Streetwear as a subculture

[1990]

Hey, Im writing a paper for my critical studies class on streetwear as a subculture. Something that has its own slang, dresscode, followers etc. Are there any articles on streetwear any could link to? Or any books (other then the book streetwear since it comes out in november) i should check out?

Also if people could list the streetwear slang in here like deadstock,hypebeast, sneakerhead etc. would be very helpful. thanks.

[SSBSTS]

Also if people could list the streetwear slang in here like deadstock,hypebeast, sneakerhead etc. would be very helpful. thanks.

write your own paper

[phoking153]

i dont think there are much, if any, books or online resources that talk about street wear, especially in a sociological perspective, which i think is what you are looking for. i tried looking myself because it is something i find interesting but no luck.

i did an informative speech about street wear in one of my classes and i basically had to draw on my experiences, opinions, and knowledge rather than a third party source to do it, which is something you might have to do as well. if you identify as a member of that subculture, one of the best resources should be yourself. i think streetwear or street cultures (what influences street wear), means different things to different people so you might to write about it how you perceive it.

good luck

[RUBYRHODSOHIP]

^Wiki and look up Dunks

[Tronics]

write your own paper

Seconded.

[ackbar]

"streetwear" is peripheral to a number of true pre-existing, actually important, subcultures

[yao.bling]

maybe look a little bit.

http://www.hypebeast.com/2007/03/streetwear-the-book-by-steven-vogel/

[rasclaaat]

Hey, Im writing a paper for my critical studies class on streetwear as a subculture. Something that has its own slang, dresscode, followers etc. Are there any articles on streetwear any could link to? Or any books (other then the book streetwear since it comes out in november) i should check out?

Also if people could list the streetwear slang in here like deadstock,hypebeast, sneakerhead etc. would be very helpful. thanks.

someone gets on this forum and asks a variation on your question every few months now. if you search the threads you'll find some answers.

[scotchTAPE]

this might help a little CLICK ME I'M CLICKABLE (http://www.hypebeast.com/2007/03/streetwear-the-book-by-steven-vogel/)!

[jawnly211]

im sure the kid needs references.........that's why he is asking for sources

i doubt there are any "texts" written on the subject.......by thetime it gets published, it will be "played out" by the beasters

your best bet is to just take quotes here and there from webpages, interviews, and blogs.........that's the only editorials you will find on the topic...........maybe toss in pics and stories about the annual trade shows like MAGIC...........

good luck with your paper

[phoking153]

if you need to write about something that requires references, i suggest focusing on a specific sub / street culture that influences street wear or choose another subculture.

WOW, THE DEFINITION OF SUBCULTURE IS THAT BROAD? WHO WOLD HAVE THOUGH KIDS IN WYOMING BUYING 10 DEEP TEE SHIRTS OFF EBAY WERE PART OF A MOVEMENT?

And yes, the definition of subculture is that broad. Sneakers, car racing, video games, bikers, jeans, tattoos are all considered subcultures too so i don't see how "street wear" is any different. In my opinion, "street wear" is more of a generalized extension of styles / fashions of various street / sub cultures influenced by common values.

And technically what you said could be considered a part of a movement with definition of subculture you are referring to, if the action has symbolic meaning and the person who does the action intentional to convey that meaning. In this case, buying a tee shirt from an "independent company" can be viewed as expressing distaste or displeasure towards corporations, an entity that is heavily integrated into our hegemonic culture. However since you said kids in America, chances are they will not see it that way, and therefore it would not be considered a part of a movement.

[Fauxreal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/fashion/21STREET.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=a0ac0df4136a8b9c&ex=1324357200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/magazine/30brand.html?ex=1179892800&en=313eda10004a8241&ei=5070
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/27/fashion/thursdaystyles/27PRINTS.html?ex=1303790400&en=3072dcd36a6f3f4b&ei=5089

[rasclaaat]

shopping is hardly a subculture. this all grew out of what USED to be a subculture. now it's just mainstream. think about it. every city worth a crap has a sneaker store and clothing boutique...

[camthraxFHK]

Yeah, NYT is a gold mine. Look up line ups at supreme, sneakerpimp.com and the nelly AF1 hype in there.

[1990]

write your own paper

Thanks for your input but it doesnt really help. And to all who posted about stephen vogels book you must not have seen that i had mentioned its not released till november and im doing the paper this week.

thank you very much phoking

and to those who mentioned magic thank you for jarring my memory

[Wendy Pefferco]

Streetwear is not a subculture. There is plenty of different subcultures making up "streetwear." If you need to come on the internet to find out about "streetwear," which generally means something along the lines of being in the streets or having street knowledge. As it was referred to in the early-mid 90's. Clothing brands were referred to as "streetwear" because they were outcasts and also handled things much more "street" than the corporate companies beginning to consume the market. If your looking on a corny website to reference street, which is visited by people that don't even live in towns with streets, I think you've come to the wrong place.

[LA Casual]

Try searching on New York Times & LA times website...Maybe even the wall street journal... I remember reading articles on street wear/ t-shirt biz etc. That would be a good place to start looking.

As far as positioning yourself on the paper here are some thoughts that you might want to address.. "Street wear" is a growing segment of "fashion" as it is becoming more acceptable to wear casual clothing even to events that were once considered formal. Remember when people were started rocking sneakers with suits. Its come a long way since then. Now you can rock $100 plus hoodie to a club and look like you belong. As this market expands there will be a tons of companies that pop up to try and get a piece of the action. The term "street wear" itself will continually be redefined as the game grows. I find a lot of parallels to HIP HOP/RAP in general. You should probably discuss how the internet might have an effect on retail and companies in general. I think it will be difficult to write a paper on just the slang, codes, & following if you don't talk about what street wear/culture is and especially since there is no real establishment of those things.

Good luck on that paper. Do your research and really think about it. I'd be interested to see what you write.

[yao.bling]

And to all who posted about stephen vogels book you must not have seen that i had mentioned its not released till november and im doing the paper this week.

again, maybe look a little bit.

http://www.thameshudson.co.uk/en/1/9780500286777.mxs?df762023f346bc75745ba571ca458340&0&0&0

but since you need info this week.... just educate yourself by reading blogs and forums.

[mize2DX]

It all Starts with HIP HOP !!

[phoking153]

shopping is hardly a subculture. this all grew out of what USED to be a subculture. now it's just mainstream. think about it. every city worth a crap has a sneaker store and clothing boutique...

Sorry I would have to disagree. Although I agree street wear been heavily co-opted by the mainstream, it doesn't deny the fact that street wear is a subculture. The ideas and values of a subculture tend to get lost and compromised when its co-opted, but it doesn't make it any less of a subculture. Shopping culture is called "consumer culture." And with "street wear", shopping is only an aspect of the subculture as it is for sneakers and "street wear."

The fact that we're on a forum dedicated to "street wear" where people share their interests to me is a sign of a subculture. Sneakers are considered a subculture so I don't see how "street wear" is any different. Subcultures aren't only defined by music genres, which seems to be the popular stereotypical definition of a subculture. Subcultures can be much broader as opposed to a counterculture, which is more narrowly defined.

I agree "street wear" is influenced by various street cultures. But "street wear" as a subculture is something that is fairly new compared to the street cultures that influence it, mainly because of the Internet. It may not be something that is recognized in books or in the media as a legitimate subculture, but all the components and signs of a subculture are there. Just because you don't see it that way or identify with it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You gotta remember cultures consists of systems of symbols and meaning, and even the label "street wear" in itself is very symbolic in what represents even if that meaning may not be clear to everyone. Not everyone sees "street wear" the same way.

I can go on and on, but you guys get the point.

[homi]

"streetwear" is peripheral to a number of true pre-existing, actually important, subcultures

word, well said

it is simply another manifestation of consumer culture, but one which the membership is much smaller and focused

[homi]

phoking did make a great post however the constant influx of kids coming in who think they can buy cool without the attitude and style needed to truly be "unique" are what make me more pessimistic

[1990]

phoking dropping some serious knowledge. it amazes me how these kids eat it up but dont want to look at it for what it really is.

[SprNtrl]

If your still in need of sources, have you tried hitting up the owners of streetwear brands?

[rasclaaat]

Sorry I would have to disagree. Although I agree street wear been heavily co-opted by the mainstream, it doesn't deny the fact that street wear is a subculture. The ideas and values of a subculture tend to get lost and compromised when its co-opted, but it doesn't make it any less of a subculture. Shopping culture is called "consumer culture." And with "street wear", shopping is only an aspect of the subculture as it is for sneakers and "street wear."

The fact that we're on a forum dedicated to "street wear" where people share their interests to me is a sign of a subculture. Sneakers are considered a subculture so I don't see how "street wear" is any different. Subcultures aren't only defined by music genres, which seems to be the popular stereotypical definition of a subculture. Subcultures can be much broader as opposed to a counterculture, which is more narrowly defined.

I agree "street wear" is influenced by various street cultures. But "street wear" as a subculture is something that is fairly new compared to the street cultures that influence it, mainly because of the Internet. It may not be something that is recognized in books or in the media as a legitimate subculture, but all the components and signs of a subculture are there. Just because you don't see it that way or identify with it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You gotta remember cultures consists of systems of symbols and meaning, and even the label "street wear" in itself is very symbolic in what represents even if that meaning may not be clear to everyone. Not everyone sees "street wear" the same way.

I can go on and on, but you guys get the point.

Ya and moms who are into flowers have forums for the shit they buy too. that don't make it a subculture. don't get it twisted dawwwg. i live off this shit but i'm not going to toot the whole game's horn by saying "oohh we're part of a subculture" no...if you are human you buy clothes. if you happen to like streetwear great, don't mean anything special though. Just like if you only happened to listen to jazz...and buy jazz..doesn't make you part of a subculture. shopping and culture are two different things. it's fine to say street wear WAS a subculture or CAME from one or is INSPIRED by them perhaps...but beyond that is just getting a little carried away.

[TheFlash]

I think streetwear has less to do with hip hop then it does skateboarding, and Stussy was a major part of the beginnings of it too

[phoking153]

it's possible for there to be a subculture for mom who are into flowers. maybe you need to look up "subculture" because i dont think you know what it means. try wikipedia... they even have a list of subcultures as examples and you'd be surprised what you find on there.

it doesn't make any logical sense how you said its fine to say "street wear" WAS a subculture but deny that it exists because you just countered your argument. like i said before, just because something becomes mainstream, doesn't change the fact that it is a subculture. values and ideas get compromised for money and profit but the original true subculture still exist to those originally identify with the subculture for what it is. so with your reasoning, hip hop is not a subculture, punk is not a subculture, skateboarding is not subculture, any every other possible culture that WAS a subculture before it was co-opted into the mainstream is no longer a subculture.

you can look at a painting and see it as just some canvas with paint on it, but to other people they may see it as art that communicates some idea or message. in order words, just because you don't see it a certain way, it doesn't mean that aren't others who see it for what it really is. if what im saying is too abstract or complicated for you to understand, i suggest you ignore everything i've ever said and just continue on with your life with the same blind fold you came in here with. we all have our opinions and thats fine, but i don't you think you have a good understanding what it is that you are arguing.

i agree 1990, it is sad these days that kids just take things for face value, without thinking or questioning it, and think its fine to be ignorant. they think life is all about flaunting money and looking "cool." but as much as we want to blame them individually, a big part of the problem lies in the hegemonic culture in which they are a part and the values that they adopt through the media and popular culture.

[rasclaaat]

it's possible for there to be a subculture for mom who are into flowers. maybe you need to look up "subculture" because i dont think you know what it means. try wikipedia... they even have a list of subcultures as examples and you'd be surprised what you find on there.

it doesn't make any logical sense how you said its fine to say "street wear" WAS a subculture but deny that it exists because you just countered your argument. like i said before, just because something becomes mainstream, doesn't change the fact that it is a subculture. values and ideas get compromised for money and profit but the original true subculture still exist to those originally identify with the subculture for what it is. so with your reasoning, hip hop is not a subculture, punk is not a subculture, skateboarding is not subculture, any every other possible culture that WAS a subculture before it was co-opted into the mainstream is no longer a subculture.

you can look at a painting and see it as just some canvas with paint on it, but to other people they may see it as art that communicates some idea or message. in order words, just because you don't see it a certain way, it doesn't mean that aren't others who see it for what it really is. if what im saying is too abstract or complicated for you to understand, i suggest you ignore everything i've ever said and just continue on with your life with the same blind fold you came in here with. we all have our opinions and thats fine, but i don't you think you have a good understanding what it is that you are arguing.

i agree 1990, it is sad these days that kids just take things for face value, without thinking or questioning it, and think its fine to be ignorant. they think life is all about flaunting money and looking "cool." but as much as we want to blame them individually, a big part of the problem lies in the hegemonic culture in which they are a part and the values that they adopt through the media and popular culture.

Wow. No need to insult my intelligence there buddy...Maybe I was just playing Devil's advocate, or maybe I think that once something goes mainstream, it's arguably no longer a subculture. The wikipedia page you mentioned even states that the mainstream appropriation of a subculture may result in its death.

On top of that, I fail to see how purchasing a clothing product gives you membership in a subculture. That's why I said it's just shopping...just fashion...

hip hop is more like big business than a subculture...

define this subculture called street wear you speak of

[phoking153]

I apologize, I'm glad you are playing Devil's advocate because I want people to challenge my ideas and opinions. But I think I might have to explain where I'm coming from... and sorry IT'S GOING TO BE LONG. And for anyone else reading, IGNORE it if you don't want a different perspective on street wear other than just to be "cool."

The way I see it, clothing is a reflection of culture. The choice of clothing can be interpreted symbolically to communicate ideas, values, messages, emotion, etc, even it is not so obvious to the person wearing it or the people who sees it. In other words, clothing is a form of symbolic communication. Just as people use a variety of channels to express themselves: Singing, rapping, painting, writing, dancing, etc. For me, it is clothing.

Now with "street wear," for me, I interpret the clothing as symbolic of anti-hegemonic values that come from the street cultures that influence it. Of course technically "street wear," or clothes worn by members of a specific street culture, has been around as long as the street cultures that influence it. But like I said, I see the "street wear" subculture as a generalized extension of the styles and clothing of the street cultures that influence the type of clothing, with help of the Internet of course.

I mean, when you think of "street," you think of low / working class, delinquent, outsiders, poor, crime, etc, which is the opposite of the glamorous, superficial life portrayed in mainstream, popular culture. That is why I say even in the label itself, it can be interpreted as symbolic.

For me personally, my identity with "street wear" as a subculture is to express my anti-corporate, anti-capitalistic views of the hegemonic culture. To be honest, I got into "street wear" because of the hype 3 years back and in no way did I think critically about what I was getting into compared to now. But as you learn more about the truth of the way our country works, your perspective of everything changes.

But now the problem is, are there any other people who see "street wear" as a subculture the same way I do? Most people won't, because like you pointed out, it has become so mainstream. The reason why I do is because I do identify with it as a subculture and I do feel there are very few others who do. Just as many well known street artists participated in a youth subculture to express themselves, this generalized "street wear" subculture I identity with is my outlet. Of course, most people reading this will probably think I'm over analyzing it because to them, it's just shopping.

And for what you were saying, purchasing a clothing product doesn't automatically give you membership into a subculture. It only does if the person buying it recognizes that there is a subculture, understands and relates to the values associated with that subculture, and intentional buys it to express those values shared within the subculture. However if these conditions are not met, it'll just be perceived as nothing more than just "shopping," as it usually is.

I agree, hip hop has become a big business to the point where it is seen as just a way of making money rather than a legitimate art form that could be used for positive things as opposed to flaunting money and objectifying women.

Sorry for the long response, but if you haven't noticed already, sociology is something that interests me and something I plan to study in grad school, specially so I can study youth subcultures. But my goal is to present people with another perspective no matter how crazy it sounds. Feel free to disagree, I'm ready but please be intelligent about it.

[DrewDogg]

And for what you were saying, purchasing a clothing product doesn't automatically give you membership into a subculture. It only does if the person buying it recognizes that there is a subculture, understands and relates to the values associated with that subculture, and intentional buys it to express those values shared within the subculture. However if these conditions are not met, it'll just be perceived as nothing more than just "shopping," as it usually is.


exactly. right there.

"street wear" is very much a subculture imo as well.

that's why it really appeals to me, if you have an understanding of what you're wearing, you know it's not corporate and it reflects certain values and interests. Your values and interests, i hope. if not, you really are just wearing it for the look.

and yes, it is just shopping in a sense, but if you look at the grand scale of it going "mainstream", there aren't that many people buying these clothes, and even fewer buying it with an understanding of what it is. the demographic is quite small compared to others.

"street wear" can be compared to hip hop in the sense of there are those that know the history of the music, the true roots of that genre, and understand the true culture. these people may not necessarily have even been born yet, in the heyday of hip hop, but they make the effort and learn what it's about. BUT there are those that just see shit on MTV and jump-on blindly for the cool factor.

same goes for "street wear". you have those who have an understanding of what it is. and you have those that jumped on cause they saw jeezy wearing it. but does the fact that bandwagoners exist, take away the subculture status of "street wear"? everybody that has an understanding of "street wear" are now reduced to having a knowledge of just shopping? i don't believe so. and as for the community of brands out there, i don't believe they think so either.

anyway, if that was a bit incoherent, sorry. I'm no phoking.

[rasclaaat]

You are both wrong. Sorry but what you know about hip hop is either something you have imagined or something that mainstream media has allowed you to think you learned.

I still don't see a good definitive definition for street wear here. You can hardly argue that something is a subculture if you can't define it at all.

Street wear can't just be the brands you think are cool. So define it properly and maybe we'll actually have an interesting debate going here. Otherwise it's just a lot of hot air and your personal opinions (apparently formed in the last three years). My interest in street wear is closer to 15 years, almost ten of which I've been living off of it so i'm probably a lot more invested in it than any of you "street wear is a subculture" types. I have seen it change so much that i've come to realize it is essentially just business. If you are a customer, it doesn't make you part of a subculture...it makes you a customer.

Don't get me wrong: I am into this for a lot of the same reasons you are. But you have to separate your ideals and feelings from the reality of the situation. I was expecting someone to define this so-called subculture by the brands they like, which would be interesting as it brings up the question of where do you draw the line? Is Stussy in this subculture? Is Live Mechanics? If not, why? Because that reveals that a lot of people consider the subculture to contain only the brands they think is cool. In fact, this is a niche industry, with participants who you may not think are cool, anti-hegemonic, or the like

[phoking153]

Exactly, Thanks DrewDogg for your input.

You don't have to look at as symbolically and in-dept as I do to appreciate it and identify with it as a subculture. My theory is there are different levels of participate of a subculture depending on just how much of subculture you identify and agree with the values. If you really take an effort to learn about the history and the values of a subculture, that demonstrates another level of participation. As long as it reflects your certain values and interests that are synonymous with what you are cultural consuming, then you are very well part of the subculture.

One component of subcultures are norms, which this I believe is one of them. I'm sure many of you see people post this, or some version of it, all the time which is, "Buy what you like, and not for the hype." When members within this "streetwear" subculture see this norm being violated, that is what a lot of people will tell that person to reinforce that norm.

Shopping is to most people is simply just shopping. When I brought up consumer culture in earlier posts, notice how I didn't say "consumer subculture." The reason is because consumerism and materialism are some of the mainstream values that are within the hegemonic or more specifically American culture, which create what we call the consumer culture. To people, shopping is just shopping because the act of "buying" something that is taken for granted and they don't think twice about if it really has any significance. It is accepted as normal behavior with in the culture.

Like DrewDogg mentioned, if you look at the big picture, there aren't that many people buying "street wear" clothes. And like Homi said, it is a manifestation of consumer culture, it is smaller and more specific which is what makes it a subculture of the larger consumer culture. So when something like "street wear" gets mainstream exposer to people who have no idea what its all about, they adopt it and tend to apply the mainstream values they have taken for granted. So when a subculture gets co-opted or appropriated into the mainstream, values get compromised for these mainstream values. As a result, that is why people can consume "street wear" and just see it as shopping. That example is a little extreme, because not everyone in the country are sheep that blindly follows and not think at all, but they do exists.

A lot of what I'm saying is not restricted to just "street wear" as a subculture as DrewDogg did a good job of explaining. The things I mention apply to a lot of youth subcultures especially Hip Hop as since has been extremely absorbed by the mainstream for quite sometime. You don't have to be a Hop Hop expert, and know everything single thing about it, to identity with it as a subculture. As long as you can see it for what it really is, relate to it, and make an effort to, then you are a part of the subculture.

[phoking153]

All good, I do disagree but at least I know where you're coming from.

The definition as I see street wear is just clothing, style, fashion influenced by various street cultures, which I think I mentioned a few times before.

Just so you know, I'm trying to make my argument from a sociological perspective with hints of my opinions and my ideas. If it doesn't seem that way, I apologize but it's not like I made up a lot of concepts and theories on my own, they are based on sociology.

I don't deny that "street wear" is a business, but it is possible to make a living for what you are passionate about and not just for the money. Just like the people who consume "street wear" for the right reasons, the people who make it have to do it for the right reasons for things to work. Of course this leads to the question, how do we know? That is hard question and there's no way to know for sure except maybe ask the people who design the clothes, but even thats not for sure. The way I do is learn about what each clothing brand is about and see if that reflects in their clothing.

Who knows, maybe every making street wear is just cashing in, which seems like the point you're trying to get across. Some can argue that even selling "street wear" considered selling out no matter how much of it you sell it or what level you are selling it at. But I think there is a acceptable level, which leads to whole another discussion. Discussing individual street wear brands is a good idea, maybe you should start by listing the brands you buy because I think said a lot already.

[phoking153]

.

[phoking153]

.

[phoking153]

.

[thestaybrown]

For me personally, my identity with "street wear" as a subculture is to express my anti-corporate, anti-capitalistic views of the hegemonic culture.

Not to call you out (I agree with most of what you say and understand where you're coming from), but I think claiming your interest in streetwear is fueled by anti-capitalist motives is a bit far-fetched. At the end of the day, you're still consuming, and you're paying for it. I think a better characterization of your interest in modern-day streetwear is that you are, to some extent, a discerning consumer.

[phoking153]

All good, I was actually waiting for someone to bring that up. I don't want to go too in-dept with it because involves more of my personal life and my views on politics. But as brief as I can, I am consuming into materialism that I've grown up to since I was a kid. But when it comes to anything artistic, I don't, or really try not to, support corporations. Of course, there's no way I can completely avoid not supporting corporations because they've become such an integrated part of American culture. They've taken over basically every aspect of our country and there's not much we can do about it.

My basic belief is that corporations and art do not mix and should be involved in anyway. Art is not meant to be mass produced and sold for everyone to consume. When I mean art, I mean anything artistic that humans use to express emotions, ideas, messages, specifically clothing and music. Because with the way corporations work these days, everything is filtered and gets watered down. There is not room for dissent in the mainstream. Corporations are all about profit, and I don't believe money should glamorized as much as it is in popular culture.

In a sense, this is my form of retaliation towards the hegemonic culture. I'm using consumerism and materialism that I've been socialized into against them. All of the money I spend on clothes and music do not go towards corporations. Like I mentioned earlier, I use to be very ignorant because you're taught at young age that everything American is all great. But when you learn the truth and the corruption, you feel betrayed because it's all about money, doing whatever it takes to make money. That is what disgusts me the most.

The more I think about it, the more odd and far-fetched it sounds. Maybe I'm just using it justify my consumption habits? But it is what I believe and I don't expect many people to see it the same way, which makes my own thing. But even without person opinions and ideas, I still say "street wear" is subculture from sociological point of view. I think said enough to demonstrate that so I'm not going to say anything more about it being a subculture or not.

[rasclaaat]

The definition as I see street wear is just clothing, style, fashion influenced by various street cultures, which I think I mentioned a few times before.

Well i think that's a terribel definition. You wrote aaaaall that and you still won't just cough up a good definition as to what street wear is! Insane...

I wanted you to define it properly, because I am quite confident that the act of thinking about that specifically will help you to realize that what you lump into street wear is in fact, just your vague perceptions about a niche business market.

Take Stussy for example. You could argue that they practically invented modern western street wear...but it is not the same company now. The founder left years and year ago, and now it seems to be more or less a corporation run by lawyers, eager to sue other brands for copyright infringement.

Everything you write about art and business and how they should be separate is completely wrong...street wear is in fact exactly where business and art collide. Businesses that don't break even or make a profit generally don't stay in business long, so any brand you consider part of your imaginary subculture is still essentially just a standard capitalist enterprise: make product, sell to customer. In street wear, brands that don't bring fresh artwork also don't last long, which is one of the things that makes it all interesting. Every single person in the game is in it to make rent, pay bills, pay staff, make more gear, and grow their business. Making a profit is still their main necessities and that does not make them bad or evil. It makes them human.

Now using your definition, "street wear" encompasses everything from "contemporary" to "urban" to "boutique" to "emo" to "punk" and back again...it's just waaay too broad of a definition. Do you consider mall brands to be part of the subculture? Do you think FUBU is part of it? Is that Good Charlotte brand MADE part of street wear?

Where do you draw the line? Figuring that out would be the very start of building a decent definition of the subculture.

[trailsofhearts]

if this was my paper . . .

I would talk about the roots of "streetwear" and what seperated it from just being clothing or "fashion". At one point in time "streetwear" did not have a name and could not be filed away into neat categories . . . it was what it was. Just as "hip-hop" was not called "hip-hop" in its earliest stages . . . it was kids throwing parties and making music in a non-traditional and improvisational style. "Streetwear" is a direct reaction to the climate in which it was created.

Next it is important to talk about how "streetwear" is no longer wholely influenced by the streets and how the internet (cool guy blogs, message boards, ebay prices) now dictates "streetwear". The irony of this would make for a good paper. Another interesting facet of "streetwear" is that it has blurred the barrier between designer and consumer. In the good old days of "fashion" consumers did not see the latest line until it hit the runway. Now as soon as bobby hundreds finishes tracing someone elses art in illustrator you can see it on his blog. The consumer is now directly involved with the design process and has much more influence on the final product than ever before.

[rasclaaat]

if this was my paper . . .

I would talk about the roots of "streetwear" and what seperated it from just being clothing or "fashion". At one point in time "streetwear" did not have a name and could not be filed away into neat categories . . . it was what it was. Just as "hip-hop" was not called "hip-hop" in its earliest stages . . . it was kids throwing parties and making music in a non-traditional and improvisational style. "Streetwear" is a direct reaction to the climate in which it was created.

Next it is important to talk about how "streetwear" is no longer wholely influenced by the streets and how the internet (cool guy blogs, message boards, ebay prices) now dictates "streetwear". The irony of this would make for a good paper. Another interesting facet of "streetwear" is that it has blurred the barrier between designer and consumer. In the good old days of "fashion" consumers did not see the latest line until it hit the runway. Now as soon as bobby hundreds finishes tracing someone elses art in illustrator you can see it on his blog. The consumer is now directly involved with the design process and has much more influence on the final product than ever before.

You make some interesting points. That's a pretty wack way to underhandedly diss Bobby though. It would have been fine if you just made your point without hating on someone...

[phoking153]

Everything you write about art and business and how they should be separate is completely wrong...street wear is in fact exactly where business and art collide.



Well before I write whole another essay, let me just clear this up. You have corporations vs. independent businesses. I said I don't believe CORPORATIONS and ART should go together, which I already stated why. One of the element of "street wear" I believe is controversy, something that you will rarely see in the mainstream, corporate clothing labels. Because when something is too controversial, it is HARDER to sell, which goes against CAPITALISTIC ideal of producing for the masses to consume. Number Nine, Undercover, Neighborhood, Wtaps, Mastermind, even Supreme... have that element which is why I like and respect those brands. Even though I don't really like the Hundreds that much, I like some of the messages they put out as well which in my eyes a legitimate street wear brand.

I said there is NOTHING WRONG with making a living with art, music or clothing as long as it's only about money. Independent businesses don't have to worry about censoring their stuff, they don't have to compromise true expression for money. For love or money, that is what it boils down to. That is one of the aspects that differentiates a true street wear brand from a watered down mass produced label. Creating art through passion and not creating art through the passion of making money.

Although its about hip hop music, it applies to everything else I've been talkin' about as well...

"I ain't got nothing against no one tryin' to make a decent livin', it ain't the money that's the issue, only if that's the ONLY reason why these cats are makin' decent music, that's when I got beef with you." - Binary Star

[trailsofhearts]

You make some interesting points. That's a pretty wack way to underhandedly diss Bobby though. It would have been fine if you just made your point without hating on someone...

I said that in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way . . . everyone hates on Bobby. Remember a few months ago when he traced the rolling stone cover and put it on a shirt?

[rasclaaat]

I'm pretty sure that shirt was a joke...a joke that bobby made about how easy it would be to sell that graphic on a tee...

Anyway everyone on this forum is real quick to diss someone they'd probably be psyched to meet in real life (bobby, earsnot, whoever) so it just gets fucking old fast reading everyone's hate

[Sellmestuff]

And for what you were saying, purchasing a clothing product doesn't automatically give you membership into a subculture. It only does if the person buying it recognizes that there is a subculture, understands and relates to the values associated with that subculture, and intentional buys it to express those values shared within the subculture. However if these conditions are not met, it'll just be perceived as nothing more than just "shopping," as it usually is.

Not to call you out (I agree with most of what you say and understand where you're coming from), but I think claiming your interest in streetwear is fueled by anti-capitalist motives is a bit far-fetched. At the end of the day, you're still consuming, and you're paying for it. I think a better characterization of your interest in modern-day streetwear is that you are, to some extent, a discerning consumer.

This thread was a really good read. I understand where both sides are coming from, and it is a really interesting debate. I for one, am unsure and am in agreement with some points presented by both sides, although I am slightly leaning towards rasclaaat's reasoning.

Please continue this discussion, I'm looking forward to reading it.

[rasclaaat]

Well before I write whole another essay, let me just clear this up. You have corporations vs. independent businesses. I said I don't believe CORPORATIONS and ART should go together, which I already stated why. One of the element of "street wear" I believe is controversy, something that you will rarely see in the mainstream, corporate clothing labels. Because when something is too controversial, it is HARDER to sell, which goes against CAPITALISTIC ideal of producing for the masses to consume. Number Nine, Undercover, Neighborhood, Wtaps, Mastermind, even Supreme... have that element which is why I like and respect those brands. Even though I don't really like the Hundreds that much, I like some of the messages they put out as well which in my eyes a legitimate street wear brand.

I said there is NOTHING WRONG with making a living with art, music or clothing as long as it's only about money. Independent businesses don't have to worry about censoring their stuff, they don't have to compromise true expression for money. For love or money, that is what it boils down to. That is one of the aspects that differentiates a true street wear brand from a watered down mass produced label. Creating art through passion and not creating art through the passion of making money.

Although its about hip hop music, it applies to everything else I've been talkin' about as well...

"I ain't got nothing against no one tryin' to make a decent livin', it ain't the money that's the issue, only if that's the ONLY reason why these cats are makin' decent music, that's when I got beef with you." - Binary Star

I KNEW it. Your concept of what street wear is, is limited to the list of the elitist brands you like. Well guess what, you're gonna need a much better definition if you don't want Billabong in your subculture! Or LRG for that matter.

You're so far off the mark I can hardly be bothered answering it all...let's just say making money is right at the top of Supreme's agenda. Sure, maybe they don't make as much as a corporation might try to by simply producing their box logo design and selling it to the whole world. but needless to say, nothing about Supreme is controversial or a hard sell for them. They are making money exactly how they want to.

Binary Star dude? Didn't they break up? Probably because their album didn't make any money. Don't get me wrong I'm a fan of them but don't use some broke ass underground emcee to justify doing stuff for the love of the game. i bet they'd love to make some money.

And back to my first example - Stussy pretty much started this whole shit. Once upon a time they were the elitist underground sort of brand that you like, and now they are a giant corporation...so at what point do they no longer get to be part of your subculture??

You act like you know everything but I think you have a lot to learn. If you are still in undergrad school, which it sounds like, then chances are, you've never even had a real bill to pay, and don't even know what the fuck real life is like. I used to be idealistic in college too. its easy to be idealistic when your biggest responsibility is turning up to class on time.

[phoking153]

I agree, I am idealist and I really don't real have bills to pay. And I honesty don't know what "real" life is like because I do live comfortably. I do make my own money to support my interests. But at the same time, ideally I don't feel you have to sell yourself short just to earn a buck, regardless of the harsh realities of life. I'd rather making a decent living doing something I love rather than selling out my soul to be rich. At some point, I know I will probably have to sell out and do something I really don't want with my life just to earn a living, but that is besides the point.

You are right, I am graduating senior. I do have a lot to learn which is why I even bothered laying out all my ideas and opinions. My intention was to prove SOCIOLOGICALLY that "street culture" is a subculture, whether or not you agree with it. I don't mind being proven wrong although you haven't really presented me things I wasn't already aware of.

Like I said before, I do understand where you are coming from and I've agreed to some of the things you said to some extent. There is a conflict between doing something for love because most of the time it isn't realistic in our country. You are under the assumption all everyone cares about is money, and in "real" life, you have to do whatever it takes to make a living or to survive. Lot of it has to do with politics but I'm sure you know whats up. It makes sense why you would say everything is business.

As for Binary Star, they may be broke but at least they are respectable. And they were never "technically" a group, but two emcees collaborating, as one of them put it.

We all perceive things differently and I respect that, so I am curious to know what "street wear" brands YOU like to go shopping for.

[phoking153]

This thread was a really good read. I understand where both sides are coming from, and it is a really interesting debate. I for one, am unsure and am in agreement with some points presented by both sides, although I am slightly leaning towards rasclaaat's reasoning.

Please continue this discussion, I'm looking forward to reading it.

I'm glad that you find it interesting. I understand a lot of my idealistic views are in my argument. But what I'm interested in as a future sociologists is, do people who consciously buy "street wear" consider "street wear" a subculture, at least from the sociologically analysis I've presented. Why or why not? Like I said, I am very open to ideas and opinions because this is something that really interests me and something I would like to pursue in the future.

[nonstopjb]

http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/347/myspaceyw2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

ALSO PERFORMING


ACEYALONE
PLANET ASIA
MEDUSA
1AD7
AND MANY MORE ......

[trailsofhearts]

I'm pretty sure that shirt was a joke...a joke that bobby made about how easy it would be to sell that graphic on a tee...

Anyway everyone on this forum is real quick to diss someone they'd probably be psyched to meet in real life (bobby, earsnot, whoever) so it just gets fucking old fast reading everyone's hate

reread my post . . . I dont think you grasp what I said

[rasclaaat]

I agree, I am idealist and I really don't real have bills to pay. And I honesty don't know what "real" life is like because I do live comfortably. I do make my own money to support my interests. But at the same time, ideally I don't feel you have to sell yourself short just to earn a buck, regardless of the harsh realities of life. I'd rather making a decent living doing something I love rather than selling out my soul to be rich. At some point, I know I will probably have to sell out and do something I really don't want with my life just to earn a living, but that is besides the point.

You are right, I am graduating senior. I do have a lot to learn which is why I even bothered laying out all my ideas and opinions. My intention was to prove SOCIOLOGICALLY that "street culture" is a subculture, whether or not you agree with it. I don't mind being proven wrong although you haven't really presented me things I wasn't already aware of.

Like I said before, I do understand where you are coming from and I've agreed to some of the things you said to some extent. There is a conflict between doing something for love because most of the time it isn't realistic in our country. You are under the assumption all everyone cares about is money, and in "real" life, you have to do whatever it takes to make a living or to survive. Lot of it has to do with politics but I'm sure you know whats up. It makes sense why you would say everything is business.

As for Binary Star, they may be broke but at least they are respectable. And they were never "technically" a group, but two emcees collaborating, as one of them put it.

We all perceive things differently and I respect that, so I am curious to know what "street wear" brands YOU like to go shopping for.

I'm not sure why but you continually misinterpret what I'm trying to get across to you. I never said anything along the lines of "ll everyone cares about is money" - far from it. But to assume that any brand's main objective is not to make as much money as they can, is pure idiocy. You CAN do what you love and make money. I'm living proof of that. But at the end of the day, I got mouths to feed, and if something doesn't make me a dollar, it doesnt' matter how much I love it, it's going on the back burner.

What I'm trying to get you to do is abandon your idealism (maybe that's shitty of me - but at about your age I probably lived a similar life and was equally idealistic). I'm trying to share the experience learned from doing what you love for nearly a decade - which is that business is ultimately more or less just business. Whether you are selling used cars or selling products you really believe in, at the end of the day you still need to make enough to cover your living expenses...it's actually easier to do this working for a corporate company than it is running an indie company, but this doesn't mean people at indie brands are only doing it for the love either. You are currently living in the enviably idealistic universe where everything seems black and white, and life is really just lots of shades of grey when it comes to absolutes. Time will make you realize this and I was trying to save you the time consuming part...

What street wear brands I like? Some of my current faves include: Foreign Family, 3sixteen, Mishka, Freshjive, Rebel8, TBG, The Hundreds, Trainer Spotter, 10Deep, Manifest, WK, and even sometimes Supreme, when I don't mind being mildly offended by retail employees. But honestly I'm just as happy rocking unprinted uniqlo gear and blank tees. And I respect the hustle of any small brand doing their thing well - especially those that make decent money as I know how hard it can be in hte clothing game sometimes

[phoking153]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I do agree that with any type of business, indie or corporate, the objective is to make money, plain and simple. But I don't believe a business should compromise its integrity or its values knowing it will make them extra money. Ideally, (I know it shouldn't using the word) you would want to make as much money as you can without having to compromise what you believe in. Of course, what you pointed out, realistically that doesn't always happen that way. I'm glad you point that out because I wasn't consciously aware of how idealistic I was being. I understand that as well because I am approaching that point of my life where I have to decide how I am going to make a living. I may not have first hand experience like you do, but I am completely aware of it.

So what is it that you do?

[DrewDogg]

i too realize i think of this all a bit idealistically. you make some interesting points ras.

really, this is what forums are for. I'm glad this discussion has come about. I'm going on a trip to new york tommorow, so yeah, no real response yet, too busy. but great read so far, and has invoked a lot of thought from me.

[phoking153]

Not to call you out (I agree with most of what you say and understand where you're coming from), but I think claiming your interest in streetwear is fueled by anti-capitalist motives is a bit far-fetched. At the end of the day, you're still consuming, and you're paying for it. I think a better characterization of your interest in modern-day streetwear is that you are, to some extent, a discerning consumer.

Just wanted to clear up the anti-capitalist part real quick. An aspect of the capitalistic ideology is mass produce, sell to the masses, maximize profit. With the way independent "street wear" brands, their ideology when it comes to production is not quite the same, at least some of the brands I'm aware of. Just a guesstimate... hundreds of each item depending on how established they are? It could be argued that they don't have the necessary capital to produce more and would if they could, but I believe a lot of it has to do with not wanting to water down their brand / image for the sake of profit or "selling out." Even if they sell out of a certain item and they can reproduce more to "capitalize" on the profit, they keep their clothing special to those who already have it, which can create a closer bond with the brand and the consumer. Of course, this can lead to the whole exclusivity and resell aspect, but I won't address that. I think a perfect example would be the The Hundreds Paisley Hoodies. What they did, to me, is an anti-capitalistic move. Knowing it sold out, they could have scrounged up some cash and got more made Paisley hoodies made, but they didn't. I might be giving "independent brands" more credit then they might deserve because as rasclaaat pointed out, business is not always black and white, and not all independent businesses work this way. But for me personally, that is the type of business ideology I look for when it comes to brands I buy, and that's what I meant by anti-capitalistic motives. Not necessarily expressing anti capitalistic ideas in the clothing, but rather in the way the business is run.

[andrew3sixteen]

I think your term "anti-capitalistic" isn't accurate. I cant speak for the Hundreds personally but if you want to look at this particular example, there are TONS of reasons to withhold from a second run. From a marketing perspective it was pure genius to release it and retire it - the publicity craze that it caused had the brand on the tip of everyone's tongue. It created a resell market which only furthered the phenomenon. The high demand and quick sellthrough of that particular piece probably caused stores to think twice about putting in small orders in the future. The demand for that particular hoody probably caused better brand sellthrough for seasons thereafter.

It all comes down to making a quick buck now versus brand longevity - I think any serious business-minded brand out ther will tell you that longevity is what they strive for. And I will also say that brands that are not business-minded have no chance of survival. None.

10 deep could've made a ton of chain gang hoodies after the initial rush - why didnt they? Because they are anti-capitalistic? If you ever get the chance to talk to the guys who run the brand i think you'll get a different answer.


I think a perfect example would be the The Hundreds Paisley Hoodies. What they did, to me, is an anti-capitalistic move. Knowing it sold out, they could have scrounged up some cash and got more made Paisley hoodies made, but they didn't.

[rasclaaat]

I think your term "anti-capitalistic" isn't accurate. I cant speak for the Hundreds personally but if you want to look at this particular example, there are TONS of reasons to withhold from a second run. From a marketing perspective it was pure genius to release it and retire it - the publicity craze that it caused had the brand on the tip of everyone's tongue. It created a resell market which only furthered the phenomenon. The high demand and quick sellthrough of that particular piece probably caused stores to think twice about putting in small orders in the future. The demand for that particular hoody probably caused better brand sellthrough for seasons thereafter.

It all comes down to making a quick buck now versus brand longevity - I think any serious business-minded brand out ther will tell you that longevity is what they strive for. And I will also say that brands that are not business-minded have no chance of survival. None.

10 deep could've made a ton of chain gang hoodies after the initial rush - why didnt they? Because they are anti-capitalistic? If you ever get the chance to talk to the guys who run the brand i think you'll get a different answer.

Superduper cosign times infinity

[phoking153]

From a marketing perspective it was pure genius to release it and retire it - the publicity craze that it caused had the brand on the tip of everyone's tongue. It created a resell market which only furthered the phenomenon. The high demand and quick sellthrough of that particular piece probably caused stores to think twice about putting in small orders in the future. The demand for that particular hoody probably caused better brand sellthrough for seasons thereafter.

It all comes down to making a quick buck now versus brand longevity - I think any serious business-minded brand out ther will tell you that longevity is what they strive for. And I will also say that brands that are not business-minded have no chance of survival. None.

10 deep could've made a ton of chain gang hoodies after the initial rush - why didnt they? Because they are anti-capitalistic? If you ever get the chance to talk to the guys who run the brand i think you'll get a different answer.

Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Well I guess I need to be more clear about what I say because I didn't mean anti-capitalistic literally, as in they intentional didn't do a second run because they were consciously being anti-capitalistic. I meant it more like symbolically if you were just looking at the big picture kinda thing, if that makes any sense. But thanks for bringing it up.

[andrew3sixteen]

What I am saying is that there may not be anything symbolic about many of the moves your favorite "independant" brands are making. Again I am not talking about the Hundreds or the paisley hoody or the chain gang hoody in particular, but rather in broad generalities.

Here's the real question: if at the end of the day, brands make strategic moves that appear to be anti-capitalistic in the hopes that it earns a loyal brand following that is devoted to their image of being "independant", that isn't too anti-capitalistic, is it?

Just some food for thought. I dont want to keep beating a dead horse...


Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Well I guess I need to be more clear about what I say because I didn't mean anti-capitalistic literally, as in they intentional didn't do a second run because they were consciously being anti-capitalistic. I meant it more like symbolically if you were just looking at the big picture kinda thing, if that makes any sense. I notice I have a tendency with looking at things idealistically and symbolically rather than realistically. But thanks for bringing it up.

[phoking153]

What I am saying is that there may not be anything symbolic about many of the moves your favorite "independant" brands are making. Again I am not talking about the Hundreds or the paisley hoody or the chain gang hoody in particular, but rather in broad generalities.

Here's the real question: if at the end of the day, brands make strategic moves that appear to be anti-capitalistic in the hopes that it earns a loyal brand following that is devoted to their image of being "independant", that isn't too anti-capitalistic, is it?

Just some food for thought. I dont want to keep beating a dead horse...

No you're right, it doesn't when you put that way. I guess I'm just trying to make something out of nothing, it is business after all.

[cartel goods]

Brands who create product are all, in their individual ways, interpreting their own unique senses of "street" and putting it on "wears." Each brand, like it's designers, have their own unique voice. Some skate. Some write. Some rhyme. Some hibernate and design. West Coast, East Coast, UK, EU, Japan, HK and back again.

The problem with defining streetwear as a singular "something" is that it honestly minimizes the real strength that it carries: variation and adaptability.

If you travel the world and see different streetwear brands, yes they might share similarities in style, but their reference sets are all different. Language, popular music, more sports or more art, warm weather, 4 seasons , new country (US), old country (Japan) etc...

Streetwear is a subculture. As a subculture it is one through which youth from around the world represent their neighborhoods, activities and personal culture that go against tight-assed, conservative, don't enjoy life because we live to work...and not work to LIVE. Streetwear is what happens on the streets and below when everyone else is up in tall buildings...

In each city, this can be DIFFERENT. I think that the sense of Streetwear being discussed here is a very particular one. That's fine, but it should be noted.

Streetwear as clothing should be what you wear while repping your street and personal culture. To that end, so-called "streetwear" brands are not all that can be "streetwear."

Streetwear as clothing should be whatever clothing you define as streetwear and rock in the street while doing you.

The most important thing is that you rep a CULTURE, define your sense of self, kick it with your crew, have fun and then worry about "streetwear" as product.

Consumer tendencies, line sheets, trade shows, profit margins, limited-editions, colorways and all that should not define streetwear.

SERIOUSLY, define it for yourself and rock the gear called "streetwear" by sites like this and mine if it reps what you see as your sense of "street."

Rep yourself not a brand, pattern, colorway or sense of limited edition.

Check out Steven Vogel's book.
Read HAZE's cover article from the new issue of LTD.
Good info there...

[rasclaaat]

Brands who create product are all, in their individual ways, interpreting their own unique senses of "street" and putting it on "wears." Each brand, like it's designers, have their own unique voice. Some skate. Some write. Some rhyme. Some hibernate and design. West Coast, East Coast, UK, EU, Japan, HK and back again.

The problem with defining streetwear as a singular "something" is that it honestly minimizes the real strength that it carries: variation and adaptability.

If you travel the world and see different streetwear brands, yes they might share similarities in style, but their reference sets are all different. Language, popular music, more sports or more art, warm weather, 4 seasons , new country (US), old country (Japan) etc...

Streetwear is a subculture. As a subculture it is one through which youth from around the world represent their neighborhoods, activities and personal culture that go against tight-assed, conservative, don't enjoy life because we live to work...and not work to LIVE. Streetwear is what happens on the streets and below when everyone else is up in tall buildings...

In each city, this can be DIFFERENT. I think that the sense of Streetwear being discussed here is a very particular one. That's fine, but it should be noted.

Streetwear as clothing should be what you wear while repping your street and personal culture. To that end, so-called "streetwear" brands are not all that can be "streetwear."

Streetwear as clothing should be whatever clothing you define as streetwear and rock in the street while doing you.

The most important thing is that you rep a CULTURE, define your sense of self, kick it with your crew, have fun and then worry about "streetwear" as product.

Consumer tendencies, line sheets, trade shows, profit margins, limited-editions, colorways and all that should not define streetwear.

SERIOUSLY, define it for yourself and rock the gear called "streetwear" by sites like this and mine if it reps what you see as your sense of "street."

Rep yourself not a brand, pattern, colorway or sense of limited edition.

Check out Steven Vogel's book.
Read HAZE's cover article from the new issue of LTD.
Good info there...

Ok riddle me this: Is it still street wear when it becomes such a mainstream trend that a giant corporation hires young designers and mass produces clothing which knocks off the styles developed by The Hundreds, Crooks, 10 Deep, etc? How do you separate these knockoff brands from the original? If real heads wear this "corporate streetwear" brand on the streets, living their youth culture lives, where do you draw the line?

Is Scion hip-hop because they pay graf writers to do graphics for their ads?

At some point a popular subculture can get co-opted by the mainstream and just become the norm.

This is what I'm getting at. Everybody wants to generalize and spout opinions about streetwear without really defining it.

Your definition: "Brands who create product are all, in their individual ways, interpreting their own unique senses of "street" and putting it on "wears." Well that pretty much includes EVERYBODY. From Nike to Fubu to Akademiks to Tribal to SAS to 3sixteen and The Hundreds. I like to think there are some defining differences between these brands. If you are really the person behind Cartel, I'd like to assume that you have a better definition of street wear than this. Howw do you choose the brands you sell?

[TheGetDown]

its all marketing bs

[cartel goods]

Good points to counter mine. Thanks for those. Specificity vs. generalizations always clash and make it tough to create sound definitions; definitions cannot come out of generalities... but generalities do get widdled down to specificities. In other words, seems like the conversation is getting there and we're making progress on this forum...

An interesting point that I just read was from Adam at Slam Hype's blog on Riottt. Check it out it only takes a few minutes to read: (http://riottt.com/showSelectedNews.do?eid=1315&cid=0&authorid=55).

I agree with Adam's "tiered" system. It poses some really interesting points.

In this way, a subculture can go mass and/or get segmented. HOWEVER, it is in the hands of the ones that were members of it for a long while to represent for its organic roots. Designers will get hired away and huge companies will hire freelance designers to create the AESTHETIC that has been popularized by streetwear. However, that does not mean that a hoodie that LOOKS like one designed by say J.Money should carry the same meaning: the context is lost and the "corporate" hoodie could be seen as a hollow icon for a style Trend and not a Culture.

By creating a hoodie that looks like the one designed by J.Money, what gets lost in translation?

The cultural implications of knowing who J.Money is, what the reference set of his brand implies, and what sense of street that aesthetic represents.

As for selecting the brands that are sold on the site, we tried to get a decent spread of brands from across the US and choose styles that match our sense of good design. We do not carry every style from every brand - and - we try and choose styles where the design or graphic is superior to prominent logo placement.

[Black Lodge]

To all those that suggested reading my book- thanks. I don't think however, that it will do anyone any good that is looking for a definition of streetwear. The book contains none and I never set out to define it either. Especially, since a defintion of said subculture would kill it.
To me, what people perceive as streetwear or/and street culture is a huge melting pot of young individual creatives ( creatives in a very broad concept- from your traditional painter, modern artists, musician, skateboarder and so ) that all have some common denominator. As soon as you put an boundary on that creative output you kill it.
Streetwear is what you want it to be, regardless of what I or anyone else tells you.

[Telly]

Streetwear as clothing should be whatever clothing you define as streetwear and rock in the street while doing you.

My brother wore a Bruce Lee shirt from Wal Mart today with a fishing hat and Dockers khakis while he was in the street washing his car. Is that streetwear now? If streetwear is everything then it's not anything

[Telly]

So then what's streetwear to you?

[Telly]

You said you don't know what streetwear is but then you say that you call "it" streetwear

I do, however, call it streetwear, simply because thats what it's called

So I will ask again. What is streetwear to you?

[rasclaaat]

TELLY: i think we're just callin it streetwear for the sake of this debate. otherwise we have to call it "the type of clothing that get mistakenly referred to as streetwear" that's like the artist formerly known as prince. it's dumb.

FAILURE: just because it has the word "street" in it, don't mean it has to be thug clothes made for and by thugs. you can clearly be suburban and into what we are all referring to as "streetwear." That's part of whats got me wondering if it's still a subculture or if it has just gone completely mainstream.
But the whole "heads in the streets don't wear these brands" argument is a) tired and b) irrelevant. We all know heads in the streets wear lots of shit - mall brands, common sense wool sweater shit, high-end brands, european denim brands, japanese brands, "urban" brands, blank shit, swap meet shit, there may be dudes rocking stretwear type shit whether its CLH or 10deep or what have you. That all sort of depends on what street/town/city/hood you live in. If you stand on the right tokyo street you'd only see streetwear. Streetwear and being "real" or in the streets are two completely separate things which can overlap once in a while. Notice only a few brands which get much love on this forum actually deal in "street" themes - maybe crooks & 10deep (a little bit) & rogue status if you count all their guns tees. The fact of the matter is, most streetwear gear is made for and by relatively middle class cats with access to education - for business or design, and access to money - for production. If you have those two things, you can be from the snow fields of Alaska and still make a dope streetwear brand in my opinion. For better or for worse, most people are calling this niche in the clothing game "streetwear." Yes it's a label, no it's not perfect, but that seems to be what we're stuck with until someone defines it properly and coughs up a more appropriate name for it.

CARTEL: Very interesting points. You raised an interesting issue with the tier thing, which I think of as the streetwear trickle-down effect. Basically ask anyone what streetwear is, and they'll tell you the brands they like. Of course, the brands they don't like are not included. Well unfortunately you can't usually define a subculture (or anything really) purely by the elements of it which you like. For every kid who thinks that The Hundreds is real streetwear, there's atleast one who thinks Live Mechanics is real streetwear, and maybe someone else who thinks Exact Science is. Well the way I see it, all these brands are operating on overlapping levels within a constantly shifting niche market...and most people don't want to admit the brands they DON'T like are also streetwear, because that doesn't fit into their understanding of it. My point being: at what point do go down enough tiers that the stuff is no longer really streetwear? I know i'm stuck on this point but it really interests me, and i think it's important to think about as this game explodes further and further into the mainstream.

It's true that the elder generation of any subculture generally transmit the style, aesthetic, rules, and conditions for membership down to the new generation but I don't think that's really happening in streetwear because it's actually a competitive business, not a share and care fun camp...

[slam]

I haven't read this entire thread but wanted to just give my opinion on the topic... so forgive me if I show some oversight into whats been said already, I actually thought it would be better this way.. my viewpoint wouldn't be affected by what others had already said...

To me.. 'Streetwear' is a Subculture of Street Culture. It's also a subculture of Fashion, and thats where the line gets a little blurred. If you need to define the border of which fits which subset .. then it would come down to this..

Streetwear as a subculture of street culture would be defined by brands like Project Dragon, Haze, Mash, Recon and so on.. Streetwear as a subculture of fashion could hold examples such as Headporter Plus, Visvim, APC, Neighborhood...

Having now listed some examples you can see how even those, what appear to be evident examples, can also hold some confusion as to which they fit. It shows that in reality, Streetwear is probably not something definative to Street Culture as most people assume. Street Culture may include things such as Graff, Fixed Gear's, Skating, Music(not just Hip Hop), and their own subcultures.. Streetwear is just what is worn by people who consider themselves a part of these cultures. This isn't to say people who play a part in Streetwear wouldn't wear high-fashion brands such as Gucci, or Dior Homme, Margiela or Comme etc, but what the difference is, lies in the trends that street culture creates. For some reason, more often that not, the same Dior Homme jeans worn by two different people, one who considers the garment streetwear and the other who considers them a fashion item. will appear and be considered as an almost different item! The way its worn, the swagger and more so the mindset!

This is more apparent today than possibly it was in the past, the lines become more and more blurred everyday, as both streetwear and fashion start to move in directions towards what are considered conventional of the other.. ie. fashion may show tee's on the runway, streetwear may start to cut and sew garments.

I've actually possibly gone off tangent here, and could go on for sometime.. but I just wanted to share what I thought and give you guys something else to consider as a hypothesis.

[Black Lodge]

ok, being hungover and just coming back to this now out of interest, all I would like to add- fuck it all. It's the feeling that counts. and you can't define nor ever accurately explain feelings.
good day.

[Subculture]

I dunno, it's just never been that important to me. It's clothing.

[Telly]

It's just tee shirts. Subculture and all is goodtimes but real talk streetwear is just clothing.