The style of normcore (from the English normal and hardcore) is that unbiased attitude to clothing that can be observed in the general mass. Having flooded the streets in the form of democratic jeans, sneakers and T-shirts, he opposes glamor, clearly defeating it in its mass. However, isn't this attitude to clothing destructive?
We asked the writer and social activist Maria ARBATOV to answer this question.
Skirt allows movements beneficial to the reproductive organs
— Maria Ivanovna, how can you explain the fact that the development of fashion causes a feeling of rejection in people, which results in the same normcore?
— In my opinion, the inhabitants of economically developed countries are fed up with the abundance of clothing and therefore attach less and less importance to it. Plus, wholesale Americanization without understanding that Americans are coming together as illiquid assets from different countries and are trying not to stand out from the crowd out of a sense of self-preservation. For example, on the streets of New York, only blacks and freaks are interestingly dressed. And the rest dress beautifully and thoughtfully only for celebrations.
— Is normcore temporary or permanent? Has such indifference to one's own kind been observed before or not?
— In a post-industrial society, clothing has almost ceased to be a marker of well-being and belonging to a certain circle. Brands were invented so that people would wear almost the same as everyone else, but at the same time everyone could see that they paid more and, therefore, were labeled differently. That is, humanity is dealing with mass deception for the sake of self-identification of the rich.
In industrial and pre-industrial society, people take clothes even more seriously, they are oppressed by stereotypes. Especially in the Islamic world, where women are limited in self-expression. In some African countries — because of poverty. And even in India, where there is a lot of money, but full of prejudices, a woman, having married, most often puts on a sari and modestly puts her hair in a bun. Although, before marriage, Indian teenage girls will give odds even to Japanese ones. So it's not about indifference, but about a new shift in values, when identity is manifested through other things. Through the shades of cut, through the inscriptions on T-shirts, through tattoos, etc.
— What role does this style play for women?
— On the one hand, unisex style makes life more convenient, more free, less time consuming. On the other hand, he changes the plasticity, creates a completely different role.
My friend Lena Hernandez — the best flamenco teacher in Russia — he spends a huge part of his time shaking women out of jeans and just teaching them how to walk in a skirt. And this is not about gender stereotypes, but about the fact that a woman in a skirt moves differently, and her reproductive organs are in greater order. The skirt allows for more movement that is beneficial to these bodily functions.
Dress code — the most unpleasant thing that civilization has brought
— Is it necessary to attach importance to appearance today? After all, only productivity is valued at work. And will the dress code resist him?
— Dress code — the most unpleasant thing that civilization has brought. It kills a person's ability to think. After all, clothes — it is the language he uses to address the world, and the dress code speaks for him. There are plenty of companies that privatize clothes, a smile, and even a list of places where you can dine during the working day. This — a matrix that destroys the personality, and the person himself must think about it, without an employer.
— Isn't normcore personally destructive for a woman?
— I think no. A woman who treats clothes like a religion is successful with one type of man, and a woman who does not get out of her jeans with another. As a rule, business women remember the possibilities of the wardrobe only for ceremonial exits. And I don't see a problem with that.
— In her latest photo shoot, Madonna was photographed with overgrown armpits. And according to the experts of beauty salons, women are less likely to do hair removal in the bikini area. How can you explain this?
— The way out of patriarchal stereotypes always leads to the understanding that armpits should not be shaved by the one whose passport says belonging to one or another gender, but by the one whose armpits stink. And it is clear that in terms of metabolism, this is more a man than a woman.
Epilation in the bikini area, in my opinion, is a complete perversion, moreover, painful, as I was told. It is, in principle, from the category of Sino-Japanese foot binding for the sake of a man. One can only treat women who subject themselves to such an execution with pity, however, as well as their partners. It's the same with leg shaving, which was invented by poor prostitutes to draw an arrow on their legs when they had no money for stockings. All this — advertisements for salon earnings that do not make women more attractive.
— What's next for normcore?
In fashion, every phenomenon is always replaced by the opposite. Very short skirts are followed by long ones and vice versa. This trend will certainly change. Not crinolines, but something very modern and comfortable.
Add to this the growing interest in ethnic culture, the importation of national clothes from India, China, Africa. Previously, the sari was only seen on TV, but today it is considered good form for an Indian party, just like a flamenco skirt for a Spanish party. I hope it will come to sundresses, which have unique embroidery with important symbolism of amulets.
Add a comment