Clothes weave intermingled tales of an individuals outlook on life, on the crowd one associates with, or an individuals views the world. However, behind these initial accusations, clothes are a mere representation of a company's brand. When one wears a brand, it makes a statement concerning their personality and beliefs. Thus, branding serves as the true medium between clothes and the message. Clothes are the tangible product, and the brand is the mental message derived from the artifact. Moving forward, clothes serve solely as a middle man between the subject and sender.
On a micro level, individuals can often be defined through the brand or style they choose to portray in society. For example, if one is wearing a Chanel suit, one would assume they are a classy, wealthy individual. On the other hand, if one sees an individual in a Nike track suit, they assume that person is an athlete. As O'Donnell and Lewis discuss, these judgments create individualistic stereotypes in society (hypothetical example: jocks wear sweat suits, fraternity brothers wear polos). In Croteau and Hoynes's discussion of rappers, they state all rappers wear baggy jeans, over sized t-shirts, and sneakers. Moreover, the sterotype of rappers is then formed through the classification of individuals. Thus, are the general societal opinions of individuals defined through mere pieces of fabric stitched together?
Moving forward, this notion escalates to a broader generalization of the entirety of the whole. On a macro level, clothes can shape a generation. When I think of the 70s, large bell bottom pants come to mind, coupled with floral and psychedelic prints, finished off with obnoxious platform shoes. My frame of reference for the 1970s is defined through clothes, rather than political reform, historical events, or economic policy. Clothing serves as a medium to communicate styles or attitudes of an individual. Collectively, these individuals are categorized, and shaped by society.
Moving forward, this notion escalates to a broader generalization of the entirety of the whole. On a macro level, clothes can shape a generation. When I think of the 70s, large bell bottom pants come to mind, coupled with floral and psychedelic prints, finished off with obnoxious platform shoes. My frame of reference for the 1970s is defined through clothes, rather than political reform, historical events, or economic policy. Clothing serves as a medium to communicate styles or attitudes of an individual. Collectively, these individuals are categorized, and shaped by society.
Clothes purge the barriers of mere fabrics interwoven together. Rather, they serve as abstract mediums of communication between individuals of society. Clothing illuminate individuality, or stereotype an entire generation. They categorize our past, dictate our present, and propel our future.
This is an interesting perspective. I feel that especially here at Babson, social cliques are defined in a large part by how they dress. The international kids tend to dress in designer clothing, while the American kids tend to dress a little more comfortably (flip flops, sweats, shorts, etc.) I think it comes with the whole mindset of both cultures. Personally, I don't like to show off what brand I am wearing, whether it's expensive or not. Attending an urban high school in NY has shaped that decision, simply because people in my high school did not flaunt their clothing.
ReplyDeleteI think that you made a very valid point about how clothes can portray so many things about a person. Many of the stereotypes we have come from how people dress. A large part of that too is that people see themselves as belonging to a certain group, and dress in the way that is expected of them. On another note, I don't see clothes as being media. Many people have been talking about how anything that gives off a message becomes media. Where can we ever draw the line? Obviously everything that we do says something about us because we made the choice to do that vs. doing something else. I definitely agree that clothes say something about people and give off a message, but I do not think that this makes clothes media.
ReplyDeleteMichelle,
ReplyDeleteI definitely loved that you saw the brand as the medium rather than just the clothing itself.
Although I personally never cared for brands of clothing (though the same can't be said for brands of makeup)I know exactly what you are talking about. We associate people with brands so much now that it doesn't even occur to us that maybe they just liked the style of that shirt looked. It stands to reason that many designers do not have to try that hard once their name is out there.
This was a very interesting post and brought up a lot of points that we've examine in class. I hope we look at some points you made more too because it crosses between Media Studies and my Consumer society class. This is not the first time I've noticed similary themes between the two classes but you've probably done the best job articulating them.
ReplyDeleteSome subtext to your post that I liked as well is that it depends on the person who sees another wearing specific clothing. For example, with Chanel some may see class while others only think of wealth. And as you've demonstrated others may see both. Interesting perspective!
I adore clothes as my blog maryFREAKINGhalpin.blogspot.com shows, and I agree that clothes are a wonderful accessory to a person's true character. It allows someone to fall into a certain sterotype or prove themselves differently. I love it.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting discussion here. Like cathy and matt said, clothing can be a medium, or it cannot. Sometimes people put no effort in choosing what to wear--does that mean clothing is still a medium? Might be, as long as the outsiders at the receiving end choose the interpret some messages out of it. If fact this is often the case--some groups get attached to the clothing they wear, but they're not evening aware of it (e.g. wifebeaters??)
ReplyDeleteThe connection with O'donnald and lewis makes sense, but not a strong one. I could see how clothing links to the skin--considering what mcluhan said about media being the extensions of our bodies.
There is an extremely interesting lecture series going on MIT everymonday night--about the relationship bewtween clothing and our environment. Last week I went and the talk was about superheroes' wondersuits. Siascinating. Recommend checking it out:
http://visualarts.mit.edu/about/lecture.html