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 459

post #6871 of 12577
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

do not get it. what the hell difference does it make if a brand becomes popular and fat girls with rings wear their wares. if the items are still made to the same quality standards, and if design wise they still look as good and as appropriate as they did before they became popular (heaven forbid that the plebes catch on to these secret garments!), what is the big freaking deal. sheesh.

The issue, at least as far as Burberry goes, was that their distinctive plaid/check pattern became a sort of uniform for the typically violent, racist segment of British society. I think you can understand why one may want to avoid the connotations that come along with that now, even if it's not what is intended. I can't speak to the Barbour issue though.
post #6872 of 12577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewi View Post

The issue, at least as far as Burberry goes, was that their distinctive plaid/check pattern became a sort of uniform for the typically violent, racist segment of British society. I think you can understand why one may want to avoid the connotations that come along with that now, even if it's not what is intended. I can't speak to the Barbour issue though.

i hear that, and that is one thing. as well, as far as i understand, burberry items were not always plastered with the nova check. they altered their image and "sold out" so to speak, to the segment you refer to, and pop colture as a whole. as opposed to saying, hey, we dont like where our brand is headed, lets take measures to prevent bad associations, maybe scaled back more conservative design, who can sell our stuff and for what price.....

instead, they chose to embrace the new popularity, and make active efforts to further it. for that, i can relate to people not wanting to associate with the brand, they may even feel betrayed that the brand chose the desires of johnny come lately over the old venerable customer of generations.

what i do not get is, when its stated as, oh this was awesome and its exactly the same item, but its gotten popular and i dont like the ugly unstylish people wearing it now, so i hate it. that is foolish imo. the only person losing out is the person who now wont wear their favorite jacket because the next door neighbor also has it and wears it with old jc penny jeans.
post #6873 of 12577
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post


i hear that, and that is one thing. as well, as far as i understand, burberry items were not always plastered with the nova check. they altered their image and "sold out" so to speak, to the segment you refer to, and pop colture as a whole. as opposed to saying, hey, we dont like where our brand is headed, lets take measures to prevent bad associations, maybe scaled back more conservative design, who can sell our stuff and for what price.....

instead, they chose to embrace the new popularity, and make active efforts to further it. for that, i can relate to people not wanting to associate with the brand, they may even feel betrayed that the brand chose the desires of johnny come lately over the old venerable customer of generations.

what i do not get is, when its stated as, oh this was awesome and its exactly the same item, but its gotten popular and i dont like the ugly unstylish people wearing it now, so i hate it. that is foolish imo. the only person losing out is the person who now wont wear their favorite jacket because the next door neighbor also has it and wears it with old jc penny jeans.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_DtXf0xscI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mbs6qDVV9Bk


Edited by Balfour - 2/26/13 at 7:55am
post #6874 of 12577
post #6875 of 12577
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post


what i do not get is, when its stated as, oh this was awesome and its exactly the same item, but its gotten popular and i dont like the ugly unstylish people wearing it now, so i hate it. that is foolish imo. the only person losing out is the person who now wont wear their favorite jacket because the next door neighbor also has it and wears it with old jc penny jeans.

That's reality. You buy a yellow cap, and it looks nice.

1 year later, the entire delinquent population wears a yellow cap. People who wear yellow caps are mistaken for belonging to that segment.

Are you, as a professional, still going to wear your yellow cap?

I think it'd be ironic that a person who cares about how he looks wouldn't mind wearing something associated with delinquents and has come to be a symbol of that culture/behaviour.

*More pointedly: Think about the swastika. Who, except for neo-nazis would have the swastika tattooed on their arms (even if the symbol looks cool)? People reject symbols because of their connotations.

*and with regards to the shoes. They look nice off, but when I wore them, I didn't like how they looked -- they just look better on the shelf. And as I'm seeing people model them in tight/skinny trousers, the more I dislike how they look.
Edited by bboysdontcryy - 2/26/13 at 9:12am
post #6876 of 12577

Yes, that is cream silk shog[1].gif


Edited by RDiaz - 2/26/13 at 9:32am
post #6877 of 12577
Quote:
Originally Posted by bboysdontcryy View Post

That's reality. You buy a yellow cap, and it looks nice.
1 year later, the entire delinquent population wears a yellow cap. People who wear yellow caps are mistaken for belonging to that segment.
Are you, as a professional, still going to wear your yellow cap?
I think it'd be ironic that a person who cares about how he looks wouldn't mind wearing something associated with delinquents and has come to be a symbol of that culture/behaviour.
*More pointedly: Think about the swastika. Who, except for neo-nazis would have the swastika tattooed on their arms (even if the symbol looks cool)? People reject symbols because of their connotations.
*and with regards to the shoes. They look nice off, but when I wore them, I didn't like how they looked -- they just look better on the shelf. And as I'm seeing people model them in tight/skinny trousers, the more I dislike how they look.

i think you managed to disregard the part of my post where i said that "i hear that" in reference to the point you are are making, that dewi already made. it was on top of that, that i added on some other thoughts. i still do hear that, and dont argue with it. but there is a large difference between not wanting to be associated with something that has negative associations, and not wanting to wear an item you like simply because people you think are unstylish are also wearing it. i think that is a pretty simple distinction.

for example, its one thing to say, i dont like how double monks look on me. its an entirely different thing to say, i think they look great on me, but i know a lot of people wear them with tight pants, and i dont like that. and even though i am not wearing tight pants, and i think they look good on me, i will deny myself the satisfaction of wearing them because i dont like that people wear them with tight pants. (im not saying you are saying that, im just illustrating an idea).

when one does that, they are only punishing themselves, and furthermore, the less people see duuble monks with things other than tight pants, the more the two become associated with each other, only furthering the connection, as opposed to to showing how the shoe in and of itself, can me worn in many ways, for many tastes.

the swastika point really was unnecessary, especially making it bold, and it added nothing to your point imo. i dont even think the correlation is correct as to what we are talking about, and i would prefer not to discuss it.
post #6878 of 12577
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

but there is a large difference between not wanting to be associated with something that has negative associations, and not wanting to wear an item you like simply because people you think are unstylish are also wearing it. i think that is a pretty simple distinction.

Unstylish people are to those who care about their dress what delinquents (chavs) are to people who care about their social status. So I think that distinction you made was, in my opinion, a distinction without a difference.

The point about the swastika was to hone in on the point that people avoid certain objects because of associations and connotations and I just don't really buy the idea that people who care about their dress (and as a corollary to that, their image), would really want to wear something that has come to be associated with unstylish people (this, I'd venture is particularly pertinent to a person who cares about his dress and image), even if the item, as a standalone, looks good.

I used the swastika because it's universally recognizable. You can insert X or swop it with other symbols that have come to connote certain meanings, or be associated with other people/culture.

Prior to the swastika became synonymous with the Third Reich, heck, it was fashionable to get them engraved onto stuff and was used 'as a hooked version of the Christian Cross, the symbol of Christ's victory over death'. Now, it's universally shunned by the sane. Foolish? See how people reject certain symbols when the meanings shift? I don't think rejecting something because of its associations (even though it's intrinsically fine) is as foolish as you make it out to be.

So if you accept that people avoid certain objects, like the swastika because of its connotations (even if as a standalone it looks cool), then shouldn't it logically follow that you'd be okay with rejecting (insert object) if it has come to embody a negative connotation perceived by certain groups (of which one belongs to), even if it, as a standalone, looks good? You remarked it was foolish, and, like I iterated, I don't think it's as foolish as you think it is to do so.
Edited by bboysdontcryy - 2/26/13 at 1:26pm
post #6879 of 12577
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

instead, they chose to embrace the new popularity, and make active efforts to further it. for that, i can relate to people not wanting to associate with the brand, they may even feel betrayed that the brand chose the desires of johnny come lately over the old venerable customer of generations.

Actually, they absolutely did not embrace that image. It's often used as a marketing case study of how branding can spiral completely out of the company's control. A very large number of working-class people starting wearing fake versions of iconic pieces of Burberry clothing, because they wanted a slice of the glamorous pie that was Burberry. Burberry had no control over this and never made any money from it (to the contrary). I think the "violent and racist" description of these working-class people is unfair. In practice, probably half of them were black or an ethnic minority, and I doubt anything but a minority were violent. What turned people off Burberry was not associations with violence and racism, it was pure snobbery: "I'm not going to pay premium prices for designs that the working classes wear". This also happened to coincide with a time when ostentatious branding suddenly became much less popular than it had been in the '80s/'90s -- I guess parvenues started to wise up to the appeal of the stealth wealth that old money tends to practice.
post #6880 of 12577
I have two Barbours which I wear in the streets of NYC blissfully. One is about 3 years old, the other is about a month old. Before that I wore the RL equivalent of a Barbour for about 4 years.
post #6881 of 12577
Quote:
Originally Posted by bboysdontcryy View Post

Unstylish people are to those who care about their dress what delinquents (chavs) are to people who care about their social status. So I think that distinction you made was, in my opinion, a distinction without a difference.

The point about the swastika was to hone in on the point that people avoid certain objects because of associations and connotations and I just don't really buy the idea that people who care about their dress (and as a corollary to that, their image), would really want to wear something that has come to be associated with unstylish people (this, I'd venture is particularly pertinent to a person who cares about his dress and image), even if the item, as a standalone, looks good.

I used the swastika because it's universally recognizable. You can insert X or swop it with other symbols that have come to connote certain meanings, or be associated with other people/culture.

Prior to the swastika became synonymous with the Third Reich, heck, it was fashionable to get them engraved onto stuff as was used 'as a hooked version of the Christian Cross, the symbol of Christ's victory over death'. Now, it's shunned. See how people reject certain symbols when the meanings shift? I don't think rejecting something because of its associations (even though it's intrinsically fine) is as foolish as you make it out to be.

So if you accept that people avoid certain objects, like the swastika because of its connotations (even if as a standalone it looks cool), then shouldn't it logically follow that you'd be okay with rejecting (insert object) if it has come to embody a negative connotation perceived by certain groups (of which one belongs to), even if it, as a standalone, looks good? You remarked it was foolish, and, like I iterated, that's reality.

no, i dont agree with you. i apologize for using the term foolish, that was not fair. you have a different vantage point, and its not foolish simply because i dont share it. i personally do not care how many crappily dressed people may wear a certain item, if i think its nice, and it had no truly negative connotations for me, it does not bother me.

would i stop wearing black cap toe shoes if all of a sudden it was all the rage to wear them with cargo shorts, i think not. maybe others would, and that is fine. people may wear what they want, and not wear what they dont want. it is all very simply, a matter of personal preference, and each person has the right to make that choice based upon whatever factors they think are relevant to them.
post #6882 of 12577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loathing View Post

Actually, they absolutely did not embrace that image. It's often used as a marketing case study of how branding can spiral completely out of the company's control. A very large number of working-class people starting wearing fake versions of iconic pieces of Burberry clothing, because they wanted a slice of the glamorous pie that was Burberry. Burberry had no control over this and never made any money from it (to the contrary). I think the "violent and racist" description of these working-class people is unfair. In practice, probably half of them were black or an ethnic minority, and I doubt anything but a minority were violent. What turned people off Burberry was not associations with violence and racism, it was pure snobbery: "I'm not going to pay premium prices for designs that the working classes wear". This also happened to coincide with a time when ostentatious branding suddenly became much less popular than it had been in the '80s/'90s -- I guess parvenues started to wise up to the appeal of the stealth wealth that old money tends to practice.

very interesting, did not know that. thanks.
post #6883 of 12577
Thanks to all. I feel better now.
post #6884 of 12577
also, bboys, if the connotations of wearing a swastika, are indeed equal to you, as those of wearing a shoe that is associated with people whose trendy dress you dislike, i think that that alone provides all i need to know about how differently we view clothing. to each their own.
post #6885 of 12577
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

also, bboys, if the connotations of wearing a swastika, are indeed equal to you, as those of wearing a shoe that is associated with people whose trendy dress you dislike, i think that that alone provides all i need to know about how differently we view clothing. to each their own.

I think you missed my point. Like I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bboysdontcryy View Post


The point about the swastika was to hone in on the point that people avoid certain objects because of associations and connotations

...

I used the swastika because it's universally recognizable. You can insert X or swop it with other symbols that have come to connote certain meanings, or be associated with other people/culture.

You said that people shunning an object is 'foolish'. I disagreed and said it's not foolish. And here's a more extreme example (swastika) of why it's not.

In fact, it speaks to being smart enough to shun an object because of its associations. Even if, intrinsically, it's okay/good.

You're stretching what I said out of context and imputing meanings I did not intend.

I most definitely did not say (or mean) that I treat a person who wears smth I don't like as having to bear the same social stigma (if any at all) as somebody who sports a swastika tattoo because he believes in the Third Reich.

Your claim that that is what I meant is downright farfetched and ridiculous.
Edited by bboysdontcryy - 2/26/13 at 9:59am
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