People who leave tags on their clothing are mostly classless idiots.
I will never, ever understand why people leave these dumb stickers on their hats. It's not only gauche but pointless, unless you never plan on washing your hat.
The hostility comes from me having no understanding where you are coming from.
I made the point I was trying to make, that the context renders both actions fundamentally different. I am now responding to your points.
The hostility here is somewhat confusing to me. You're saying something, and I am responding. What is the issue?
Why did you feel the need to respond in the first place? Was it a problem with the first part of my original post or the second? The latter part of my post was merely an aside, which I have explained, in finding it rich someone making that comment questioning maturity whilst sporting an avatar of an animated character. You said I was ignoring context, I appreciate the context but still find it rich, you may not and that's fine.
Treat me like an idiot, explain your actual point
I once walked into a Superdry store before I'd ever heard of them. I couldn't find a single item that wasn't plastered with the word 'SUPERDRY' in huge letters. Would have bought a jacket if it wasn't for that but instead I left empty handed and have never been back again.
That said, I don't mind a minimalist approach when it comes to logos on clothing and shoes, while not completely removing the logos. But I don't know if it's becoming a generation-wide trend. Personally, I would like to see a breakdown of race & gender when it comes to logos & branded clothing.
Also, buying a shirt with a logo and removing the logo for some anti-corporate stance is not only corny as hell, but it ruins the value of what you just bought. Just buy a shirt without a logo if you enjoy looking like a stock extra in a cartoon.
Why define yourself using through someone else's art? I'm a highly, highly, original guy with extremely original thoughts and ideas. It's incredible how when you start to think "outside of the box", as I like to call it, how suddenly the ideaspace becomes fully diversified and you suddenly have the ability to co-opt and absorb different bits and pieces of different threads in the overall human collective consciousness to weave together a wholly original fabric made of many colors, many designs.
Your originality will ripple across the ideaspace to disrupt the human algorithm, which necessarily seeks a state of equilibrium. A Tapout shirt is the state of lowest energy. A Chanel purse is the human collective consciousness' attempt at efficiency. It is a proxy of a proxy of proxy of a good idea. And you can call it that only if you buy into the assumption that only good ideas proliferate, or that only people with "good" ideas have higher disposable income.
But this is the human algorithm's voodoo. It is both self-referential, and energy conserving to a fault. How do you make a recursive algorithm as efficient as possible? By assuming a consistent, predictable result in every iteration. The less entropy, the fewer calculations that must be done. I'm a very original person, by the way.
When you introduce non-linearity into the system, when you introduce entropy in the system, you force changes in the algorithm. The system must change to account for and encompass a larger amount of total states. Every new or original state caused by an actor fully utilizing their own ideaspace causes the system to reveal another more and more of the true complexity of the system as a whole.
The funny thing is that as the ideaspace of the collective consciousness widens and widens to encompass an ever-growing set, the ability for humans to understand and interpret each other's ideaspaces also widens. This is because, as stated earlier, the algorithm necessarily becomes more and more complex. The ability to relate your own ideas with other people's ideas is heightened.
The framework I outline here is admittedly abstract(especially if you're not an EXPERT in computer science), but to many, some of these concepts probably feel eerily familiar. Part of this feeling is simply the feeling you get when you feel the force of a new ideaspace butting into your own. The emergent additive properties of ideaspaces and entropy, colliding and comingling in perfect ecstasy as we make reality itself our bitch. What I'm trying to say is that if no one wore Nike swoosh sweatshirts, maybe we could achieve world peace.
I've got some 5/11 shirts where the logo is there, but isn't prominent and I like that. Same with the pants I got from American Eagle, the logo is small and subdued.
There's some agency there i.e. I like Captain America as a character and so I wear a CA shirt to show my interest or support or what have you. Often, people wear clothes because they like the shirt itself and the logo on it is just a rider that comes with the shirt you like. So removing the logo allows you to only display brands that you intentionally want to represent but still wear the shirt.
I don't get this rationale. Wearing something with a logo doesn't endear you to said brand or means you represent said brand anymore than wearing something with art based on a movie or game means you're a walking poster
How is wearing something with a minimalist Captain American shield symbol different from a shirt with a Nike symbol? What you think looks cool, as a clothing design, comes first IMO.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Personally, I avoid all logos as much as possibly and usually only have logos on my shoes as I like a specific brand that prints logos on the shoe.