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 1623

post #24331 of 75540

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.

 

I agree with most of what you say in this post, but this last but one paragraph just doesn't appear to follow or make internal sense. Perhaps you can help me.

 

Are you claiming that designers of RTW clothes in general do not have any knowledge of the history of clothing? If so, I would dispute this as many of them have probably studied it and are almost certainly enthusiasts if not formerly educated in the history of clothing. Or are you talking about the consumers of such clothes here? That might be a more reasonable claim. Secondly, are you claiming that the predominant marketing offer is novelty? If so, I would suggest that is only partially correct, and that particularly in menswear, even fast fashion menswear, the novelty involved is often only specifically related to what has gone immediately before and is almost never presumed to be novelty in terms of the whole history of style (in fact, many references are made to the past, perhaps in a way that is rather too postmodern and eclectic for your liking, but nevertheless those references are frequent). Finally, you seem to be claiming that these things result in a 'lack of talent in concept and execution'. One may indeed argue that many RTW clothes, especially, again, those from the fast fashion end of the spectrum are indeed badly made, but that does not mean that even they are badly designed or even that poor manufacture is necessarily bad execution of a concept - since the concept might be quick, disposable clothes to be worn a handful of times. That maybe ethically problematic especially in environmental terms but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with talent.

post #24332 of 75540
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

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 ...

So, from your perspective, what shelf life allows a recycled look to become fresh again? And what is the point of that cycle, other than merchandizing?
post #24333 of 75540
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingMonkey View Post

Quote:

I agree with most of what you say in this post, but this last but one paragraph just doesn't appear to follow or make internal sense. Perhaps you can help me.

Are you claiming that designers of RTW clothes in general do not have any knowledge of the history of clothing?

Nope.
post #24334 of 75540
^ interesting points Acecow! nod[1].gif
post #24335 of 75540
Quote:
Originally Posted by acecow View Post

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.[/quiote]

i knew where this was going ...
Quote:

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.

this is a poor generalization. while certain brands are preferred over others, it is most of the time associated with perceptions of quality that come from experience in handling many different lines available. that quality is in terms of some combination of longevity of item, style, fabric, construction, etc. certain brands are simply known for producing better items (common project sneakers, if we're to take some baseline) than others (converse) and so if someone is showing CP it will automatically appeal to a larger audience than someone wearing chucks...
Quote:
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.

this is flawed logic and based on whatever pre-conceived notions you/your friends may have. the majority of people dress like slobs. just because your surroundings do not include examples of what you see in SWD doesn't make those examples socially unacceptable, it m might mean you may have conservative/boring friends or might mean many people don't care about personal style beyond dressing themselves every morning and wearing pajamas at night.
Quote:
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.

agreed on both those everyday examples, and in the context of styleforum, or particularly SWD, this holds true. check sz/sufu (well even there simplicity trumps all) for how complex things may become, but what is generally most successful in SWD is also simple. Parker, with whom you may be familiar, is a perfect example.

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 is, but a step above everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

So, from your perspective, what shelf life allows a recycled look to become fresh again? And what is the point of that cycle, other than merchandizing?

of course one major factor of such a cycle is merchandising/marketing, this is a sales-driven industry after all and that's not something we can deny unless you're getting everything sourced and hand made, in which case you live in a different dimension than a great majority. i'm not sure it even matters. it's not something i subscribe to. i've no patience for fast cycles, my wardrobe isn't some some state of flux but rather is tending toward some ideal i have in my head that i try manifesting. and if what I like is derivative or based on some slower-evolving cycle (i.e. resurgence of 19th century-inspired aesthetic or Orientalism) then so be it.
post #24336 of 75540
I like both types of clothing, English and Ivy.
post #24337 of 75540
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHolliday View Post

I like both types of clothing, English and Ivy.

Hey, me, too!

We run the gamut from A to B.
post #24338 of 75540
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

Hey, me, too!
We run the gamut from A to B.


That's okay because there's nothing else to C.

post #24339 of 75540
Quote:
Originally Posted by EMartNJ View Post



That's okay because there's nothing else to C.

(Italian clothes.) peepwall[1].gif
post #24340 of 75540
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post
(Italian clothes.) peepwall[1].gif


Let's just call that A 1/2. bigstar[1].gif

 

post #24341 of 75540
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

Hey, me, too!
We run the gamut from A to B.

Three be the things I shall never attain: envy, content and sufficient champagne.
post #24342 of 75540
Quote:
Originally Posted by acecow View Post

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.

Ace, this is twaddle. There are plenty of brand whores in MC. Hell, there are plenty who give it up for anything some fellow forumites wear. The brands aren't the same, and the enthusiasm gets rationalized as an appreciation of "quality" but for most folks, that's just aspirational bullshit. It's the same phenomenon as SW&D, just not as nakedly displayed.
post #24343 of 75540
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

of course one major factor of such a cycle is merchandising/marketing, this is a sales-driven industry after all and that's not something we can deny unless you're getting everything sourced and hand made, in which case you live in a different dimension than a great majority. i'm not sure it even matters. it's not something i subscribe to. i've no patience for fast cycles, my wardrobe isn't some some state of flux but rather is tending toward some ideal i have in my head that i try manifesting. and if what I like is derivative or based on some slower-evolving cycle (i.e. resurgence of 19th century-inspired aesthetic or Orientalism) then so be it.

I fear that I might be confused with the guys who hated your photograph. (My main reaction, if I had to categorize it, would be ambivalence...I hope that's okay.)

I tried to describe what makes the tailored clothing aesethetic, or costume, different than nearly all the other menswear costumes up on the racks today. I think that I succeeded, but there is always room for someone to surpass my attempt.
post #24344 of 75540
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

Ace, this is twaddle. There are plenty of brand whores in MC. Hell, there are plenty who give it up for anything some fellow forumites wear. The brands aren't the same, and the enthusiasm gets rationalized as an appreciation of "quality" but for most folks, that's just aspirational bullshit. It's the same phenomenon as SW&D, just not as nakedly displayed.

So, if "MC" is the same as "SW&D," why the difference in dress?
post #24345 of 75540
Let's not get crazy. If MoK gigantic, oversized overcoat was, say, made by Brooks Brothers and not yohji, he would have been ridiculed over in SWD. SWD is exceptionally brand driven, moreso than MC. It's also exceptionally "crazy outfit" driven. Like I said before, SWD of late is all about the flavor of the month, which is fashion, not style.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part III