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 1624  

post #24346 of 78724
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

So, if "MC" is the same as "SW&D," why the difference in dress?

Different strategies for how best to direct the blatant attempts at looking monied.
post #24347 of 78724
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.

Like I said, who wouldn't want a Cesare Attollini suit? You're almost certain to get a great-fitting product. But if by some chance you stumble upon a Lauren RL suit that fits you well (impossible) you will be praised almost as much. There're brand whores everywhere, but SW&D has so many more of them, while in MC it's looked down upon.
post #24348 of 78724
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

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?

I fear you may be reading a broader point into what was intended to be a narrow one: MC, like SW&D, does care about brands.
post #24349 of 78724
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

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?

i don't think that's what he's saying...two people can also stil fall into SWD and dress nothing alike. his point was that at some level both care about brands equally (not sure on this myself).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moo View Post

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.

this is wrong on every point confused.gif

anyway wasting too much time rehashing the same arguments, you guys should think of posting some interesting fits instead.
post #24350 of 78724
It's not wrong at all.
post #24351 of 78724
Quote:
Originally Posted by acecow View Post

MC doesn't care about brands as long as the piece looks good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by acecow View Post

There're brand whores everywhere...

I will assume that I misinterpreted "MC" in your first post, and that you meant the concept of classic men's clothing rather the MC sub-forum here.
post #24352 of 78724
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

I will assume that I misinterpreted "MC" in your first post, and that you meant the concept of classic men's clothing rather the MC sub-forum here.

No, I actually meant most people in the MC subforum will accept an outfit regardless of brands. That has been my experience.
post #24353 of 78724
I live in the bay area and never see 95% of the outfits that get praise on SWD. MC is a totally different story.
post #24354 of 78724
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

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.
 

 

I sense the possibility that we're both circling around a certain basic agreed set of axioms, and are just following through on different corollaries. With that possibility in mind...

 

Regarding my personal position, I don't claim that my construct of self will never change (that would close off any potential for personal growth). But currently I can't see how the costume philosophy can logically be bettered. It strikes me as the theory of the language of clothes with the greatest universal applicability, even if it creates a greater risk of failure and a greater onus on individuals to actively think about themselves & others when getting dressed in order to successfully execute their outfit. In fact, I would view that onus on the individual as an advantage even if it creates (in your/mine/whoever's opinion) ugliness. The ugliness itself becomes something of interest, because it potentially reveals something about the nature of the ugly-dressed person; you can then test that provisional hypothesis when you interact with them and see if it's correct or not. That's both fun & useful, whether it's proved wrong or not.

 

Here's an extreme scenario that might act as a litmus test of other readers' own intellectual position: would you actually prefer it if everyone around you wore perfectly-fitting bespoke outfits hewing closely to the language of tradtional Western tailored clothing (fully accepting that there's a huge variety of potential looks within that narrow remit)? Personally, I would really hate such a world. I like seeing the variety of looks we currently have, and I actually like seeing that some people take more effort than others in both choosing outfits and in how successfully executed those outfits are. I think that's a more pleasant world to live in.

 

On a different point, I wonder if we're defining the word "costume" slightly differently because I'm uncertain how your penultimate para presents any sort of essential problem to the idea of clothes as costume. I would happily cede that all clothes today are in some way influenced by older forms of clothes, as modified by the passage of time & cultural change (and influencing culture in return). There's a continual two-way conversation between clothes, individuals and society. But I don't follow how accepting that all the costumes of today are in some way influenced by the costumes of the past in any way negates them as being costumes. There isn't an inconsistency here. What we wear today is costume, what our grandfathers wore was costume, and so often ad infinitum.

 

Finally, if you don't mind some bare-faced cheek (quite literally), here's an amusing little thought which crystallises out why I think the costume philosophy of clothes makes sense. On the first day that primitive man decided to wear the skin of the animal he just killed, he actually created two costumes. One was the skin of the animal - it didn't just provide a utilitarian warmth, such an invention would have inevitably subsequently influenced his interactions with others and his social function/place within his tribe. The other was nudity. Clothes allowed the differention of the clothed self from the nude self. Today, nudity is still a costume, with its own specific etiquette of usage. There's even a condensation of this concept; it's made concrete in our language with the phrase "birthday suit". If nudity is a costume, clothes themselves must also be.

post #24355 of 78724
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHolliday View Post

Different strategies for how best to direct the blatant attempts at looking monied.

...and getting laid.
post #24356 of 78724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Threadbearer View Post

...and getting laid.

As a young person, I find this point to be the most important one.
post #24357 of 78724

Quote:

Originally Posted by acecow View Post


No, I actually meant most people in the MC subforum will accept an outfit regardless of brands. That has been my experience.


There's a couple posters over in SW&D (mellowfellow off the top of my head) that regularly get 10-20 likes every time they post a fit which usually consists of mostly uniqlo, which would be about the price equivalent of your Lauren RL suit.  There's another that wears mostly stuff I've never heard of (I think he finds them in the bargain bin at yoox) and combines them in a cool way and, again, usually is very appreciated.

 

 

Quote:
Of course, we will drool over RLPL, because it mostly looks great on everyone

 

...

You seem to be stuck in your world view and unable to accept that other people don't share your priorities and aspirations.  Not wearing a suit isn't always, or even often, 'desperately rebelling against society.'  Life isn't a big golden path to your way of thinking that the poor unfortunate people who don't like tweed are stuck lagging way behind on.

post #24358 of 78724
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingJulien View Post

Quote:


There's a couple posters over in SW&D (mellowfellow off the top of my head) that regularly get 10-20 likes every time they post a fit which usually consists of mostly uniqlo, which would be about the price equivalent of your Lauren RL suit.  There's another that wears mostly stuff I've never heard of (I think he finds them in the bargain bin at yoox) and combines them in a cool way and, again, usually is very appreciated.



...
You seem to be stuck in your world view and unable to accept that other people don't share your priorities and aspirations.  Not wearing a suit isn't always, or even often, 'desperately rebelling against society.'  Life isn't a big golden path to your way of thinking that the poor unfortunate people who don't like tweed are stuck lagging way behind on.

I wear suits maybe 3-4 times a month. I even started the MC Casual thread here, because it's more relevant to me. Would you tell me why most guys that come from SW&D to defend their point of view resort to childish and/or personal insults, and misinterpreting and twisting other people's posts and arguments? Also, they tend to try to raise the level of hostility instead of having a civilized argument? I thank Shah for holding a logical and argumentative discussion, even if I disagree with him.
post #24359 of 78724

Quote:

Originally Posted by acecow View Post


I wear suits maybe 3-4 times a month. I even started the MC Casual thread here, because it's more relevant to me. Would you tell me why most guys that come from SW&D to defend their point of view resort to childish and/or personal insults, and misinterpreting and twisting other people's posts and arguments? Also, they tend to try to raise the level of hostility instead of having a civilized argument? I thank Shah for holding a logical and argumentative discussion, even if I disagree with him.


I apologize, my post came off as a lot more combative than I intended.  My intent wasn't to insult, and I'm sorry it came off that way, the second paragraph was specifically a response to this, and not a personal attack on you:

Quote:
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.

 

I don't agree that dressing differently is rebelling against society, or rebelling against anything, really.  I think for a lot of people the progression goes the other way, from menswear to more eclectic clothing, and I don't see either way as more valid or better than the other.  For the record, I usually dress relatively conservatively, jeans, boots etc, but I really enjoy all sorts of other things from an aesthetic standpoint.

post #24360 of 78724
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera 
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.

Restated into something I can buy into:

"MC seeks an unbroken connection to the past through the specific avenue of tailored clothes. For some 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."

That idea is just great. It also points out where the "anti-costume" mind-set must fail: what if your father, grandfather, and so on did not follow the specific avenue of tailored clothing? To honor that past requires disrepute? Intellectually indefensible.

Seeking an unbroken connection to the past through the specific avenue of tailored clothing? What a wonderful concept. Stand proud when pursuing it.
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