On the Utility of Rules for Dress and Fit - Page 2

No. You have it backwards. Proportion, symmetry and unity are what we find appealing. This is intrinsic to human perception.
The rules provide an algorithm for achieving proportion, symmetry and unity

Pure symmetry is boring. Artists introduce asymmetric details into the overall general symmetry to provide surprise, generate interest and pull the eye across the canvas.

I find it amusing that four-in-hands look better to me than other knots. I wonder if that's an exception to the symmetry rule or just something that SF has influenced me to believe.

It is CLOTHING!! HAVE FUN AND ENJOY!!

no more, no less............

Good has but one style; evil a thousand.

- Honoré de Balzac

Well, as I noted in my original response, I don't buy "rules" to be an obstruction for StyFo members attempting to look good since (a) very few seem to follow rules and (b) the few who do look better than those who don't.

Rules and habits are different things. There are a few habits that are aped to no particular distinction and with little manifest understanding.

Before we go about discarding rules in favor of pure, subjective expression, we should consider why the rules exist in the first place, and whether they offer value in the pursuit of our intended expression. Instead of thinking of rules as arbitrary standards to be disregarded, we can think of them as techniques, to be learned before being applied in one direction or another.

Note that improvisational jazz musicians are often well versed in music theory. Jackson Pollock and Pablo Picasso mastered the fundaments of classical composition before experimenting with new forms of painting. By the same token, it seems wise to have a firm grip on the basics before attempting to use them, or blend them, or even subvert them.

Sure, you might just paint a revolutionary masterpiece without any grounding in rudimentary theory and form. But aren't you much more likely to reach your desired outcome if you know how to use the brush and mix the pigments?

I disagree with the assertion that "the only necessary and sufficient condition for style is style itself." The statement is not only tautological, but wilfully reductionist.

Whether or not one is cognizant of the choices he's making in aesthetic judgment, he's still making choices. Those choices are not arbitrary. They're also incremental and cumulative. When putting together an ensemble, one has to start somewhere, with some combination of elements. For some, the first choice is the suit or jacket. For others, it's the shirt and tie. Whatever the case, a first choice is made, and that choice leads to further choices. One need not always examine his choices, or indeed analyze them. But one is still making them. "Style" doesn't materialize from the ether, fully formed. It is the sum of many parts. The parts still exist, regardless of whether one chooses to take conscious consideration of them.

I would submit that "taste" is the sum of one's aesthetic inclinations and preferences. Taste can be unexamined and automatic. But "style" is, by necessity, an application of taste. And both taste and style benefit from study, practice, and consideration of existing principles.

Appealingly egalitarian, but I don't buy it. Or maybe I do but find it useless. The guy in the oversized suit and square-toed shoes is entitled to his opinion but there's no reason for me to put any stock in it. For my purposes, his tastes are not of equal value to Vox's.

The best we can do is seek out those with similar tastes and purposes. Part of what has happened to this forum, and effectively destroyed Andy's, is the misguided notion that a style forum, lowercase, must value all opinions and tastes equally. But that's not possible. There has to be some common ground, some basis for comparative discussion, because otherwise anything goes. And what's the point in discussing that?

I know that's point 1, and you don't want to discuss it, but I think the same thinking informs point 2. Our tastes are informed by certain things, and all we can do is seek out those with similar frames of reference.