The Heritage-Hipster Matrix

Discussion in 'Andy's Trad Forum' started by Mazama, Sep 25, 2010.

  1. Mazama

    Mazama Active Member with Corp. Privileges

    United States
    An Online WSJ piece today, "Is L.L. Bean Driving the Runway?!" starts:

    "Unbatten the hatches, folks: The Brawny Man is back. He's dressed for the elements, looking as rugged as a lumberjack—and also a tad pleased with himself. Yes, he can hunt, chop trees, mine gold and pull lobsters from frigid waters. But his oil-waxed knapsack of tricks has just grown: He's today's fashion icon"

    Based on the photograph's these "Brawny Men" look like some skinny guys trying out for a cast opening with the Village People.

    I simply don't get these "designer interpretations of traditional American outdoor and working attire. RL has a $700 ripoff - excuse me, interpretation - of the $250 Filson Cruiser (110) this fall that is made from inferior fabric and not long enough to cover your butt in cold weather. What's the point?

    The chart in the article titled "The Heritage-Hipster Matrix" (Our road map to the strange and crazy lovefest between new-school designers and old-school brands.) is amusing.
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2010
  2. Trip English

    Trip English Honors Member

    United States
    Useless clothing for useless people.
  3. PeterW

    PeterW Active Member with Corp. Privileges

    Agreed. I think it is time to err on the side of dandy, rather than fauxberjack.

    This is why I am not pleased with my 20 year old set of Filson luggage. It is not JUST that its trendy, but it lacks elegance.

    But anyway, I (for one) am feeling a bit hemmed in: one side, that horrible southern frat boy look with bright polo, khakis, flip flops, and horrible sunglasses; on the other, skinny boys with beards with rugged boutique clothing.

    On paper, both could come under the American traditional look. In practice, they are . . . well, you get the point.

    I do like that there is more interest in American made clothing, but this hipster movement is marked by a surfeit of smugness and self-parody.
  4. hookem12387

    hookem12387 Advanced Member

    ^^ Just keep wearing what you've been wearing. This too shall pass
  5. redmanca

    redmanca Active Member with Corp. Privileges

    United States
    Hah! I love how wearing a 3/2 sack allows you to make judgments on people's usefulness.

    As if clothes have any connection with morality.

  6. Starch

    Starch Super Member

    United States
    Is "useless" a moral term?
  7. Trip English

    Trip English Honors Member

    United States
    Howz about this: we don't err on any side. We dress in a manner that's appropriate to our immediate situation. That means we don't build a treehouse in a 3 piece suit, don't stroll the boulevard in coveralls, or attend the opera in footie pajamas.

    My major beef with fashion is that it moves clothing into the abstract. That's fine for an art exhibit, but ridiculous otherwise. I even enjoy runway shows where the garments have truly moved beyond costumes into the absurd, but again, they have their place on the runway.

    If I'm walking the dogs through the woods I'm going to be in a macanaw cruiser. If I'm attending a cocktail party here in Greenwich, I'm likely to be in a shawl-collar tuxedo. If I'm at work I'll be in a blazer or a suit. In my workshop I'll be in a chambray shirt and dickies. The garments are contextually appropriate.

    (also, I wear a beard because I have a fat-bottomed head and the beard allows me to employ an optical illusion. I'm not letting my inner lumber-jack shine through)
  8. Mississippi Mud

    Mississippi Mud Senior Member

    United States
    I wear a beard because, as a comedian once suggested, I'd like to maintain the illusion that my hair is migrating to my face rather than abandoning me altogether.
  9. Starch

    Starch Super Member

    United States
    Strange as it may sound, that is an aspiration of mine.
  10. Trip English

    Trip English Honors Member

    United States
    Clothes have everything to do with morality! I, for example, wear a 1.75" cuff on my pants to indicate that I'm a remorseless sinner.

    The point of that comment is that if you're dressed like a lumberjack in SoHo, you probably have less than a passing acquaintance with trees and their many uses.

    As someone who works with, and has a tremendous respect for the building trades, it irritates me that someone can put on "workwear" and approximate, if only visually, the reverence associated with such garments. This is why I call them useless. They are impersonating people with tremendous societal value while having little or none themselves.

Share This Page