person underneath is impolite. It’s like talking about yourself too much. The person on the outside doesn’t reflect the person on the inside—who I am on the inside is none of your damn business, to my husband, and to many from Confucian cultures.

    So, how do we explain the Harajuku girls and Shibuya lads, who dress in all manner of outrageous clobber? With your word, Greta, frivolity. It’s always an in-joke among friends. Remember, the Japanese invented cosplay.

    The food analogy holds here, too. Some food is frivolous food. It’s silly, colourful, tasty and meaningless. Think of snack foods. A marketer once told me that snack foods are not about hunger, they’re about boredom. In many ways, a T-shirt with a slogan on it is the snack-food of clothing.

    Food can be functional, beautiful, frivolous and ceremonial all at once. Why not clothes?

    I suspect that you chose your marvellously retro-styled blue shift for your Skepticon speech deliberately. You were talking about atheist anger, and perhaps you wished to dress in the least angry fashion possible? I think you looked like a kindly elementary school teacher—specifically, my first grade teacher, except with a tattoo. Was that your intent?

    HH

  10. 11

    When I was in the military, it was explained to me that short hair was the preferred style because in the field, personal hygiene was sometimes difficult to come by. Masses of bodies in close proximity encouraged head lice, short hair made head lice easier to combat. Practicality.

    We had to do our boot laces up a certain way – if you suffered a foot injury, it allowed for easier slicing of said laces and quicker removal of the boot from the injured foot. Again, practicability.

    In Canada’s arctic, you wear layers of clothing, and your mittens are attached to your parka by what fashion-conscious kids in the south disparagingly refer to as “idiot strings”. If you lose your mittens, you risk frostbite. The parkas are usually not white: you want to stand out against the snow if you need someone, a Search and Rescue team for example, to find you. The fur around your hood is made of specific fur that sheds snow. Again, practicality.

    Go to a work site: the men and women there are wearing steel-toed boots that protect the feet, and pants and tops made of tough fabrics like denim that protect against cuts and scrapes, and hardhats to protect the noggin. Hair, if long at all, is worn tucked up under the hardhat. Jewellery is minimal, sometimes to the point where wedding rings and watches are removed to prevent accidental amputations. Again, practicality.

    In naturist resorts, you wear clothes if it’s cold enough, in the winter or at night for example. During a hot summer’s day, though, no. Again, practicality – why wear an icky, damp swimsuit when it’s far more comfortable to wear an outfit that Nature provided you from birth?

    Then I see the fashionable, wearing silly high-heeled shoes that injure the feet and risk twisted or fractured ankles. Their little black dresses don’t provide any protection at all against cold or injury. The fancy swimsuits they wear to the beach trap and hold bacteria from the water against mucous membranes where they get free and easy access to the body, and really don’t hide (or for that matter, flatter) anything. They think they look wonderful, but to me they just look foolish.

  11. 12

    John Morales says:

    I suppose one could, in much the same way one could argue altruism is a form of selfishness.

    From the gene’s perspective it certainly is, but this doesn’t make the individual any less altruistic.

  12. 13

    People who insist that their clothing is purely functional are generally engaging in the vanity of pretending to be “perfectly rational” (of the straw-Vulcan variety). It’s still all about deliberately projecting a particular self-image – just a self-image that takes itself far too seriously and dismisses anything it doesn’t like as “vanity”. I know, I did it for years… Of course, if you’d said that to me at the time, I would have vehemently denied it, as acknowledging it would have conflicted with my “perfectly rational” self-image. 😉

    Funnily enough, I recently decided to start dressing better for the sake of my own confidence and self esteem, and I’ve just been offered a major promotion. Co-incidence? Probably… But the fact that I’m going to take it this time probably isn’t.

    And as someone who’s recently gone from the cargo-pants-and-army-shirts-every-single-day look to something a bit sharper, I have to say: dressing up can be fun! Fun is good, right?

  13. 14

    Let me also state for the record that while I know nothing about fashion and wear the same clothes every day (black t-shirt, blue jeans), I am not naive enough not to realise that I am making some sort of fashion statement (though, admittedly, I’m not entirely sure exactly what it is that I am saying).

  14. 15

    i think one important, though possibly tangential, consideration is that quite often what is fashionable or stylish is that which says, I don’t *need* to worry about functionality (I am that rich/important/creative/cool/etc.). e.g., if you have to wait for a bus in the snow to go to work, you wear your ugly parka and boots; wearing the pretty jacket and heels implies that you have a car or take taxis, work in a cushy office or don’t work at all. (Or, at least, that you are willing to suffer to look like this is the case.)
    I like pretty shoes, but taking the Tube in wet London makes this a dangerous proposition – I feel literally hobbled, in peril on escalators, and can’t run to catch trains. If I were a rich Londoner, though, I wouldn’t have this problem and could then cheerfully wear the tall pumps I see on Chelsea socialites.
    Instead, I save nice, hobbling shoes for special occasions where I will, possibly, be doing less walking.

    Side note: today I am wearing my “I am sick, wah” top, which is a crumpled “vintage” oversized button-down shirt, to indicate to all that I look like crap not because I am unaware of fashion, but because I am very pathetically ill, poor me. 😉

  15. 16

    I’ve always found the form vs function discussion regarding clothing to be interesting, but from a different angle. It’s part of what keeps fashion from being copyrightable art (at least in the US). The inability to find exactly where form stops and function begins, therefore, goes pretty deep into the roots of fashion as an industry.

  16. 17

    i think one important, though possibly tangential, consideration is that quite often what is fashionable or stylish is that which says, I don’t *need* to worry about functionality … I like pretty shoes, but taking the Tube in wet London makes this a dangerous proposition – I feel literally hobbled, in peril on escalators, and can’t run to catch trains.

    That’s largely just gendered bullshit though – really smart shoes for men are still perfectly comfortable and functional, if they’re any good. It’s actually one of the main selling points of a really good pair of men’s shoes. The idea that smart / pretty clothes have to be anti-functional is one we reserve almost entirely for women. As a man, I can wear a woollen suit with a scarf, a heavy overcoat and a comfortable pair of shoes and still be considered perfectly well-dressed.

  17. 18

    I think there’s a bit of false dichotomy going on here. Items can be both functional or fashionable and even KG is no doubt making fashion choices even though he spends very little on clothing.

    For example why he gets one style of button-down shirt rather than another style as even in an environment where a more conservative dress is required there are multiple type of collars, pockets, tailorings and colours, etc… that he can choose from. Even if he were to claim “But I always get the same style”, he still chose that style over another which has no lack of functionality. Same thing for colour: what colour of white does he get – ivory, eggshell, snow, ghost? Same things for shoes, pants, jackets, etc… At some level he is making fashion choices, because he could get perfectly functional clothes from second hand stores though it would be out-of-date fashions.

  18. 19

    I think a number of people here in the comments are trying to make a similar point about functionality. It’s not about whether functionality is on a continuum with style. Sure, looking attractive is a function. Wearing clothes that make you feel sharp and sexy is just a choice, and you could, instead, choose to wear clothes that make you feel more comfortable, or more secure, etc. As you point out, even wearing ostentatious clothing can be functional in certain contexts (like for a movie star). But that’s not the point, that’s not why your forays into fashion often garner so much ire.

    Fashion is something you, personally, enjoy thinking about and paying attention to. It’s not much different than any other area of interest, from stamps and model trains to music and visual art. I agree, fashion is a language that can convey information about a person to someone who understands that language. Everything we humans touch bears some personal imprint that can communicate something about a person to someone who knows how to read the signs, and in this way, every area of human activity and interest can be construed as a language.

    However, most people aren’t movie stars and don’t encounter nearly as much public scrutiny. On the other hand, the environments most of us encounter as we go about our lives (work, home, socializing) tend to be messier, less comfortable, possibly even more dangerous than highly publicized red carpet events. A lot of average, every day people would rather wear clothing that feels more comfortable on their bodies and suits the environments they live in better than clothing designed more specifically to attract (positive) attention from others. Also, many people simply don’t care about fashion any more than they care about stamps. However, since wearing clothing is not avoidable in most places, and since our social surroundings dictate a certain level of care we must take with our grooming to fit in (and therefore avoid attracting negative attention), people who would rather not pay attention to clothing at all still feel the pressure to do it. They resent it. Just as you would resent if you lived in a society that required you to build a model train set in your basement, and you didn’t care one bit about model trains.

    At least it seems to me that this is the basis of the controversy you’ve been generating with these Fashion Friday articles.

  19. 20

    If I may be so bold.

    I got into that conversation with KG in part because there was a particular sexist trope going on, that doing one’s nails (in this case, as a woman, and as the particular woman, Greta, our host for this conversation) was “non-functional,” and therefore frivolous. He wanted to know why anyone would make a choice that was anything other than functional.

    So I want to make clear that I’m okay accepting other definitions of functional, but that definition was particularly useful for getting at this habit of saying that women’s clothing and fashions are frivolous while men’s are functional. This has odious consequences as when a man drops $2000 on a suit, he’s making an investment in how he’s seen at work. When a woman drops $300 on a pair of shoes, she’s buying something “unnecessary”.

    I don’t want to divert this conversation into the same floodplain as the previous. That one has already been well-watered. But I think that as people are talking about these social and mental functions, I don’t want to completely forget that social and mental functions that women ask of their clothing or fashion are judged (and criticized) on a different scale, a different rate of frequency.

    So while I would agree that there’s a continuum (and, indeed, I was drawing on that concept to argue that there is some element of non-necessity in the wardrobe and grooming of nearly every person who accesses the internet) I think a very different question would also be interesting and might help illuminate why this is so darn hard:

    Are there two continua: one for women and one for men? To what extent are these separate? Are $2000 suits more practical because you can wear them to work or entertainment when most $2000 dresses can only be worn to entertainment? Or are $2000 suits more frivolous because they are harder to tell from $1000 suits than $2000 dresses are from $1000 dresses – thus the extra 1k brings diminishing returns?

    Also, if the dresses and suits serve different purposes – social and mental to use the distinctions created above in this thread – are suits more practical because the social purpose is directly tied in with making the money that then buys the suits? What if the dresses snag you dates who buy you dresses? Is one economic creativity and the other economic leaching? Why? And what creates the conditions that are predicate to the ultimate creation and differentiation of the dresses and suits (and their purposes)?

    It’s all this that makes form and function particularly hard to tease out. And I’m okay with people having a hard time teasing it out. I’m not so okay with the folk that Dunc -#13 describes, folk that:

    insist that their clothing is purely functional [but] are generally engaging in the vanity of pretending to be “perfectly rational” (of the straw-Vulcan variety). It’s still all about deliberately projecting a particular self-image – just a self-image that takes itself far too seriously and dismisses anything it doesn’t like as “vanity”.

    These folk can resolutely insist that there is nothing irrational in their own clothing choices, and yet find much irrational in others. I thought KG did that, actually, and was rather annoyed.

    But having gotten past that on this thread (as we seem to have done) to a near-universal acceptance that there is some non-utilitarian element in what we wear, how we groom, etc., I’d like to hear more about people’s insights into where the line between necessity and preference falls.

    For instance, I don’t wear shoes. I haven’t worn any shoes in, oh, 4 days now. The only time I wear shoes is when I go to a restaurant (it is functional: they’ll kick me out otherwise) or when there is literally ice on the ground.

    I actually go to work barefoot, cross the street to my building from parking barefoot, walk down the halls barefoot, teach my classes barefoot, go to meeting barefoot, hold my office hours barefoot, and get my lunch from street vendors barefoot. In fact, though my boss thinks it’s completely unprofessional of me not to wear shoes, there has never been a student complaint, and I can justify my lack of shoes based on the disability I have: we evolved to walk barefoot and all shoes cause me some degree of pain in my diseased bones that I would otherwise avoid. And no, walking on the street doesn’t cause more pain than I save. The disability issue makes it tricky for her, so she hasn’t made an issue out of it. But even here, I **like** being barefoot. So is my *not* wearing shoes vanity, or is preventing the breaking of bones in my feet enough to make it functional, and liking being barefoot is a bonus?

    Ahh, but here’s the kicker: when I do wear shoes, we get as close as possible to the “functional” standard since I only wear them on ice and in restaurants: but when I wear shoes, I wear birkenstocks with purple leather straps. In fact, they stopped making these birks, so when they had pretty much died, I had them completely rebuilt, saving the purple leather uppers.

    So *when* I wear shoes is functional, but what shoes I wear? Vanity all the way. Give me my purple. I try to be somewhat conscious of the form/function divide (or continuum), and I certainly tend to prioritize the function, but I will always have my practical, dyke-y, Oregonian style.

    Do any more of you have thoughts about where your function starts to blur into form (or vice versa)?

  20. 21

    For me, function and frivolity in what I wear is all wrapped up in why I’m wearing something. The same outfit can be my “it was on top of the clean pile when I was stumbling through the motions of getting dressed” one day and my “carefully communicating a statement about general attitude, type of nerdiness, and sexual orientation” for some kind of social gathering a week later. And my “I just felt like wearing this shirt because it shows off my arms nicely” the next time.

    And really, I’m quite okay with all of those.

  21. 22

    We ALL make choices about how we present ourselves to the world.

    We ALL adopt a pose, a style, some way of saying “this is who I am and what I’m about and what my values are”.

    Even the attitude of “my style is totally natural” is itself an aesthetic decision, a pose you’ve adopted, a certain image you’re trying to convey. The image of not conveying an image.

    It is indeed impossible to have a “non-style”.

    What’s, I believe there are DEEPLY misogynist implications that run through this kind of thinking. Adopting a masculine style… say a cowboy shirt (with its unused, non-functional breast pockets and totally non-functional decorative plaid), a stylish Rick Perry / Brokeback Mountain suede coat (with it’s collar too short to be in any way functional, and very aesthetic colour choices), blue jeans (which cut do you want? You know that indigo is a dye and not the natural colour of denim?) and a pair of work boots (when you’re not actually doing any real physical work)… adopting this kind of highly masculine style is someone seen as “natural”, “simple”, “non-style”… but feminine clothing is PERSISTENTLY presented and suggested as “artifice”, “fake”, etc.

    Men are just dressing like themselves, but women are creating and performing themselves and trying to look like something they’re not. So the myth goes. As though no man ever wore cowboy boots in a city? In addition to representing the specific concepton of maleness as “natural” and femaleness as “artifice”, it also plays directly into the concept of male as the value-neutral default gender and female as the special, disctinct, Other gender.

    So yeah… when I hear people claim that they are “above” fashion somehow, I have to resist rolling my eyes so hard they detach from their retinaes. AT BEST you have simply deliberately handicapped yourself into making terrible fashion choices, and at worst you’re perpetuating a self-congratulatory, arrogant, naive, sexist myth.

  22. 23

    Can I just say, it is OKAY to feel good about the way you look? Vanity (see: seven deadly sins) is a word invented by religion to make people feel bad about liking the way they look. You shouldn’t feel guilty about liking the way you look, unless it diverts all attention away from everything else in your life.

    I for one experience INCREDIBLE pleasure at catching glances at myself in glass doors (yeah, this happens a lot) and thinking “Damn. This outfit looks HELLA good on me.” And I feel kinda shitty if I realize “Wow, I shoulda checked a mirror before I left because I look atrocious.” Is that really evil, to get confidence from one’s looks?

    As applicable to men… Why is wearing a power tie a deadly sin? AND DON’T TELL ME WINGTIP SHOES ARE COMFY I’VE SEEN THOSE THINGS THEY’RE CRAZY.

    I am totally comfortable in certain heels, and I wear them all the time. I paint my nails for fun, because it makes me feel silly and childlike, I dye my hair and cut it weird (by myself, for free, out of “vanity”). And I want to assert that just because this isn’t a thing you enjoy, don’t yell at other people for enjoying it. It’s jerky and judgmental. Just because I like looking good and wearing impractical things, doesn’t mean I don’t have a million other things going on.

    Just my thoughts 🙂 Greta, thanks for fashion Friday. Gives me the inspiration to dress up on my day off. But… none of my clothes are clean 😡 problem.

  23. 24

    I think it’d be more useful to draw a distinction between elements of appearance that are intended to influence people’s perceptions (including one’s own) of the displayer, and elements that are intended to serve other functions, like retaining (or disbursing) heat and carrying useful tools. Including one’s own perceptions in the first category is useful because any attempt at distinguishing them from others’ perceptions is really an arbitrary distinction, and also because that separation tends to drive attempts to devalue the perception-influencing functions of appearance choices.

  24. 25

    So… I kind of like the continuum thing. I actually see it a lot with the people who exercise with and around me. I ride my bike on the road, lots, for fun. I wear the full lycra get-up for it, too. Now, there’s a functional reason for every bit of it. Form-fitting lycra cuts wind resistance and keeps your clothes from getting caught on bits of bike (or on the trail, bits of scenery). The large pockets in the back of the jersey are perfect for keeping things handy without messing up your wind stream (and in fact, I wish I had those pockets on my regular shirts for work… they would be ever so handy). The shoes are impossible for walking but are perfect for merging me into my bike. So the clothing is absurd, but perfectly functional.

    However….. there is a strong stylistic component. A good wicking shirt would do just fine for training, as would platform pedals with sensible shoes. They make baggy bicycle shorts with the appropriate padding in the appropriate place. But you are seen as a rank amateur if you show up to a ride in anything less than the full kit (and, in some rides, perfectly MATCHING kit). While this may seem to be a vanity issue, it’s actually not. Trust plays a big part in a fast group ride, and rank amateurs are frankly scary to ride with. So in this case, form and function play intimately with each other.

  25. Wes
    26

    Form vs. function does seem to be a very useful question to ask on this topic. All uses of clothing, from providing warmth, to keeping you street-legal, to making you feel pretty, are all functions. The interesting question is: what is the relative importance of each function to you, and what should should our society be encouraging people to hold as important? People who claim to favor “functional” clothing, I imagine, are saying that the more concrete functions, such as warmth and elemental protection are more important than more subjective functions like making you feel pretty and happy.

    Does it matter? Does anyone think that we ought to be encouraging people to value certain functions over others, or is it all just a matter of personal preference, that doesn’t affect anyone but the wearer?

    Somewhat tangential note: I came across a comic yesterday that seems appropriate for a number of the fashion discussions here.
    http://www.viruscomix.com/subnormality.html

  26. 27

    I do agree that happiness is also a “function” to be concerned about. Not everybody draws the same connection between Comfort-Function-Beauty. For a lot of people, not worrying about having to look beautiful, particularly to impress people they have no real interest in impressing, is akin to happiness, and I think that’s just as valid as the happiness that’s gained from being seen as stunningly hot.

    Also,

    Repeated studies show that people who are seen as more attractive are seen as more intelligent, more competent, more trustworthy, make more money, etc. That is so far beyond fucked up I can’t even see it with the Hubble telescope… but it’s still true. And that means there’s a functional purpose to dressing in a way that people find attractive.

    This is the passage I found to be particularly interesting. As a humanist (and somewhat of a utopian), I often have a hard time accepting the “well, that’s just the way it is” argument when applied to something I see as harmful or detrimental. Obviously, there are a lot of things in the world that are beyond fucked up, and whenever someone says we just have to live with it or make it work for us rather than actively try to change it, I usually find myself at odds with that frame of mind.

    I don’t see fashion as a harmful or detrimental activity. I appreciate snappy dressing. However, I do see something harmful about a cultural mindset that places an undue emphasis on physical appearance, particularly when that appearance becomes standardized by controlling interests (*cough* the media *cough*).

    Attractiveness is such a multifaceted issue, and it ties in so much with people’s socio-econimic standing, their personal experience, their goals in life, and the messages we receive from the culture at large. When I read a study about how more ‘attractive’ people are given better opportunities in life, I can’t help but react in anger. I see that as symptomatic of a social problem that we should actively try to change, rather than just accept and do our best to adapt to.

  27. 28

    I think Azkyroth @24 is on to something. When I think about my own wardrobe, it tends pretty strongly to the “comfortable and functional” end of the map. For example, all my pants must have pockets, so I can carry an asthma inhaler on my person at all times; all my shoes must accept orthotics. But my color choices within that comfortable/functional range, the dressiness of my tops, the cut of those pants, the jewelry I wear — I think about all those things; I care, not necessarily for anyone else, but for me.

    As for vanity — what the heck is wrong with a little vanity?

  28. 29

    Also, regarding this idea of “frivolity”, I think that’s somewhat of a red herring thrown out by fashion detractors.

    Sure, a studded wrist band or painted nails may be “frivolous” in the strictly utilitarian sense of the word, but so what?

    Our lives are filled with things that are frivolous and don’t exactly meet Professor Practical’s Rubric of Reasonable Utility. Those things are called “fun.”

  29. 30

    When I read the second paragraph, I at first thought “Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden” were three people.

    Then I paused to think about it for a moment, and decided no, they must be two people.

    Then I read on, and realized wait, no, one person.

    Damn, I love the internet sometimes.

  30. 31

    I love these fashion Friday posts, and I’m glad you brought up the idea of form and function in fashion. I liked this comment:

    You know that indigo is a dye and not the natural colour of denim?) and a pair of work boots (when you’re not actually doing any real physical work)… adopting this kind of highly masculine style is someone seen as “natural”, “simple”, “non-style”… but feminine clothing is PERSISTENTLY presented and suggested as “artifice”, “fake”, etc.

    I have heard this argument multiple times, and I see a lot of women in my field dress in a more ‘practical’ manner. These women see no use in looking feminine, and think it’s in their best interest to ‘be comfortable.’ Let me ask you what is so comfortable about blue jeans verses a dress. I agree that there is some hindrance to wearing heals, but is wearing flats and a dress any more hampering than wearing flats and jeans? I think this argument is especially true in regards to jeggings and the ‘women who wear no pants’ debate. There is a trend of young women not wearing pants because, guess what? Jegging, leggings, and the link are ridiculously comfortable. These women are derided to ‘put on pants’ when they leave the house, as if there’s something inherently better about wearing pants. When I go to work, I admit I don’t usually wear leggings (unless I go in on the weekends). I want to look ‘normal’, and there is an aspect of conformity to fashion and ‘business casual’ that does make me uncomfortable.

  31. 32

    Let me ask you what is so comfortable about blue jeans verses a dress. I agree that there is some hindrance to wearing heals, but is wearing flats and a dress any more hampering than wearing flats and jeans?

    One of them will keep you warm, reliably protect your legs from scrapes, and doesn’t risk showing everyone in the area your underwear no matter what physical position you’re in.

  32. 34

    Function or fashion? It isn’t an important divide. Apply the same thinking to food. There are minimum dietary requirements that have to be met in order to live (or to live healthily) and technically eating anything beyond what is minimally required for healthy living is frivolous. So what? I’ll eat chocolate because I like it. I’ll go out for a nice meal with friends to enjoy the food and the associated social interaction. Similarly, I’ll wear clothes in colours I like, or that are “non-functional” but lead to enjoyable social interaction (i.e. positive comments from others). It can all be portrayed as frivolous or vanity, but so what? So can all art, music, literature, etc. I think that living life is about more than minimum, functional necessity. Most of what we do these days is non-functional and has “meaning” only through some social construct, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do anything… how boring would that be?

  33. 35

    Then I see the fashionable, wearing silly high-heeled shoes that injure the feet and risk twisted or fractured ankles. Their little black dresses don’t provide any protection at all against cold or injury. The fancy swimsuits they wear to the beach trap and hold bacteria from the water against mucous membranes where they get free and easy access to the body, and really don’t hide (or for that matter, flatter) anything. They think they look wonderful, but to me they just look foolish.

    lordshipmayhem @ #11: It’s a little hard to tell the spirit of your comment. If you’re genuinely puzzled and curious about why people engage in this activity, and if you asked respectfully and sincerely, some of us might be willing to have that conversation with you. There are some very smart, thoughtful, creative, independent- minded, rational people who care about fashion and style, and many of us are willing to talk about why we care about it.

    But if you just want to issue snarky, close-minded drive-by insults aimed at us and this art form we care about without bothering to find out why we care about it… please stay out of this thread. Thanks.

  34. 36

    Greta:

    Can you clearly distinguish between “functional” and “non-functional,” in a way that addresses the specific questions I raised here? Do you have any insight to shed on that question?

    I guess not, since you apparently hold that anything that makes you feel better is functional, and it’s only frivolous if you can’t justify some sort of cost-benefit consideration (such as your example of spending $2,700 on a pair of Christian Louboutin beaded stiletto pumps — which to me brings to mind Imelda Marcos and her 2700 pairs of shoes!).

    So, I bow out.

  35. 37

    I’m an executive in my company. I’m expected to wear a suit and tie to work. It’s almost a uniform, a blue pinstriped suit with blue or white shirt, conservative tie and oxfords. I’m considered something of a rebel because I wear non-conservative ties (my favorite has tropical fish on it) and loafers.

    When the weather’s decent I go sailing. I wear cargo pants, t-shirt or sweat shirt, and sailing shoes without socks.

    Neither outfit is functional for the opposite activity.

  36. 38

    One question this raises for me:

    Do you ever wear clothes that you definitely feel uncomfortable in, but feel compelled to wear anyways?

    For me that’s the deciding factor. I know there are a lot of stylish options I could wear that feel just great, but if I feel genuine discomfort with an article of clothing, I won’t wear it, no matter how attractive it might be.

    Do you think there’s anything wrong with this approach to fashion? (ie, is it ever important to endure discomfort for the sake of communicating something with your wardrobe?)

    Just curious.

  37. 39

    That’s largely just gendered bullshit though – really smart shoes for men are still perfectly comfortable and functional, if they’re any good. It’s actually one of the main selling points of a really good pair of men’s shoes.

    Really? My experience with men’s formal shoes is that they tend to have 1/32 inch laces and a paper-thin flat sole apparently coated with PTFE.

    Red Wings makes steel toed Oxfords. This is relevant to my interests…

  38. 41

    I personally do not see following the shifting, irrational ideas of society as functional. Which is why I dress different (well, not at all) when I do not leve the house. So IMHO, dressing for a promotion is frivolous (you could convince people by your skills, workethic or the like…) even dressing for society’s expectations is frivolous. But then, to me functional has an objective dimension: Everyone can notice that a bikini in Antarctica is not functional, not 2 people can agree on what clothes are societially acceptable (I have an admittedly frivolous hat which my mother forbids me to wear in public but which people even of her age have complimented me on).

  39. 42

    Screw “function” AND “form” — all I care about is, “is it comfortable?” and “How easy is this to get on/off?”. (I don’t do buttons, zippers, or other clothing fasteners that require a high degree of manual dexterity.)

  40. 43

    Ack. I had another thought!

    Greta, would you consider doing a piece on fashion and disability, especially regarding wheelchair-users? It’s so hard to find good clothing for either fancy events or, um, business-y type stuff that is also easy-on/easy-off! I’m not, like, into this stuff, it’s just that I get dragged to fancy events once or twice a year by family, and it’s always a hassle to find something in my casual/comfy wardrobe that can “pass” at one of these things. Plus, well… I’m going to be a paralegal, and somehow I don’t think I’ll be able to get away with sweats and a t-shirt any more.

    Um… I’ll just shut up now — double-posting is kind of bad etiquette.

  41. 44

    I’m still opposed to your “language” metaphor. I’ll cheerfully give you “art”, but if it’s a language, then I demand a phrasebook! Not forgetting that the exact same outfit “says” totally different things to different audiences. Tricksy!

    I’m also disappointed that so far you seem to be blowing off all the criticism. So very many people experience “fashion” as oppressive, in sexist, racist, classist and ableist ways, and very probably in other ways too that I haven’t personally noticed. Oh – how could I forget fat-shaming and slut-shaming? This is non-trivial. Some of us are unable to get past “fuck you, kyriarchy” as our basic fashion statement.

    I was really hoping that you might address some of this – as you have so ably done in your discussions of porn. I imagine you would have been really good at it. Oh well. Your blog, you don’t have to teach 101 if you don’t want to.

  42. 46

    Alethea H. Claw @ #44: I have discussed most of the questions you raised here in previous posts and comment threads. (Including extensive ad nauseum discussions of the language metaphor, which I freely acknowledge is imperfect.) Those previous posts and comment threads, if you want to read them:

    Fashion is a Feminist Issue
    Further Thoughts on Fashion and Style
    Fashion Can Be Hard/ Fashion Can Be Fun

    I also touch on many of these questions in less detail in more recent posts: my post on shoes, for instance, touched on issues of sexism, size-ism, and conformity in the fashion world.

    I may explore some or all of these issues in more detail in the future. But I’m not going to address every single one of them in every single post I write on fashion and style. There are other issues having to do with fashion and style that I want to explore as well. I’m not blowing off the criticism. I’ve addressed it already, and am moving on.

  43. 48

    I stopped using cosmetics and fragrance about 20 years ago. At that time, I worked in the cosmetic/fragrance buying office for a large Canadian department store. The cosmetic/fragrance companies ads depicted woman in ways I found offensive. I remember very clearly an ad that featured a faceless woman whose body was contorted to form an X and a fragrance ad with a naked woman shown from the back with her arms locked together with a bracelet filled with fragrance.

  44. 51

    @43 WMDKitty: Have you considered shopping around for a local tailor who could do some custom work for you?
    I work part-time in a tailor shop, and a handful of our customers are people with disabilities who have very specific needs regarding ease of donning, washability, closure, asymetry and the like. It costs a little bit more, but many find it well worth it to have clothes that truly work for them, and to their taste, no less! Might be nice to treat yourself at the start of a new career.

  45. 52

    Almost all fashion has function; the most basic of which is the same as animal fur and bird plumage.
    1) Protect us from the environment/predators.
    2) Attract mates or compete with others by complimenting traits which are seen as desirable.
    “Functional” clothing falls into category 1.
    “Fashionable” clothes fall into category 2.
    But they are both still serving a function and this entire argument is semantic. The best clothes fill both these quantifiers.

  46. 53

    I’m noticing Azkyroth’s notion of “functional” seems to have everything to do with “good for doing manual labor in.” Which, frankly, has nothing to do with the functionality of my clothes. Everything I own has to be: functional, comfortable, fit well, warm/cool enough for it’s intended season, washable, durable enough to last multiple years. (once these are met, I can start looking at style)

    Skirts? Once you eliminate minis and most pencil skirts (I have a long stride for a woman) are Super Amazing comfortable. Especially in summer (soo much cooler than pants). There’s none of that obnoxious fabric that can catch at the crotch or the inside of the leg and be uncomfortable if the fit is bad. No worry about getting them shortened. Very little of the hip measurement vs waist measurement hassle that rules out so many pairs of pants. Buying skirts is simple. Wearing skirts is simple. Tights are comfy, and add layers in winter. For those females not doing manual labor, skirts = practical.

    Would I go hiking in a skirt? Of course not. Nor would I wear a long flowing skirt into a machine shop. The odds of me being in a machine shop without having to go out of my way? Slim to none.

    My steel-toed boots though? Totally frivolous. Comfy, but so are the rest of my shoes (including the heels, which I’ve walked over two miles of Boston streets in without discomfort). Not as comfy as said heels or a pair of sandals in summer, less waterproof than my snow boots in winter. So the steel-toed boots are for a) moving, and b) fashion statement. They see use b far more often.

    My point: “functionality” results in totally different actual results for different people. Your functional x might not be functional for me. But that doesn’t mean I can’t appropriate it for fun 😉

  47. 54

    What the fuck? Someone asked whether there was any rational reason for thinking jeans were more practical than a dress and I answered. How do you extrapolate that into an exclusive definition of “functional?”

  48. 56

    I’m sorry Azkyroth, I made an extrapolation based on many of your comments (#33 about skirts getting caught in running machinery is the one that leaps to mind) that functional and practical to you meant something that could take the kind of abuse that sort of work entails. If that’s a requirement of your clothes, then either you a)encounter those conditions regularly in work or play, or b) it’s as much of a fashion statement as anything I wear. (although I have to agree, steel-toed oxfords (although in premise entirely frivolous) by a company known for well-made comfortable shoes? Yay)

    I used you as an example of “functional for what?” because I saw a pattern in your comments. I could have made my point without pointing you out.

    And really, skirts are an easy example of what other people have said about the value judgements we make about feminine vs masculine clothing. But I like them and didn’t think the last word on them should be that they aren’t practical.

  49. 57

    The apparel business surpasses billions of dollars in profits and we the average consumer won’t see most of the profits. We have all been duped into buying and wearing clothing deemed fashionable and unfashionable by those around us. Most importantly most of us dress to look, feel, and fit in better. Then again, Mother Teresa’s habit didn’t conform to most current fashion appeal—but she changed a lot of the world dressed the way she did. Her costume commanded respect; most of the time she felt good about herself. And, her habit allowed her to maneuver around her world and do her much needed work.

  50. 58

    My experience with men’s formal shoes is that they tend to have 1/32 inch laces and a paper-thin flat sole apparently coated with PTFE.

    Note I said really good men’s shoes… OK, they’re not running shoes, and they’re not safety boots. Obviously. Context matters.

    On the wider point: what the hell is wrong with frivolity? I am not a Puritan. Any time somebody starts complaining about frivolity, I kinda expect them to start telling me there’s only one acceptable sexual position and that dancing is immoral… Obviously nobody is suggesting you should wear a 3-piece suit for scuba diving, or a designer ballgown when going EVA on the ISS.

    Fun is frivolous!

  51. 59

    Fascinating discussion, Greta. I’m with you on the ‘swirly mess’, in most cases. (The exception being the saturn-yellow suit and hard hat I have to wear for safety reasons at work – would not touch those with a barge pole otherwise, so I put them in the entirely functional category.)

    Casimir @ #38 said: Do you ever wear clothes that you definitely feel uncomfortable in, but feel compelled to wear anyways?

    Yeah, I was thinking about this in relation to my underwear. Most of my bras and knickers are mismatched comfy cotton, but I have a few colourful, lacy/satin matching sets which were way more expensive, are definitely less comfortable to wear, and definitely fall more on the frivolous end of the continuum. And yet there are days when I choose to wear my lacy matching underwear under my day-glo work suit, because comfort aside they make me feel fabulously feminine. I love going to the loo on those days just to see my frivolous underwear in the full-length mirror – it gives me a lift in a way that dressing up to go out doesn’t, I guess maybe because it’s a hidden, inward thing that I’m doing just for me? But then I guess that doesn’t relate to ‘fashion as a language’, unless it’s one I’m using to talk to myself 🙂

  52. 60

    I think there are competing legitimate functions, so one ultimately makes choices about which functions to privilege in a given circumstance. I like your observation that form and function can be evaluated along a continuum; it seems to me like a sensible approach to this.

  53. 62

    Function, with respect to clothing, depends on your goals.

    I think that many (though not all) who claim to only wear “functional” clothing commit the straw vulcan fallacy (thanks to Julie Galef for that) of assuming that it is only rational to dress “efficiently”. If your goal is to dress in a way that makes you feel beautiful, it is perfectly rational to do so. It is legitimate to say that the function of your clothing is to achieve that goal.

    In the same way, it is rational to use language which is technically extraneous to the idea you are communicating, in order to communicate the joy you feel when you yourself contemplate that idea. Carl Sagans Cosmos could have been a long video of Sagan reciting facts and displaying equations, however that would not have communicated what he was really trying to communicate. Not just the ideas, but the wonder of those ideas.

    In the same sense, those who claim to dress functionally, and assert that everyone else is just adding unnecessary fluff, are shoving their own goals and desires onto the rest of humanity. It seems ridiculous (at least to me) that the function you could possibly want out of clothing is comfort, and some degree of modesty. This seems to have never been true of humanity in any age.

    And to be clear, the only thing I want to communicate with my clothing is that I am a laid back person who does not really care about clothing very much. I just fail to see how my goals should be the goals of anyone else.

  54. 63

    Interesting discussion. I’m new here… Here’s some of what I think.

    Almost all clothing is functional in a given context. While a hardhat is functional on a construction site, it’s frivolous when one of the Village People wears it.

    My number one rule about fashion is this: first, do no harm. If the fashion is an impediment to what you are trying to accomplish then you’re doing it all wrong. I have seen plenty of men who come out frustrated trying to accomplish something fairly practical, getting a date, because they insist on being stoic to a fault. Which seems to me like a form of hyper-masculinity that is about as effective as cutting off your nose to spite your face. So, not being fashionable enough can be just as impractical as the most obscenely impractical women’s shoes. But some of those shoes – I just think there is no place for them. I have seen some of the feet of my female friends and I just ask myself, why do that to yourself? My feet used to be covered in blisters after I carried an 65lbs pack for 28 miles in a monsoon. My feet were so revolting I thought a woman would never touch me. Nowadays I see more women whose feet look like that. At a certain point, it just works against you.

    The other way that fashion can do harm is financially. If someone just buys whatever is on sale at Walmart because they don’t have a choice in the matter, then they’re not really using fashion as a form of self expression. Even if the clothes are worthless and impractical (shoes don’t fit, jeans don’t last), they didn’t exactly have a choice in the matter. But I know people who spend $200 on fancy cigars for every $100 they spend on clothes, and yes they shop for clothes at Walmart even though they earn $150,000 a year (obviously it’s a he and he’s hopelessly single). But on the same token, I know people who are struggling financially and they nevertheless put designer clothes as a higher priority than electricity and food. Hey, her lights went out, but at least her Prada is looking sexy in the dark.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *