digital garden

When discussing clothing, the garment and design, I have purposely neglected the phenomena that these combined concepts illustrate and are so often associated with. This may be because I desire to have no recognition of its existence, to become a “fashion nihilist”. It is not so much the societal assimilation that is required for this type of “controlled nonconformity” to be practised, but rather the inane media presence that is built up upon the contrived physical manifestations of social trends. The “trend” is seized upon as some understanding of human display and object interaction, and is subsequently abstracted, torn from any social context that may have prompted it and presented as “fashion unto itself”, a self-feeding and entirely self-enclosed phenomena. This is true for all levels of fashion participation, in all disciplines of consumption.

Why is it that the garment is the focus of so much fashion hype?

Is it related to the vanity associated with much personal adornment, which is obviously also associated with “conspicuous consumption”?

Is it that this type of personality adornment is portable and intimate, allowing for the consistent communication (definition) of the “individual” identity?

Is clothing a scapegoat for a society that loves to believe it is “participating from the outside” (i.e. watching less intelligent or enlightened people go about their trivial actions with a feeling of superiority)?

Why does the fashion media perpetuate this? (I can start to answer this one – you can only create kitsch from inside kitsch)

Is the media “stupidity” i.e. the blatant idiocy of “current affairs” programs, or unnaturalness of television soaps a malicious tactic to draw people in, allowing them comfort in their own superiority to the presentation (to participate whilst believing they are not)?

Is this paralleled within fashion media?

Does this apparent lack of understanding by the brand of their own product (i.e. something is presented as part of one image, but is appropriated by the consumer to project another) promote a perception by the consumer of themselves as a type of “fashion hacker”? Is this understood and manipulated by the fashion distributors?

Is this contrived appropriation (or controlled creation) another way for the consumer to fertilise anonymous garments? (fertilised with what is the perceived identity, which within the consumer is a bricolage of kitsch symbols).

And is this bricolage formed by the relationship of symbols to one another - tracing a "web" to form what is percieved by the subject as a unique identity?