Kanye is a MAN

 

 

 From MTV.com:

Sway: Kanye, you’ve become a fashion icon. But along with the accolades you get for setting trends, like you did with the “Stronger” glasses and even the 808s & Heartbreak heart pendants, some people really mock you because of the way you dress. If you look on the Internet, there are even some of your peers and fans that say you “dress gay.” What does that mean to you?

West: Well, it’s like when people say, “Give me a natural pose.” You can’t pose natural. If you’re posing, then it’s not natural no more. So it’s statements that people say. “Dressing gay” you can’t dress like … Your dress don’t give away whether or not you like a man. Think about actors that straight dress up like a woman or something like that. People wanna label me and throw that on me all the time, but I’m so secure with my manhood. And that’s the reason why I can go to Paris, why I can have conversations with people who are blatantly gay.

‘Cause I used to be scared to talk to a gay person. It’s designers that’s scared of people in hip-hop. And in hip hop, there’s people — and let’s not even say scared like homophobic — but they’re scared of the way people gonna look at them. If you see a person be like, “I don’t wanna stand next to Marc Jacobs ’cause I don’t want that to bear on me because I’m just so cool.” One of the reasons why, the perspective I come from with my raps and my songs, the reason why can’t nobody dis me — no gangsta rapper, nobody can really dis me is ’cause it’s so authentic.

Sway: Tell me about the now-infamous Paris picture .

West: I’m gonna tell you something about the Paris pic. They was like, some of the people dressed in the outfits, I didn’t check out everybody’s outfit that hopped in the picture with me — I can’t be completely responsible. You go right into my outfit, my outfit is good. And see, like the [Fonzworth] Bentley video, “Everybody,” there was people calling me before we dropped it, like “Man y’all shouldn’t put that out with y’all dancing, man. People gonna say y’all gay!” And another thing is, people are so gay-conscious now. That’s like the whole thing like with the Internet — every day [is like], “Oh I can tell he gay now!” But back in the day, people used to have songs like “Get In That A–” or something like that. Someone would never make a song like that [today] because they’d be like “Whoa! I can’t make no song like that! People gonna call me gay!”

Sway: But that picture made so much noise. There was a lot of colors, right?

West: It was a lot of colors. Let me tell you another thing about … I’m doing a blog right now where I’ve been collecting all of the freshest stuff that’s rainbows — Denver Nuggets jerseys, BAPE shoes, Nikes with rainbows on ‘em — and saying, “Man I think as straight men we need to take the rainbow back because it’s fresh.” It looks fresh. I just think that because stereotypically gay people got such good like style that they were smart enough to take a fresh-ass logo like the rainbow and say that it’s gonna be theirs. But I was like “Man I think we need to have the rainbow” — the idea of colors , life and colors and stuff, I mean how is that a gay thing? Colors? Having a lot of colors is gay?

Sway: You once were quoted saying that you were inspired in fashion by how gay people dress.

West: And you know what? That’s when I was ignorant to gays. ‘Cause there’s a lot of gay people who don’t dress good at all. There’s a lot of gay people that I dress way better than.

Apparently bloggers and rappers alike–most notably 50 Cent–have been subtly and not so subtly giving Kanye shit for his obviously homosexual dress.  It’s inevitable for people who haven’t been exposed to high fashion and sartorial experimentation–to this degree–to see someone of Kanye West’s caliber; someone they’re supposed to look to as a fashion influencer, and be taken aback.  Kanye lurks around the same streets as Marc Jacobs and Miuccia Prada.  Both of these designers, Prada especially, have been quite aggressive in their attempts to redefine the defintion of male form. 

  Recently, Yohji Yamamoto had his models walking the runway in tailored suit tops with “skort” bottoms.  From GQ.com:

But the definitive piece in the collection was the skort, the kiltlike combination of skirt and shorts that is rapidly turning into a modern classic. -Tim Blanks

Whether or not these people have a grasp of where high fashion is going is irrelevant to be honest.  What’s most unfortunate is that they find it necessary to 1) insult Kanye for his style and 2) use homosexuality as some sort of derogatory term in doing so.  Something that I will never quite understand is the emotional reaction that’s generated in certain people when they’re exposed to something that’s outside of their pre-defined archetypes.  From personal experience, this is sometimes fear.  However, in some other incidents, I’ve sincerely felt a rather disconcerting degree of animosity towards what I’m wearing (generally bracelets, tight jeans, and a wide brim fedora being the most noticeable offenders).  It’s inevitable, yet pointless, to wonder why something as inconsequential and material as clothing can be a catalyst for such aggressive, and often negative, reactions.

Inevitably, you realize that, in a society where walking around naked is most definitely taboo, clothing is what defines gender.  Women have it rather easy in this department because of their anatomical composition.  In most cases, walking near a female is easy to discern.  Thus, if she’s wearing jeans and a sweater that’s fine because we know what gender it (she) is.  However, if she feels as if it’s necessary to show some leg or more of her form than that’s fine too.  The female body, because of a generally inherent male obsession with it’s potential sexually, can be more exposed.  Any objection will most probably come from a person who has some invested interest in the person’s dignity.  If a male were to wear shorter shorts or jeans that expose more form, however, it becomes unacceptable.  

With that in mind, there are parts of the male body that are admired sexually.  Some prominent examples are the penis, obviously, and the upper body.  The penis is irrelevant because of it’s presence in mostly private forums.  Thus, if a male were to expose more of himself, it’s going to have to be his obviously ripped upper body.  That said, a majority of offense comes down to at least four possible reasons:

1) As in the Prada example above, a top that, in how it accentuates the male form, is obviously not acceptable according to the male archetype.

2) In the case of Marc Jacobs, a bottom that is blatantly unacceptable according to the male archetype.

3) In the case of tight jeans or ‘short shorts’, a bottom that accentuates or overly exposes the male form to a degree that is obviously unacceptable to the male archetype.

4) Clothing that doesn’t fit any modern archetype (i.e. pointy shoes, hats that ironically pay homage to hats worn by every male in earlier decades but not in these decades, jewelry)

Granted, I will admit that a man’s leg is generally very ugly.  But that’s beside the point.  Sometimes I wonder if it all has something to do with the man’s ‘role’ as protector.  Is it possible that that’s why a muscular upper body being flaunted all over everyone’s face is cool?  Can I call this a ’24 inch pythons equals your face smashed’ complex?  I suppose that dressing up a bit off the paved path automatically subtracts from your total protection abilities or something.  Anyways, the point isn’t even that people can’t accept what’s going on sometimes.  The source for most despair is the fact that people feel it necessary to debase another person because of what they’re wearing.

Nice pants faggot.

Even more unfortunate is the use of homosexuality as some sort of insulting explanation for why you wear what you wear.  What ultimately is the connection between my sexuality and the tightness of my jeans?  Obviously you have a strict defintion for the homosexual male aesthetic, like you inevitably have a strict defintion for the lesbian aesthetic (note: mullet, flannel, dyke).  One of the most unfortunate terms in fashion, to me, is dandy.  This is essentially the term used for a male that exerts more effort when it comes to their appearance (note: dresses differently).  It’s unfortunate in the sense that it’s scope has been limited to those that usually dress in the more ’homosexual’ regions of sartorialism.  I suppose when Jay-Z puts on some calculatedly geeky glasses and takes some time  to compose a pleasing combination of properly sized shirt, jeans, leather jacket, and–most importantly–shoes; he’s not being a dandy.  He’s just being dope…or something.  Dandy just sounds too gay.  So does metrosexual.  Apparently, you can only care about your appearance if you care about your appearance the way a man should.

 People wanna label me and throw that on me all the time, but I’m so secure with my manhood. And that’s the reason why I can go to Paris, why I can have conversations with people who are blatantly gay.

Indeed, it’s unfortunate that certain aspects of our society haven’t quite sufficiently humanized themselves.  However, in the end, you realize how moot and inconsequential, and ultimately unrewarding, it is to contemplate such things.  As cliché as it is at this point, whatever you wear should make you happy.  If you can’t hang with what you’re wearing, then don’t wear it.  However, fashion dictates that some degree of uncomfortability is necessary as a sort of litmus for proper sartorial individualism.  I mean, if you stand out in a crowd, sometimes it’s lonely you know?

And when someone from GQ comes in and calls a ‘skort’ a modern classic, it’s good for the progression of the male form.  Menswear is notorious for being strict when it comes to form–previously mentioned connotations regarding sexual orientation aside.  Therefore, when/if the ‘skort’ becomes a modern classic–whether it actually is or not at this point is definitely debatable–it will hopefully trickle down to more public conceptions of menswear, ultimately, affecting the definition of the male form as a whole.  However, avant-garde designers like Yohji Yamamoto and even Miuccia Prada aren’t going to be the one’s that do this.  It’s going to have to be some, more classically masculine, name that takes the burden of redefinition.  Unfortunately, the necessary designers, Prada aside of course, aren’t really doing this.  Whenever I hear men talk anything about high fashion, I generally hear Dolce and Gabbana or Giorgio Armani mentioned.  Using these companies as an example, Fall 2009 doesn’t seem to be the season for change.  The international recession can’t be helping their willingness to experiment as well I’m sure.  That said, it’s good to see someone with as much exposure as Kanye West challenging the sartorial definitions of a scene as rooted in machismo as hip hop.  What good will it do in the long run?  Don’t ask that shit stupid.

It doesn’t matter.

 

…haha I apologize.

//Vladimir Sorokoskev