You are conflating high fashion and fast fashion. High fashion doesn't go out of style every 6 months. Louis Vuitton still sells the same Monogram purse that they did 10 years ago, likewise my aunt has several $1000+ handbags she has owned for 20+ years. Your comment about high fashion going out of style every 6 months is just untrue, and to the other posters point just highlights the myopic lens in which software engineers view fashion.

Also, the NY article is not about fast fashion (Zara, H&M), it's about high fashion (Marc Jacobs, Balenciaga, Alexander Wang).

High fashion sets the trends (and the 6 month cycle) that the fast fashion outlets follow. When talking about negative influence on society and the environment they're pretty inseparable.

I agree I could have made the distinction between high and fast fashion clearer in my comment though.

For the record, the handbag example is an extreme outlier and not at all illustrative of the how the industry actually functions (makes money).

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that reductio ad absurdum is a fallacy. It isn't. It's a logical argument.

I called it an argument. Quote:

>Besides being a reductio ad absurdum[0] argument

I'm not sure how your failed attempt at pedantry adds anything useful to the discussion.

men fashion does not go out of style in 6 months (in 10 years, though, some trends do change).

Also, Architecture, music and movies also have trends.

Not a lot Brutalism projects are started today and westerns have been replaced by superhero movies. It does not make any of these projects pointless either.

There are trends in every creative field imaginable, that wasn't the point. The trends in fashion move the quickest and are completely, absolutely arbitrary. Fashion also dictates that still-functional products get discarded on a whim, unlike say, architecture.

This simply is not true. You may not know enough about food culture or architecture to see it, but those trends move just as quickly as the rest of human culture.

Still-functional products being discarded on a whim is basically the history of architecture.

The fact is, all of human culture is “arbitrary” and bad for the environment. Food, architecture, fashion, and civilization itself. Just because you don’t care about clothing specifically, doesn’t make it somehow worse than everything else we do.

The only thing that is good for the environment is becoming a nomadic hunter-gatherer and living off the land.

You're asserting that architecture changes faster than fashion? I'm not even sure how to rebuff that since it's so patently ridiculous on its face.

As for food trends, they are indeed changing faster than ever but they're more on a 3-5 year cycle at most. Certainly not 6 months.

Let's examine the word arbitrary. The "in" colors, styles and cuts (the entire make-up of clothing) are undeniably arbitrary and change every 6 months. There's nothing remotely comparable in food or architecture.

Based on your other comment, you seem to take great offence at fashion being disparaged here. It's okay to like fashion. It's the industry that's being attacked, not you personally. And yes, other industries are bad, some even more so. But that's irrelevant.

according to you ..

miner garments invented 150 years ago are a staple of nowadays fashion.

Miner jeans and today's jeans have almost nothing in common.

Hell Levis from 30 years ago and todays Levis jeans are recognizably different.

Pointing out an extreme outlying example does nothing to contradict my assertion. A single example does nothing to negate what is obviously an overall trend.

ok, let's rewind.

First, gp comment just give a basic example (chinos or tshirts, or lots of other clothes would have been admissible too) showing that your assertion is pretty weak.

But let's not focus on that one.

Let's see what the thesis is :

- there are new trends (dictated by celebrities and designers)

- these trends only sow insecurities and environmental destruction.

Let's disregard the first one, even though as shown above it could be debated.

but focus on the second part. You assert that fashion work only sow insecurities and environmental destruction but provide nothing to prove that point. You can repeat as many as you want that an art form brings nothing, you will be no closer to have an actual argument.

I am really not a fan of fast fashion and its environmental practices but if anything it is more of a parasitism of the work of fashion designers. By a large margin, the bulk of what fast fashion companies produces does not come from well known designers and for good reason : there is a lot of work on materials, techniques and fitting that get into such pieces. This is just not doable at any scale.

If anything, a better argument would be that late stage capitalism or lack environmental taxation allow companies to produce lots of goods without any regard for the environment.

"these trends only sow insecurities" is a very sad statement. Clothing choices is way of self expression for many people. The world would not be a better place if we all worn black pants and grey tshirts, only a less interesting one.

Basics such as chinos and t-shirts do not show that "my assertion is pretty weak" at all, because they aren't "fast fashion". They are staples that remain in style for a long, long time. I'd argue that they serve to support my argument rather than contradict it. I didn't say all clothing is "fast fashion".

As for the second part. My quote was actually 'New "trends" dictated by celebrities and designers every year do nothing but sow personal insecurities and environmental destruction.'

Obviously the phrase "do nothing but" is an absolutism that I should not have used, since it makes it easy for someone to provide a single counter-example to disprove it. I don't deny that self-expression and "art" are positive things. The question is whether those positive effects are worthwhile considering the negative ones. My opinion is that it's not even close. Not by a long shot.

>late stage capitalism or lack environmental taxation allow companies to produce lots of goods without any regard for the environment.

Agreed. But, I think the fashion industry itself is largely morally bankrupt. It preys on peoples insecurities, and environmental externalities more so than (almost) any other.

> My opinion is that it's not even close. Not by a long shot.

at last we agree. That's your opinion and nothing else. you also seem to confuse/conflate fashion with fast fashion. It seems just as fair and interestined as conflating movie making with the worst money grabbing by the numbers movie ever made.

well if you remove the "do nothing but", the argument does only get weaker since it becomes "for some people fashion fuels insecurities, so it should be destroyed".

Marvel movies always have that one shot of the protagonist impossible pecs and abs. It fuels insecurities for sure for some men. It is not a reason to stop making movies.