in the vernacular

Clothing is part of the cultural dialogue with which we are forced to engage. To be entirely flat-footed, it is our outermost layer. That isn’t to say it is our most shallow layer, but it is certainly the most forward-facing. Clothing, then, makes sense as a medium to examine the interplay between how we understand our projection of the self, and how we demonstrate it to others. It is language that is implicit, as it is observed rather than imposed. Clothing is curated, but it is still intuitive, expressive, and radically personal like any other form of communication.

Ordinary language philosophy tells us that language does exactly what it says it does. In a world constantly looking to critique, uncover, and dig beneath the surface, this framework reminds us to take what our language does at face value. Calling the concept of ordinary language a philosophy is misleading; ordinary language philosophy really tells us to stop philosophizing and reminds us that there are types of thinking other than that which is critical.

Clothing is both projective and observed. In its creative existence, it does something simple. It lets us tell people how we hope to be perceived, and with that, how we perceive ourselves. There is an interpretive level at play, as well as some optionality. A clothing choice can be made as an expression, a projection, or both. Aligning both is not necessarily smooth, though. How we hope to be perceived for the sake of professionality, conformity, lack thereof, or any number of personal factors has to actively be aligned with how we perceive ourselves. That process is not only difficult, but it anticipates incompleteness; there are always external factors that call for mediation between understanding and projecting the self. However, the process of defining and developing that perfect harmony is exciting.

To go back to framing this process alongside language, clothing lets us implicitly tell people what we want that balance of projection and expression to look like. It also lets us iterate quickly in a way that traditional language does not. With clothing, we can say we see ourselves one way, say we are interested in one thing, and then, slowly tweak it to more truly line up with our internality. It is fast, constant, expansive, and of course, creative and expressive. It speaks through its existence, its fabric, its color, its silhouette; it is taken at face value. This isn’t to say that there are no deeper, philosophical, or critical concerns surrounding clothing, but just that this framework of treating clothing as ordinary language works.

FORM chose models for this shoot in pairs of close friends. They first styled each other in the way that best aligned with their perception of the other’s personal style. Each then styled themself in the way that best fit their own personal expression. The balance of harmony and dissonance between the outfits styled for them and the outfits they themselves styled made for an exciting conversation. They loved those fun pants, but they’d probably pair them with something a bit more comfortable or a bit brighter in color. Really, though, they’d rather wear the skirt from their mom’s early adulthood adventures around the world, or the shirt from their favorite sports club or the jacket they’d thrifted with their closest friend in their favorite city.

It became clear that within the expressive element of clothing sits the stories that accompany it. There is, then, a level of personal attachment to this dialogue, like any other, that goes beyond what is perceived. In that sense, our approach falls short; it is not enough to talk about what this clothing does in being seen and worn, without talking about its entire lifecycle and the memories attached to it. What we did see was how an expressive personal style could both translate, being understood by friends to represent the person’s sense of self, but also be more personal than interpersonal, meaning more for selfexpression and understanding than it ever could externally.

This layer of expression is not without its faults, like any other. As language, it has the capacity to be misinterpreted, and even misrepresentative or misleading. Moreover, clothing as communication can be shallow, wasteful, and prejudiced in a host of ways. Those considerations are implicit in the intuitive transmission of information via clothing. Still, with an ordinary approach to clothing, we can make sense of what it does and lets us do implicitly. We can lean into using this form of expression that is essential and diversified, to better align our expressions and our projections of self.

PHOTOGRAPHY Jackson Muraika

WRITING Ali Rothberg

MODELS Michaela Harris, Abhinav Jain, Katie Lam & Ayushi Patel