Question Description
DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.For as long as it has existed, fashion, being a language, has always been used as a means of communication. This very peculiar kind of communication takes place on two levels: an open one, and a hidden one. There is in fact an underlying fact, a creative value left to each individual that allows the transmission of ambiguous and equivocal messages; think of the eroticism of neglected lace, the hardness of riding boots or the provocativeness of some metal details.If we agree that fashion is a language we should emphasize that it is a very sophisticated one and, in a way, a complementary one — a tool for articulating and supporting words rather than substituting them. And if we agree that fashion is distinct from style, we must admit that its acknowledged codes are variable. This variation can occur at different levels mainly, but not only, visually, often revamping outdated meanings. The system of constantly shifting meanings, codes and values is in fact fundamental to fashion, aswe understand it in our culture. Designers know this well and they are the first to perceive signs of instability. The instabilities, ambiguities and ambivalences, described by Fred Davis in his excellent book on the subject, drive creativity to and fro between opposites such as young/old, male/ female, work/play, simplicity/complexity, revelation/ concealment, freedom/constraint, conformism/rebellion, eroticism/chastity, discretion/overstatement and so on. The field where the game of change is played is framed within couples of constantly recurring antithetic meanings. Fashion delights us by playing on the tensions between these couples — we derive a frisson from the contradictions they suggest. We may tire of a look but whenever one of these themes returns, its freshness is restored; our fascination with them seems endless. James Carse, a professor of philosophy at New York University, and a friend of mine, in one of his books, divides the world of human relations into ‘finite and infinite games’. What is the difference? In the former case, the goal of the game is to select a winner; in the latter, it is to play the game forever. Incidentally, the latter is typical of the game of children, which were in fact the author’s chief source of inspiration. Without doubt, fashion is an infinite game, since nobody is interested in starting the ultimate trend, the final one.Though changes in fashion correspond to macro-changes in cultures or societies, they nevertheless require human action, the work of creative people, of industry and the complicity of consumers. Fashion, after all, does not happen by accident.The fashion industry purposefully identifies garments and accessories as indicators of social status. Historians have suggested that this has been so since the fourteenth century. Nowadays, this identification has become a carefully planned and greatly accelerated activity. In the eternal ping-pong game between antithetical meanings, the motivating force for creativity within fashion is nearly always, or often, cultural. When Chanel urged her wealthy clients to dress like their maids, she was playing on the dialectics between the rich and the poor, the high and the low status; but the reason for her attraction to these particular themes, and the reason for the fashion’s success, was her ability to intuit the predominant social tensions of the moment (in this case ideas about the uncertainties of wealth and power initiated by the economic unrest of the 1930s).(2014)Q.According to the passage, what is the relevance of the distinction between fashion and style?a)There can be significant variation in the fashion codes used by designersb)There is significant variation in the style codes used by designersc)Understanding the variability of fashion codes may make fashion more universal (which was achieved by Chanel)d)All of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.For as long as it has existed, fashion, being a language, has always been used as a means of communication. This very peculiar kind of communication takes place on two levels: an open one, and a hidden one. There is in fact an underlying fact, a creative value left to each individual that allows the transmission of ambiguous and equivocal messages; think of the eroticism of neglected lace, the hardness of riding boots or the provocativeness of some metal details.If we agree that fashion is a language we should emphasize that it is a very sophisticated one and, in a way, a complementary one — a tool for articulating and supporting words rather than substituting them. And if we agree that fashion is distinct from style, we must admit that its acknowledged codes are variable. This variation can occur at different levels mainly, but not only, visually, often revamping outdated meanings. The system of constantly shifting meanings, codes and values is in fact fundamental to fashion, aswe understand it in our culture. Designers know this well and they are the first to perceive signs of instability. The instabilities, ambiguities and ambivalences, described by Fred Davis in his excellent book on the subject, drive creativity to and fro between opposites such as young/old, male/ female, work/play, simplicity/complexity, revelation/ concealment, freedom/constraint, conformism/rebellion, eroticism/chastity, discretion/overstatement and so on. The field where the game of change is played is framed within couples of constantly recurring antithetic meanings. Fashion delights us by playing on the tensions between these couples — we derive a frisson from the contradictions they suggest. We may tire of a look but whenever one of these themes returns, its freshness is restored; our fascination with them seems endless. James Carse, a professor of philosophy at New York University, and a friend of mine, in one of his books, divides the world of human relations into ‘finite and infinite games’. What is the difference? In the former case, the goal of the game is to select a winner; in the latter, it is to play the game forever. Incidentally, the latter is typical of the game of children, which were in fact the author’s chief source of inspiration. Without doubt, fashion is an infinite game, since nobody is interested in starting the ultimate trend, the final one.Though changes in fashion correspond to macro-changes in cultures or societies, they nevertheless require human action, the work of creative people, of industry and the complicity of consumers. Fashion, after all, does not happen by accident.The fashion industry purposefully identifies garments and accessories as indicators of social status. Historians have suggested that this has been so since the fourteenth century. Nowadays, this identification has become a carefully planned and greatly accelerated activity. In the eternal ping-pong game between antithetical meanings, the motivating force for creativity within fashion is nearly always, or often, cultural. When Chanel urged her wealthy clients to dress like their maids, she was playing on the dialectics between the rich and the poor, the high and the low status; but the reason for her attraction to these particular themes, and the reason for the fashion’s success, was her ability to intuit the predominant social tensions of the moment (in this case ideas about the uncertainties of wealth and power initiated by the economic unrest of the 1930s).(2014)Q.According to the passage, what is the relevance of the distinction between fashion and style?a)There can be significant variation in the fashion codes used by designersb)There is significant variation in the style codes used by designersc)Understanding the variability of fashion codes may make fashion more universal (which was achieved by Chanel)d)All of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.For as long as it has existed, fashion, being a language, has always been used as a means of communication. This very peculiar kind of communication takes place on two levels: an open one, and a hidden one. There is in fact an underlying fact, a creative value left to each individual that allows the transmission of ambiguous and equivocal messages; think of the eroticism of neglected lace, the hardness of riding boots or the provocativeness of some metal details.If we agree that fashion is a language we should emphasize that it is a very sophisticated one and, in a way, a complementary one — a tool for articulating and supporting words rather than substituting them. And if we agree that fashion is distinct from style, we must admit that its acknowledged codes are variable. This variation can occur at different levels mainly, but not only, visually, often revamping outdated meanings. The system of constantly shifting meanings, codes and values is in fact fundamental to fashion, aswe understand it in our culture. Designers know this well and they are the first to perceive signs of instability. The instabilities, ambiguities and ambivalences, described by Fred Davis in his excellent book on the subject, drive creativity to and fro between opposites such as young/old, male/ female, work/play, simplicity/complexity, revelation/ concealment, freedom/constraint, conformism/rebellion, eroticism/chastity, discretion/overstatement and so on. The field where the game of change is played is framed within couples of constantly recurring antithetic meanings. Fashion delights us by playing on the tensions between these couples — we derive a frisson from the contradictions they suggest. We may tire of a look but whenever one of these themes returns, its freshness is restored; our fascination with them seems endless. James Carse, a professor of philosophy at New York University, and a friend of mine, in one of his books, divides the world of human relations into ‘finite and infinite games’. What is the difference? In the former case, the goal of the game is to select a winner; in the latter, it is to play the game forever. Incidentally, the latter is typical of the game of children, which were in fact the author’s chief source of inspiration. Without doubt, fashion is an infinite game, since nobody is interested in starting the ultimate trend, the final one.Though changes in fashion correspond to macro-changes in cultures or societies, they nevertheless require human action, the work of creative people, of industry and the complicity of consumers. Fashion, after all, does not happen by accident.The fashion industry purposefully identifies garments and accessories as indicators of social status. Historians have suggested that this has been so since the fourteenth century. Nowadays, this identification has become a carefully planned and greatly accelerated activity. In the eternal ping-pong game between antithetical meanings, the motivating force for creativity within fashion is nearly always, or often, cultural. When Chanel urged her wealthy clients to dress like their maids, she was playing on the dialectics between the rich and the poor, the high and the low status; but the reason for her attraction to these particular themes, and the reason for the fashion’s success, was her ability to intuit the predominant social tensions of the moment (in this case ideas about the uncertainties of wealth and power initiated by the economic unrest of the 1930s).(2014)Q.According to the passage, what is the relevance of the distinction between fashion and style?a)There can be significant variation in the fashion codes used by designersb)There is significant variation in the style codes used by designersc)Understanding the variability of fashion codes may make fashion more universal (which was achieved by Chanel)d)All of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.For as long as it has existed, fashion, being a language, has always been used as a means of communication. This very peculiar kind of communication takes place on two levels: an open one, and a hidden one. There is in fact an underlying fact, a creative value left to each individual that allows the transmission of ambiguous and equivocal messages; think of the eroticism of neglected lace, the hardness of riding boots or the provocativeness of some metal details.If we agree that fashion is a language we should emphasize that it is a very sophisticated one and, in a way, a complementary one — a tool for articulating and supporting words rather than substituting them. And if we agree that fashion is distinct from style, we must admit that its acknowledged codes are variable. This variation can occur at different levels mainly, but not only, visually, often revamping outdated meanings. The system of constantly shifting meanings, codes and values is in fact fundamental to fashion, aswe understand it in our culture. Designers know this well and they are the first to perceive signs of instability. The instabilities, ambiguities and ambivalences, described by Fred Davis in his excellent book on the subject, drive creativity to and fro between opposites such as young/old, male/ female, work/play, simplicity/complexity, revelation/ concealment, freedom/constraint, conformism/rebellion, eroticism/chastity, discretion/overstatement and so on. The field where the game of change is played is framed within couples of constantly recurring antithetic meanings. Fashion delights us by playing on the tensions between these couples — we derive a frisson from the contradictions they suggest. We may tire of a look but whenever one of these themes returns, its freshness is restored; our fascination with them seems endless. James Carse, a professor of philosophy at New York University, and a friend of mine, in one of his books, divides the world of human relations into ‘finite and infinite games’. What is the difference? In the former case, the goal of the game is to select a winner; in the latter, it is to play the game forever. Incidentally, the latter is typical of the game of children, which were in fact the author’s chief source of inspiration. Without doubt, fashion is an infinite game, since nobody is interested in starting the ultimate trend, the final one.Though changes in fashion correspond to macro-changes in cultures or societies, they nevertheless require human action, the work of creative people, of industry and the complicity of consumers. Fashion, after all, does not happen by accident.The fashion industry purposefully identifies garments and accessories as indicators of social status. Historians have suggested that this has been so since the fourteenth century. Nowadays, this identification has become a carefully planned and greatly accelerated activity. In the eternal ping-pong game between antithetical meanings, the motivating force for creativity within fashion is nearly always, or often, cultural. When Chanel urged her wealthy clients to dress like their maids, she was playing on the dialectics between the rich and the poor, the high and the low status; but the reason for her attraction to these particular themes, and the reason for the fashion’s success, was her ability to intuit the predominant social tensions of the moment (in this case ideas about the uncertainties of wealth and power initiated by the economic unrest of the 1930s).(2014)Q.According to the passage, what is the relevance of the distinction between fashion and style?a)There can be significant variation in the fashion codes used by designersb)There is significant variation in the style codes used by designersc)Understanding the variability of fashion codes may make fashion more universal (which was achieved by Chanel)d)All of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.For as long as it has existed, fashion, being a language, has always been used as a means of communication. This very peculiar kind of communication takes place on two levels: an open one, and a hidden one. There is in fact an underlying fact, a creative value left to each individual that allows the transmission of ambiguous and equivocal messages; think of the eroticism of neglected lace, the hardness of riding boots or the provocativeness of some metal details.If we agree that fashion is a language we should emphasize that it is a very sophisticated one and, in a way, a complementary one — a tool for articulating and supporting words rather than substituting them. And if we agree that fashion is distinct from style, we must admit that its acknowledged codes are variable. This variation can occur at different levels mainly, but not only, visually, often revamping outdated meanings. The system of constantly shifting meanings, codes and values is in fact fundamental to fashion, aswe understand it in our culture. Designers know this well and they are the first to perceive signs of instability. The instabilities, ambiguities and ambivalences, described by Fred Davis in his excellent book on the subject, drive creativity to and fro between opposites such as young/old, male/ female, work/play, simplicity/complexity, revelation/ concealment, freedom/constraint, conformism/rebellion, eroticism/chastity, discretion/overstatement and so on. The field where the game of change is played is framed within couples of constantly recurring antithetic meanings. Fashion delights us by playing on the tensions between these couples — we derive a frisson from the contradictions they suggest. We may tire of a look but whenever one of these themes returns, its freshness is restored; our fascination with them seems endless. James Carse, a professor of philosophy at New York University, and a friend of mine, in one of his books, divides the world of human relations into ‘finite and infinite games’. What is the difference? In the former case, the goal of the game is to select a winner; in the latter, it is to play the game forever. Incidentally, the latter is typical of the game of children, which were in fact the author’s chief source of inspiration. Without doubt, fashion is an infinite game, since nobody is interested in starting the ultimate trend, the final one.Though changes in fashion correspond to macro-changes in cultures or societies, they nevertheless require human action, the work of creative people, of industry and the complicity of consumers. Fashion, after all, does not happen by accident.The fashion industry purposefully identifies garments and accessories as indicators of social status. Historians have suggested that this has been so since the fourteenth century. Nowadays, this identification has become a carefully planned and greatly accelerated activity. In the eternal ping-pong game between antithetical meanings, the motivating force for creativity within fashion is nearly always, or often, cultural. When Chanel urged her wealthy clients to dress like their maids, she was playing on the dialectics between the rich and the poor, the high and the low status; but the reason for her attraction to these particular themes, and the reason for the fashion’s success, was her ability to intuit the predominant social tensions of the moment (in this case ideas about the uncertainties of wealth and power initiated by the economic unrest of the 1930s).(2014)Q.According to the passage, what is the relevance of the distinction between fashion and style?a)There can be significant variation in the fashion codes used by designersb)There is significant variation in the style codes used by designersc)Understanding the variability of fashion codes may make fashion more universal (which was achieved by Chanel)d)All of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.For as long as it has existed, fashion, being a language, has always been used as a means of communication. This very peculiar kind of communication takes place on two levels: an open one, and a hidden one. There is in fact an underlying fact, a creative value left to each individual that allows the transmission of ambiguous and equivocal messages; think of the eroticism of neglected lace, the hardness of riding boots or the provocativeness of some metal details.If we agree that fashion is a language we should emphasize that it is a very sophisticated one and, in a way, a complementary one — a tool for articulating and supporting words rather than substituting them. And if we agree that fashion is distinct from style, we must admit that its acknowledged codes are variable. This variation can occur at different levels mainly, but not only, visually, often revamping outdated meanings. The system of constantly shifting meanings, codes and values is in fact fundamental to fashion, aswe understand it in our culture. Designers know this well and they are the first to perceive signs of instability. The instabilities, ambiguities and ambivalences, described by Fred Davis in his excellent book on the subject, drive creativity to and fro between opposites such as young/old, male/ female, work/play, simplicity/complexity, revelation/ concealment, freedom/constraint, conformism/rebellion, eroticism/chastity, discretion/overstatement and so on. The field where the game of change is played is framed within couples of constantly recurring antithetic meanings. Fashion delights us by playing on the tensions between these couples — we derive a frisson from the contradictions they suggest. We may tire of a look but whenever one of these themes returns, its freshness is restored; our fascination with them seems endless. James Carse, a professor of philosophy at New York University, and a friend of mine, in one of his books, divides the world of human relations into ‘finite and infinite games’. What is the difference? In the former case, the goal of the game is to select a winner; in the latter, it is to play the game forever. Incidentally, the latter is typical of the game of children, which were in fact the author’s chief source of inspiration. Without doubt, fashion is an infinite game, since nobody is interested in starting the ultimate trend, the final one.Though changes in fashion correspond to macro-changes in cultures or societies, they nevertheless require human action, the work of creative people, of industry and the complicity of consumers. Fashion, after all, does not happen by accident.The fashion industry purposefully identifies garments and accessories as indicators of social status. Historians have suggested that this has been so since the fourteenth century. Nowadays, this identification has become a carefully planned and greatly accelerated activity. In the eternal ping-pong game between antithetical meanings, the motivating force for creativity within fashion is nearly always, or often, cultural. When Chanel urged her wealthy clients to dress like their maids, she was playing on the dialectics between the rich and the poor, the high and the low status; but the reason for her attraction to these particular themes, and the reason for the fashion’s success, was her ability to intuit the predominant social tensions of the moment (in this case ideas about the uncertainties of wealth and power initiated by the economic unrest of the 1930s).(2014)Q.According to the passage, what is the relevance of the distinction between fashion and style?a)There can be significant variation in the fashion codes used by designersb)There is significant variation in the style codes used by designersc)Understanding the variability of fashion codes may make fashion more universal (which was achieved by Chanel)d)All of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.For as long as it has existed, fashion, being a language, has always been used as a means of communication. This very peculiar kind of communication takes place on two levels: an open one, and a hidden one. There is in fact an underlying fact, a creative value left to each individual that allows the transmission of ambiguous and equivocal messages; think of the eroticism of neglected lace, the hardness of riding boots or the provocativeness of some metal details.If we agree that fashion is a language we should emphasize that it is a very sophisticated one and, in a way, a complementary one — a tool for articulating and supporting words rather than substituting them. And if we agree that fashion is distinct from style, we must admit that its acknowledged codes are variable. This variation can occur at different levels mainly, but not only, visually, often revamping outdated meanings. The system of constantly shifting meanings, codes and values is in fact fundamental to fashion, aswe understand it in our culture. Designers know this well and they are the first to perceive signs of instability. The instabilities, ambiguities and ambivalences, described by Fred Davis in his excellent book on the subject, drive creativity to and fro between opposites such as young/old, male/ female, work/play, simplicity/complexity, revelation/ concealment, freedom/constraint, conformism/rebellion, eroticism/chastity, discretion/overstatement and so on. The field where the game of change is played is framed within couples of constantly recurring antithetic meanings. Fashion delights us by playing on the tensions between these couples — we derive a frisson from the contradictions they suggest. We may tire of a look but whenever one of these themes returns, its freshness is restored; our fascination with them seems endless. James Carse, a professor of philosophy at New York University, and a friend of mine, in one of his books, divides the world of human relations into ‘finite and infinite games’. What is the difference? In the former case, the goal of the game is to select a winner; in the latter, it is to play the game forever. Incidentally, the latter is typical of the game of children, which were in fact the author’s chief source of inspiration. Without doubt, fashion is an infinite game, since nobody is interested in starting the ultimate trend, the final one.Though changes in fashion correspond to macro-changes in cultures or societies, they nevertheless require human action, the work of creative people, of industry and the complicity of consumers. Fashion, after all, does not happen by accident.The fashion industry purposefully identifies garments and accessories as indicators of social status. Historians have suggested that this has been so since the fourteenth century. Nowadays, this identification has become a carefully planned and greatly accelerated activity. In the eternal ping-pong game between antithetical meanings, the motivating force for creativity within fashion is nearly always, or often, cultural. When Chanel urged her wealthy clients to dress like their maids, she was playing on the dialectics between the rich and the poor, the high and the low status; but the reason for her attraction to these particular themes, and the reason for the fashion’s success, was her ability to intuit the predominant social tensions of the moment (in this case ideas about the uncertainties of wealth and power initiated by the economic unrest of the 1930s).(2014)Q.According to the passage, what is the relevance of the distinction between fashion and style?a)There can be significant variation in the fashion codes used by designersb)There is significant variation in the style codes used by designersc)Understanding the variability of fashion codes may make fashion more universal (which was achieved by Chanel)d)All of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.For as long as it has existed, fashion, being a language, has always been used as a means of communication. This very peculiar kind of communication takes place on two levels: an open one, and a hidden one. There is in fact an underlying fact, a creative value left to each individual that allows the transmission of ambiguous and equivocal messages; think of the eroticism of neglected lace, the hardness of riding boots or the provocativeness of some metal details.If we agree that fashion is a language we should emphasize that it is a very sophisticated one and, in a way, a complementary one — a tool for articulating and supporting words rather than substituting them. And if we agree that fashion is distinct from style, we must admit that its acknowledged codes are variable. This variation can occur at different levels mainly, but not only, visually, often revamping outdated meanings. The system of constantly shifting meanings, codes and values is in fact fundamental to fashion, aswe understand it in our culture. Designers know this well and they are the first to perceive signs of instability. The instabilities, ambiguities and ambivalences, described by Fred Davis in his excellent book on the subject, drive creativity to and fro between opposites such as young/old, male/ female, work/play, simplicity/complexity, revelation/ concealment, freedom/constraint, conformism/rebellion, eroticism/chastity, discretion/overstatement and so on. The field where the game of change is played is framed within couples of constantly recurring antithetic meanings. Fashion delights us by playing on the tensions between these couples — we derive a frisson from the contradictions they suggest. We may tire of a look but whenever one of these themes returns, its freshness is restored; our fascination with them seems endless. James Carse, a professor of philosophy at New York University, and a friend of mine, in one of his books, divides the world of human relations into ‘finite and infinite games’. What is the difference? In the former case, the goal of the game is to select a winner; in the latter, it is to play the game forever. Incidentally, the latter is typical of the game of children, which were in fact the author’s chief source of inspiration. Without doubt, fashion is an infinite game, since nobody is interested in starting the ultimate trend, the final one.Though changes in fashion correspond to macro-changes in cultures or societies, they nevertheless require human action, the work of creative people, of industry and the complicity of consumers. Fashion, after all, does not happen by accident.The fashion industry purposefully identifies garments and accessories as indicators of social status. Historians have suggested that this has been so since the fourteenth century. Nowadays, this identification has become a carefully planned and greatly accelerated activity. In the eternal ping-pong game between antithetical meanings, the motivating force for creativity within fashion is nearly always, or often, cultural. When Chanel urged her wealthy clients to dress like their maids, she was playing on the dialectics between the rich and the poor, the high and the low status; but the reason for her attraction to these particular themes, and the reason for the fashion’s success, was her ability to intuit the predominant social tensions of the moment (in this case ideas about the uncertainties of wealth and power initiated by the economic unrest of the 1930s).(2014)Q.According to the passage, what is the relevance of the distinction between fashion and style?a)There can be significant variation in the fashion codes used by designersb)There is significant variation in the style codes used by designersc)Understanding the variability of fashion codes may make fashion more universal (which was achieved by Chanel)d)All of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice DIRECTIONS for questions: The passage given below is followed by a set of four questions. Choose the most appropriate answer to each question.For as long as it has existed, fashion, being a language, has always been used as a means of communication. This very peculiar kind of communication takes place on two levels: an open one, and a hidden one. There is in fact an underlying fact, a creative value left to each individual that allows the transmission of ambiguous and equivocal messages; think of the eroticism of neglected lace, the hardness of riding boots or the provocativeness of some metal details.If we agree that fashion is a language we should emphasize that it is a very sophisticated one and, in a way, a complementary one — a tool for articulating and supporting words rather than substituting them. And if we agree that fashion is distinct from style, we must admit that its acknowledged codes are variable. This variation can occur at different levels mainly, but not only, visually, often revamping outdated meanings. The system of constantly shifting meanings, codes and values is in fact fundamental to fashion, aswe understand it in our culture. Designers know this well and they are the first to perceive signs of instability. The instabilities, ambiguities and ambivalences, described by Fred Davis in his excellent book on the subject, drive creativity to and fro between opposites such as young/old, male/ female, work/play, simplicity/complexity, revelation/ concealment, freedom/constraint, conformism/rebellion, eroticism/chastity, discretion/overstatement and so on. The field where the game of change is played is framed within couples of constantly recurring antithetic meanings. Fashion delights us by playing on the tensions between these couples — we derive a frisson from the contradictions they suggest. We may tire of a look but whenever one of these themes returns, its freshness is restored; our fascination with them seems endless. James Carse, a professor of philosophy at New York University, and a friend of mine, in one of his books, divides the world of human relations into ‘finite and infinite games’. What is the difference? In the former case, the goal of the game is to select a winner; in the latter, it is to play the game forever. Incidentally, the latter is typical of the game of children, which were in fact the author’s chief source of inspiration. Without doubt, fashion is an infinite game, since nobody is interested in starting the ultimate trend, the final one.Though changes in fashion correspond to macro-changes in cultures or societies, they nevertheless require human action, the work of creative people, of industry and the complicity of consumers. Fashion, after all, does not happen by accident.The fashion industry purposefully identifies garments and accessories as indicators of social status. Historians have suggested that this has been so since the fourteenth century. Nowadays, this identification has become a carefully planned and greatly accelerated activity. In the eternal ping-pong game between antithetical meanings, the motivating force for creativity within fashion is nearly always, or often, cultural. When Chanel urged her wealthy clients to dress like their maids, she was playing on the dialectics between the rich and the poor, the high and the low status; but the reason for her attraction to these particular themes, and the reason for the fashion’s success, was her ability to intuit the predominant social tensions of the moment (in this case ideas about the uncertainties of wealth and power initiated by the economic unrest of the 1930s).(2014)Q.According to the passage, what is the relevance of the distinction between fashion and style?a)There can be significant variation in the fashion codes used by designersb)There is significant variation in the style codes used by designersc)Understanding the variability of fashion codes may make fashion more universal (which was achieved by Chanel)d)All of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.