or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part III
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part III - Page 1622  

post #24316 of 78724
Citan1145 wrote: "looks pretty good, i sense a distinct lack of maize.."

In response.... Actually, Michigan's colors are "azure blue", not "navy", and maize. So, my tie is half correct! What you are not seeing are the striped Maize 'n Blue socks that I am wearing shamelessly.
post #24317 of 78724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daskarn View Post

Monday! Wednesday! Friday! Saturday! Sunday!

Tue & Thurs were less-than-exclamatory days, I take it. :p

 

Srsly tho', I like Sun's look best out of these.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tirailleur1 View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

41ddeccc_IMG_0938.jpeg


I really like this; the hat is a nice touch. Stick around.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post


I really have no idea what the SW&D "look" is. But, to the extent that it exists (and if it does not exist, to the extent that it refers to reality), it seems to reflect the notion that clothes for men consist of multiple and equally valid costumes. One of these costumes is the MC "look." There are other costumes as well. Ninja. Bear. Yoji. Yoshi. Harajuku. Within each, some expressions are optimal and many are awful, and there is maneuvering for popularity. Many costumes are literally invented by particular individuals (designers? bloggers?), some of whom make their living merchandizing (tweeting?) their concept to mass buyers (followers?), and then replacement concepts if they are lucky enough to make a continuous living at it.

The big difference is that many who are active in the MC forum do not have this perpective. Their particular viewpoint is to seek an unbroken connection to the past through the specific avenue of tailored clothes. For some (a diminishing subset), it is a simple daily requirement of professional and social life...to dress as their father, grandfather, and so on among other men who also dress the same way. For some, it is an aesthetic decision to recover and preserve old things that are more beautiful than new things. For yet others, it is a form of nostalgia bound up in concepts of society and culture. It can be one, two or all three. But common among all three reasons is a rejection of equal contextual validity of every conceivable form of design.


I actually liked shah's outfit, but the best thing about its presence in the thread is that someone finally wrote out this undercurrent explicitly.

 

I happen to fall outside of the last paragraph's "many".

 

For me, a moderately conservative tailored approach to menswear is simply the mode of dressing in which I am personally most comfortable in and meets my life's needs. Taken societally, of course you are undeniably correct that if you take any random person and any random situation, and put them together, a traditional menswear aesthetic is more likely to have contextual validity than any other. I think that's pretty much a tautological truism, as it represents the prevalent wider culture.

 

However, we don't exist as random people and random situations, but rather as individual's leading individual lives. As such, the best judge of individual contextual validity in a specific setting is theoretically the individual getting dressed, assuming they have adequate personal insight into their psyche and their lifestyle (this is not always a given, based on some posters/threads in MC, admittedly). Also, context is not a static external pressure brought about by an event/society, but rather a dynamic that is created between an individual & those he interacts with. In that sense, I have more intellectual sympathy with the concept that menswear is actually a series of costumes, some of which happen to mesh better than others with an individual's personality/lifestyle.

 

Some of those costumes happen to also have greater cultural and societal resonances than others; the ones that have been about longest and are most associated with the existing establishment. That's not the same thing as saying that they are not costumes.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digmenow

Originally Posted by Holdfast

Throw on a casual shirt (e.g. one of your button-down collared ones), undo the top couple of buttons, put on a pair of well-fitting chinos/khakis and a pair of your dark-brown derbies. If you like, add in a silk or linen square in any non-squared-off fold. Safe & easy while still smart, if potentially unexciting (probably not a bad thing in the context you'll be in)...
Wait. Yes?

 

Yes. With care. :)
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOBD View Post

Interesting last few pages. We need more MC-SW&D interaction.


Agreed. It's always stimulating to have a broad exchange of concepts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relaxed Friday...

 

 


Edited by Holdfast - 3/16/12 at 9:26am
post #24318 of 78724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sotiris View Post

Thursday
Y9LSK.jpg

Nice tie! May I ask what it is?
post #24319 of 78724
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpooPoker View Post

RAWR
0d2c37d9.jpg


Acridsheep, we're looking at you.

 

If you're going to use the Liam method of cleaning, you have to push the games further under the couch.

 

Also, sell me your pants.
 

 

post #24320 of 78724

IMG_2282.JPG

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


IMG_2285.JPG

 

IMG_2286.JPG

 

IMG_2287.JPG

 

IMG_2292.JPG

 

IMG_2291.JPG

 

IMG_2293.JPG

 

Navy Tassel Loafers

 

 

post #24321 of 78724
Bit of a casual vibe today - a touch of green for tomorrow.

572
316
262
post #24322 of 78724
Happy friday
3_16_12.jpg

and a little green for the early engineer's day.

3_16_12_shoes.jpg
post #24323 of 78724

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tirailleur1 View Post
 


I think this is all most excellent, apart from the pocket square(s?) which just seem(s) to be trying to leave earth orbit...

post #24324 of 78724

IMG_0208.jpg

 

 

First time wearing a jacket for a job- glad it's a cooler day in DC.

post #24325 of 78724
sugarbutch
"I just can't get to it, TB. Sorry."

Thanks SF (a new me)
"how about a slimmer cut trousers? as with Parker, I like it better sans tie.Overall, nice clean look"

Parker
"Would like even better without the tie. But looks fresh-n-clean."

the shah
"aside from footwear this is quite a nice spring outfit. at least wear no-show socks ..."

acecow
"It's the shoes, acrid. Not feeling the shoes."

acridsheep
"Not feelin' this one, TB, and not entirely sure why. I love all the elements."



I greatly appreciate the above critiques, gentlemen, but they all appeared in the "Thumbs-Up" box of my latest fit post. I suggest that we reserve the Thumbs-Up box for quick nods to looks we like but post our critiques out in the main thread where we can discuss them more easily.
post #24326 of 78724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdfast View Post


I happen to fall outside of the last paragraph's "many".

For me, a moderately conservative tailored approach to menswear is simply the mode of dressing in which I am personally most comfortable in and meets my life's needs. Taken societally, of course you are undeniably correct that if you take any random person and any random situation, and put them together, a traditional menswear aesthetic is more likely to have contextual validity than any other. I think that's pretty much a tautological truism, as it represents the prevalent wider culture.

However, we don't exist as random people and random situations, but rather as individual's leading individual lives. As such, the best judge of individual contextual validity in a specific setting is theoretically the individual getting dressed, assuming they have adequate personal insight into their psyche and their lifestyle (this is not always a given, based on some posters/threads in MC, admittedly). Also, context is not a static external pressure brought about by an event/society, but rather a dynamic that is created between an individual & those he interacts with. In that sense, I have more intellectual sympathy with the concept that menswear is actually a series of costumes, some of which happen to mesh better than others with an individual's personality/lifestyle.

Some of those costumes happen to also have greater cultural and societal resonances than others; the ones that have been about longest and are most associated with the existing establishment. That's not the same thing as saying that they are not costumes.

To think of contemporary menswear as set of differing genres of costume of which classic tailored dress is now but one does not refute (or if you prefer, remains completely consonant with) my observations on what made some of the dudes here react in a charged way to Persion Bro #2's, uhm, floppywear.

A sophisticated practioner of the costume philosophy of clothes will protect his position by admitting that he might prefer one costume to another, but will also insist that all costumes no matter how divergent from his must be equally valid to someone, somewhere. In reality, nearly everyone accepts this premise anyway: the more distant the time (further into history) and place (farther from you); the wider the group of men who will relent that variety is inevitable.

I remain comfortable saying, however, that in our time, in our place (I will not define either since it is unncessary), the man who wears tailored clothes does so for one of three reasons that I outlined earlier. All have to do with a connection to the past. When it comes to tailored dress, that past is rather monolithic despite all the years of erosion and all the nuances (minutiae?) that trouble the brow of the online menswear protagonist. Dudes got angry at Shah because their concept of the past frees them from the rootless and relativistic aesthetic that the costume philosophy necessarily demands. In other words, no, not every costume is equally valid.

You say that you are an adherant to the costume philosphy, but I don't think that you are. When you say that wearing tailored clothes makes you "personally most comfortable," my guess is that you might just fall into one, two or all three of the categories that I described.

The costume philosophy is pretty good. The problem with it today, I will repeat, is that all the costumes are derivative of the past but only a few recognize or admit it. (Much the same is true today in the arts.) In the context of RTW merchandizing of clothes, this lack of self-awareness leads to an annoying presumption of novelty or unique discovery masking a lack of talent in both concept and execution.

So, it's just plain ugly.
post #24327 of 78724
I'm wearing a dress right now.
post #24328 of 78724
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

The costume philosophy is pretty good. The problem with it today, I will repeat, is that all the costumes are derivative of the past but only a few recognize or admit it. (Much the same is true today in the arts.) In the context of RTW merchandizing of clothes, this lack of self-awareness leads to an annoying presumption of novelty or unique discovery masking a lack of talent in both concept and execution.

you've said this several times now, i don't think it's true. yeah, fresh compared to yesterday's trend maybe, fashion is cyclical etc. etc. i really don't think anybody denies this ...
post #24329 of 78724
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

I'm wearing a dress right now.

post #24330 of 78724
Vox, very eloquently stated. I bow to you once again with respect.

I was thinking about this argument yesterday and 3 points came to mind. Both are important to me as the distinction I draw between MC and SW&D philosophies.

1. MC doesn't care about brands as long as the piece looks good. Of course, we will drool over RLPL, because it mostly looks great on everyone, but we will equally respect and adore a $5 thrifted sport coat if it fits well and is harmonious with the rest of the outfit. SW&D, on the other hand, pays a lot of attention to brands and often defines the "awesomeness" of an outfit based on the maker.

2. I have a lot of acquaintances in various social circles and nobody dresses like Mr. Shah or the other extreme SW&D posters. Most people wear some ill-fitting version of the MC casual wear sprinkled with some hipster or office plankton elements, depending on the setting. This leads me to believe that MC-version of toned down casual wear is more socially acceptable than the extreme examples in SW&D.

3. My whole life, be it professional, art, cooking or clothing has led me to believe that there is a certain path from novice to amateur to expert, and that path is always from more complexity to less. Sublime subtlety seems to be the most difficult to achieve. A couple simple examples from everyday life:
a) cooking: beginners want to mix in more stuff, more spices, more flavors. As they become more experienced, they focus on combining a few high-quality ingredients to truly appreciate their taste.
b) photography: beginners want more photoshop, more colors or black and white, retro styling, hdr, etc. Most professional take a few shots and mostly leave them unedited, because true beauty and talent is in simplicity, not covering up a lack of originality and skill with filters and airbrushing.

To me, MC represents a natural progression from SW&D. From brands to appreciating a certain aesthetic. From many layers, stacking, etc. to simple lines and elegant designs. From rebelling against society and desperately trying to be original to becoming one with it, but a step above everyone else.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part III