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 11

post #151 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
There's a difference between believing that objective improvement is possible and believing that you know, in all certainty, what is objectively better or worse. If you believe objective improvement is possible, you will demand rational explanations for change; if you don't think anything is 'better' or 'worse', except in completely subjective way, you won't require such justification.

You're trying to turn the active into the passive; you weren't born in 1920, hence you purposely chose the fashions of that time as your reference point, if that's what you did. You didn't start at point "0" which is what is "the norm" in your surroundings and reject change as it passed you by as non-productive, contrary to how you usually present that narrative...
post #152 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
100%. And he didn't insult me.
I can, if you want.
post #153 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by George View Post
There also seems to be a greater expression of colour, patterns and textures in those old plates, more than you see in today's fashion media which is strange when you consider that we've never had more choices available to us and at lower cost. Fashion/style seems to have become somewhat homogenised with few men showing much creative individualism, which is a topic in itself. With the AA/Esquire plates the key I feel is to be inspired and learn from them, then build from there. I wouldn't think it's a good idea to just run out and have a facsimile made.
I think that's always been true in the USA for men. I would think that these plates were often trying to get men to experiment with color or patterns.
post #154 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
100%. And he didn't insult me.

No, no. What I meant was, is the below clear enough? Especially the bolded portions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Film Noir Buff View Post
Sure, there can be several reasons. A strong reason is the feeling that the present doesn't respect them for the qualities they possess and that there are no "gentlemen" or "ladies". It's a matter of degree and I suppose everyone has it to so extent, a nostalgia for the past. it's simply a matter of how far back, how authentic the reproduction of the outfits and for what purpose.

I doubt if there was anything better about the clothes in the thirties in the absolute sense. Some of the styles have become classics and perhaps some of the color combinations are cultural now. I think the thirties are not in vogue now but rather more like the 1960s and 1970s. The thirties renaissance for men's clothing is fallow, at least for the moment.

No I don't think this is true. If I understand what you mean, people who buy clothes for contemporary status want to fit in while those who recreate the past think they have rediscovered a sort of secret exclusivity and want to stand apart. Thus, one does not have to have any imagination and can simply copy but because the source is not widely avaialble it is almost as if one "invented" it.

I havn't got an issue with studying the AA and/or Esquire plates for historical research and trends in clothing; it is adoring the lifestyle of the time and wanting to become it that prompts a curious desire to copy exactly.

More than buying "in" clothes, it is more like wearing Shaq's jersey to become Shaq. Although I do not think this is a perfect fit because, as mentioned above, because the person believes these plates to be like an exclusive source they would want to believe they are actually plus Shaq que Shaq.

I know, perhaps it's more like wearing a reproduction jersey of a player from a long defunct team that no one knows about and taking immense satisfaction that only you know about the player's history.
post #155 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
But have you considered the possibility that some things from the past are just better than what is normal now? You hate heavy, traditional fabric, but it performs better in some ways. Someone who wears a heavy tweed jacket could be doing it out of nostalgia, sure. But maybe he just likes the way tweed wears. .

I can't say whether he has considered this possibilty or not. I can say that it has been argued to him hundreds of times and he just ignores it, every time. In FNB's universe, if you wear something FNB does not like, it can't be because you like it. I must stem from some deep psychological disorder.
post #156 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
I agree with that, and make no bones about the fact that when I dress I am trying to live up to a standard that transcends my time and place. But I do so because I think it looks good. My interest is purely aesthetic. That the clothes came from high society originally is interesting, but not so relevant. I will never be of that world, and am not pining for it, and any case it mostly doesn't exist any more. I just really like the clothes. If this were such a bad thing, then we would have to say that acquiring any expensive taste, or any taste more expensive than what we grew up with, is a priori the mark of a poser. That's just another way of ossifying the cast system. The only people hell bent on wishing for that are people who feel their own place in the pecking order threatened. And, yes, mafoo, for the record, I am talking about FNB.
I don't have a beef with it, I know it is not obvious in the way I dress but I also hold a certain fascination with the past, as any human who doesn't live only in the moment does. My problem is with people who pinpoint this point in time and then tell me what came after sucks and is inferior. As for dressing for purely aesthetic reasons I don't believe that's possible but I might be wrong. In any case ignoring the signifiers associated with the clothes we wear is sorta like not being able to grasp the second degree in a text, a terrible loss if there ever was one.
post #157 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post
You're trying to turn the active into the passive; you weren't born in 1920, hence you purposely chose the fashions of that time as your reference point, if that's what you did. You didn't start at point "0" which is what is "the norm" in your surroundings and reject change as it passed you by as non-productive, contrary to how you usually present that narrative...

Point "0" doesn't have to be the norm you were born with; it may be the norm that makes the most sense, and you may have to actively adopt it.
post #158 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post
You're trying to turn the active into the passive; you weren't born in 1920, hence you purposely chose the fashions of that time as your reference point, if that's what you did. You didn't start at point "0" which is what is "the norm" in your surroundings and reject change as it passed you by as non-productive, contrary to how you usually present that narrative...

This is to go much too far.

The alienness of the AA illustrations is always vastly overstated. What makes them so great, to me, aside from their intrinsic beauty, is how relevant they remain.

True, they are not relevant at all for streetwear. But the tailored clothing is. The vast majority of what they depicted then is wearable today, and would not turn any heads, either among those who like to dress or those who don't. Except, perhaps, among the latter because of the intrinsic value of the combination.

There are some outmoded things in those illustrations, but with few (really, only one) exception here, none of us is wearing that.

Every discussion if AA always comes back to this straw man: You are trying to live in the past. Really? How is this, sartorially, an example of the outmoded past, unwearable today?



The hat? Plenty of hats on SF. Are all hat wearers just nostalgia freaks? Suede monks? Lots of those too. Bow ties? A little eccentric, maybe, but a nice touch once in a while. Swelled edges and patch pockets? Then you have to pack a lot of us off to the loony bin.
post #159 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJman View Post
I can, if you want.

I know you are being facetious, sort of, but what exactly did I ever do to attract your consistent scorn?
post #160 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
Point "0" doesn't have to be the norm you were born with; it may be the norm that makes the most sense, and you may have to actively adopt it.

But then you're not rejecting changes that came after as much as choosing a different time to be your guide. If the whole if history is your oyster it could be said you're rejecting the Toga as much as the slim suit and everything else along with those (except point "o").

And that's saying nothing of the irrationality inherent in choosing a dress style that pushes colleagues to refer to your hanky in a category of work where sticking out for your dress is not seen as rational.
post #161 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
This is to go much too far.

The alienness of the AA illustrations is always vastly overstated. What makes them so great, to me, aside from their intrinsic beauty, is how relevant they remain.

True, they are not relevant at all for streetwear. But the tailored clothing is. The vast majority of what they depicted then is wearable today, and would not turn any heads, either among those who like to dress or those who don't. Except, perhaps, among the latter because of the intrinsic value of the combination.

There are some outmoded things in those illustrations, but with few (really, only one) exception here, none of us is wearing that.

Every discussion if AA always comes back to this straw man: You are trying to live in the past. Really? How is this, sartorially, an example of the outmoded past, unwearable today?



The hat? Plenty of hats on SF. Are all hat wearers just nostalgia freaks? Suede monks? Lots of those too. Bow ties? A little eccentric, maybe, but a nice touch once in a while. Swelled edges and patch pockets? Then you have to pack a lot of us off to the loony bin.

The combination of them all, no?

On the other hand while I do act like you guys are dressed by AA as you sorta presented yourselves as such it is merely a convenient fiction to drive the discussion. I don't perceive either you or Mafoo as doing that. Inspired by: yes, copying the style of the 30s : no.
post #162 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
I know you are being facetious, sort of, but what exactly did I ever do to attract your consistent scorn?

It was the foyer. Duh.
post #163 of 2153
Quote: Originally Posted by Film Noir Buff Sure, there can be several reasons. A strong reason is the feeling that the present doesn't respect them for the qualities they possess and that there are no "gentlemen" or "ladies". It's a matter of degree and I suppose everyone has it to so extent, a nostalgia for the past. it's simply a matter of how far back, how authentic the reproduction of the outfits and for what purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MafooFan
But have you considered the possibility that some things from the past are just better than what is normal now? You hate heavy, traditional fabric, but it performs better in some ways. Someone who wears a heavy tweed jacket could be doing it out of nostalgia, sure. But maybe he just likes the way tweed wears.
I do not hate heavy fabric, I simply think it is mostly useless for the types of environments I inhabit. Actually I happen to love some of the heavy fabrics for their intrinsic beauty, I am simply not going to torture myself by wearing them just because of these qualities. I like tweed jackets, I just dont think they are modern and that's the extent of it. Harris tweed jackets are enormously popular and People might very well wear them today because of their intrinsic properties but that doesnt have anything to do with reproducing outfits from plates or idolizing the mis en scene they represent nor does it take into account that people wore them in the past because they didnt have affordable cashmere or it was a relief from the 30oz broadcloth that city suits were made from. I think there are a myriad of reasons people wear clothes from the past but I am talking about those who wear things because they are in the AA/Esky plates and the reasons they might do so. I have no doubt that the belief that things were just made better back then is a prime motivator. Further, some things were indeed made better in the past but not all things; many things are made better today. Additionally, although many things no longer exist because not enough people can appreciate them just as many became extinct because they aren't useful anymore. Finally, some items that were made better then are are still "better" today are inappropriate for our lifestyles and if someone forces themselves to wear it because it is in an Esky plate, what does that say? Quote: Originally Posted by Film Noir Buff No I don't think this is true. If I understand what you mean, people who buy clothes for contemporary status want to fit in while those who recreate the past think they have rediscovered a sort of secret exclusivity and want to stand apart. Thus, one does not have to have any imagination and can simply copy but because the source is not widely avaialble it is almost as if one "invented" it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MafooFan
Everyone wants to simultaneously be unique and fit in. If people who wear avant garde fashion are trying to 'fit in', they are only trying to do so in a very small group.
The primary and crucial difference is one of source. You get something exclusive that everyone knows about and cannot obtain it is rather different than recreating something from the past that is unique and no one else knows about it. I think this is an unimaginative approach but I also think it is a matter of degree. If you design something and refer to the past it is a lot different than reproduction in every detail. Please remember that we are talking about the AA/Esky plates here. Quote: Originally Posted by Film Noir Buff I havn't got an issue with studying the AA and/or Esquire plates for historical research and trends in clothing; it is adoring the lifestyle of the time and wanting to become it that prompts a curious desire to copy exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MafooFan
Again, you shouldn't assume people do as others did in the past merely because they wish to mimic the past itself.
If you could develop this a bit more for discussion purposes. I don't necessarily say there isn't another reason, i just can't see a stronger one than wanting to identify more closely with the past.
post #164 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post
But then you're not rejecting changes that came after as much as choosing a different time to be your guide. If the whole if history is your oyster it could be said you're rejecting the Toga as much as the slim suit and everything else along with those (except point "o").

I think it's fair to say that evolution has been the dominant trend in clothing norms up until the second half of the twentieth century. I don't agree with postmodernist thinking, but I will not dispute that we are now a postmodernist-thinking society. That's probably why it appears that I only reject things after a certain point in time--it's not the time period I'm concerned with, but the underlying rationale (or lack thereof) that accompanies a change at issue. Now, I'm not saying that there was ever a consciously rationale approach to the development of fashion, but I will take slow, experiential development over fast, revolutionary change every single time, all else being equal.

In other words: when norms are tossed out for new norms, but without good reason, I think the old norms should be restored since they, at least, rest on experience and less risky magnitudes of change. I think, we have come, as a society, to value change in and of itself (thank you, Mr. President)--I view this as a sort of intellectual disease because it is costly (destabilizing norms that don't necessarily need destabilizing), and it distracts us from changing norms for good reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post
And that's saying nothing of the irrationality inherent in choosing a dress style that pushes colleagues to refer to your hanky in a category of work where sticking out for your dress is not seen as rational.

I don't care if people like the way I dress. I recognize that I've taken my own kind of risk under the circumstances--but that is a risk I consider worth taking (see my argument above).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
It was the foyer. Duh.

Oh please. If that is really a reason for any of you to have a problem with me, I can only assume you all have serious reading comprehension deficiencies.
post #165 of 2153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post
I don't have a beef with it, I know it is not obvious in the way I dress but I also hold a certain fascination with the past, as any human who doesn't live only in the moment does. My problem is with people who pinpoint this point in time and then tell me what came after sucks and is inferior.

I often hear this regarding music, rock & roll died after 1973.

I think AA and Esquire plates depict the pinnacle of being well dressed. The difference then and now lies in the audience. When first seen in its day people would aspire to dress in that way. Today it is scoffed at and deemed irrelevant.
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