We’re taught in grad school that one of the most important things to do when you set out on a project is to define your terms. Well, clearly we were desperately in need of defining what we mean when we say “remixed”! Thank you for all of your responses and thoughts and for helping us clarify why and how we use the term.
We’ve mulled over this for a bit, and here’s what we, E. & S., have concluded (A. is still deciding whether or not to jump on the terminology bandwagon):
- For the purposes of this blog, we will define a remixed item of clothing most basically as “a piece that has been previously worn and photographed during the span of this project.”
- But, we will be extra-conscientious of still including information on where that item came from in the first place. S. is usually very good about this. E. would like to pass off the blame for her occasional laziness to do so onto her bump, but that wouldn’t be kind.
- Additionally, we will be more consistent about linking to one or two previous outfits to show exactly how something is being reused.
One of the reasons that we’re sticking with this broader definition is because the notion of what constitutes “a whole new look” is very subjective. A more expansive use of the term lets us keep an eye on how items develop into staples and hopefully pushes us to keep changing things up. We may investigate the possibility of tagging items of clothing as an alternative, but until we explore that system, the above will serve as our guidelines.
Now, not everyone may agree with this usage, but we hope you’ll stick around anyway with this clarification in mind. After all, E. doesn’t really buy Julia Kristeva’s definition of the “semiotic,” but that doesn’t keep her from using Kristeva’s writing as a launching point for her own investigations into the destabilization of subjectivity through art. Yes, that was incredibly nerdy example, but hey, that’s what we’re here for. After all, we’re not style mavens. We’re just PhD students.
Thanks for the clarification! I like the nerdy analogy. :-)
I do the same as E. with my Political Science papers. I don’t agree with Cardoso’s analyses of Latin American politics but it’s still a good and thorough perspective.
A lowly undergrad (for another two weeks)!