Seeing the Diana Vreeland documentary I am reminded that fashion is fantasy - DV was someone who apparently encapsulates that idea. But it occurs to me that in the moment - when wearing something eye-catching, extra-ordinary - it is the actuality of the experience that defines experience, and also the temporal resourcefulness, the well-living, the multiplication of moment in moment, the definite, defining act upon the perception, the awareness, of someone else (a stranger who shares the same public space). And yet the act is non-violent (though it may be brave) and non-threatening (though it may threaten arbitrary notions of propriety).
This idea of costume may be extended into the full act of the moment (moment of the act), but in other kinds of act it is much harder to achieve this economy of experience - in other words, looking how you want to look is far more achievable - and self-satisfying - than not only doing what you want in time, but even knowing what that is or where that should happen, how it should relate to its place. (Is this why getting ready to go out is often better than going out?) This is really where fantasy in fashion comes in - when all potentialities of the moment bar the self-aesthetic are unexamined to the extent that the only act carried out - costume - becomes a metaphor, or even a consolation, for the un-acted.
How may all potentialities of moment be acted upon as successfully as the act of costume?