In response to Conor

So thrilled am I to have someone reading my blog I thought I would extend my response to Conor’s (I thought well observed and intelligent comment) into a post.

There is an inherent duality or complexity in fashion, one which is often perceived as a contradiction. On the one hand fashion can be used to indicate belonging to a group (adherence to specific cultural values et cetera) and on the other to express individuality. Sometimes in the case of a sub-cultural or minority group in particular, both of these phenomena are expressed simultaneously. But I would argue against the notion that fashion is inherently normative. Both high design including haute couture, and street fashion are reliant upon innovation - playing with and subverting signs and signifiers, or formal experimentation.  

In constructing masculine identities through dress, individuals and designers, like moths creating a cocoon, are reliant upon the materials around them - but this doesn't invalidate the authenticity of these identities and images.

While fashion is often understood as being about dressing like others, in fact it is just as much about defining oneself against dominant norms.

Within capitalism it is arguable that all creative fields are vulnerable to being absorbed into power structures in which the values of the establishment are reproduced in order to extend their hegemony. I would suggest, however, that this is no more true of design than of fine art or literature. I could talk more about the notion of fashion as a uniquely debased and debasing form, as relating to the traditionally feminine craft activities it involves, but that’s another story ...