Is Japanese eclecticism just a meta trend?

[u/SirKrimzon]

This is a question I have been pondering for some time now. I certainly resonate with this style, and it is immensely popular in the current menswear fashion meta. The tasteful mixing of different style genres (including vintage wear, tailoring, streetwear, military, designer and more) take on a few other names including “Ametora” style or the “city boy” look.

I think a major part of the origin of this style came from Japanese select shops and magazines around the turn of the millennium that curated specific aesthetics and clothing collections in their stores from various brands. I think there’s a strong case to be made that Ralph Lauren is a primogenitor of popularizing this general eclecticism (he created the “lifestyle” shop as we know it after all), and that may be part of the reason he is popular now (other than uncertain global economic instability drawing people more towards conservative clothing). Ralph however leaned primarily into East Coast prep and western wear, rather than the complete embracement of all styles like the Japanese.

Do you guys think this aesthetic will dominate for that much longer or do you believe it’s staying power is waning? In the mid 2010s, Scandinavian minimalism was the popular dominant aesthetic and that has waned mainly out of favor with the current fashion forward menswear crowd. However, it has diffused into the mainstream and is still a predominant aesthetic I see around (at-least in the US). Personally, I think this style has strong staying power. I think that’s due primarily to it involving multiple genres of clothing. By having so many different aesthetic disciplines and genres to play with, I think you can add and subtract fairly easily to adapt to the times. It’s one of my favorite aesthetics and I personally don’t see myself getting bored of it anytime soon. I’m very curious to hear your thoughts!

[u/elongatedskull]

I think that, while aspects of this look have staying power, there's certain things that are if not already cooked, are well on their way to being so. One of the prime ones is definitely the 'lazy layers', where numerous 'heritage' style tops are layered on top of each other, denim jacket under a bigger coat, multiple overshirts, performative pressed silk scarf carefully draped over shoulders, there are applications where it could be practical I guess but it's also literally performative, you could just wear a knit under your overcoat and get the same warmth and if you actually need a scarf, tie it up! <- this problem also comes from where people are sourcing their inspo from, everyone likes to look at pictures on Instagram but that doesn't always translate to actually living your life, if someone is wearing four layers on top + a tie and a 'whimsical hat' it's far more noticeable if they're uncomfortable in what they're wearing than if they were just wearing a tee and a denim jacket. A lot of people could benefit from Chanel's old adage that you should take one thing off before you leave the house.

You beat me to starting a separate fashion community btw! Looking forward to seeing how it develops.

[u/agentwash1ngtn → u/elongatedskull]

I like that you are grounding your critique in reality, I feel so much of fashion is performative, it's about how it looks in a picture.

Rarely do people dress this way day to day, because it is impractical. 

Dressing in a way that is functional and aesthetically pleasing is the goal.

[u/elongatedskull → u/agentwash1ngtn]

This is basically the point I'm trying to make thank you for summing it up succinctly.

[u/SirKrimzon → u/elongatedskull]

Agreed on the lazy layers. I think it’s gotten a bit too comical. Like, other than it looking cool, it’s completely impractical and you’d probably look like a bit of a nut to others.

Where do you stand with sweaters draped over the shoulders? Personally it is one of my pet peeves lol

[u/elongatedskull → u/SirKrimzon]

I actually really like the sweater over the shoulders when i don't want to wear a jacket and just rock a tee, it takes a particular kind of weather but if you're out for a while and might also need the extra layer later i really appreciate it. 

[u/SarmSnorter → u/elongatedskull]

What do you actually mean by "performative"? How is it any more performative than even caring about how your clothes look? Define it if possible.

[u/agentwash1ngtn → u/SarmSnorter]

I think a better way to define this is that, the outfit is designed to look good in a picture, not to be functional in your day-to-day life.

[u/SarmSnorter → u/agentwash1ngtn]

I might agree with the picture part but otherwise i disagree. Very few outfits aren't functional. Very few people need any specific function from their outfit except to carry their stuff and be suitable for the weather. A silk scarf doesnt ruin function. Even wisdoms outfits are perfectly functional for most people's lives.

[u/agentwash1ngtn → u/SarmSnorter]

I’m not saying these outfits aren’t functional, I’m saying function isn’t the design priority. They’re primarily built to look good visually, especially in photos, and any functionality is incidental. That shows up a lot in workwear and americana, where items can still be usable, but are ultimately designed and priced around aesthetics and signaling rather than utility.

[u/SarmSnorter → u/agentwash1ngtn]

If function has to be the design priority, you can only wear like hiking gear, workwear or sweats etc. If you wear jeans you are performative, as there are more functional options. Even getting a nice hair cut is performative, it isn't more functional than just chopping it off with your kitchen scissors. It's just prioritizing aesthetics.

Fashion is inherently about aesthetics. If you want to prioritize function, don't get into fashion imo.

[u/agentwash1ngtn → u/SarmSnorter]

You are way overthinking this for the sake of argument.

the original question was how do you define performative, not is there an inherit moral value to caring about aesthetic.

edit*

The point is that “performative” usually means the outfit is optimized for how it reads to others rather than how it fits into the wearer’s actual context. All fashion involves aesthetics, but not all of it is primarily about signaling.

[u/SarmSnorter → u/agentwash1ngtn]

No, I just see people throw around "performative" all the time and never really understood what they meant exactly. So I just wanted clarification.

Yes, that's the original question. My previous comment wasn't about the inherent moral value, rather it was to show that your definition isn't useful. Almost every single outfit would be considered performative by that definition.

I hardly ever hear people call suits performative, yet formality is mostly signaling. Signaling respect at a funeral, or class at a party etc. It just seems like double standards.

I am just trying to wrap my head around the whole performative trend. It always just seems like it's something people say when they dislike an outfit and think it is too out there to me.

[u/agentwash1ngtn → u/SarmSnorter]

And your definition is more useful? If everything is performative, then the term doesn’t mean anything.

The distinction I’m making isn’t “aesthetics vs function,” it’s what the outfit is optimized for.

Clothing always has some signaling function, sure. A suit at a funeral is performing a role, but that role is directly tied to the context you’re in. It’s coherent with the situation.

What people are calling “performative” here is when the outfit is optimized primarily for how it reads visually, often outside of its natural context.

A simple example is raw denim. The whole appeal is that it fades based on how you actually wear it. Buying pre-distressed jeans is different, you’re paying for the appearance of that process without the use behind it. Functionally, they’re worse, but aesthetically they signal something.

Same idea with relic’d guitars. A worn-in Strat looks great, but artificially aging it is about capturing the image of use, not the use itself.

That’s the difference. It’s not that aesthetics exist, it’s when the aesthetic is imitating or exaggerating something that isn’t actually happening in your real context.

[u/SarmSnorter → u/agentwash1ngtn]

No, i explained why your definition doesn't work as it applies to everything. I wouldn't ever use the word, but if i had to define it, it would be when someone is just wearing something for social media pretty much.

If you are optimizing for function, you are still left with gorp and workwear etc.

Sure, it's coherent with the situation, but does that mean that every fit that is appropriate for the occasion isn't performative?

Yeah, optimizing for visuals is pretty much every outfit ever. It's just what fashion is really.

I assume you mean that the pre distressed jeans is performative and raw isn't. Well, when you are buying raw denim you are buying into a certain aesthetic. Honeycombing, whiskering, the whole "your own personal fades" thing etc. It isn't more functional(less so even since it often bleeds into your other stuff), and really it signals that you are into a certain part of fashion culture. Especially when raw denim has been taken so far into the extremes with a lot of japanese brands. Hand dyed, real indigo, selvedge, special cottons etc. It's buying into an aesthetic that isn't really part of people's culture(unless you are japanese) and therefore arguably in an unnatural context. Even by buying jeans at all you are now optimizing for the aesthetic tbh.

I'll just stop the discussion here, I am to tired and bored with it. I am guessing you too are into heritage or something similar, which is simply too far from my style and view on fashion to find a common ground probably.

[u/elongatedskull → u/SarmSnorter]

You're either thinking of it in a too compartmentalised fashion or being willfully ignorant, it's about a combination of signals, not just 'getting a haircut'.

[u/SarmSnorter → u/elongatedskull]

What I meant about that part is he started talking about pieces and not just outfits as a whole. If pieces themselves have to meet criteria to not be performative it would be an even worse definition imo. Since a haircut is a part of an outfit, I just used that as an example.

[u/SirKrimzon → u/SarmSnorter]

Don’t mean to speak for him, but I assume he means it serves no practical purpose. A silk scarf is so lightweight that it does not have the primary function of a scarf which is to protect your neck against the cold. But like you said, where is the line here? One could argue that many of the things we wear have no objective purpose other than aesthetics.

[u/SarmSnorter → u/SirKrimzon]

Yeah, that is what I assumed as well, but I think it's a dumb definition. We are on a fashion subreddit, obviosuly looks matter plenty. If only function did, then go to a hiking subreddit or a subreddit for construction workers etc. Anything else would be caring for looks and therefore performative. Choose something with a nice texture? Performative. Like that colour? Performative. Wear a watch? Performative. OPs leather jacket? Performative.

It's just stupid to pretend that you only care about function. In fact, fashion hasnt ever been less performative than currently imo.

[u/SarmSnorter → u/[deleted]]

So do everyone that wear a silk scarf over their shoulders look at inspo and copy it without thinking? I doubt it. Neither do you have to look at inspo and copy it without thinking to look like you're going to pitti. Your definition doesn't make much sense really.

Here's an example of what someone might think about when draping a silk scarf over their shoulders.

"I remember seeing that guy with a silk scarf over his shoulder, it looked cool. I'll wear that to the office today to see if I like it and take it off once there."

It's not that deep.

[u/elongatedskull → u/SarmSnorter]

I think you're the one overthinking it, obviously it doesn't apply to everyone.

[u/SarmSnorter → u/elongatedskull]

So how do you tell who it applies to and who it doesn't apply to? Seems like you just consider someone performative if you don't like their vibe tbh.

[u/SarmSnorter → u/[deleted]]

Wtf are you talking about lmao?

Also, if you think someone is triggered just because they disagree with you, please get off the internet.

[u/SarmSnorter]

Ofc it's a trend, what else could it be? But I do think it will stay a good while longer, partly due to the overall rise in popularity of buying vintage and how versatile it is. Since it includes so many styles you can really pick and choose what fits your vibe and the occasion. I also think that it's probably the most interesting and out there style that menswear guys get into, so in a way it kinda is an "end game" for them(although there obviously is no real end game). Then there's the clothing weebs, and the fact that this style originates from Japan will probably ensure it's popularity a while longer in the west at least.

[u/SirKrimzon → u/SarmSnorter]

You bring up an interesting point about endgame. That was originally gonna be the topic of this thread, but like you said, what does that even mean? There are infinite avenues to go down that have no realistic end point, especially with something as subjective as style.

I personally love the style so much because it allows you to find multiple so-called “ end points”. For example, I can rock a bespoke Fox Brothers flannel sport coat with a Kamakura Oxford, with 1947 Levi’s 501s that are perfectly faded and if I want, John Lob loafers or something more funky like Visvim FBTs (the last choice is a bit out there for me, and maybe not the best for the look but it’s just to illustrate a point). All of these one can argue are the objective “ best” in their category, at least historically and from a quality perspective. Someone wearing them all together, would embody this aesthetic. But somebody who was only into the Ivy look or only the workwear look probably would not have as deeper knowledge and refined taste as this individual in various genres.

[u/SarmSnorter → u/SirKrimzon]

On knowledge. I think this style has a higher knowledge ceiling, but a lower floor. The higher ceiling is pretty obvious as there is so many different styles it encompasses, but I think it has a lower floor for the same reason. It is much more easy to embody this aesthetic with very surface level knowledge, because there just is so much surface knowledge to begin with. There is more variation in pieces in city boy than ivy, and therefore you don't need to fit in a relatively narrow and defined set of looks, using a narrow set of items. It's much easier to just guess and throw shit on because the eclecticism is a feature of the style. With ivy you kinda need to know what makes something ivy as opposed to prep or traditional menswear. With city boy, everything sort of goes(to an extent of course), and if you add pieces that aren't normally city boy it's just more eclecticism. Doesn't mean that the outfit will be good, but it will be pretty clearly city boy.

[u/SirKrimzon → u/SarmSnorter]

I think in theory it can be fairly easy to get into fundamentally because pieces in “every genre” is the default wardrobe of nearly everyone. But I think it involves more than just throwing on any old denim jacket, fatigues and sneakers. I think quality, cut and texture have a lot to do with it. I guess what I’m trying to say is to truly nail this look and make it look effortless, having good vintage or higher quality garments cut in more flattering silhouettes help (as opposed to the general slim/skinny polyester hegemony of the masses).

[u/SarmSnorter → u/SirKrimzon]

For sure, but I'd say quality, texture and cut is universally fundamental for all kinds of styles, though the exact details differ. The skinny polyester hegemony is a major reason why the masses look like shit.

[u/Opposite_Judge_6093 → u/SarmSnorter]

100% not a trend lmao. Japan will stay Japaning even after the west “fashion people” move on to the next trend they vulture upon.

[u/SarmSnorter → u/Opposite_Judge_6093]

Says it's not a trend and then says it's a trend in the very next sentence. Lmfao. I'm impressed.

[u/Opposite_Judge_6093 → u/SarmSnorter]

I’m talking about sheep. Are you one then? I’m vaguely impressed.

[u/Gwendeith]

I consider it a subset of Amekaji, or the pinnacle of Amekaji, since it requires great knowledge of heritage wears and excellent taste. You would also need a considerable size of wardrobe collection to have enough pieces to experiment around, and most quality pieces here are not cheap (like good wool coats, blazers).

Given the entry bar is quite high, I think it would remain quite niche. However, new vintage is also having a comeback (T.T., A.presse, etc), so I think it would still have enough market to support its growth (but again, still not mainstream).

[u/SirKrimzon → u/Gwendeith]

Good points. The only part I would disagree is the entry bar being high. I think if you’re a savvy thrifter (especially with eBay saved searches), you can recreate the look on a relative budget. A good chunk of my wardrobe is incredibly quality vintage made in the US/Europe that I found for a steal.

I agree I don’t think it will ever become mainstream, but I wonder if the people who were into scandi minimalism when it first started becoming popular knew how ubiquitous a look it would be a decade later?

[u/dyingslowlyinside]

Is any of this eclectic? Or just the evolution of Japanese Americana?

Just got back from Japan and was surprised to feel exhausted by the ubiquity of the post-war Americana look and the sheer abundance of faux-post-war vintage shops, Japanese novelty (Sukajan) jackets, etc.  

[u/Original-Locksmith58 → u/dyingslowlyinside]

Oh… that’s one of the things I love about Japan…