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 4716  

post #70726 of 78717

X-post from the Friday FU Valentine's Day Challenge.

 

Cheers,

 

Ac

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

 

 

 

 

post #70727 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliny View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdfast View Post
 

 

Worth highlighting; really nice colours here. Would love a pattern of some sort on that tie in this context though!

Matching tie too closely to shoes is kind of wonky for exactly the same reason as matching tie to square: it causes your eyes to jump sharply from tie to shoes and back again like a ball stuck between two bouncers on a pinball table.

 

The exception is a genuinely monochrome look where sharp contrasts tend to be the name of the game; because you have more than one such "pair" of matches in the look, the eye jumps around cleanly between all of them. But in this context, the number of colours is VERY stripped down.

 

This is controversial, but IMO I do actually believe that this bit of personal aesthetic preference has some biological/physiological substrate to back it up. We tend to absorb a look through saccadic (sharp/fast/jerky) eye movements rather than smoothly moving from one point to another. Most of these tend to be concentrated around the nose/eyes/lips, but then they bounce around between points of interest in our visual environment. I reckon that two very matching items flag up as things to bounce around between more. I'm not so deeply immersed in the neurophys literature to know if that's been proven, but that's my theory anyway.

 

 

  1. is there science on this Holdo? Not saying i don't believe you, just curious.  Flusser says similar + that the eye gets disorientated when it see two similar sized adjacent patterns, but I've wondered whether this is a physiological fact or a cultural thing.
  2. you're talking bewbs here rite? :)

 

1. yeah, it's teh Science. And old/well-established science at that; most of the research was done decades ago. Neurophysiologists have done eye tracking maps for people looking at images of faces, and more general pictures. With faces, the saccades predominantly bounce between on eyes, nose & lips. With pictures, it depends on what the viewer is asked to focus on, but the default is still faces and significant other points of interest. As I said, I'm not steeped in the literature, but Yarbus is certainly one contributor who did loads of research of this. I haven't read Flusser, so can't speak as to his interpretation.

 

I was able to google up one of the classic relevant Yarbus experiments, kindly uploaded here. Note the big differences between when people examined the scene naturally (somewhat akin to real life), and when asked to focus on the clothes (akin what happens in this thread).

 

There's a wider/bigger topic of interest here, separating out what in aesthetics is personal, cultural, learned and biologically innate. One day, if I ever get round to it, I'll put up a post. But it's kind of tricky to do so in a way that isn't didactic without assuming a certain level of neurophyiological knowledge.

 

2. moreso with some viewers - and viewees - than others, but sure!

post #70728 of 78717

@ butler: love that suit and those shoes, amazing monks!

 

the suit is actually more of a sage green than brown

 

AppleMark

AppleMark

post #70729 of 78717
DaDudeson-

I have admired the fits you have presented quite a bit. I am all for personal expression, but can you tell me how one reconciles the wild facial hair with such a tailored look?
post #70730 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdfast View Post
 

1. yeah, it's teh Science. And old/well-established science at that; most of the research was done decades ago. Neurophysiologists have done eye tracking maps for people looking at images of faces, and more general pictures. With faces, the saccades predominantly bounce between on eyes, nose & lips. With pictures, it depends on what the viewer is asked to focus on, but the default is still faces and significant other points of interest. As I said, I'm not steeped in the literature, but Yarbus is certainly one contributor who did loads of research of this. I haven't read Flusser, so can't speak as to his interpretation.

 

I was able to google up one of the classic relevant Yarbus experiments, kindly uploaded here. Note the big differences between when people examined the scene naturally (somewhat akin to real life), and when asked to focus on the clothes (akin what happens in this thread).

 

[...]

 

Very interesting.  Thanks for posting this.

 

To return to the “matching” issue which prompted this discussion, presumably proximity has an effect, but I could imagine it working either way.  That is, I could imagine similarity between tie and pocket square could be more distracting than similarity between tie and shoes because the tie and square are closer together and thus the similarity more easily recognized, but I could also imagine that similarity between tie and shoe could be more distracting because once noticed it would require the eye to traverse a greater distance.  Obviously it’s an empirical question which can only be resolved experimentally.  And one wonders as well what effect, if any, habituation has on an individual’s tracking.

 

Cheers,

 

Ac

post #70731 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDaniels View Post

DaDudeson-

I have admired the fits you have presented quite a bit. I am all for personal expression, but can you tell me how one reconciles the wild facial hair with such a tailored look?

Is there an inherent contradiction?
post #70732 of 78717
I would say so...but it is only an opinion. I would say a wild beard might work with an eclectic outfit, but when one is very sharply tailored I would think the grooming should match.
post #70733 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by daDudeson View Post
 

@ butler: love that suit and those shoes, amazing monks!

 

the suit is actually more of a sage green than brown

 

AppleMark

AppleMark

shoe deets

post #70734 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianGP View Post

HHHNNNNGGGG!
What trous stitchy? looks icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by justinkapur View Post

Stitch deets on SC

thanks, doods.

pants are epaulet MTO mocha lambswool flannel. SC, as noted by DS is borrelli. cashmere even. smile.gif
post #70735 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butler View Post

X-post from Challenge:



 

 

This is just ridiculously good.

 

What hope do any of the rest of us have?

post #70736 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coxsackie View Post

This is just ridiculously good.

What hope do any of the rest of us have?

Yes you are correct. But Butler is obviously a bit more... how shall we say... "experienced" than many of us here. shog[1].gif
post #70737 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butler View Post

X-post from Challenge:

Steven Hitchcock bespoke 3 piece Lovat tveed suit, T&A bespoke yellow shirt, Hoper PS, Dolbeau raw silk bow, John Lobb double monks - angry expression by me!
bigstar[1].gif



  Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
  Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
  Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

:worship2:

post #70738 of 78717
Nuduls, have you cheated on Pingson? Did you just changed him for Butler? lol8[1].giflol8[1].gif
post #70739 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betelgeuse View Post

Nuduls, have you cheated on Pingson? Did you just changed him for Butler? lol8[1].giflol8[1].gif

:rotflmao:

I luv them both. 

post #70740 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Butler View Post

X-post from Challenge:
  Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Steven Hitchcock bespoke 3 piece Lovat tveed suit, T&A bespoke yellow shirt, Hoper PS, Dolbeau raw silk bow, John Lobb double monks - angry expression by me!
bigstar[1].gif






Excellent! Those shoes: wow. :bigstar:

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