What's an Objectivist Fashion Style?

[adrock3215]

Dress however you want to dress, for whatever particular event you are dressing for. I wanted to have a nice suit in my closet, and I was getting married, so I put down roughly 4 grand for an Armani and that was that. Trading stocks at home I usually wear a t-shirt and jeans or a robe and slippers. At the office I wear the most comfortable thing I can. When I play golf I wear a collared shirt and a decent pair of pants. When I go to McDonalds I wear a t-shirt and sweatpants. I tend to sweat a lot, so I need clothes that allow air in. Is that Objectivist?

If, on the other hand, you are asking about what brands are quality brands, then I would recommend Hugo Boss, Armani, Burberry, Under Armour, Ferragamo, Hanes, Levi, Diesel, Ralph Lauren, and a few others I can't think of right now. I tend to stay away from the more youthful brands such as Gucci and Prada, which actually are for the most part poorly made pieces of garbage (I had a Gucci wallet once that lasted for a few months). As for sunglasses, they are all roughly made by the same company anyway, and I haven't had any particular good/bad experiences with any one brand. But I would recommend Aviators if you are a flight pilot.

[EC]

You know, regardless of age, I'm periodically surprised that I can remember back an additional decade every so often. Back in high school it would be "Hey! that was ten years ago!" Now it's "Wow! That was thirty years ago!" Or you're talking about the first time you did something, or the last time you went somewhere, and it's amazing so much time has passed.

So, yes, basically you blink and you're that closer to sixty. At least it can feel that way.

Yea, I know what you mean it feels like '98 just happened a couple of years ago not TEN. I feel like the 2000's or whatever you want to call this decade have just been a continuation of the '90's and we're almost done now. It's weird.

On topic this quote says a lot about what is NOT Objectivist fashion.

There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist.--Ayn Rand

This would be the people who dress-up like vampires or think it's cool to look like they didn't comb there hair like Ryan Seacrest, or the "metrosexual" looks.

Edited May 6, 2008 by EC

[John McVey]

Dress however you want to dress, for whatever particular event you are dressing for.

Ditto. Fashion for its own sake strikes me as second-handed. As I see it, the utilitarian aspect comes first, with fashion being merely a choice among options. Some events require particular styles of clothes, though even there options can exist. Pick the option that, first, does the actual job you need it to do (I am assuming you value the required job for good reason), and second, pick the option that YOU like the best and not whatever keeps others happy.

Like Zip I wear company-issue livery most of the time, change into a tank-top and trakkies for the gym, and usually it's trakkies and a t-shirt on the weekend. Khaki or cream dress slacks, a standard shirt and dress shoes for ball-room dancing. Usually it's good jeans, a non-office but non-loud shirt and my favourite boots when I go out. That sort of thing.

If, on the other hand, you are asking about what brands are quality brands, then I would recommend ... Burberry...

You might want to avoid that if you are in the UK. Tenure could probably tell us more, but from what I understand Burberry tends to be the brand indicating the wearer as a "chav". The entry says Burberry are trying to get away from that and blaming the stereotype on counterfeits, but every print advert I have seen here has models that look like a bunch of cashed-up mallrats with a bad attitude. Experiences and views of Burberry in the US could be totally different, of course.

As for sunglasses, they are all roughly made by the same company anyway, and I haven't had any particular good/bad experiences with any one brand. But I would recommend Aviators if you are a flight pilot.

With sunglasses far more than other items of clothing the primary consideration MUST be the utilitarian aspect. Sunglasses, unlike say footwear, are not items of clothing that are both useful and normally expected things that we can then decide the particulars of - nor can I see any valid reason as to why they would be expected. The normally-sighted are always free not to wear them at all, and no rational person would gainsay another for not wearing them as an end in itself. Indeed, the common expectation is that the normally-sighted should take theirs off when the technical need passes - who respects someone who wears sunnies indoors or after sundown? Without that utilitarian aspect they are just big signs saying "look at me! I have more dollars than sense!"

The point about them is to help you see better by providing shade for the eyes, plus technical things such as having UV barrier material and being polarised to cut glare. There are even other technical needs - for instance, sunglasses form part of PPE for outdoors workmen, so need to have at least some hefty measure of impact resistance and other details. Once you've got your technical needs in place then it's valid to worry about the appearance of what passes muster. For instance, the fashionability aspect to workmen's PPE-grade sunnies is added to it after the technical specifications are met so as to encourage greater use - but if I, as site safety officer, were to purchase a set that didn't meet technical needs as PPE and instead listened primarily to employees' fashion sensibilities then I (and the company) would be in deep doo doo if there were an eye injury that would not have occurred had I purchased the right kind. As I see it, the private purchase of sunglasses must follow the same principle of selection: technical first, fashion second; and if there is no technical advantage then the best option is not to spend money on them at all.

JJM

Edited May 6, 2008 by John McVey

[KevinDW78]

Imagine Hank Rearden in a lame t-shirt or wearing a pink polo

I think Galt delivered his speech while wearing sandals and black socks. I bet that'll be featured in the movie.

[stellavision]

Here's an objective (though not specifically Objectivist) rule that I wish more people would follow:

1. Just because it comes in your size, it doesn't mean you should wear it.

1a. (Corollary) And if it doesn't come in your size, you DEFINITELY shouldn't wear it!

[adrock3215]

You might want to avoid that if you are in the UK. Tenure could probably tell us more, but from what I understand Burberry tends to be the brand indicating the wearer as a "chav". The entry says Burberry are trying to get away from that and blaming the stereotype on counterfeits, but every print advert I have seen here has models that look like a bunch of cashed-up mallrats with a bad attitude. Experiences and views of Burberry in the US could be totally different, of course.

Interesting. I've never seen or heard of that before. Either way, I have always had good experience with Burberry clothing here in the US and would recommend it (most notably the 'Golf' and 'London' lines).

[EC]

Here's an objective (though not specifically Objectivist) rule that I wish more people would follow:

1. Just because it comes in your size, it doesn't mean you should wear it.

1a. (Corollary) And if it doesn't come in your size, you DEFINITELY shouldn't wear it!

I don't know, I think for men bigger is better. Women on the other hand should wear well-fitting clothes.

[JASKN]

Ditto. Fashion for its own sake strikes me as second-handed. As I see it, the utilitarian aspect comes first, with fashion being merely a choice among options.

John, you are right that utility must come before one's design preference with clothing, but at this point the order is hardly a concern, with clothing, cars, dishes, or anything. The fact is, all companies think about design at the very start of making any sort of product. Form and aesthetic appeal are created hand-in-hand, as it is expected that consumers will consider what looks good when deciding what to buy.

With fashion, utility is even less a concern than almost any other product. We have so many choices, there are limitless combinations when thinking about temperature and "the elements" control. Granted, companies like Nike work on very cool new fabrics and materials to enhance the utility aspect, but I think the primary concern for most people at this point can be the aesthetic side of things.

And... why not? You say "fashion for its own sake" is second-handed, but I do not understand what you mean. I think it is great that everyone has a completely new slew of designs to choose from every year when it comes to clothing... and cars... and dishes! Variety is a great aspect of aesthetics, in my opinion. And I think people like variety.

I don't know, I think for men bigger is better. Women on the other hand should wear well-fitting clothes.

You know, you might try out some clothing which is better tailored to your actual body... shoulder width, torso length, and so on, and that's not for a suit, either. You might be surprised by how much you like what you see. Edited May 6, 2008 by JASKN

[KevinDW78]

I agree. I think wearing baggy, non-form-fitting clothes is sloppy.

[D'kian]

Yea, I know what you mean it feels like '98 just happened a couple of years ago not TEN.

That's exactly how it feels. The 80s do feel older, but not the 90s.

I ahve some thoughts on that. I was in high school and college during the 80s. I was working during the 90s. I'm still working, albeit at a different job, so there's a sort of continuity. Or it may just be age and/or the passage of time.

I feel like the 2000's or whatever you want to call this decade

This decade doesn't have a name. I've heard suggestions, but for the most part it's gone unnamed, particularly in the media. The suggestions are pretty bad, too, like "the 2000s," "the zips," and such. Next decade probably won't have a name either. Then they will have names again like "the 20s," "the 30s" etc.

[stellavision]

And... why not? You say "fashion for its own sake" is second-handed, but I do not understand what you mean. I think it is great that everyone has a completely new slew of designs to choose from every year when it comes to clothing... and cars... and dishes! Variety is a great aspect of aesthetics, in my opinion. And I think people like variety.

If by "fashion" one means "the latest trends," then yes, it can be second-handed -- if one wears an unflattering style just because it's "hot" right now, that is second-handed. But if I buy a trendy new dress because it happens to flatter my body, that is not second-handedness at all.

And when I said "if it's not your size, don't buy it" -- yes, that applies to both men and women. "Fitting well" does not necessarily mean "fitting tightly" -- it simply means that the cut of clothing flatters your body rather than hiding it or pushing it into an unattractive shape. A man whose clothes skim his figure and hint at the strong, masculine body underneath is much more attractive than a man wearing baggy, ill-fitting clothes that hide him in a heap of fabric. The latter just looks sloppy.

[adrock3215]

I don't know, I think for men bigger is better. Women on the other hand should wear well-fitting clothes.

You are completely off here. Men should wear clothes that fit their bodies. Anything larger than that and you will be uncomfortable and you will also look like an idiot. Aesthetically, there's nothing worse than the sleezy liberal who wears his off-the-rack Target suits 4 sizes too large. The "bigger is better" guy is typically the same guy who thinks tucking in his shirt is "uncool".

[John McVey]

And... why not? You say "fashion for its own sake" is second-handed, but I do not understand what you mean.

What Stella said - fashion as being whatever is "the latest," with choices based on what people think others will think and not necessarily including whether the wearer personally likes how it looks.

I think it is great that everyone has a completely new slew of designs to choose from every year when it comes to clothing... and cars... and dishes! Variety is a great aspect of aesthetics, in my opinion. And I think people like variety.

True but irrelevant. I have no problem with people bringing out new looks for goods all the time, and nor is there any problem with people wanting constantly to have new goods because they're bored with the old ones. The summer-dress fiasco in We The Living comes to mind, too. The issue is whether one chooses aesthetics based on one's own personal preferences (directly for oneself or indirectly through having reason to care about particular other people) on the one hand or to gain the approval (or disapproval) of others as a primary on the other.

Sometimes what others think is partly the point (such as dressing with consideration for what would please one's lover, eg Kira making a lot of effort to reverse a blue woolen dress), but all that does is take the issue back to why one values the opinions of those particular others (and as a follow-on, it is directly their preferences that are sought, rather than them being cipher-proxies for the opinions of people-at-large). If you value those others for legitimate reasons then including consideration for them in how one dresses is not second-hand. Considering others' opinions becomes second-hand when those opinions are not means to your values but are your values. Looking good is legitimately part of the former, while fashion (particularly the stuff that gets all the attention) is the latter.

JJM

[Vicious]

Hi Im new to this forum, but from what Ive gathered from objectivism even on its simplest level is that you do not exist through others, and "fashion" in itself is purely centered on the thoughts of others, or what is trendy. At the same time I dont feel that any clothing, no matter how "trendy" should be avioded for its popularity, because that is once again letting your life be guided by the thoughts of others. So in my opinion the question controdicts itself, but like others have said, wear what you want, simply because you feel it fits your style.

also I did not see that there was a second page to this, and now I see that my opinion has already been expressed by others.

Edited May 7, 2008 by Vicious

[KevinDW78]

"fashion" in itself is purely centered on the thoughts of others

I agree, however, I did not use the word fashion to mean what is fashionable, I simply used it as a synonym for the clothing one wears.

[TheEgoist]

I would like to adorn a mohawk AND a three-piece suit, but an expected career in law just won't have that.

[JASKN]

OK, John and Stella, I agree with you both. I have never understood trend-chasers.

I would like to adorn a mohawk AND a three-piece suit, but an expected career in law just won't have that.

That would be cool, mohawks are sweet. The suit would have to be perfect, though, otherwise you wouldn't be "pulling it off."

[EC]

This decade doesn't have a name. I've heard suggestions, but for the most part it's gone unnamed, particularly in the media. The suggestions are pretty bad, too, like "the 2000s," "the zips," and such. Next decade probably won't have a name either. Then they will have names again like "the 20s," "the 30s" etc.

Yep this is what I've been thinking too, the "teens" just doesn't sound right. But of course we are way off topic here--sorry.

[sharpdressedman]

I understand this thread has been dead and buried for a long time, but for the benefit of any interested party who happens upon it, I believe this topic deserves some further analysis.

No self loving Objectivist should be entirely dismissive of his or her attire. To simply say: "I'm an Objectivist, I'll wear whatever the hell I want" is to dabble in whim worship. The opposite of course, is the Peter Keating second hander, a constant slave to whatever the latest fashions are, spending too much money trying hopelessly to reflect whatever image they're told looks good, constantly second guessing their choices and worrying that they might be out of style.

Clothing serves a number of purposes apart from simply keeping you on the right side of public decency laws (unless you live in San Francisco) and protecting you from the elements. The clothing you wear communicates wordlessly to everybody who encounters you and even to you when you see your reflection.

A good example from Objectivist literature that was mentioned earlier in this thread is that great Titan of industry, Hank Rearden. Ayn Rand gives us numerous revealing descriptions in Atlas Shrugged of Rearden's sense of style. Here is Dagny checking Rearden out as he is working at the site of the new bridge for the John Galt Line:

His clothes attracted attention, like his car and for the same reason; he wore a simple trenchcoat and a hat with a slanting brim, but they were of such good quality, so flagrantly expensive that they appeared ostentatious among the seedy garments of the crowds everywhere, the more ostentatious because worn so naturally.

Later, John Galt tells Dagny of that time he caught a glimpse of Rearden at a conference of industrialists:

He wore an expensive trenchcoat and a hat slanting across his eyes. He walked swiftly, with the kind of assurance that has to be earned, as he'd earned it.

Galt compares Rearden's manner with those of his fellow industrialists:

One could tell the members of the conference when they began filing out, by their clothes and their manner-ostentatiously prosperous and a manner of overbearing timidity, as if they were guiltily trying to pretend that they were what they appeared to be for that moment.

The hat and trenchcoat are standard fare for Rearden's time and place. He makes no attempt to be a fashionable nonconformist begging for attention. But also notice that his goal isn't to blend in. In the first quote we see that Rearden is dressed ostentatiously. He's a producer of enormous magnitude and a man of great wealth and he can afford to wrap himself in the finest garments. And the look works to highlight him and differentiate him from the crowds. Rearden turns heads when he passes by the same way an expertly designed car does. His attire is integrated with his very essence. When the lesser industrialists dress ostentatiously at the conference, they don't own the look like Rearden does. Rand uses their attire and the way they wear it to call out them out as second-handers. You can picture them slinking by hoping people will not notice that they fail to live up to their expensive garments just as they fail to live up to Rearden's towering moral example. You can imagine that the second-handers each double checked with their tailors and colleagues to make sure that they would look the part for this event, possibly changing at the last minute when they learned the table cloths would clash with their neckties, while Rearden selected an expertly tailored suit from his closet and then assembled the outfit to his own satisfaction before leaving his home.

Your personal style matters. Just like your philosophy, your friends, your career, you can choose to let this aspect of your life be a jumbled mess of various items thrown together, or like Rearden, you can consciously choose to assemble your attire in a manner that serves your values. So the first step is to get in focus and choose to apply your reasoning faculty and discerning senses to this important aspect of your life.

Now that you've decided to give this matter some thought, you must decide how important your wardrobe is among your values. This will depend on your goals, your profession, your bank account, your lifestyle, etc. If you are an attorney or businessman your wardrobe is going to be an important part of your daily work. Even if you are a computer programmer who spends long hours working from home in your underwear, you may still want to put some consideration into your attire if you have aspirations outside of the home such as dating or attending social gatherings.

If you are on a budget or working to save up money to start your own steel empire, then spending piles of money on the best suits money can buy would be quite immoral. On the other hand, if you're a business executive, rolling around in a stained tshirt with holes and sweatpants is also going to send the wrong message.

Consider the real life example of Steve Jobs. While he did not spend tens of thousands of dollars to wear bespoke vicuna wool suits, he did apply his discerning eye to the clothes he wore. And when he found an outfit that matched his values, he owned it (or rather, he owned dozens of them). He looked at home in the turtleneck and jeans and wore it with the same sort of confidence that Rearden would wear his own expensive suits.

With your budget and goals of your wardrobe in mind, you can begin shopping. Shopping need not be done all at once. You may decide to start your wardrobe with a few pieces and then add in a new one every so often when it makes sense. An Objectivist doesn't fall victim to the ad hominem brand worship of the masses. But this is not to say brand is meaningless. An Objectivist shopper looks for value and quality (unless for some reason I can't think of your wardrobe goal is to spend lots of money on poorly made garbage). There are respected brands with an established history of providing a quality made product at a price that delivers value. Take pleasure in using your reasoning faculty to find the brands which deserve your patronage.

After you become more confident in your decisions in this area, and if you have the time and money on your hands, you might even delve into that luxury arena of bespoke tailor made outfits. Now you will have the opportunity to meet face to face with the builder of your wardrobe. Your tailor is your personal Howard Roark, and you're commissioning a house for your body. Just as with picking out the brands that deserve your money, picking out your tailor will require you to use your reasoning prowess to the best of your ability. Choose your tailor poorly, and you'll find yourself dressed in suits that fail to live up to your values. But a truly great tailor will build a temple to your values.

I believe this is the ultimate goal of a good wardrobe. Just like Roark's buildings which seem to rise up as a product of the landscape, if you invest the effort and attention, your clothes can be fully integrated with you. They will tell passersby who you are and what you're about with one casual glance. You will feel confident and proud in them, because you are wearing integrity.

Edited May 31, 2012 by sharpdressedman

[epistemologue]

Look up Miranda Barzey on Facebook or Twitter... she's an Objectivist starting a style consulting business.

[epistemologue]

Oh this got bumped from 2008

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

Unless it has the face of a dead communist on it or something like that I only really care if it's comfy.

[Eiuol]

Unless it has the face of a dead communist on it or something like that I only really care if it's comfy.

Did you read sharpdressedman's post? It is quite good. Although it is oriented towards a formal look, the post conveys well why you really ought to care beyond "it's comfy". You could wear sweatpants and a bland white t-shirt that is comfy, but there's a reason that's a fashion nightmare. Nothing about a just-woke-up style will indicate valuing say, a strong work ethic. Style should convey something about you, just as your taste in art says something about you.

[JMeganSnow]

This got me to wondering if anyone has an opinion on what an objectivist style would be when it comes to one's wardrobe. I absolutely hate wearing dress socks though... ugh.

Objectivist style = the style that suits the rational purposes of an Objectivist. Wear the clothes that you think best reflect the type of person you are and the goals you have and the expenditure you can afford.