or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › whnay.'s good taste thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

whnay.'s good taste thread - Page 249

post #3721 of 12662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Victor Elfo View Post

About this non matching socks and white square plus white shirt discussion. 
What do you wear on the evening, Foo? This is a black and white photograph, but I believe that you're donning a white shirt with a white square.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
btw, amazing photograph and clothing

The square is cream silk, not white. Socks are black silk with a woven diamond pattern, but my dinner suit is midnight blue, not black.

That said, I have no qualms about white squares or black socks worn in a black tie ensemble. The outfit fundamentally relies on binary contrast.
post #3722 of 12662
Thread Starter 
I have one dotted knit, which I like but don't seem to wear much. I think the reason is that I tend to wear knits with jackets, most of which are already patterened, and often with striped shirts, so a solid tie just works better. When I wear that one dotted knit it tends to be with a blazer or a suit.
post #3723 of 12662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post

I have one dotted knit, which I like but don't seem to wear much. I think the reason is that I tend to wear knits with jackets, most of which are already patterened, and often with striped shirts, so a solid tie just works better. When I wear that one dotted knit it tends to be with a blazer or a suit.
I have a really nice one that I bought at Gallo, which I have worn less than once.
post #3724 of 12662
Mktits - Looks nice.

It's good that you did not embed it from the mobile site, the pictures from there come out very small.
post #3725 of 12662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post

When you know you are losing, you alway snark with "blah blah blah" and the like. I do honestly think it is a character defect to be this stubbornly argumentative in a losing, and worthless, cause. You have not only never admitted you might have been wrong about anything. You can't even concede that anyone else may have a point.

There is no way I am the only one who hopes that you two will discuss this over dinner.
post #3726 of 12662
You forgot...

(and I'll be right outside with my nose pressed up against the window lip-reading every word)
post #3727 of 12662

I don't see any difference between the objective of a black tie ensemble and a lounge suit ensemble, it's all about framing the face. The difference is the conditions in which they do it.

If a white square with a white shirt are distracting, they will be more distracting on the evening, that's the genesis of my inquire. A red square would be acceptable, but why did he choose the white if it's bad?

post #3728 of 12662
Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post

I have a really nice one that I bought at Gallo, which I have worn less than once.
I'm taking donations.

I do hope M&F slip and tell us where they are dining.
post #3729 of 12662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post

I’m going to make this very simple. Let’s leave out art and stick with biology, since it’s very close to universal and much less affected by subjectivity.
Physical attraction to members of the opposite sex is something that is hard-wired into around 96-97% of the population. Staying just with males, they are strikingly consistent in what they want from a potential mate. 1,000 men given any number of photographs of women to rate will rank them with amazing consistency. That is the strongest evidence for “objective aesthetics” there is that I know of.
Let’s define “ugly girl”—objectively aesthetically bad—as a 5 or below. Of those 1,000 men, chances are not one will rank such a girl in the top quintile or even top 3rd. Owing to variations in taste, some might be smitten by the occasional ugly girl, but that still doesn’t make her objectively pretty. Similarly, I sometimes see supermodels who do nothing for me but whom I have to concede are objectively pretty and whom I know that the vast majority of those 1,000 men will find pretty. But those models just aren’t to my taste.
The thing in itself is thus both subjective and objective at the same time. It’s subjective because there is no external measure beyond man’s response. The only measure of intrinsically pretty is the response of the crowd, the generality. But it’s also objective because the vast majority of men see it the same way.
It is therefore impossible that something can be objectively aesthetically bad but seen to be such by only one person. There is no other metric for objective aesthetics than what mankind generally finds attractive and unattractive.

This is an instructive example, but not in the way I think you intend. There are two issues here, one concerning the nature of objectivity, and the other about the relevance of relative value.

1. You mistake consensus for objectivity. Yes, I agree on the fact that a broad consensus of men will generally agree on female beauty. However, that is an objective statement about the male consensus itself. It is not an objective statement about intrinsic female beauty (which, granted, may or may not exist). We can acknowledge popular agreement, but must accept that its judgment remains fallible.

2. Earlier you chided me for not appreciating the difference between "objectively bad" and "not ideal." I responded by pointing out there is no practical difference here. Let me further explicate with use of your own example:

Compared to the girl you think absolutely prettiest in the group, the 999 others are relatively ugly. If you could pick one girl for yourself, which would you pick? Personality and everything else being equal, would you ever pick "pretty" over "prettiest?" Absolutely not. It wouldn't matter if you were picking between #1 and #2. The second place girl might be stunningly gorgeous, but she is still uglier than the girl in first place. You will always pick #1.

Thus, it's pointless to get stuck on defining what is and isn't "pretty" and to what degree. You get one pick and only one girl is ideal. In that scenario, only the ideal is the only right choice. Everything else is wrong. The other girls, no matter how "pretty," might as well be "ugly" or not even exist.

Similarly, there are many approaches to how one might pair his pocket square to his shirt. You can argue all you want that white and white is simply "not ideal" as opposed to "bad," but you would be missing the forest for the trees. Ultimately, you pick one approach at any given time. You don't get to wear more than one shirt and square in the same instance. So, why would you ever choose the less-than-ideal choice? You wouldn't.
post #3730 of 12662
Do you think your "ugly girl" hypothetical works when you move from one culture to another within a particular time period or even among different generations of the same culture?
post #3731 of 12662
Quote:
Originally Posted by etkl View Post

Do you think your "ugly girl" hypothetical works when you move from one culture to another within a particular time period or even among different generations of the same culture?

Of course, I was directing that to Manton.
post #3732 of 12662
Thread Starter 
You are trying to say that a look that you alone--but no one else--identify as ugly is in fact aesthetically objectively/intrinsically ugly. Unless you can make the case for some Archimedian point beyond nature as it is known and experienced by the rest of us, on which aesthetics rests, you have no basis for saying that. Your response is nothing more than your taste/opinion.
post #3733 of 12662
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by etkl View Post

Do you think your "ugly girl" hypothetical works when you move from one culture to another within a particular time period or even among different generations of the same culture?
Yes. The standards hold up very well. If social science is your thing, know that it's been studied.
post #3734 of 12662
Well here's me two days ago, with white shirt and white square. Personally I think white square is pretty good in this case.

post #3735 of 12662
Thread Starter 
Foo, I take it you must hold all your ties and shirts and squares as perfectly equal in beauty, no? We'll leave out suits because different styles and weights can have uses depending the circumstance. And we know your thoughts on shoes.

But surely you have several silk ties that are more or less interchangeable and can be worn in any season to any occasion, with a multitude of suit-shirt combinations. So, they must all be exactly, perfectly aesthetically equal--right? Because to prefer the beauty of one means that it must be the optimal one, which means that it should always be worn, and the others never worn ... indeeed the others should never in that case have been bought ...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › whnay.'s good taste thread