A photographer capturing subcultures that refuse to die
huckmagazine.com
huckmagazine.com
My grandma, tired of always putting on makeup (and not very good at it), paid to have her makeup tattooed to her face about 20 years ago. She requested "aqua" for the eye shadow color. The artist, having never tried to tattoo eye shadow, was concerned about "what if that color goes out of style?". My grandma just replied "I don't care".
Edit: Oh and tattooed make up always goes over well in a surgery room. "Excuse me ma'am, you were requested to have removed all your make up prior to surgery".... Good times.
The Lunatics looked like they had a wider age range than the British folks.
I can't speak for the "scene" anywhere but where I live, but you never really hear of skinheads in the US, and the handful I've ever seen are generally older (late thirties and up) and typically exist as a part of a punk scene. It's common enough to see a few older dudes in Fred Perry's with shaved heads at a show in my small southern city. I got to a lot of shows, see everything from a buncha street punks in spiky jackets bumming gas money to "feminist" punk bands but can't say I've seen a skinhead band come through.
As I said, I claim to know nothing about the "scene" anywhere but in my town, but at the very least the music hasn't died out. You still have major Oi! / skinhead adjacent acts like Cock Sparrer around, apolitical skins[1], and plenty of newer skinhead-esque bands[2][3]. Of course these are all in the UK / EU. Seems there are a few labels around, and the videos have good enough production values that I imagine there have to be a fair enough number of skins around to buy the records / merch. Seems some older, lesser known skinhead acts are on the same label as some of the aforementioned new ones, so there appears to be a bit of continuity. At least continuity beyond "art school hipsters."
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI2NYRhlM30
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK-GlWH3M7I
_______________
[1] This sorf of thing: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=battle+jacket&t=ffsb&atb=v100-7&ia...
May it always remain uncool and away from the fashionable mainstream.
I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw a guy probably in his 20s in Tokyo wearing a similar patch (same gang) in 2014 from a gang that has a notorious reputation in NZ (albeit largely subsided since the 90s with their loss of control and reputation all over NZ) and a standard "battle jacket" (first time I've heard them called that).
Pulling Metallica out of a hat as representative of any kind of metal, let alone "extreme metal", is a pretty big disservice to the genre's diversity and spectrum of appeal.
There is a lot more artistically varied and interesting metal out there. A lot more.
Personally, I care that the songs I like are memorable. Not that they are extreme.
As to how interesting they are to outsiders- so? Who cares? I listen to my stuff, you listen to yours. I won't even compare my music to others'. That's the kind of thing that gets you thinking about why you're not more fashionable and then you end up like modern-day Metallica.
I blame media demonization and the inherent distrust of everything that seems "different".
I just want to drink beer and listen to heavy music :-)
This deserves a separate comment.
I looked up Look What You Made Me Do on Wikipedia. It's a song by Taylor Swift. Its claim to offensiveness, as far as I can tell, is that there's a scene in the video of her in a bathtub with real diamonds. Presumably that's offensive in the sense that there are so many poor people in the world who can't afford a bathtub, let alone diamonds. In any case, the song was "offensive" enough to have a wikipedia page a mile long and to have topped the charts and reaped all sorts of awards.
You compare that to "Reload", an album that I also had to look up on account of it being from the period of Metallica's history that I find bland and boring. I had a thing with Meallica right up until "...And justice for all". After that, they might as well have beeen Taylor Swift for all I cared. I know a lot of people in the US consider Metallica metal because they once were metal incarnate. However, these days they're just wet noodles.
As to how "offensive" Taylor Swift or Metallica are- like I say in another comment, who cares? Maybe I enjoyed being offensive and doing offensive stuff when I was 14. I have grown up somewhat since then. I still listen to my Metal. There must be something else there, don't you think?
Or I'm just a very boring person, of course. It must be all the computers.
[0](http://www.metalinjection.net/fashion/did-hm-create-fake-und...)
Although, for all I know, there probably is.
Stay trve \m/
Spearhead
I mostly agree. However, there are biological and economical reasons for this that are deeply anchored, such as for example that it allows us to more easily distinguish friend from foe, and almost instantly skip forward a few leaps in trust levels when communicating.
Generally speaking, of course.
Exactly - the clothes make the man
Fashion is a way to signal that you are high(er) status. It's almost definitional that unfashionable things will be looked down on.
The fashion industry like the luxury automobile industry or the art industry is based around selling status. Unfashionableness an industry release cycle designed around planned obsolesce.
I don't think people ridiculing others for their fashion choices is all that common past teenage years, but I may be wrong.
Looking at the subjects of this article, I don't get the feeling that they are dressing unfashionably - on the contrary, they are making extremely specific and thoughtful fashion choices, probably spending more time and thought on it than people that just go and grab whatever the latest thing is on Zara racks.
You may be surprised, but even grandma-old-style can be very fashionable. Fashion is very much about who is wearing it, why, and how. It may not matter as much "what" you're wearing, as "why" - like modern art in some ways.
Fashion is basically another non-verbal communication channel we humans use to signal a large number of clues to fellow members of the species.
Try walking around as a man in a dress in 95% of the US.
But the parent comment did provide further context:
> Fashion is very much about who is wearing it, why, and how.
So wearing a dress is fine if the person wearing it is willing to concede at every moment that they're being socially deviant. The moment that you just wear a dress and make no attempt to justify yourself in terms of larger culture is when things get bad. Wearing a dress and acting like it's no big deal is an affront to the logic of someone who knows for a fact what you're doing is deviant..and they're convinced that you deep down know it too. You're more or less saying they think wrong in a very fundamental way. That gets people very upset.
If you saw a guy in otherwise ordinary circumstances wearing a dress and didn't think it was unusual, well, you lack situational awareness.
There's also the utilikilt...
You don't even have to be a mod, rocker, or any of these subcultures. You can be an old bloke on a Segway rocking a Fubu shirt and cargo pants and completely transcend the streetscape.
My favourite stylish people integrate a sense of fun and playfulness to what they wear, but I think the most defining element of style is risk. Having the balls to say you're different.
While still conforming.
An overweight guy walking around in a loincloth is not going to 'work' for ya even if it may have been in fashion at one point.
FWIW I see lots of people in their 20s dressed as grandmas (at least in major US cities).
If they dressed like theirs, they'd be unfashionably outdated. If they dressed like yours, they're rediscovering new old fashion trends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countersignaling https://www.balenciaga.com/us/men/ready-to-wear
Sceptics sometimes consider the fashion lifecycle to be some kind of artificial conspiracy made up by the industry to create demand, but I think it is more an emergent phenomenon of human interaction that could only ever be subdued by extreme scarcity or by draconian regulation (e.g. rules applying to lower classes in many feudal society).
These subcultures would probably have much less interest and much higher turnover rates if they weren't considered different and ridiculed for it.
That's part of the appeal. The pressure applied from the outside makes the members of the "we-dress-this-way" club feel closer to each other.
Not that it's an inflation of ego, but knowing you can convince others of your intelligence regardless of your physical appearance is a healthy challenge.
A conformist feels on a gut level that you're doing something "for attention" and resents you for that.
Of course even if that were true such resentment is ridiculous. But to me I think there is always an element of "cultural challenge" in non-conformity (even if say 99% of a man wearing a dress is deeply personal choice).
On a semi-regular basis I see people unironically dressed as cowboys, Merlin-style wizards, lumberjacks, semi-mythical shamans with skull-topped staffs, wearing nothing but a speedo and work boots, barefoot flower-power hippies, in kilts, with vest and shoes covered in gold sequins/glitter, in Victorian coats and top hats and monocles, men in dresses and heels, women in tuxedos, old men dressed like teenage goths with purple nails, etc. etc.
Pretty much anything goes.
I struggle every day with the mask I put on for others+. Embarrassment or shame over my own hobbies or interests, even when there's nothing to be embarrassed or shamed by. To witness those people living their lives on their terms like that...it makes me tear up just thinking about it. No, seriously. I'm close to crying right now. How great it would be to be in such an environment where people felt completely free to be themselves. Maybe I could take it in by osmosis.
+ And I have it easy -- I'm straight, white, cis.
The northeastern USA is wonderful in its own way, and I found it more livable than the Bay, but the wonderful weirdness of San Francisco can't help but make me feel wistful.
For me personally, and sorry for my view if it displeases someone, people of fashion look like they’re selling something in more way than others. This is because I met maybe too many people of fashion and/or subculture who really didn’t found their way yet and too many generic-looking men who are invaluable in their experience and deeds. I’m aware that this view is just a false negative that sometimes happens true or positive.
I think the modern world is dehumanizing and alienating to a lot of people, and they're just struggling to try to find themselves - these subcultures, perfecting "the look" - are a way of feeling unique and special. They're a thing to have pride in. They're tribal in a way that's self-determined, making them both more welcoming and less prone to the kinds of charismatic capture that bring an end to "tribes". On the other hand, that makes them more ephemeral than blood-tribes - there's no permanent tie.
There's an interesting contrast with those blood-tribes, though. What happens when you leave? Leaving groups is common - questioning your very identity is something everyone should do, frequently. But it's also hard and painful. I think there's a lot in common with the people in this recent article about leaving cults: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16198465
Ultimately, I believe associating too strongly with an identity is really harmful, that you're vulnerable to both being manipulated and to losing your faith, in yourself and humanity. It's hard to prove, though; there's only anecdata, and much of that is dirtied by people trying desperately to convince themselves that they're okay and that if only everyone tried it they could see how great their cult is.
I was immediately reminded that the US itself ranks pretty high on the Hofstede masculinity index:
https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/the-usa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstede's_cultural_dimensions...
Anyone else thought about "spending all his money on film"? :-D
That is also a statement in and of itself these days. Anyone capturing pictures with film cameras instead of digital these days, is doing so very deliberately.
What's left of the music scene seems to have been subsumed into metal (which is fine, the metal crowd are decent people, if a little uncouth ;)
And those that really enjoyed the dress-up aspects of it have meandered into steampunk.
Also, in my experience, if someone puts a lot of effort into their superficial image or appearance, they tend to be boring and uninteresting underneath that, which makes sense.
Some of the most interesting artists and musicians I know also put a lot of effort into their personal appearance. I don't think attention to appearance is correlated with depth of personality in any real way.
I'd say someone like Daniel Lismore[1] is doing interesting stuff there. But the people in the article, replicating the standardized patterns, its like they are making themselves into those paintings that come in rental flats.
Also why strive to turn yourself, which is all you have, into a thing? Like, you may as well instead decide to be a post-box and sit on the street accepting peoples mail. It seems like such a big sacrifice to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om0MrCOXPcE
In my opinion, the ur-example of living art is the incomparable Gilbert and George. It's simply impossible to separate Gilbert from George from the work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDgch7UzRf8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL86-gH3dg0
If I were to pick a stand-out contemporary example, I'd name That Poppy.
Because art is often more interesting when it's constrained. Almost all art forms have genres, movements, etc.
Why speak english and not invent your own language? Clothing and appearance is (also) communication. And to be understood, some of the signals must be common enough.
I belong to this community, to this generation, to this area/country, to this social class, etc... It can also project ideologies, affiliations and aspirations. Once upon a time for example, in Western Europe, some intellectuals adopted the Mao suit. It was a very strong political statement.
Moreover in many cases I doubt your assertion that these styles are random is true. There is a history behind most of them, and this is what imparts them meaning.
I would imagine we must have some systems for interpreting information about other humans from their accoutrements, but I would also imagine that they surely cannot be as highly developed as our language, as the technology to have different 'styles' or even clothes at all is relatively recent. Also as a bit of anecdotal evidence I present that, any healthy human growing up around at least one other human will develop a spoken language, or adopt the language of their peers. In contract there are examples of people growing up in societies with clothes and style who do not develop any particular style sense.
So I posit that this style language is relatively limited and only certain pre-arranged messages determined by society can be communicated by it. Also it seems extremely prone to misinterpretation . Both parties must be aware of, and agree on, the pre-arranged signals for it to work.
Which is why I personally dont even consider it. With such a limited and error prone language how could I accurately communicate anything meaningful, or personal, or that I particularly value, about myself. Also why would I would I want to blast out this signal to all and sundry?
So, assuming you're a man (bear with me if you aren't): are you so open-minded and rational that you do consider female clothes in your shopping too? Do you look at women's watches and glasses too? Do you often wear pink?
Here is my guess: you don't. You may think you're completely disconnected from the social cues inherent in clothing/accessories, that you consider clothes as purely functional. But chances are, in practice, you really don't. Signalling your gender "to all and sundry" as you put it, is one of the major non-verbal cues that clothes provide. It's part of those "random pre-designated styles" and is taught from a young age, and understood by everyone. Your tastes reflect that, whether you consciously acknowledge it or not.
You don't see men in robes, for example, in modern western cultures, whatever their potential comfort/utility/beauty, they simply are not considered for men in day-to-day life. Even though, there were periods and cultures where they were perfectly fine for men to wear.
Though quite recently I started mountaineering and discovered the specialized clothing for that. Its the 1st time Ive ever been interested in clothes, the feature-list on them greatly surpasses anything else. Eg A jacket which is water resistant, breathable, wind-resistant, tear resistant, very light, flexible and comfortable, affording a full range of motion, with lots of pockets and also adjustable vents. Though I am a small man and have actually bought a womens jacket cus it fit better and was cheaper.
It's far too dangerous to wear a skirt outside as a man so I wouldn't do it. I as a person don't care much for clothing beyond physical well being/comfort/utility but society is very judging and a times very dangerous for certain choices.
http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html
Also read my OP more carefully. I never suggested that I judged or made assumptions about people based on their appearance.
As you grow, I think you need less and less of it. I still self-identify in ways that I don't actively practice. But more and more I think of my identity as an accident of circumstance populated by an accidental consciousness without much that makes it unique except my particular ordering of vices. I also don't see what making a big show of belonging would buy me now, in a world so completely ambiguous and shaded in grey that it feels like any positive statement can be twisted into some horror and our only refuge is a constant state of agreeable equivocation.
Maybe if enough of us see it this way, we can turn this perspective into a stylistic pre-designation and await an enriching conformity.