2

2006 WEA Books & Publishing Inc. © Copyright by Victor Aquino. Louisiana 71201 USA 3 . Books & Publishing Inc. 2001. Monroe. LA USA All rights reserved. Aesthetical links of self-image. 94 Elm St. Monroe.Fashion and body. Inquires should be addressed directly to World Editions of America.

It is not the case. of mentioning here some of them because even the most notorious are yet to fulfill. It shall also be mentioned that. according to origin and nature are very. The interests that guide studies and researches. with reflexes on the human being construction. There are not only a few specialists that nowadays dedicate themselves to studying images. perspective and consequence of transformations in the clothing industries. we are also converted into icons exposed in the huge repertory of images that. the studies about the individual from forms that adopt the wearing haven't been frequent. however. as we may say. We rarely have the chance of observing the concern of the specialist of the human figure. into “letters” and “readers” of this scripture by the way of what is represented in the planet. In a way that we all. We are. likewise. of a social or cultural character. converting us at the same time. but from everything that gives directions as soon as it is wore. as they should. usually.I We live immerse in a world of images. 4 . are disseminated by the universe. integrant part of this huge scripture. having the man as the center. the construction of the human figure form. not only from clothes. by the time we are wrapped up by the endless attribute of forms and figures. Because only from these transformation the marketing stimulation functions would be easily understood.

can also be classified. it depends a lot on the nature of his/her insertion (voluntarily or involuntarily) in the social context in which such process is developed as much as it depends his/her cultural characteristics. posture related to media. We can also say that the human being has lived. notably on the understanding that each one has as concepts of “old” and “young” and “old fashioned”. but also revealing.Although not being aware of fashion generative process. when someone refers to others as “ugly people” or “pretty people” he/she is not only classifying them. the individual acts in it actively. who classifies the remaining. 5 . through a qualitative personal posture in which the system is qualified by. in function to fashion. are the ones that will establish the means in which they will be inserted in this process. according to his/her own standards. but to him/her. Thus. Thus. (2) the one that refers to individual repertories dependable of such values. the process in which it is generated. The circumstance of his/her action. For more arbitrary such qualification seems to be. we verify that the way human figure is constructed has assumed self proportions. and also from changes produced by it. in which the thesis coincide with the title of the present article which guided equally to the publication of the homonymous book mentioned. however. not only to others. personal tastes. Based in records available in the present report. Based. From researches. it implies two verification: (1) the one that refers to decisive values of who's pretty and who's ugly. it is important to say that factors such as age. among others. modifies postures individually and the forms of auto representation in the socio cultural context. A simple classification that is established for other characters reveals the existence of a qualifying system that surpasses the corresponding concepts. we can verify a natural tendency of the human being adjustment to the process. In other way. especially over the last few years.

that the individual values are invariably positives in relation to who qualifies the others.It happens. however. whatever the concept expressed about the others is. from the point of view of that every one of them disposes of his/her own repertory of dissimulation. 6 . he/she classifies others. and who expresses such concept possesses on him/her the reference so that from it. What is a problem. That is.

this someone plays a character role so omitting him/herself. when someone qualifies another person by the simple attribute from what. in the act of purchasing. Because. the function of making the “other” the one he/she is on the nude. specially on clothes. for the simple reason that by the time someone shows him/herself up. he/she is revealing somehow his/her most hidden side. From the moment that a “griffe” convert itself into address/garnish mandatory from any T-shirt. he/she hides deliberately. reasons and meaning of the respective use are altered. when showing him/herself up. whoever he/she is. we shall always take into consideration everything that is part of him/her. to picking a certain T-shirt. being part of him/her. The hidden side of each one conducts concepts. Therefore. on his/her understanding stand. attribute representations that perhaps he/she does not have are inserted. as a whole or partially. covering some of him/herself. conditions and contradictions that are exteriorized from representations that dispose. Especially something that. to make the option not only because of 7 . is “pretty” or “ugly”. That has been one of the clothes function. But why we are driven to this conclusion? Well. if in a way.II When we observe someone. It is like saying that there is an indication of dissimulation that qualifies the everyone beyond what they appear to be. This way. no matter who he/she is. it cannot be perceived. No long matters what guides a consumer. for being hidden.

Corpo. Arte. Sao Paulo. T. size. Moda. CEM/Livros. pattern. The table above that shows part of the data collected in the research mentioned reveals interpretation in a very special way that three groups of individuals interviewed offer to “period” in which we get older. G. Corpo. 8 . the label of the corresponding designer name. faces fashion on a very specific way. 1999. Sao Paulo. as we can see next. Perhaps this data reveals one of the consumer's standard that. or what it remits. CEM/Livros. It is important to observe how the greatest concentration of the younger ones indicates ages of 35 years old. Table I “When We Get Old?” Bellow 20 Above 20 Above 35 Above 50 No Parameter No Answer 15% 55% 20% 9% 1% Between 20 & 35 12% 44% 28% 14% 2% Above 35 10% 36% 32% 19% 3% Source: Correa. G. And the group of older ones seems not to be convicted by confusing the ones between 35 and 50 years old.the color. T. Table II “When Shall We Follow Fashion?” Bellow 20 Up to 20 Up to 35 Always No Answer 44% 41% 12% 3% Between 20 & 35 13% 47% 34% 6% Above 35 7% 51% 33% 9% Fonte: Correa. but specially because of what it represents. originality. Moda. Arte. 1999.

in distinct situations unanimity is what reflects ourselves ignorance. requires previous knowledge of the meaning from what it is desired. despite of the age groups interviewed. Corpo. as we can see. For this reason. Therefore. and the clothes designer names which are marketed from a “fashion” context. The data from Table I as the data from Table II demonstrate an evidence regarding the lack of conviction in some age groups. concentrations are equally the same. they are all relate fashion to a consumer standard: “artist”. Table III “What Represents Fashion?” Bellow 20 Between 20 & 35 Some Artist Some Top Model Some Athlete Some Character Others No Answer 32% 19% 33% 12% 3% 1% 30% 21% 29% 16% 2% 2% Above 35 28% 26% 24% 18% 1% 3% Source: Correa. G. That's because they are situations that involve the so-called personal image construction.On the table above. CEM/Livros. Similar referential projection is characteristic of the research mentioned. the group of the younger ones demonstrate to have no conviction regarding it. perhaps. being used or not. Arte. “top model”. while the group of the older ones understands that “we shall follow fashion” up to 35 years of age. we verify that. 9 . Sao Paulo. Being pretty or ugly. or “athlete”. being intermediate age (70%). the meaning of him/herself and the meaning of others. indicating a relation type between consumers. Being the ones of younger age (84%). specially the younger ones. T. appropriate or inappropriate. it indicates that fashion shall be followed between 20 and 35 years of age. Likewise here. Moda. or even the older (78%). 1999.

to be fashion. how the others are classified in a universe in which fashion. 10 .Or. in other words. shall be something understood collectively.

art to astronomy. ecology to movies. most of these realities are close. regardless the nature of the bond with the environment in question. technology to pure science. all deserve a conclusive reference by all. They are hundreds. Most of the time. soccer to religion. when discussing things. It means: they play a role that. economy to education. In most part. From politics to culture. these people seem to have very “clear” ideas about all this. under negative or positive aspects. beyond 11 . taken by chance in the campus environment. to be used as an example. everything is objective of “absolute” classification. according to rejection and preferences of patterns. The simple fact of finding it on a campus environment. They rarely left something remaining free from opinions. Nothing is excluded or left behind consideration. previously classified to be used in the parameter of any qualification type. on daily basis. A large number of people. sometimes the most trivial ones. join this representation. perhaps millions of people who compose this environment of a characteristic way turning it into spaces of ideas and concepts that arbitrate themselves.III A sample. It does not matter much which institution has been chosen because in this particular one. develops a representation that goes beyond the role they play on it. even professors. with a working life dedicated to science and culture development. Usually. makes that values are attributed to mostly everything to be discussed beyond life and death.

bracelets and rings handmade. from the esthetic point of view. A record. mistreated hair-raising victimized by innumerous use of curlers. for many. in this case. straighten tries. Such role that extends far beyond the field they specifically work. idea. procedure. however. what happens is not different. It relates only to a record analysis. And that. involves a very typical posture as “referees” not only from what they teach but also from a countless number of other subjects. 12 . which seems to be a result of someone who just come from a quarry bombing. That is. describes the human being from his/her own appearance. product and so on. complete the “picture” of someone “original”. All this as an integrate part of a visibly small head where there is a long. However. homemade dyes. not even the utilization of fashion is free from this judgment type. the fact of being someone who is a university professor.professional acting. Yet completely disarrayed. enormous mouth and a big disproportional nose. colored socks. the authority intellectual “look” over innumerous subjects. Long dress. that is evidenced on each person's opinion field when this person establishes his/her own quality reference for each thing. As fashion is always on the axles of contemporaneous attentions of each one. for others it might be considered “taste of originality”. is an extremely ugly person. as a demonstration of permanent “bad taste”. while a formulation of a “conceptual image” that classifies the person from the stereotype and prejudice. raw leather sandals. which is considered. The example. earrings. necklaces. That was the reason why the following example was chosen in the context of the own campus. This is neither good nor bad. Not even intended this work to being a criticism habit. done with the minimum professional criteria. of insinuating (but actually show off). Someone who. professors and researchers have a great probability to assume a “referee” role in knowledge. Being who they are. phenomenon. and has wide open eyes. with the visible impression that she tried to turn herself into a demonstration of the 70's.

They are used to project the self configuration of who gives opinion first. Especially when these ideas are related to his/her own opinion about fashion. From a personal point of view. the dark side of a person. can be used in the comprehension of how anyone proceeds classifying. everything. based in an individual esthetic conception. according to what is perceived. reflects the compulsory presence. 13 . Or even when he/she finds the opposite. Objections and opinions unilaterally emitted over any matter. everything can be object of preference or rejection. Then.contribute a lot to support the ideas impact that usually impose to the present ones. in a large number of occasions. Such example. It is not necessary to say that. everything can be object of classification or catalog. however. most of the time. according to his/her understanding. When he/she refers to someone as “ugly”. can be exactly opposite reference to his/her opinion. are often used to revealing the other side of who objects or give an opinion. these opinion project much more than concepts of use. This condition. of people who give opinions over how to dress from other people. according to personal values this someone adopts. who consider him/her ugly.

Arte. For this reason it is already allowed to say that clothes determine a situation that surpasses the dress use itself. CEM/Livros. Moda. 1999. Table I V “When is Someone Ugly?” Bellow 20 When someone is bad When someone does not dress up When someone is out of fashion WhenWhen someone does not dress accordingly or is clumsy When someone imposes his/her visual to others No Parameter No Answer 22% 17% 18% Between 20 & 35 12% 21% 21% Above 35 4% 24% 23% 19% 18% 17% 5% 21% 27% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 2% Source: Correa. the conjugation of feelings. Corpo. Feelings that go beyond what is intended to be expressed with the clothes that will be used.IV Dressing is. above all. T. Sao Paulo. it will be understood the first and huge function of fashion: fantasy. G. 14 . Understanding this matter.

Preliminary reading of this research data.Then the data in Table IV. among other possible conclusions. as it could not be understood differently. “does not dress accordingly” or “imposes his/her visual to others”. 15 . point to an interesting conclusion: the interviewed younger group (22%) define as “ugly” “someone bad”. brings to fire the background subject: the image we have from ourselves and others is fundamental. Last. defines as “ugly” someone who is “out of fashion”. as much as the expectation that is developed from certain standards of coexistence in this context. The group of intermediate age (63%). the interviewed older group (27%) defines like that the ones who “impose their visual to others”.

which recreate a sensual woman using so few dresses and a mask. or the habit of a nun. or sometimes to others. A character addressed to man fantasies and dreams. Hypocrisy therein is a social and cultural dissimulating away. Ethics can be compared to bathroom door which indicates an statement of what happen inside. by the means of what it seem to be accepted something that is not appreciated. What it really matters is reason that guides on person. fantasy and hypocrisy. the dissimulation of what we do not wish to show is also pure 16 . We all have special gestures that infringe the scenario in which we are inserted. We all are. no matter if the model is a bathing suit (as in this case).V In reality. Constrains that. Ethics is the best disguise to hypocrisy. has to do with us. Social tolerance is something restricted in the ethics field only. to establish that the character's “standard” mentioned shall be constant while a model in the process of fashion production. from a simple opinion that bothers to a more contusing manifest of displease. As a pleasant tolerance. not being apparent. that character in play by one of the Brazilian TV channels. We do not wish. usually adopted to brighten up everything that. of course. is replaced for any fantasy. to adopt a “dissimulation” to hide a side of his/hers that. shall be inconvenient or constraining. no matter who he/she is. Inconveniences that confuse. What it really matters from it is the “dissimulation” effect. That's what shows only the door indicatory: “occupied”. at the same time. we are all “Tiazinhas”. although present in our habits. sometimes.

No one wears clothes. cultural hypocrisy.cultural hypocrisy. That's the case such as “Tiazinha”. “brands”. is the world of hypocrisy. Once “designer names” and “brands point” in the direction of idealizations built from means that are produced as “record” of what is sold. such as opinions we emit. All this to state that the contemporaneous world is more overfilled than never of this hypocrite feeling that is transformed into general rules. subsists a very current practice of representation. “slogans”. dissimulation. Being in the fashion field or publicity. by the means of which nonexistent realities are played such as current idealizations. all is disguising. when this appearance was adopted as deliberated dissimulation only ¾ is pure hypocrisy! Defending current ideas and opinions. However. “styles” “campaigns” and others so present in media. in fact. The world of “designer names”. what we pretend to others. As. is the habit of roles development that ordinary people build for themselves. or yet in the entertainment. And we do that not being aware of. just for wearing because clothes assume a series of events that go beyond transformation of who was in the nude and got dressed. is the whole fashion universe. Opinions disguised do not show publicly what we really are. for beyond caricature developed from who embodies similar character. as said just now. but the ones we do not believe in. finally. Show something we are not. becomes usual. Forms configuration by the means of which fantasy is inserted as expression practice on people daily life. 17 . But before this universe. in the name of ethics (specially when we do not have much conviction about anything) is the same thing. references arise to justify the fantasized model from the projection that is made of it daily.

A simple reading of the data pointed out by the research enunciated. Thus. That means: clothes should be associated to this element. is the “fashion” one. as we can see. G. the most important detail is related to cloth. the most important detail on clothes for the younger group (21%). T. The first identifies cloth as the most important detail.Table V “What's Most Important on Clothes?” Bellow 20 Confort Designer Name Color Style Cloth Fashion No Parameter No Answer 11% 15% 16% 17% 13% 21% 4% 3% Between 20 & 35 18% 17% 15% 16% 19% 10% 3% 2% Above 35 34% 18% 14% 14% 24% 3% 2% 1% Source: Correa. In the last. that were divided by ages. 1999. keeps revealing that the distinct groups interviewed. in this research: getting older is much more important to the identification of a situation in which each one is related to fashion. That's why. have similar ways to understand the meaning of fashion use. the older group (34%). Arte. CEM/Livros. 18 . Sao Paulo. actually. of intermediate age (19%). it can be understood that the selected detail among the intermediate aged group means what was selected from the third group. Corpo. comfort. Moda. The second. fashion is something more viscerally bonded to youth condition of existence. In the second group. No other possible reading will indicate what is found. once again. If the observation goes deep. is comfort.

Youth started disposing in this way of acting. manifesting and positioning against current standards. from rupture models with the current cultural and social standards turned out to be an event from which is systemize new products marketing? That was the case of models emerged in the “hippie” movement. in reaction to established standards. models and styles that go from how to dress to musical taste. as we know. Patterns that. As no one ignores.It was for this reason that elementary patterns of clothes conception forms could be perceived in social movements. such models emerged especially in a transgression process to current esthetics. Since large social movements. of a convention in which it is universally expressed. incorporation by the market. That is why the second meaning of fashion. whose explosion coincided to rupture of previous patterns. and also themselves into merchandises. and thus. 19 . After huge social youth movements from mid 20's. likewise. the transgression one hold a very particular importance in the process of its formulation. transgress stopped being a replying “instrument” only to turn itself into “trademark” of a young generation. No one denies that other movements produced. were incorporated and transformed. it was the case of models emerged in the “punk” movement. they ended up being in general adopted by youth at that time. emphasizing its transformation into merchandise.

From the portfolio of Hollywood's premier stylist. pp. 589-601. Warner Books.Bibliography Barros. Campinas. Elements of style. The culture of fashion: a new history of fashionable dess. Mary. Giulia. Correa. Garthe. Bloch. luxo e economia (Fashion. 1979. pp.pp. 1997. Connor. Loyola. Duran. April 1999. Phillip. Papirus. Art and Communication School. Christopher. Breward. 1988. 1998. dicembre 1997. Barthes. body: identity ending). Moda. São Paulo. Joanne. 1998. Rock. Nacional & Edusp. New York. pp. corpo: o fim da identidade (Fashion. Manchester University Press. Brazil. Elegancia: como o homem deve se vestir (Elegance: how a man should dress). New York. Tupa Gomes. Babel Cultural. University of Sao Paulo. Fernando de. Paulo. São Paulo. 66. North Light Books. Milano. Cincinnati. pp. 24. 69-70. arte. Sistema da Moda (Fashion System). luxury and economy). Calligaro. Research accoplishied at Center Fashion Studies. Moda. São Paulo. Fashion and color. New York University Press. Negócio Editora. Correa. “Il linguaggio dei giornali di moda” (The language of fashion news) Problemi dell'Informazione. 1989. Tupa Gomes. 4th ed. Roland. 154-155. 1989. nos passos da moda (Rock. New York. 4. Fashion: an introduction. Steven. 20 . 118-119. Cultura pos-moderna: introducao as teorias do contemporaneo (Post-modern culture: introduction to contemporaneous theories). 1995. Finkelstein. following fashion steps). Jose Carlos. 1995. art.

Anna. 1997. Ted. Thames & Hudson. Mark. Meyer. Chosen essaies). 21. 1996. Loyola. Peacock. 1997. New York. John. p.. 1996. O'Hara. 99. Le dictionnaire de la mode contemporaine. A. Dress casually for success. São Paulo. MQ. Fashion sourcebooks: the 1950s. What to wear in the 3rd millenium. p. São Paulo. Preface. A condicao pos-moderna. Genève. p. Abrams. 1998. Harvey. 1986. Harry N. Pour miieux connaître et comprendre la mode (Glossary of contemporary fashion). for men. (Transl. Edusp. p. Polhemus. Fashion: great designers talking. 1998. Ensaios escolhidos (Modern art: XIX & XX centuries. S. U. David. Uma pesquisa da origem das mudanças culturais (Postmodern conditions. Moriconi.. Christine. Style surfing. The encyclopaedia of fashion. Thames and Hudson. Martine & George-Hoyau. Moodie. An infatuations book. London. Sobral & M. 8. Minerva. Schapiro. 21 . p. London. 1991. Georgina. A research about cultural changes origin). London. The five minute hair stylist.Harvey. Tiger Books. McGrawHill. London. Weber. Arte moderna: seculos XIX e XX. 12.254. Gonçalves). Catherine. 1989. New York.