Interesting - YouLookFab Forum

This article seems so abstract - and yet, if I understand what it says... then it seems to me that one of the natural outcomes of relatability - as described in this article - is that other word/phrase I am coming to dislike: normcore.

If we hold up this idea of 'relatability' as the standard by which we judge all art, including fashion - it seems like creativity will die out.

Or am I totally reading this wrong?

11 years ago

Aida

Veteran

Interesting article Anna. I am curious about how this phenomena may or may not across other countries. "Relatability" certainly has a place, but so to does the other end of that spectrum -- what gets us to think outside of ourselves if all we see is what we can relate to?

In terms of fashion, I think this idea is going hand-in-hand with the growing movement to comfort. Comfortable looking outfits are quite relatable. Relatable is not on my style radar as a concept, though I suppose there's an element of it when choosing to adhere to environmental norms. Personally I go more for accessible, and hopefully still have enough creativity in there that it's not too "normal". I may not be dressed the same as you (the general you, not you Anna ), or in a way that you find relatable, but you can certainly feel comfortable coming up to me for a chat. Interesting to think about for sure!

11 years ago

cciele

Veteran

Interesting article, Anna.

My takeaway of the author's point is that we're becoming a passive audience that doesn't want to engage in "active exercise of imagination or the effortful summoning of empathy." Make it easy for us to consume literature, art, and music! We don't want to take the effort to relate to something outside the scope of our experience and comfort level.

Or something like that

11 years ago

Mary Beth (formerly LBD)

(website)

Veteran

WOW, Cciele, you put your finger right on it.

11 years ago

Aida

Veteran

Oh Cathy, don't get me started on music. The homogenizing of pop music, in particular, over the last decade makes me angry to the point of almost doing something about it other than not listen But seriously, music doesn't rock nearly hard enough these days. /end back in my day rant....

11 years ago

Alana in Canada

(website)

Veteran

La Belle--well, creativity won't die out, per se, but certainly, if "relatable" becomes the sole criterion of a work's "worth" then there might be a lot fewer different kinds of "works" available. But, than on the other hand, you could also argue that many kinds of works are relatable to many different kinds of people--and so we have variety again.

One of the things going on here with the rise of "relatability" as a criterion for a work of art, is a challenge to the assumption that works of art are supposed to somehow be the opposite of relatable. They are supposed to lift us up out of ourselves, give us a broader view of human-kind and our condition. Works of art exist to challenge our assumptions about the way we view our life and the world around us--not pander to them and affirm them for us.

But the above is a very 18th/19th century view of art--and as in so many things, the last century and this one has seen us fall ever closer into solipsism and narcisism.

It's been kind of inevitable since Nietzsche declared God was dead.

11 years ago

catgirl

Veteran

My gut reaction: I don't like the idea of relatability as a critical tool in determining worth, nor do I think art should be addressed solely in terms of the observer's idea of its worth to oneself (that's the narcissism). And I think we should be careful what we are really asking for as a culture when we shift such paradigms. Is it about staying in a comfort zone? Is it a requirement of life that we challenge ourselves?

And so on. Think of how social media is constantly monitoring us - what do we like? Books, music, people, politics? All the better to sell us only what we want and keep us as contented little consumers with everything tailored to us. No need to hear music you don't want to hear, see movies you don't want to see, interact with people who disagree with you. Yipes.

I do think of relatability as worthwhile as an emotional gauge (Ira Glass saying Shakespeare is unemotional, therefore unrelatable).

11 years ago

rabbit

Veteran

I just got stuck on the part where King Lear was unemotional...? (or maybe it's that Shakespeare is too emotional, and Ira isn't?)

At the extreme level, it's kind of like Harrison Bergeron, a rejection of the exceptional or different. Or an elevation of the unexceptional and comfortably familiar (I'm thinking of Jeff Koons' artwork).

On the other hand, sometimes things aren't 'relatable' because of yawning cultural divides that pop culture pretends doesn't exist, but I think shouldn't be ignored, like the air-brushed beauty standards in magazines, or the ever growing wealth gap.

11 years ago

catgirl

Veteran

There is that too, Rabbit! Isn't Shakespeare enduring because it's relatable on the most basic human level? Father with dementia? Star-crossed lovers? Egomaniacal politicians? Sheesh.

11 years ago

Mo

(website)

Veteran

I'm too loosey goosey from some nice wine to comment intelligently, but I so agree with the self involved aspect these days. How does it relate to me? Me me me me Maybe it's supposed to take you outside of yourself for a minute. And appreciation, or at least acknowledgment, of that which is foreign isn't such a bad thing. Isn't that what world travel is (was) about? On a tangent, it reminds me of Americans on HGTV looking for apartments abroad and whining how the kitchens are soooo smmaaalllll.

11 years ago

Angie

(website)

Fashion Stylist

If we closed off our minds from all things un-relatable - we'd feel sadness, anger, satisfaction and happiness much less frequently. We'd become like robots if we took it to an extreme. Igniting these emotions is what makes us human and feel alive.

There is something to be said for a simple life and a complex life. I think we need both simplicity and complexity in our lives in order to fully appreciate what we have and what is around us. Relating to un-relatable things enriches our lives as much as identifying with things that are within our comfort zone. And this is coming from someone who really doesn't like Shakespeare.

11 years ago

Anonymous

I work in publishing. I sell books that no-one may relate to , other than other poets, for example; and I sell books that are specifically written and marketed to be relatable. It's the old art vs commerce argument. Have you sold out? Are you true to your craft, your style, your idea? Or are you making art (fashion, books, home decor, anything that is creative) with the goal to sell a lot? There is merit in both, and it's an interesting conversation, and one I could participate in for a long time. Someone mentioned the normcore trend earlier - to me, that's something that was instigated by the consumer, then jumped on by the manufacturer. Relatability in fashion is an interesting topic: personally, I understand and support it. I don't always know what I want until I want it. And who made me want it? Her, you, that model, that label. I relate to it. In publishing (literary or commercial) , it's clear where the divide is: literary is relatable to fewer, or it is harder to UNCOVER that relatability (same with art).Commercial fiction is created to be relatable: it serves a function (to engage ) and it makes money. I think of you and Aida, here: you are unique and clearly have your look . We may not relate to it, but we sure as heck appreciate it for its individuality and forwardness. Without forward movement, we don't grow and relatability becomes stagnant. But then again, I may have completely missed the point. p.s. my spell check does not like this word " relatability . Either that or I need glasses to type. Great article - thanks so much for the link.

11 years ago

rachylou

Veteran

When you get a classical education, esp. an English classical education - one of the ideas they present you with is that one of the keys to a great work, the key to a successful invocation of the White Godess, is striking a chord with people no matter their time and place. The work must transcend. The work must be... Relatable.

I think the author is saying the meaning of the word has been inverted to a large extent, and I think she's right. I'm going to guess that came in with the rise of the philosophies of Diversity and Relativism. Instead of transcending, we keep to our boxes and order the pizza in.

The question is these days, if someone says a fashion designer is unrelatable, do they mean he's uninspired or do they mean he's in a different sandbox? I don't know looking at the 2015 stuff.

I AM a little surprised Ira doesn't find Shakespeare amusing tho. I'm thinking he's over intellectualized the Bard.

11 years ago

Adelfa

Veteran

Too tired for thought, but thanks to you all for your insightful comments and to Anna for posting this. I think it's a really important article and a really important discussion!

11 years ago

CocoLion

(website)

Veteran

Thanks for the link Anna! Good article, but there are some ideas I don't agree with.
- Shakespeare isn't relatable. (I disagree. As does the author of the article, I'm sure. It takes some effort to understand Shakespeare, and sub-titles help! Like at the opera. That's why I prefer Shakespeare on DVD. :-))
- Relatablity is bad, insipid, a cultural selfie. (This is where I disagree with the author. Something can be new and fresh and interesting but still, relatable. Maybe not immediately relatable, but relatable. Relatable does not have to reflect the lowest common denominator.)

It could be the growing importance of relatability is a good thing. It's the start to finding the things that connect us all as human beings.

11 years ago

rae

(website)

Veteran

Oscar Wilde wrote that "it is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors," so I'd say that if one can't relate to King Lear, then one is either emotionally stunted or completely lacking in imagination. Plus, a lot might depend on the directorial interpretation of a play. Plus, I am not sure Ira Glass is qualified to be the voice of this generation (what did Bieber have to say?).

The general populace seems to have grown quite lazy when it comes to art and music (right there with you telling today's music to get off my lawn, Aida!). I think the crux of the matter isn't whether or not people can relate - or if a piece is relatable - but whether they choose work to relate (Could you tell me where I might find the Burns O's?). It's easy to relate to the loss of a significant other or how fun it is to party all night, but it can be much harder to project into a complex/political/twisted/emotional situation.

That said, in regards to YLF, I don't think most people view it as A Place for Art. There is something to be said for the need to see a how-to to copy and get on with life. Of course, it can be very useful to soak in style unrelated to your own and let proportions, color, etc. influence you - but I think it's unfair to imply that people looking for relatable fashion are the same as people bored by Shakespeare.

11 years ago

ironkurtin

Veteran

I'm curious why you think this relates to people on the forum needing relatable fashion, AG.

As far as the article, I did like this quote: "But to reject any work because we feel that it does not reflect us in a shape that we can easily recognize—because it does not exempt us from the active exercise of imagination or the effortful summoning of empathy—is our own failure." I agree. But I also think expecting our audience to seek out and embrace difficult thinking is a good way to reduce our audience. Yes, not exercising imagination is a failure. But is it a common failure? Oh my lord yes. Can we defeat that failure by telling people "WORK HARDER TO GET IT, DAMMIT"? Hell no.

11 years ago

Mo

(website)

Veteran

Rae brings up a good point - fashion vs other forms of art. Here, I think, people come not to admire or experience fashion as an art form, but to get to the nitty gritty of the reality of dressing every day for their lives. Going to see a play is purely elective and at one's own choosing. Getting dressed is mandatory.

11 years ago

Gaylene

Veteran

So, according to the author, "relatability" is the insidious force that is the harbinger of a coming era of witless, self-absorbed individuals who can't see beyond their noses? Sorry, but Ms. Mead lost me with her leap between these two sentences:

"But to demand that a work be “relatable” expresses a different expectation: that the work itself be somehow accommodating to, or reflective of, the experience of the reader or viewer. The reader or viewer remains passive in the face of the book or movie or play: she expects the work to be done for her."

Well, yes, I do expect the artist/innovator/thinker to do a fair bit of the work to help me transition towards understanding something outside of my daily experiences. If my experiences are circumscribed by boundaries created by my own environment and life so far, how else can I make the emotional and intellectual connection needed to move from ignorance to enlightenment without that help? As IK so aptly puts it, shouting at me that I'm a lazy, ignorant slob who ought to work harder to understand what my "betters" know to be good, and right, and true makes me recoil instead of try to break free. Better that we approach the task as a collaboration...

To be honest, I think that the term "passivity" ought better to be hurled at artists/writers/innovators who rail at their audiences for not getting their brilliance. Shakespeare knew, that to get the masses to watch his plays, he had to write plays that appealed to the lowest of the low-brow. His genius was using "relatability" as a path to enlightenment.

ETA: And, just because this IS a fashion forum, I'd say that Shakespeare would be nodding in total agreement at the way Angie uses "relatability" to lure us in and then ever so carefully expands our norm-core boundaries to include harem pants, mixing black/grey/brown in a single outfit, wearing an all-white outfit in December, and, in my case, adopting slouchy, rolled khakis as my new uniform. Angie, you may not be a fan of the Bard's plays, but I think both of you would recognize a kindred spirit in your understanding of how to use prose and imagery to transform an audience.

11 years ago

rabbit

Veteran

Hmm... I'm not sure Gaylene. I don't think I've yet met an artist who rails against their audience for not getting it (no matter how small). Critics are another matter.

I think there are plenty of market forces (record executives, Harvey Weinstein) that edit, hack and smother interesting artwork because of 'relatability'. This work has an audience, but maybe it's not as broad and shallow an audience as the financial backers want.

Snowpiercer needs to appeal to moms in Peoria, cut 20 minutes! Ke$ha made some raunchy songs with people like Iggy Pop and the Flaming Lips, but she is thoroughly under the thumb of Dr. Luke as to what gets put on her albums, even on B-sides. These are mass market examples, not even close to indie.

Snowpiercer has Captain America in it, Ke$ha is...Ke$ha, if they can't draw even a little outside the lines because of perceived market pressures, what chance for creations that might be more relatable to folks who don't see themselves reflected in mainstream media already. I tend to hope the average audience member has more imagination and empathy to bridge any cultural gap than the keepers of the purse strings.

11 years ago

catgirl

Veteran

I think the difference lies in relatability as hook vs. relatability as a value in itself. I totally agree with Gaylene that relatability, even just a little, is how connections are made to otherwise challenging ideas (remember the closing argument in A Time to Kill? "Now imagine that the victim was white.")... And it's the hook (two words: Sarah Palin). The question is how much weight to give it.

And do we want it in all contexts? Sometimes impartiality is called for, and that is entirely unrelatable by definition.

Fascinating conversation!

11 years ago

ironkurtin

Veteran

Rabbit, I don't know a single artist who HASN'T lamented that their audience "doesn't get" it -- in both commercial or noncommercial fields. If you have a message, and your audience doesn't get it, it fails. And if you conflate "getting it" with "will pay for it," then bigger vectors come into play. Like wanting a broad audience to pay for what it took to make it.

I've been there. I've dumbed down stuff and didn't like it. But I've also done usability studies where I watched people trying to "get it," and sometimes the best way to get across a message is to tell it in a way people like to hear it.

11 years ago

Gaylene

Veteran

Ah, rabbit, I guess I've spent too much time with "literary" folk and academics who think that being impenetrable to the masses is a sign of genius. I'm always suspicious when I hear admonishments that the audience ought to "make more of an effort"; to me, it always smacks of a kind of snobbery and abdication of responsibility on the part of the creator.

Relatability isn't the enemy, in my books, unless it becomes the driving criteria as it does for those seeking marketability. That, I agree, is a disservice to both the artist and the audience. But the notion that the dominance of marketability in the creative field can be laid at the feet of a self-absorbed audience is a bit disingenuous to my mind.

To connect this to fashion and YLF, is it wrong to be enticed into the site because it helps connect my world with the world of fashion through relatability? Is my initial lack of aesthetic appreciation for highly unusual combinations and styles the result of a character flaw or simply inexperience? And what are my obligations as a viewer towards a creative outfit--do I need appreciate it simply BECAUSE it is creative and different?

11 years ago

Category