 |
|
 |
 |
A remarkable social and cultural inversion has occurred in the last fifty years: where once culture was the monopoly of the upper classes, it now, more often than not, bubbles up from those on the ‘wrong side of the tracks’. This transformation has been especially evident in the world of style - with the authenticity of streetstyle challenging and then toppling the dictatorship of High Fashion.
STREETSTYLE ‘The street is both the stage upon which the drama unfolds and the bottom line metaphor for all that is presumed to be real and happening in our world today. In the past, ‘Western culture’ was most at ease and most recognisable within grand interiors. Today, as high culture has given way to popular culture, it is the litmus test of ‘street credibility’ that is crucial. If it won’t cut it on the corner, forget it.’ ‘Hanging out, is best done in the company of those from the wrong side of the tracks. Some low life is essential. That, and youth: juvenile delinquents. In the sense, the street is a dead end - the place to go when you aren’t old enough or rich enough to get in somewhere. But while practical necessity may make the street a last resort for some, it is precisely this quality which makes it so seductive for many who could be elsewhere. ‘Like holy relics, street style garments radiate the power of their associations. Every age uses dress and body decoration to signal what is most important at that historical moment. Throughout most of our history that message has been, ‘I am rich,’ or, ‘I am powerful.’ If today more and more people use their dress style to assert: ‘I am authentic,’ it is simply evidence of our hunger for a genuine article in and age which seems to so many to be one of simulation and hype.’ ‘Styles which start life on the street corner have a way of ending up on the backs of top models on the world’s most prestigious fashion catwalks. This shouldn’t surprise us because the authenticity which streetstyle is deemed to represent is a precious commodity. Everyone wants a piece of it. But it is more than the price tag which distinguishes the genuine article from its chic reinterpretation. It’s a question of context. And when fashion sticks its metaphorical gilt frame around a leather motorbike jacket, a Hippy kaftan, a pair of trainers, or a Ragga girl’s batty-riders, it transforms an emblem of subcultural identity into something which anyone with enough money can acquire and wear with pride.’ ‘Do new looks still begin life within high fashion and ‘trickle down’ for mass consumption? It is undoubtedly true that the mass-market ‘mainline’ fashion industry continues to take a lead from the more exclusive, highly priced designers. But do the creations we see on those exclusive, camera flash lit catwalks all originate in the minds of the world’s top designers? Not on the evidence that I see. To my eyes an increasingly frequent chain of events goes like this. First there is a genuine streetstyle innovation. This may be featured in a pop music video and street kids in other cities and countries may pick up on the style. Then, finally - at the end rather than the beginning of the chain - a ritzy version of the original idea makes an appearance as part of a top designers collection. Instead of trickle-down, bubble up. Instead of the bottom end of the market emulating the top end, precisely the reverse.’ ‘The implication and effects of the bubble-up process cannot be taken lightly. Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but just as the counterfeiting of fashion designers’ own designs undermines their value, something similar occurs when fashion copies streetstyle. That authenticity and sense of subcultural identity which is symbolised in streetstyle is lost when it becomes ‘this year’s latest fashion’ - something which can be purchased and worn without reference to its original subcultural meaning. In this sense, what may begin as a designer’s genuinely felt desire to celebrate ‘the street’ as a well-spring of fresh ideas may have the inadvertent effect of undermining the ‘street value’ of these styles for the very people who originally created them.’ ‘The history of streetstyle is a history of ‘tribes’. Zooties, Hipsters, Beats, Rockers, Hippies, Rude Boys, Punks . . . right up to today’s Goths, Emos and Gothic Lolitas are all subcultures which use a distinctive style of dress and decoration to draw a line between ‘us’ and ‘them’. What’s intriguing about this is the fact that such styletribes have blossomed and flourished at precisely that time in history when individuality and personal freedom have come to be seen as the defining features of our age. As Margaret Thatcher told us, ‘Today there is no such thing as society. There are just individuals and their families.’ And by and large this is one of the rare things she was right about. The old groupings of class, region, religion and ethnic background have decreased in importance, leaving the individual free to pursue life as he or she personally chooses. Why should anyone want to give up this freedom to join a group like a motorbike club? Or, on a larger scale, groups like Rockers, Mods, Hippies, Punks, Goths and Raggamuffins? My view is that the tribal imperative is and always will be a fundamental part of human nature. Like our most distant ancestors we feel alienated and purposeless when we do not experience this sense of belonging and comradeship. It is no coincidence that the decline of traditional social groupings which has intensified so markedly since the Second World War precisely parallels the rise of a new type of social group, the styletribe. Hipsters, Teddy Boys, Mods, Rockers and so forth arose to satisfy that need for a sense of community and common purpose which is so lacking in modern life.’ ‘Styletribes are marked out by a distinctive appearance style but their enormous scale and national or even international boundaries indicate a uniquely modern approach to ‘tribal’ identity. While all the members of a gang (or, for that matter, a ‘real’ tribe) know and are personally involved with each other, the vast majority of the members of styletribes are complete strangers - linked together by only reports in the media, pop music role models and by a shared style of dress and adornment.’ ‘But style isn’t just a superficial phenomenon. It’s the visible tip of something much greater. And encoded within its iconography are all those ideas and ideals which together constitute a (sub) culture. Like-looking is like-thinking and in this sense the members of a styletribe have a great deal in common.’ ‘Like all tribes, styletribes hope that they will be timeless, unchanging. It is this wish which leads the members of many styletribes to make use of the permanent body arts like tattooing. While mainstream society attempts to dismiss such subcultures as ‘just a fad’, those within them want to believe that their tribe will carry on ‘forever’. History, however, has frequently revealed the futility of this dream. ‘Punk’s Not Dead’ may have been the rallying cry heard a decade after Punk first began but by that time one was more likely (at least in Britain) to encounter Punks on postcards than in real life. It is easy to conclude, therefore, that Punk is just a passing fashion in a history of youthculture which is more often than not typified by transience. Such a view, however, does not entirely fit the facts. Firstly, the spirit of Punk is very much alive, to the extent that its style and attitude have influenced other contemporary styletribes and even mainstream culture. Secondly, in countries other than the UK - from Germany to Japan, the USA to Russia - small but flourishing Punk communities continue to exist. Finally, even in Britain, where media overkill and the stigma of classification as a tourist attraction had a negative effect in the 1980s, a new generation which was not even born when ‘Anarchy in the UK’ first appeared is producing a tiny but enthusiastic new Punk subculture. A similar story could be told regarding Teddy Boys, Mods, Rockers, Skinheads, Rockabillies, Hipsters, Surfers, Hippies, Rastafarians, Headbangers, Goths and many others. In traditional historical terms, it is still early days, but already it is clear that both individually and as a generic social phenomenon style tribes cannot be dismissed as something transitory. In practice as well as in hope, such groups and the appearance styles which they create to express their shared values and beliefs remain as an exception to the rule of our culture’s mercurial inclinations.’ ‘There are two basic moves in streetstyle: Dressing Up and Dressing Down. The predominantly middle-class Beatniks and Hippies illustrate the later tendency - using dress to make a symbolic descent of the socio-economic ladder in the interest of authenticity. The Zooties (or, today, many of the styles associated with Rap) illustrate the former. The zoot suit, with its extravagant use of expensive fabric and its luxurious accessories, loudly proclaimed the message: ‘I’ve got it made’. This message has an obvious attraction to the underprivileged. On the other hand, Dressing Down - historically, an unusual phenomenon - is only to be found in the midst of affluence.’ ‘The history of streetstyle is one of ever-increasing variety and personal choice. Back in the 1940s a young black man living in Harlem could choose between conventional attire and the zoot suit. In the same era a young white male in, say, Texas could step out in an embroidered western style shirt and a Stetson. But in both cases choice was limited either/or proposition - ‘normal’ dress versus one particular form of streetstyle. Multiple-choice options did not actually appear until the sixties (in Britain, for example, there were Mods or Rockers or dedicated follower of fashion) but even then the evidence shows that an individual’s socio-economic background often limited such choice (with Rockers tending to come from the working-class and Mods from lower-middle-class backgrounds). It was only after Punk in the late seventies that a rapid escalation in the number of styletribes left young people with a real range of options. These increased dramatically only a few years later in the wake of the New Romantics and there was a similar fragmentation of youth culture in the late eighties, when the rave scene splintered apart. The result was that by the start of the nineties streetstyle was characterised by an extraordinary heterogeneity. Hardcore Ravers, Technos, Cyberpunks, Travellers, Indie Kids, Skaters, B-Boys/Flygirls, Goths, Pervs, Grunge, Acid Jazzers, Raggamuffins, and so on were all viable subcultural options.’ ‘As fashion and the media have conspired to blur the boundaries between ‘them’ and ‘us’, the realisation has grown that the most significant line to be drawn in the sand is the one between those who have a genuine commitment to any and all subculture groups and those who simply treat such styletribes as an amusing joke and/or an inspiration for the latest fashion.’ ’In light of this realisation even the stylistic and ideological differences separating, for example, the Technos and the Travellers fell into insignificance and a common enemy was identified: all those who play at being ‘street’ but who are unwilling to make a serious commitment to a particular subculture. In this sense the Gathering of the Tribes represents the only appropriate response to our mainstream culture’s ever growing fascination with streetstyle and youthculture. (Which this book, of course, both reflects and promotes.)’ |
|
 |
 |
 |
| buy streetstyle @ AMAZON |
| www.pymca.com |
|
|
STREETSTYLE ‘The street is both the stage upon which the drama unfolds and the bottom line metaphor for all that is presumed to be real and happening in our world today. In the past, ‘Western culture’ was most at ease and most recognisable within grand interiors. Today, as high culture has given way to popular culture, it is the litmus test of ‘street credibility’ that is crucial. If it won’t cut it on the corner, forget it.’ [p.6] ‘Hanging out, is best done in the company of those from the wrong side of the tracks. Some low life is essential. That, and youth: juvenile delinquents. In the sense, the street is a dead end - the place to go when you aren’t old enough or rich enough to get in somewhere. But while practical necessity may make the street a last resort for some, it is precisely this quality which makes it so seductive for many who could be elsewhere. [p.7] ‘Like holy relics, street style garments radiate the power of their associations. Every age uses dress and body decoration to signal what is most important at that historical moment. Throughout most of our history that message has been, ‘I am rich,’ or, ‘I am powerful.’ If today more and more people use their dress style to assert: ‘I am authentic,’ it is simply evidence of our hunger for a genuine article in and age which seems to so many to be one of simulation and hype.’ [p.7] ‘Styles which start life on the street corner have a way of ending up on the backs of top models on the world’s most prestigious fashion catwalks. This shouldn’t surprise us because the authenticity which streetstyle is deemed to represent is a precious commodity. Everyone wants a piece of it. But it is more than the price tag which distinguishes the genuine article from its chic reinterpretation. It’s a question of context. And when fashion sticks its metaphorical gilt frame around a leather motorbike jacket, a Hippy kaftan, a pair of trainers, or a Ragga girl’s batty-riders, it transforms an emblem of subcultural identity into something which anyone with enough money can acquire and wear with pride.’ [p.8] ‘Do new looks still begin life within high fashion and ‘trickle down’ for mass consumption? It is undoubtedly true that the mass-market ‘mainline’ fashion industry continues to take a lead from the more exclusive, highly priced designers. But do the creations we see on those exclusive, cameraflash lit catwalks all originate in the minds of the world’s top designers? Not on the evidence that I see. To my eyes an increasingly frequent chain of events goes like this. First there is a genuine streetstyle innovation. This may be featured in a pop music video and street kids in other cities and countries may pick up on the style. Then, finally - at the end rather than the beginning of the chain - a ritzy version of the original idea makes an appearance as part of a top designers collection. Instead of trickle-down, bubble up. Instead of the bottom end of the market emulating the top end, precisely the reverse.’ [p.10] ‘The implication and effects of the bubble-up process cannot be taken lightly. Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but just as the counterfeiting of fashion designers’ own designs undermines their value, something similar occurs when fashion copies streetstyle. That authenticity and sense of subcultural identity which is symbolised in streetstyle is lost when it becomes ‘this year’s latest fashion’ - something which can be purchased and worn without reference to its original subcultural meaning. In this sense, what may begin as a designer’s genuinely felt desire to celebrate ‘the street’ as a well-spring of fresh ideas may have the inadvertent effect of undermining the ‘street value’ of these styles for the very people who originally created them.’ [p.12] ‘The history of streetstyle is a history of ‘tribes’. Zooties, Hipsters, Beats, Rockers, Hippies, Rude Boys, Punks . . . right up to today’s Travellers and Raggamuffins are all subcultures which use a distinctive style of dress and decoration to draw a line between ‘us’ and ‘them’. What’s intriguing about this is the fact that such styletribes have blossomed and flourished at precisely that time in history when individuality and personal freedom have come to be seen as the defining features of our age. As Margaret Thatcher told us, ‘Today there is no such thing as society. There are just individuals and their families.’ And by and large this is something she was right about. The old groupings of class, region, religion and ethnic background have decreased in importance, leaving the individual free to pursue life as he or she personally chooses. Why should anyone want to give up this freedom to join a group like a motorbike club? Or, on a larger scale, groups like Rockers, Mods, Hippies, Punks, Goths and Raggamuffins? My view is that the tribal imperative is and always will be a fundamental part of human nature. Like our most distant ancestors we feel alienated and purposeless when we do not experience this sense of belonging and comradeship. It is no coincidence that the decline of traditional social groupings which has intensified so markedly since the Second World War precisely parallels the rise of a new type of social group, the styletribe. Hipsters, Teddy Boys, Mods, Rockers and so forth arose to satisfy that need for a sense of community and common purpose which is so lacking in modern life.’ [p.14] ‘Styletribes are marked out by a distinctive appearance style but their enormous scale and national or even international boundaries indicate a uniquely modern approach to ‘tribal’ identity. While all the members of a gang (or, for that matter, a ‘real’ tribe) know and are personally involved with each other, the vast majority of the members of styletribes are complete strangers - linked together only reports in the media, by pop music role models and by a shared style of dress and adornment.’ [pp.14-15] ‘But style isn’t just a superficial phenomenon. It’s the visible tip of something much greater. And encoded within its iconography are all those ideas and ideals which together constitute a (sub) culture. Like-looking is like-thinking and in this sense the members of a styletribe have a great deal in common.’ [p.15] ‘Like all tribes, styletribes hope that they will be timeless, unchanging. It is this wish which leads the members of many styletribes to make use of the permanent body arts like tattooing. While mainstream society attempts to dismiss such subcultures as ‘just a fad’, those within them want to believe that their tribe will carry on ‘forever’. History, however, has frequently revealed the futility of this dream. ‘Punk’s Not Dead’ may have been the rallying cry heard a decade after Punk first began but by that time one was more likely (at least in Britain) to encounter Punks on postcards than in real life. It is easy to conclude, therefore, that Punk as just a passing fashion in a history of youthculture which is more often than not typified by transience. Such a view, however, does not entirely fit the facts. Firstly, the spirit of Punk is very much alive, to the extent that its style and attitude have influenced other contemporary styletribes and even mainstream culture. Secondly, in countries other than the UK - from Germany to Japan, the USA to Russia - small but flourishing Punk communities continue to exist. Finally, even in Britain, where media overkill and the stigma of classification as a tourist attraction had a negative effect in the 1980s, a new generation which was not even born when ‘Anarchy in the UK’ first appeared is producing a tiny but enthusiastic new Punk subculture. A similar story could be told regarding Teddy Boys, Mods, Rockers, Skinheads, Rockabillies, Hipsters, Surfers, Hippies, Rastafarians, Headbangers, Goths and many others. In traditional historical terms, it is still early days, but already it is clear that both individually and as a generic social phenomenon style tribes cannot be dismissed as something transitory. In practice as well as in hope, such groups and the appearance styles which they create to express their shared values and beliefs remain as an exception to the rule of our culture’s mercurial inclinations.’ [pp. 15-16] ‘There are two basic moves in streetstyle: Dressing Up and Dressing Down. The predominantly middle-class Beatniks and Hippies illustrate the later tendency - using dress to make a symbolic descent of the socio-economic ladder in the interest of authenticity. The Zooties (or, today, many of the styles associated with Rap) illustrate the former. The zoot suit, with its extravagant use of expensive fabric and its luxurious accessories, loudly proclaimed the message: ‘I’ve got it made’. This message has an obvious attraction to the underprivileged. Dressing Down - historically, an unusual phenomenon - is only to be found in the midst of affluence.’ [p. 17] ‘The history of streetstyle is one of ever-increasing variety and personal choice. Back in the 1940s a young black man living in Harlem could choose between conventional attire and the zoot suit. In the same era a young white male in, say, Texas could step out in an embroidered western style shirt and a Stetson. But in both cases choice was limited either/or proposition - ‘normal’ dress versus one particular form of streetstyle. Multiple-choice options did not actually appear until the sixties (in Britain, for example, there were Mods or Rockers) but even then the evidence shows that an individual’s socio-economic background often limited such choice (with Rockers tending to come from the working-class and Mods from lower-middle-class backgrounds). It was only after Punk in the late seventies that a rapid escalation in the number of styletribes left young people with a real range of options. These increased dramatically only a few years later in the wake of the New Romantics and there was a similar fragmentation of youth culture in the late eighties, when the rave scene splintered apart. The result was that by the start of the nineties streetstyle was characterised by an extraordinary heterogeneity. Hardcore Ravers, Technos, Cyberpunks, Travellers, Indie Kids, Skaters, B-Boys/Flygirls, Goths, Pervs, Grunge, Acid Jazzers, Raggamuffins, and so on were all viable subcultural options.’ [p. 128] ‘As fashion and the media have conspired to blur the boundaries between ‘them’ and ‘us’, the realisation has grown that the most significant line to be drawn in the sand is the one between those who have a genuine commitment to any and all subculture groups and those who simply treat such styletribes as an amusing joke and/or an inspiration for the latest fashion. In light of this realisation even the stylistic and ideological differences separating, for example, the Technos and the Travellers fell into insignificance and a common enemy is identified: all those who play at being ‘street’ but who are unwilling to make a serious commitment to a particular subculture. In this sense the Gathering of the Tribes represents the only appropriate response to our mainstream culture’s ever growing fascination with streetstyle and youthculture. (Which this book, of course, both reflects and promotes.) Whatever the cause, today’s Gathering of the Tribes has also had a profound effect within these subcultures themselves. Most intriguingly, it has had the effect of producing more rather than fewer styletribe options. For me, a useful (if obscure) analogy can be made with those huge experiments in physics which are currently being conducted in places like the C.E.R.N. facilities in Switzerland. As diverse, unlikely atoms are brought together they give off a host of tiny, often bizarre, sub-atomic particles. In a similar way, in ‘experimental research facilities’ like Megadog and Megatripolis, and at Spiral Tribe events, where radically different subcultures like the Travellers and the Ravers come into contact, the result is an exploding galaxy of tiny, sub-atomic microtribes.’ [p.129] ‘Such ‘narrow-casting’ of subcultural identities is exponentially increasing yet again the number and range of available options. Instead of homogeneous amalgamation into one mega-subculture, the Gathering of the Tribes has simply served to create a huge umbrella under which all sorts of previously untenable experiments can be conducted. Aside from its potential for the creation of an astounding number of new subcultures, what is truly remarkable about this situation is the non-hierarchical way in which all these groups relate to each other - with no one claiming a monopoly of wisdom and all open to further cross-fertilisation. Here is the Hippies’ New Age, the Punks’ Tribalism and the Technos’ and Cyberpunks’ post-industrial vision all rolled into one. At Megadog one sees the future . . . and it works.’ [p.129] |
|
 |
 |
|
|
BODYSTYLES ‘For creatures like ourselves who are the product of millions of years of evolution based upon and prompted by communal life, an anti-society ‘society’ where there are only ‘individuals and their families’ cannot be entirely satisfying. Many people have found this brave new world to be an unfulfilling, and from their desire has arisen a new ‘tribalism’ which seeks to create within the West new social groupings, each with its own form of ‘our costume’ to serve as a marker and symbol of socio-cultural identity. Although we are generally inclined to dismiss Punks, Skinheads, Teddy Boys, Rockers, Bikers, Hippies, Psychedelics, Rockabillies, Gothics and their distinctive styles of dress and adornment as ‘fads’, this is a misinterpretation of the phenomenon. Each such ‘cult’ is, in fact, a social and cultural entity and the attire of each such group is a traditional costume rather than a capricious fashion.’ [p.130] ‘As well as the youth culture style tribes which first became prominent in the period immediately after the 2nd World War, we now (1988) see the rise of styletribes which typically attract membership from the middle aged. As with the youthful groups the motivation seems to be the need for a sense of socio-cultural belonging and involvement in an age of collapsing or meaningless societal structures. These adult ‘tribes’ are stylistically and semiologically more subtle and (according to the aesthetic and ideological principles of ‘normal’ society) less disturbing and less visible, but they exist the same. The advertising industry - which cannot afford to make too many mistakes - has in recent years noted a drastic increase in ‘market segmentation’, the bottom line of which is that products today have to be aimed at particular factions within the overall population. Thus particular groups will buy products only in particular styles - styles which clearly reflect difference of world view. It would appear, therefore, that Western ‘society’, like some enormous protozoa, is in the process of sub-dividing into hundreds of different social groups, each with its own ideology, its own aesthetics and its own costume. For example, in the late 1980s we can identify the distinctive styles and value systems of Minimalists, Disco Glitzers, Cosy Countries, Executives, Fogies, Babytimers, Rugged Countries, Sporty Casuals and Woolies. Although it is usually assumed that style groups such as these are ‘fashions’, this is clearly not the case because (even though the media tends to spotlight them in a lineal sequence) they co-exist next to one another in social space. In any major Western city or suburb one can find, for example, a Minimalist couple living literally next door to a bunch of Fogies who, themselves, live above a pair of Disco Glitzers. And while fashion come and go, many of these people remain true to the aesthetics and ideology of their particular group - theoretically, ‘forever’. The roots of this phenomenon are located within the same disintegration of traditional community life which prompted the rise of the teenager ‘tribes’. Clearly, a great many people are finding that their nuclear family and career-based social networks are not (and here we clearly are talking about millions) providing a sufficient sense of social and cultural belonging and participation. Our response to this unsatisfactory situation is to try to create a ‘community’ of like-minded people ‘out there’, beyond the limits of our tiny and socio-culturally insignificant nuclear units. The entailments of this phenomenon are of enormous importance. Western ‘society’, despite itself, is once again becoming a narrow-cast world divided into innumerable communities - not, as once was the case, according to region, religion, class or ethnicity, but according to ideological difference as expressed in the semiotics of aesthetic principles. The fact that each of these groups possesses its own ‘timeless’ costume may, at first glance, seem like an insignificant part of this all-pervasive revolution, but it is, in fact, the trigger and focus of the entire phenomenon.’ [pp. 133-134] |
|
|
|
