|
|
|
Novembris 18., 2011
![[info]](http://klab.lv/img/userinfo.gif) f | 22:08
Veblen argued that conspicuous waste accounted for change in
fashion, but he also believed in a 'native taste' (that is, some kind of
essential good taste) to which conspicuous wastefulness was
actually abhorrent. It is abhorrent, he argued, because it is a
'psychological law' that we all 'abhor futility' - and to Veblen the
stylistic oddities of fashion were manifestly futile. He explained
fashion changes as a kind of restless attempt to get away from the
ugliness of the imposed, irrational styles, which everyone instinct-
ively did recognize to be ugly. For Veblen, then, the motor force of
fashion was a wish, forever frustrated, finally to escape the tyranny of
irrational change and perpetual ugliness.
Fashion writers have never really challenged Veblen's explana-
tions, and his analysis still dominates to this day. Yet his theory
cannot account for the form that fashion changes take. Why did the
bustle replace the crinoline, the leg of mutton sleeve the sloping
shoulder?
|
Reply
|
|
|
|
|
Sviesta Ciba |