I only became aware of Pitti when I entered menswear circles several years ago, but each time I saw a picture I would just shake my head. Yes, the outfits were intentional and “impressive”, but I still thought they were doing too much. 

These days, I understand I was watching people speak a language I don’t speak.

Pitti style is deeply semiotic. Every detail carries meaning. The fabric texture, color combinations, accessories. The outfits function like visual sentences, signaling knowledge and distinction. It’s clothing as communication.

I don’t use clothing as communication.

I respond somatically. I notice weight, surface density, movement, visual noise, and how contained or exposed something feels. When I looked at Pitti style, I was sensing activation: high contrast, layered textures, sharp tailoring, multiple focal points. Its like someone turned the lights and volume up at the same time. But I interpreted that as “tacky”.

So I didn’t dislike it because it was expressive. I disliked how activated I felt looking at it.

This also explains why I was drawn to Noboru Kakuta, who appears in that same environment. Compared to many Pitti outfits, his looks read quieter, more grounded, he is not making a statement. His clothes seem to create stability rather than spectacle. So I wasn’t responding to “taste” in the usual sense.

Understanding the difference between semiotic and somatic dressing reframed a lot. The men at Pitti aren’t doing anything wrong. They are very fluent in a visual language. I just don’t want to speak it.