Sure, but if they all end up looking similar to each other it’s still another form of fashion just not mainstream fashion. They are still signaling, consciously or subconsciously, that they are part of the in-group they want to associate with by the way they carry and dress themselves. It’s no different from what the Chads and Stacys, who they think are superficial, do.
Punks that dress in patched clothes do so because they don’t want to support the industry of sweat shops, exploited labor, and fast fashion. They’d rather buy something used and patch it forever.
That’s an example of an aesthetic that comes from an ethic.
Okay but how is a smelly nerd who buys Pokemon tshirts more ethical than a Stacy who buys clothing from Nordstrom they both participate in the same consooming behavior, pleasing their corporate overlords.
An aesthetic drawn from an ethic is the most authentic aesthetic possible
Sure, but if they all end up looking similar to each other it’s still another form of fashion just not mainstream fashion. They are still signaling, consciously or subconsciously, that they are part of the in-group they want to associate with by the way they carry and dress themselves. It’s no different from what the Chads and Stacys, who they think are superficial, do.
The difference is the ethic. Or lack thereof.
I’m not sure I know this use of the term ethic, but it sounds interesting. Care to define or illuminate?
Punks that dress in patched clothes do so because they don’t want to support the industry of sweat shops, exploited labor, and fast fashion. They’d rather buy something used and patch it forever.
That’s an example of an aesthetic that comes from an ethic.
Okay but how is a smelly nerd who buys Pokemon tshirts more ethical than a Stacy who buys clothing from Nordstrom they both participate in the same consooming behavior, pleasing their corporate overlords.
I don’t think either of those are lead by an ethic, and therefore they are both equally terrible
…unless the Pokémon shirt was purchased second hand