My own positioning within the Costumor-Collector spectrum illustrates the fluidity of these categories. While I frequently advocate for a costumor-oriented approach to simplifying entry requirements to broaden participation, my commercial practice increasingly aligns with the collector orientation. This shift reflects both temporal constraints and sustained dialogue with makers whose dispositions are firmly rooted in archivism.
Certain commissions require precisely the kind of archival research, material specificity, and detail-oriented execution that define collector practice. Yet, when wearing a costume, I revert to a costumor sensibility, prioritising embodied performance, audience interaction, and character representation.
This duality has proven disruptive. Jenkins notes, “Innovation in participatory culture often generates resistance precisely because it redistributes cultural authority.” By operationalising a rigorous code of ethics and elevated service standards within my commercial practice, I have inadvertently recalibrated community expectations. Not all participants welcome this recalibration, particularly those whose identities are bound to scarcity, difficulty, and exclusionary norms.
Articulating the costumor-collector distinction publicly through interpersonal dialogue and social media has already amplified this disruption. Every interlocutor has affirmed the framework’s resonance, suggesting it offers a healthier vocabulary for describing the evolution of our community dynamics. The commanding officer of the Japanese Garrison, for instance, endorsed the model as a corrective to self-sabotaging representational practices and as having the potential to offer more constructive membership pathways.
This post is adapted from my doctorate research on the intersection of religiosity and fandom.