Phillips begins his article with his main argument being that men's fashion did change drastically in the 1960s. He then lists an example, supported by a picture at the bottom, regarding the style of the pants being tighter at the waist and more flared near the ankles. Phillips then exposes the root of the change being London, especially the Beatles, as they were the new trendsetters. He then furthers his assertions of the fashion being more feminine by unmasking the style of silk scarfs and "feminine pants", also supported by a pictures. Finally, the author closes with the comment of men's fashion becoming more feminine (stylish) and women's fashion becoming more masculine (modest).
Similarly, this blog used links and pictures to provide background credibility to its argument regarding the change in fashion. We chose this system because the web allows for quick evaluations and sources to be checked.
-Sameh Boulos
I find it very interesting and also commend you for using men as focal points for the fashion revolution. People tend to leave men out because they assume little to no change.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds to me like this analysis is more appropriate for ethos, not logos like you stated. You discuss how the pictures at the end provide background credibility to the argument, which is what I would say falls under ethos- ethics of the author and their personal credibility/trustworthiness. You also mention the author uses "reliable proof", again adding to the authors validity and ultimate ethos. The article itself did not contain too much logos, I noticed, as it mainly talked about the difference in fashion for men and boys in the 60s. I did however notice some of the pictures of the ads included at the end of the article did contain ethos. One example is "...intimate blend of 65% Dacronpolyester and 35% cotton." For the logos analysis I would focus on the pictures included more since the article did not seem to contain much.
ReplyDelete-Priyal Patel