signal as noise in clothing.

Clothing is a point of interest for me, because it's the main signifier that people can shift without a lot of effort. Clothing, as I'm sure I've mentioned here before, is one of the strongest signifiers of identity, because it denotes an allegiance to a sub-culture, and often the level of dedication / sect in which one fits into that culture.

I'm starting to wonder how much farther we have to go before clothing because noise, just like everything else.

[note: i'll go link diving later to illustrate the point better]

I've heard that some lines are considering offering more than 2 collections a year, simply because the gap between something hitting the market, and becoming ubiquitous, is shrinking. Even with the coming recession (as far as I'm concerned, it's coming) people are willing to spend heavily for differentiators. This also becomes a problem when displaying large labels is out of fashion, and on-trend clothing is readily available at low prices, thanks to retailers like H&M and Forever 21. People will spend more to point out that they can, or for an increase in quality, fine. The question is, will the increase in number of new collections result in a more direct, and complete mining of the sub-cultural fashion landscape?

Couture has grabbed inspiration wholesale from subcultures time and again, forcing fashion migration in some groups. I recall at one point in the mid-90s commenting that being a skateboarder was tantamount to being a Backstreet Boy, in terms of buying in to the mainstream culture that skateboarding has claimed to reject.

I've never thought that you could actually judge someone's personality by their clothing, but there was a time you could judge how they wanted to be perceived. If the timetable and absorption of new fashion / inspirations is accelerated much more, I have to wonder if that will result in fashion's signal becoming noise.

from my journal.

statement:
long talk with angus last night. basically, he was arguing that supplying people with truth and evidence in media should be enough to make positive strides in society. i was taking the counterpoint, that people don't ever just want the honest and noble. you have to give them the honest and noble, AND a reason to desire it. this is, in part, the explanation for my interest in user experience design, and in the presentation of information. just telling the truth hasn't been enough in generations. the truth needs to be put in the right dress, so people will actually stop and stare.

response:
re: truth dressing...this is why scientists don't talk to the media at press conferences. we (as a discipline) don't understand why people just don't care a priori, thus miss out on the sexifying process. This is why we need people like you. you will be useful to the world, likely someday soon.

Thanks to Kirsten, but this is basically here as a reminder to me that most people don't think the way I do, in terms of what use information has. The 'sexifying process' is fairly integral, in my opinion, to the point where it baffles me when it is left out. Facts aren't remembered without framing, and they definitely cannot tell a story without it. To revisit, I suppose.