Normcore and Fashion--Probably the First in a Long Series

These aren't my feet, but according to Google, I can reuse this image.

There has been a lot of talk over the past year or so about Normcore.  This is not when you dress like Norm from Cheers, or even Norm MacDonald, but it is when you wear "normal," sometimes ugly, clothing.  It's not the same as being "basic."  I'm pretty sure women I've known in the past whom I would describe as basic would avoid the above Birkenstocks.  So yup, it's about almost knowingly wearing things that are ugly, but celebrating their utilitarian chicness and quality.

Here's my question to you.  If you were in fact going to buy Birkenstocks, would you pay for the classic Birks, or would you get a designer iteration of it, like these here for about five times the price?  I personally would rather have the originals.

What about these designer iterations of Adidas Stan Smiths?

Or these weird-looking ballet slippers instead of these classic Capezios?

I guess it goes without say what my preference is.  To me, the gold standard is with the company that actually invented and designed the original shoe or item.  The classic.

The pant has already been invented.  The blouse, the button, the zipper--all have already been invented.

I love fashion.  But, charging $600 for basically another version of the Birkenstock is not a good thing, in my opinion.  Fashion is about fun, style, and reinvention.  Changing the color on a well-established design is not reinvention.  And making new stuff just to make it is irresponsible.

After going through my closet, I noticed that I tend to gravitate toward the same styles again and again (and those styles that didn't suit me sat in the closet unworn).  My closet purge was an exercise in getting rid of the "fashion for fashion's sake" items, and keeping the stuff that made me look and feel my best.

When someone says they prefer "classics," I always think "BORING."  But, it doesn't have to be.  What are YOUR classics?  Your "classics" is your style.  I'll be going through my recently pared down closet (which can stand for some more paring, but it's a start).  Can a fashion item be a classic?  Sure.  Can something vintage or old be a useless fashion item?  Sure, if it has no place in your closet.  I recommend again that you check out Cheap Chic for an elaboration on this philosophy.

I did get rid of two of my favorite pairs of shoes:  My Birks and my Adidas "Superstar" or as I like to call them, Shell Shoes.  Why?  Because I had had both for 15-20 years, and they were worn out.  Classics are classic for a reason:  they really never go out of style, even if fashionistas tell you that they do.  They look great, they are useful, they are well made.  And, they are reasonable for what they are.  Cost per wear (CPW) for my $100 Birks are probably pennies, since I had them for so long.  I lucked out that both of these shoes are now "it" shoes in the fashion world, but it doesn't matter to me as much as it does that they are cool and comfy.

Which brings me to my other point:  Can we just stop having "it" items?  Wear what you like.  Don't overpay for it.  Repair, replace, recycle.  Don't just consume for consumerism's sake.  When you do buy something, buy responsibly and thoughtfully.  You DON'T have to buy a wardrobe every season.  Besides, California doesn't have seasons, LIKE DUH.