Thom Browne is an Alien

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/fashion/19THOM.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

According to this New York Times article, Thom Brone burst onto the menswear scene in the early 2000s, with little fanfare and great skepticism by the fashion industry. In a time of baggy jeans, he advocated form fitting suits in traditional "formal" fabrics. The article tracks the progression of Browne's aesthetic from being seen wearing his designs in person through New York City, to the film "Stay", to designing collections for menswear giant Brooks Brothers.

So, what does this mean? Well not alot--yet. While it is clear that the Brown aesthetic had made a huge splash in how (some) men look at their clothes, change starts small. What is perhaps most curious is how Browne's clothing filtered through himself, his runway, his films, his original consumer base (businessmen), and into the mainstream.

It is easy to tell that one of Browne's main aesthetic principles is based on fit. As the economy through the 2000s began to tank, the masculine silhouette began to become more and more trim. In older times, this relationship between economic success and quantity of fabric used in clothing was clear (perhaps also related is the slow fade of the pleated pant in menswear). However, consider that to achieve this look in the 21st century the use (and payment) of a skilled tailor is key. So, does the acquirement of this look become Lacan's object become a new object petit a--object desired to fulfill a lack? If, in this economic recession, you wish to be trendy by achieving a poor man's silhouette--but in actuality paying an exorbitant amount of money to achieve a sleekness that the ordinary man could not have (although it has gotten to the point where one can walk into a store and buy a Thom Brown-ish suit for $100 or less)?