The revolutionary Art of fashion
As the week of Princeton Bicker wraps up, I find myself returning to the same question: what, truly, is the point of all this? It’s an existential thought that lingers whenever I begin critiquing the socially constructed frameworks we all live within.
Bicker is, at its core, an invented process—a structured way to determine which individuals are deemed "worthy" of eating meals with other "worthy" members. It is highly selective, undeniably performative, and yet, somehow, it shapes us. Those who succeed emerge with a heightened sense of confidence, as if being chosen affirms some intrinsic value: I have something that you don’t.
But what is that something? And more importantly, who decided it mattered?
The truth is, much of what we perceive as meaningful is human-made. What we call beautiful is human-made. The structures we believe in—whether they dictate exclusivity at a university club, the price of a Balenciaga sneaker, or the satisfaction of blasting a Kanye West track—are all products of societal construction. While some may argue that our preferences stem from biological evolution and survival mechanisms, can we really use that logic to justify why a pair of shoes costs $1,100 or why certain artists remain influential despite their controversies?
Some aspects of life simply cannot be reduced to science.
If meaning is constructed, then how much should we conform to the standards that society sets? In fashion, for example, something is considered stylish precisely because it adheres to certain human-created expectations—while simultaneously challenging others. This tension between acceptance and rebellion is where personal expression thrives.
Raoul Vaneigem, a Belgian writer and former member of the Situationist International, critiques the ways capitalism and social norms condition human experience. He writes:
"People who talk about revolution and class struggle without referring explicitly to everyday life, without understanding what is subversive about love and what is positive in the refusal of constraints—such people have a corpse in their mouth."
Rebellion is not just about rejecting norms—it’s about understanding them deeply enough to subvert them in meaningful ways. Fashion, when done with intention, can be a direct and creative means of revolutionizing the self. Yet, rebellion for rebellion’s sake often becomes another performance. It’s the Upper East Side girl in thrifted patchwork jeans, rebelling against her own privilege while her mother drives a Rolls-Royce. The difference between passion and performance is what distinguishes art from mere spectacle.
So, if much of what we value is a construct, what should we do with that knowledge? The answer isn’t necessarily to reject everything, nor to blindly conform, but rather to reclaim agency over our own choices. Challenge what feels arbitrary. Redefine what holds value. If something stirs a question within you—if it unsettles you that others place value on it—lean into that discomfort. Let it guide you toward something more authentic.
Most importantly, trust your intuition. The most radical act may not be revolution for revolution’s sake, but the deliberate construction of a life driven by genuine passion rather than imposed expectations.
"The work of art of the future will be the construction of a passionate life." — Raoul Vaneigem
