# Streetwear — style guide for coding agents

> Generated from the Aesthetary record for **Streetwear**.
> Research: **Not yet researched** · Build guidance: recorded in 6 of 8 research dimensions.
> No source attached.

## How to use this

Paste this file into your agent as context before asking it to design or build something in this visual language. It states what is established, what is our interpretation, and what nobody has established. Treat all three differently.

**The most important section is "Not researched yet".** Its purpose is to stop you and your agent inventing rules that sound right and are not recorded anywhere.

## What this language is

**Defining:** Box logo lockups, deck graphic proportions, heavy grotesk, candid street photography

**Recognise it by:** A box logo lockup carrying the entire identity, one very heavy grotesk used at every size with no secondary face, deck-graphic proportions governing the primary artwork, and candid street photography rather than studio product shots. The diagnostic condition is singularity of mark: one lockup, one face, doing everything — the restraint is what reads, not variety.

**Family:** Subculture & Street
**Era:** 1990s, contemporary

## What it is not

Commonly confused with these. Getting the difference right matters more than getting the surface right:

- Graffiti — Letterform-driven and site-specific; a living tradition with its own rules
- Athletic — Numerals and diagonal blocking; makes a claim about intensity
- Sticker-bomb — Surface saturation rather than logo discipline

## Established rules

Grouped by what kind of claim each is. A requirement of the language and our own interpretation are not interchangeable.

**How to read each rule.** Every rule states two separate things, and neither stands in for the other:

- **Kind of claim** (the heading): From our catalogue entry · Our reading.
- **Evidence** (how it is established): Graded by our research brief · No source attached (`DOCUMENTED`) · From our catalogue entry (`SUPPORTED`) · Our reading (`CURATORIAL`) · Not researched yet (`UNKNOWN`) · No grade recorded (no grade in the record). Where a claim has its own canonical label, the Evidence line gives that label instead of the grade.
- **Product area**: which of the twelve areas the rule belongs to (Layout, Typography, Color, Imagery, Surface, Interface, Motion, Motif, Technique, Form, Hierarchy, Density), mapped from its raw area label in bold. "Context" means the rule is about the Aesthetic (its name, origin, lineage) rather than a part of the design. "Not mapped" means the raw area has no single area yet.
- The code in brackets is the `grade` field at `implementationConstraints.tokenRules.value.rules[].provenance.grade` in https://aesthetary.com/data/streetwear.json. "From our catalogue entry" means: Stated in Aesthetary’s existing catalogue entry. An outside source is named only where one is linked to the claim.

### From our catalogue entry

_Carried over from Aesthetary's original catalogue entry. The reasoning behind it was never recorded._

- **typography** — Typography: heavy grotesk.
  - Kind of claim: From our catalogue entry · Evidence: From our catalogue entry · Product area: Typography
- **imagery** — Imagery: candid street photography.
  - Kind of claim: From our catalogue entry · Evidence: From our catalogue entry · Product area: Imagery
- **form / motif / surface / technique** — Form/motif/surface: box logo, deck proportions.
  - Kind of claim: From our catalogue entry · Evidence: From our catalogue entry · Product area: not mapped

### Our reading

- **layout** — Deck-graphic proportion as a held field.
  - Kind of claim: Our reading · Evidence: Our reading · Product area: Layout
- **hierarchy** — Rank by mark placement — the box logo is fixed and everything else is subordinate. One element never competes.
  - Kind of claim: Our reading · Evidence: Our reading · Product area: Hierarchy
- **motion** — Drop-timed reveal — content appearing at a moment rather than on scroll. Reasoned from the scarcity grammar in the record's own distinguishing, which is a formal observation, not a meaning claim.
  - Kind of claim: Our reading · Evidence: Our reading · Product area: Motion
- **identity** — Singularity of mark: one lockup and one very heavy grotesk doing everything, with no secondary face. The restraint is what reads, and adding a second mark dissolves the register.
  - Kind of claim: Our reading · Evidence: Our reading · Product area: not mapped

## Positions by area

The overall position recorded for each area. "No overall position recorded" means rules exist for the area but no position above them; the rules still apply. It is not the same as "Not established", which means nobody has researched the area.

- **Layout** — Specified
- **Typography** — Specified
- **Imagery** — Specified
- **Motion** — No overall position recorded
- **Motif** — Specified

## Coverage — what has been looked at

One row per research dimension a research pass considered. "Not researched yet" (`UNKNOWN`) means exactly that; a dimension can carry an Aesthetary recommendation and still be unresearched, and those are different things.

| Research dimension | Evidence | Resolved by | Carries a rule |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Composition | Specified · Our reading | Aesthetary decided | yes |
| Typography | Specified · From our catalogue entry | follows the recorded claim | yes |
| Hierarchy | Specified · Our reading | Aesthetary decided | yes |
| Colour | Not researched yet | Aesthetary decided | no |
| Density | Not specified by the source | Aesthetary decided | no |
| Imagery | Specified · From our catalogue entry | follows the recorded claim | yes |
| Form/motif/surface | Not researched yet: form, surface · Specified: motif | follows the recorded claim | yes |
| Motion | Not researched yet | Aesthetary decided | yes |

Unresearched: Colour, Motion. Where a rule appears for one of these it is Aesthetary's implementation recommendation, not a property of the language, and its Evidence line above says so.

## Withheld — not missing

- Intent is withheld. What this language means, and to whom, is reserved for people with standing in the community it describes. Do not author it, do not infer it from the formal claims below, and do not treat its absence as permission.
- This record carries an open cultural review. Restrictions recorded here are protocol outputs, not style preferences, and nothing here closes it.

**A withholding is a decision, not a gap.** Do not complete it, do not work around it, and do not treat the formal claims above as a licence to infer what has been withheld.

## Not researched yet

Nobody has established a position for this language on:

- Color
- Surface
- Interface
- Technique
- Form

**Do not fill these in.** An absent position is absent research, not permission and not a blank for you to complete. If the work needs a decision in one of these areas, make it on other grounds and do not attribute it to this language.

## Grade your own work

20 checks: 7 mechanically testable, 11 needing a person to look, 0 needing a source Aesthetary does not hold, 2 with no recorded position. 2 further research dimensions produced no rule (Colour, Density). This rubric is silent on them. Scores do not add up. A failure against a required rule and a departure from something we invented are not the same result, and no total should let them cancel.

### Recognition — does this read as the intended Aesthetic?

- **[visual_human · recognition signature · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Strip every logo, word and borrowed image out of your work, then show it to someone who knows the collection. Do they land on this Aesthetic? The signature to hold is: A box logo lockup carrying the entire identity, one very heavy grotesk used at every size with no secondary face, deck-graphic proportions governing the primary artwork, and candid street photography rather than studio product shots. The diagnostic condition is singularity of mark: one lockup, one face, doing everything — the restraint is what reads, not variety.
  - _If it fails:_ The work may be competent and still read as a different Aesthetic, or as none. Nothing below matters until this passes.

### Fidelity — are its defining rules present?

- **[unassessable · no recorded position · Evidence: Not researched yet (`UNKNOWN`)]** Nothing is recorded as a requirement of this Aesthetic. There is no rule here that your work must hold — which means nothing you do can fail this dimension, and nothing you do can satisfy it either. That is missing research, not freedom: our research brief does record failure modes to avoid, listed under avoidance below. They are recorded judgement, not requirements.
  - _If it fails:_ Not applicable. An empty dimension is an absence of research, never a pass and never a failure.

### Implementation — were those rules translated appropriately into this medium?

- **[visual_human · Our reading · Evidence: Our reading]** Your work may depart from this — but knowingly, not by accident. Deck-graphic proportion as a held field.
  - _If it fails:_ A defensible departure, and you should be able to say why you made it.
- **[visual_human · From our catalogue entry · Evidence: From our catalogue entry]** Your work may depart from this — but knowingly, not by accident. Typography: heavy grotesk.
  - _If it fails:_ A defensible departure, and you should be able to say why you made it.
- **[visual_human · Our reading · Evidence: Our reading]** Your work may depart from this — but knowingly, not by accident. Rank by mark placement — the box logo is fixed and everything else is subordinate. One element never competes.
  - _If it fails:_ A defensible departure, and you should be able to say why you made it.
- **[visual_human · From our catalogue entry · Evidence: From our catalogue entry]** Your work may depart from this — but knowingly, not by accident. Imagery: candid street photography.
  - _If it fails:_ A defensible departure, and you should be able to say why you made it.
- **[visual_human · From our catalogue entry · Evidence: From our catalogue entry]** Your work may depart from this — but knowingly, not by accident. Form/motif/surface: box logo, deck proportions.
  - _If it fails:_ A defensible departure, and you should be able to say why you made it.
- **[visual_human · Our reading · Evidence: Our reading]** Your work may depart from this — but knowingly, not by accident. Drop-timed reveal — content appearing at a moment rather than on scroll. Reasoned from the scarcity grammar in the record's own distinguishing, which is a formal observation, not a meaning claim.
  - _If it fails:_ Nothing. No one has researched the dimension yet, and this is only what Aesthetary would do. Departing from it costs you nothing.
- **[visual_human · Our reading · Evidence: Our reading]** Your work may depart from this — but knowingly, not by accident. Singularity of mark: one lockup and one very heavy grotesk doing everything, with no secondary face. The restraint is what reads, and adding a second mark dissolves the register.
  - _If it fails:_ A defensible departure, and you should be able to say why you made it.

### Avoidance — known failure modes, neighbour drift, cloning

- **[mechanical · recorded failure mode · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Check your work against this: No second typeface.
  - _If it fails:_ A failure mode recorded in our research brief: recorded judgement about what weakens this Aesthetic, not a requirement of the language.
- **[mechanical · recorded failure mode · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Check your work against this: No studio product photography.
  - _If it fails:_ A failure mode recorded in our research brief: recorded judgement about what weakens this Aesthetic, not a requirement of the language.
- **[mechanical · recorded failure mode · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Check your work against this: No explanatory cultural copy.
  - _If it fails:_ A failure mode recorded in our research brief: recorded judgement about what weakens this Aesthetic, not a requirement of the language.
- **[mechanical · recorded failure mode · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Check your work against this: No industry-press sourcing.
  - _If it fails:_ A failure mode recorded in our research brief: recorded judgement about what weakens this Aesthetic, not a requirement of the language.
- **[mechanical · recorded failure mode · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Check your work against this: No implying the category name is settled.
  - _If it fails:_ A failure mode recorded in our research brief: recorded judgement about what weakens this Aesthetic, not a requirement of the language.
- **[mechanical · declared closure · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Check your work against this: Not open: authoring meaning.
  - _If it fails:_ This one is closed, not open. The record says generation must not go here.
- **[mechanical · declared closure · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Check your work against this: Not open: adding a second face..
  - _If it fails:_ This one is closed, not open. The record says generation must not go here.
- **[visual_human · neighbour drift · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Could your work be mistaken for Graffiti? That language is: Letterform-driven and site-specific; a living tradition with its own rules
  - _If it fails:_ Not necessarily wrong, but you are closer to Graffiti than to this Aesthetic.
- **[visual_human · neighbour drift · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Could your work be mistaken for Athletic? That language is: Numerals and diagonal blocking; makes a claim about intensity
  - _If it fails:_ Not necessarily wrong, but you are closer to Athletic than to this Aesthetic.
- **[visual_human · neighbour drift · Evidence: No grade recorded]** Could your work be mistaken for Sticker-bomb? That language is: Surface saturation rather than logo discipline
  - _If it fails:_ Not necessarily wrong, but you are closer to Sticker-bomb than to this Aesthetic.

### Accessibility — the Aesthetic preserved without its inaccessible practice

- **[unassessable · no recorded position · Evidence: Not researched yet (`UNKNOWN`)]** Does this Aesthetic conflict with any usability floor? Nobody has recorded one for it.
  - _If it fails:_ Nothing — and that is the problem. An unrecorded conflict is not an absent one. Hold AA on reading matter and decide the rest on other grounds.

**Not covered at all:** Colour: Not researched yet; Density: Not specified by the source. These research dimensions produced no rule, so there is no check. Treat them as unscored, never as passed and never as failed.

## Rules for the agent

1. Do not invent rules for any area listed under **Not researched yet**.
2. Do not treat an absent position as permission to do anything you like — say that the language has no position, and decide on other grounds.
3. Keep our interpretations separable from the language's own requirements. If asked to justify a choice, cite which kind of claim it came from.
4. If you need something this record does not contain, say so rather than producing a confident answer from the aesthetic's name.
5. When you self-score against "Grade your own work", score only checks marked `mechanical`. Declare `visual_human` and `evidence_dependent` checks unjudged rather than guessing, and never score an `unassessable` one.
6. Evidence "Not researched yet" (`UNKNOWN`) is never a failure. It means nobody researched the dimension, so departing from what is written there costs nothing and must not be reported as a defect. "No grade recorded" is not a grade either: do not treat it as our decision or as an outside source.

## Provenance

- Record: `streetwear` · status `draft` · research `not_researched`
- Full structured record: https://aesthetary.com/data/streetwear.json
- Human-readable record: https://aesthetary.com/a/streetwear.html
- This file is a snapshot. The record may have changed since; check the page above.

_Aesthetary is an alpha. Where a page says nothing, nobody has done the work yet._