Why is the Bum Look Popular? (formally the unemployed look)

[MK]

I have noticed over the past several years that some people think you are cool if you look unemployed. If your clothes look like they were bought at a thrift store or garage sale and look as though they were never designed to go together or fit. If your hair looks messy and haven't shaved for days....then you look cool?!?!?

I don't get it. Here are some examples of the unemployed look:

Here is a real panhandler:

What is the difference?

 

[Luke 42]

In general, I agree with you. I don't get it either why being unshaved and unkempt is suppossed to be cool..it just looks sloppy[huh]

BUT: To defend Ewan McGregor This foto is from the Davidoff adventure eau de toilette advertisement. I think it is supposed to look like he's been hiking or such activities for some days or week, so I think it is an appropriate look. Not so if he would be sportin such attire and beard in the city.



fftopic: Why there is such a thing as an adventure eau de toilette :eusa_doh: is another topic

EDIT: He sure can do better ;-) http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/080219/Oscars/Ewan-McGregor-Moulin_l.jpg

 

[KeyGrip]

There are probably a lot of reasons we could come up with. The differences I see are necessity and effort. Some of my peers, that elusive 18-25 demographic, seem to think that everything they do should look effortless. They can't look like they're trying to do anything. Also why I see so many untucked shirts and unbuttoned vests.

There is also the issue of necessity. I guess there is some sort of cachet in looking like that, especially when you don't have to. Those people want to look like the guy on the bottom, but never want to be him.

Just my $.02

 

[randooch]

Did you pay that panhandler for the use of his image? Little does he know, he's famous now!

But to ponder your question, I think the same "fashion" trend that gave us baggy, falling down pants and facial tattoos is at work here: it's an in-your-face, finger salute to society and all its strictures. I hope to heck the pendulum swings the other way soon.

 

[Vanessa]

What is the difference?

One is Ewan McGregor and the other. . .is not.

 

[Miss_Bella_Hell]

One is Ewan McGregor and the other. . .is not.

Yeah. Basically. Oh and, he doesn't look dirty.

 

[Miss Neecerie]

Yeah. Basically. Oh and, he doesn't look dirty.

Agreed. The jeans are neat and tidy, the shirt is clean, the scarf is white and neatly around neck.

Yes, its casual. But it does not even come close to 'unemployed bum'

This does not -bother- me at all as a look.

I suspect maybe its just that I have more things to do or worry about then what the rest of the universe does with fashion.

 

[B. F. Socaspi]

Did you pay that panhandler for the use of his image? Little does he know, he's famous now!

But to ponder your question, I think the same "fashion" trend that gave us baggy, falling down pants and facial tattoos is at work here: it's an in-your-face, finger salute to society and all its strictures. I hope to heck the pendulum swings the other way soon.

Whoa whoa whoa now. No need to lot tattoos in with a bad sense of style. Tattoos are works of art. Not shaving is a matter of laziness.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

I hate to disagree with you, and I so rarely do, but that is one of my favorite portraits of Ewan McGregor and one of my favorite shots in general. I think he looks confident, engaging, adventurous, and interesting. The scarf is a nice touch and worn well.

This pic expresses who this fellow appears to be. -I say appears because I wonder how much of any celebrity's actions and persona are their own.- Here's a fellow who rode his motorcycle from the UK to the southern tip of Africa and in this photo, he looks like a man intense enough for that sort of adventure.

I dig it. I think it's cool. It's certainly not a Lounge look, or a going out to dinner look, but I've seen him well dressed as well.

 

[MK]

.

I am not knocking Ewan. I am sure they dressed him for what they wanted. Also they chose this photo out of the others from the shoot.

I don't think he looks confident at all. That expression looks more like discouraged or beat to me....perhaps worried or bewildered.

 

[Miss_Bella_Hell]

I wonder if there are any psychiatrists on the board who want to weigh in on this very relevant tangent. lol

 

[Paisley]

What is the difference?

That looks like my scarf he's wearing.

 

[Feraud]

Not shaving is a matter of laziness.

The guys from the Beard Board strongly disagree.

 

[scotrace]

If your clothes look like they were bought at a thift store or garage sale...

*cough*

 

[MisterGrey]

I agree that there is a certain slovenliness that is seen as a fashion ideal in modern clothing, but that picture may not have been the best example. I regularly see guys wearing rumpled sportscoats (and not linen or seersucker rumpled, but, "I sleep in this" rumpled) with pre-shredded jeans, shoes that look as though they were used to dig trenches, and shirts that I'd expect to pop up in a connecting sequence in a 1970s adult film. Now there is a terribly epidemic fashion trend.

As for Ewan, I'd call it "ambiguously effeminate mechanic" more than "unemployed."

 

[Mike in Seattle]

The difference is probably that Ewan paid a few thousand for his "new" worn-out machine-made, designer-label outfit which he probably wore a couple times and got rid of, and thinks he looks great in without giving a second thought to the no-doubt large amount he spent...whereas the other fellow has to wear whatever he has, day after day, and could probably live for months on the amount of money Ewan dropped on the one photoshoot outfit.

 

[Belegnole]

Ah, and here's the rub. He doesn't or didn't own any of the clothes worn for a shoot like that. He may have however left with them.

On the concept that not dressing up equating to not having employment, I could take offense. I am currently unemployed and do not believe that it has all that much to do with how I dress. I choose not to take umbrage because I do not believe MK means any slight to myself or others but purely dislikes or doesn't understand the style in question. From what I read here on these forums If I purchase my clothes at a thrift store. I am only doing what most here do as well. So in general being thrifty does not equal being a bum or more definitive a slob. The current fashion of not being dressy stems from a number of sources, one which is prominent and has been mentioned is that many wish to thumb their nose at the social elite. Another major reason is that there has been NO growth in the suit in many, many years. Modifications yes but nothing new, unless you want to revisit the leisure suit....personally I didn't like them the first time. So, the designers and those who make money off of fashion strove for change. They aimed at where the money was....the common man. They invented grunge as a fashion and they were off. While the suit can be a wonderful piece of clothing it has gotten itself a stigma which it needs to outgrow. It needs to become more than just a uniform again and get it's respect back. For that to happen I fear things will have to cycle.

Facial hair, lack there of or abundance of is in the same realm. What is in one day may be out the next. What we did that our parents didn't understand, turns into our difficulties understanding the next generation. So, as one who has been an artist for most of my life I attempt to find beauty in all that surrounds me even if it is not to my taste...

In the end I think that while many may not agree with people being scruffy, there are those who are cool even while being different. It is also true that it is cool to be yourself, at least I hope so...for some days I wear a kilt, and sometimes I don't even shave..

EDIT: a small addition; Because I do not wish to sound like I am only jumping up and down on MK's verbiage and think the underlying question to be valid. I find that fashion and the growth of the individual are probably most likely to be the two biggest factors. Your two examples, while similar are different. Both are wearing a "working mans" casual clothes, but one is clean, and styled while the other is not. Oh, and that Ewan McGregor pulls off the style because that is the way I think he is most of the time....A wee bit scruffy, and he pulls it off so well..

 

[carter]

I'm glad some ladies' input here. Casual is not necessarily unemployeed. Nor is scruffy a euphemism for unemployable.

I agree that the shot of Ewan McGregor may not have been the best shot for MK to use to make his point. Even more obvious examples can easily be found in any major US city. And certainly more egregious fashion faux pas. And they may well be employed.

As far as the "real" panhandler. I wouldn't automatically assume that this fellow is "unemployed", unless by "unemployed" one means "pays no income tax". In some major cities, these folks have a network with transportation, regular rotating stations, and access to food. clothing, and shelter. This is not unemployment. This is a lifestyle choice. It may become even more commonplace.

Having a beard, tattoos, piercings, and other matters of personal choice have no place in a discussion of employability. If that's the case, I know plenty of well-groomed and buttoned-down folks whose only qualification for a job is the fact that, in someone's opinion, they look good in clothing.

 

[HarpPlayerGene]

Cool thread you kicked off here.

Three things at play:

1) The point about 'grungy' looking sloppy attire being the most common 'fashion' among younger people (teens through 30s primarily) today is well taken and obvious in any walk in any town. I think it's decadent and not in a good way.

2) The image of Ewan McGregor to illustrate the point was, well, a poor choice that kinda' backfired on ya' since this is one of the people who can rock that look and actually make it work in a very artistic way.

3) Thrift store and garage sale shopping for clothes....
*cough* x2.

 

[Feraud]

Better to dress unemployed and have work than to be unemployed and dress otherwise.