> I know what you are thinking: But Steve, leisure clothes are so
> comfortable. Maybe for you, but how about for the rest of us who have
> to look at you? When was the last time you walked down the streets
> and commented on how nice someone's Hard Rock Cafe T-shirt looked? Or
> when you noted how a person's fluffy white Reeboks complimented their
> ankles? I'll take a guess: Never.
>
> When a woman or man takes time to dress in the morning: Making sure
> their shoes are shined, their jacket pressed. Tying on a scarf or tie
> that picks up a color in their shirt or a line in their pinstripe.
> Checking themselves in the mirror to make sure the whole assemblage
> looks right before heading out the door. When a person does this they
> give a gift to the world; they are a walking piece of self-generated
> art. Sure it might hurt a little: the shoes pinch and the jacket is
> hot, but it's a selfless sacrifice. Such a person dress for the
> public, not merely for themselves.
>
> But what of the person dressed in comfort clothes? Who are they
> dressing for? An easy answer: themselves. We are used to calling
> those women and men who dress to the nines vain, condemning them for
> being obsessed with themselves. This gets it all wrong. It is the man
> and woman who dresses without a thought to what the rest of us on the
> street have to look at who is selfish. They give us nothing and
> themselves everything. Leisure wear is the manifestation of an
> alienated bourgeois individualism; the well turned out man or woman
> is the paragon of public, socialist virtue.
>
> [...]
====================
Ok but this makes clothes and access to fashion every bit as class based as fat. Jeans and Tees are working class art too, no?
Ian