or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Voxsartoria's Weekly WAYWRN Subjective and Totally Unfair Digest
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Voxsartoria's Weekly WAYWRN Subjective and Totally Unfair Digest - Page 9

post #121 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

You are arguing with FNB as if he made a legitimate point in good faith, to spur discussion. But of course nothing could be further from the truth. He just saw an opportunity to take (yet another) shot at his endless list of iEnemies.

A hallmark of serious disputation is some attempt at a modicum of consistency. FNB, however, prefers the any-weapon-at-hand style of argument. Apparel Arts drawings are bad when I and others praise them. But when FNB wants to write an essay called "Moder Day Apparel Arts Man" about someone he likes, then they are good. Apparel Arts essays are terrible and stupid when they are posted on LL. But they are fine when FNB begs tutee to please post his essays on the FNB site.

Note also the 10 millionth FNB declaraion of his upper class roots and his snobbish denigration of his inferiors. Those of us who admire the drawings are trying to live above our station.

I have met my share of upper class people in my time, and I have never come across one as insecure about his standing in the haute monde as our Carl. The geniune article is more like Vox, though perhaps a bit more outwardly humble (even if that is a pose).
post #122 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despos View Post
To me the message in those old pics are dressing for the occasion. Every pic is in a different local, portraying multiple situations from business to casual to formal events to the horse track to the beach and the clothing reflects the feeling/formality/casualness of the occasion. The accessories, the colors, patterns all reflect a mood congruent to the setting. It is conveying a mode/attitude of dressing that is pretty much lost today. Most men have generic year round wardrobes that denote "one suit for all reasons and all seasons". SF posters excluded. Go to a meeting or a party and see how similar everyone looks. You'll know what I'm saying.

Good points and well said.
post #123 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despos View Post
To me the message in those old pics are dressing for the occasion. Every pic is in a different local, portraying multiple situations from business to casual to formal events to the horse track to the beach and the clothing reflects the feeling/formality/casualness of the occasion. The accessories, the colors, patterns all reflect a mood congruent to the setting. It is conveying a mode/attitude of dressing that is pretty much lost today. Most men have generic year round wardrobes that denote "one suit for all reasons and all seasons". SF posters excluded. Go to a meeting or a party and see how similar everyone looks. You'll know what I'm saying.

I agree with this, but it's more than that. There is a great deal of variety in those old illustrations. Not just in terms of occasion, but also color, cut, styling, texture, patterns, combinations, you name it. It's a very rich satorial universe, even if to some extent it is imagined, and was even known to be such at the time. There is nothing that compares to it in our time.
post #124 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despos View Post
To me the message in those old pics are dressing for the occasion. Every pic is in a different local, portraying multiple situations from business to casual to formal events to the horse track to the beach and the clothing reflects the feeling/formality/casualness of the occasion. The accessories, the colors, patterns all reflect a mood congruent to the setting. It is conveying a mode/attitude of dressing that is pretty much lost today. Most men have generic year round wardrobes that denote "one suit for all reasons and all seasons". SF posters excluded. Go to a meeting or a party and see how similar everyone looks. You'll know what I'm saying.

Hey Manton, that's what I said.
post #125 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
You are arguing with FNB as if he made a legitimate point in good faith, to spur discussion. But of course nothing could be further from the truth. He just saw an opportunity to take (yet another) shot at his endless list of iEnemies.

A hallmark of serious disputation is some attempt at a modicum of consistency. FNB, however, prefers the any-weapon-at-hand style of argument. Apparel Arts drawings are bad when I and others praise them. But when FNB wants to write an essay called "Moder Day Apparel Arts Man" about someone he likes, then they are good. Apparel Arts essays are terrible and stupid when they are posted on LL. But they are fine when FNB begs tutee to please post his essays on the FNB site.

Note also the 10 millionth FNB declaraion of his upper class roots and his snobbish denigration of his inferiors. Those of us who admire the drawings are trying to live above our station.

I have met my share of upper class people in my time, and I have never come across one as insecure about his standing in the haute monde as our Carl. The geniune article is more like Vox, though perhaps a bit more outwardly humble (even if that is a pose).

I'm not saying your observations and claims aren't true. But I figure that it's best to talk to people as if they are acting in good faith, until I am overtly insulted. Even assuming FNB is as passive-aggressive as you describe, I'd rather not waste the effort playing that game. I know you two have a different sort of history, which may justify more confrontational behavior between you, but I'm merely a bystander.
post #126 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Despos View Post
Hey Manton, that's what I said.

What I mean is that while the settings are great, and they make the plates much richer overall, you can delink the ensembles from the setting and still learn something of find inspiration.



This seems to be some kind of pastoral or perhaps academic setting. By the standards of the day, what he is wearing fit right in. Perhaps that would have been too casual for the city. But today that outfit (minus pipe and perhaps hat) could go anywhere short of a courtroom or boardroom. So what one takes from it is the judicious mixture of the all the elements, in and of themselves.

There are dozens of plates like that, depicting settings that I will never find myself in, but that I can nonetheless learn something from or derive inspiration from.
post #127 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
I'm not saying your observations and claims aren't true. But I figure that it's best to talk to people as if they are acting in good faith, until I am overtly insulted. Even assuming FNB is as passive-aggressive as you describe, I'd rather not waste the effort playing that game. I know you two have a different sort of history, which may justify more confrontational behavior between you, but I'm merely a bystander.

You are still missing the point. He is not making a real argument, hence there is nothing for you to engage or respond to. True, his insult was not directed at you personally, but that does not change the fact that his post was nothing more than a petty insult, totally devoid of real content. So by trying to reason with it, you are in the position of arguing with a flat-earther who in his heart knows the earth is round, but claims it is flat as a put-on.

Which is to say, when you respond, you are playing the game, whether you realize it or not.
post #128 of 2153
Going back to your Shattuck suit Manton - is that one you would classify as draped? If so, why?
post #129 of 2153
Hmm I'm just trying to work out whether or not I was placed next to Manton's shot for contrast or not. Somehow I don't think I've won second prize in a beauty contest...
post #130 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
You are still missing the point. He is not making a real argument, hence there is nothing for you to engage or respond to. True, his insult was not directed at you personally, but that does not change the fact that his post was nothing more than a petty insult, totally devoid of real content. So by trying to reason with it, you are in the position of arguing with a flat-earther who in his heart knows the earth is round, but claims it is flat as a put-on.

Which is to say, when you respond, you are playing the game, whether you realize it or not.

My point was that it isn't obvious on the face of his post that he is insulting anyone. I understand that his prior posts, when viewed together, can be construed as an attack on you--but the degree to which I would feel comfortable acting on such an interpretation is severely limited by the fact that I have not had the personal experience with the issue that you have had. I'm not trying to give myself a free pass because I'm not the one being insulted; I just think it's harder to tell whether it's an insult not being you or someone else who's been around longer.

Moreover, I guess I don't really care if he really thinks what he said. It represents an opinion worth discussing, genuine or not. Others here have expressed similar thoughts.
post #131 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
I agree with this, but it's more than that. There is a great deal of variety in those old illustrations. Not just in terms of occasion, but also color, cut, styling, texture, patterns, combinations, you name it. It's a very rich satorial universe, even if to some extent it is imagined, and was even known to be such at the time. There is nothing that compares to it in our time.

AFAIK it was pretty much an imaginary world, some of those plates are great though and the graphic elegance of select drawings is nice. I'd be afraid of anyone taking them for reality or having the exact same outfits made but aside from that, great stuff.

In our time the diversity is much higher on style blogs and sites like this one than it was ever possible in AA, which doesn't remove anything from the later.
post #132 of 2153
Really? You think "People who like AA illustrations are just proles trying to live above their station" is a point worth discussing? And you can't see the insult in it?

If so, I revert to my earlier remark: dense.
post #133 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eustace Tilley View Post
Going back to your Shattuck suit Manton - is that one you would classify as draped? If so, why?

It is unpadded and soft, but there is less drape in the chest than I prefer. However, that is/was Frank's way. I find that the coat wears a bit tight.
post #134 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post
AFAIK it was pretty much an imaginary world

I think it is depicting something a lot more real than people here seem to assume.
post #135 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
I think it is depicting something a lot more real than people here seem to assume.
Dude, having six suits was pretty rare for 99% of people and the kind of activities depicted don't always fit the lifestyle of the other 1%. I guess you could say you caught each character on their "good day" and it would fit, I just keep thinking of a man having 65 suits as being the AA ideal. To be honest it doesn't take anything away from what is interesting in those plates, just like modern day fashion shoots, hyper real fantasies are as good as anything in presenting a coherent universe. In fact you could say that AA was ahead of it's time as the photographers that replaced it didn't pay as much attention to the narrative elements and that level would only come back in the 60s and 70s.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Voxsartoria's Weekly WAYWRN Subjective and Totally Unfair Digest