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 460

post #6886 of 12603
I consider displaying recognizable patterns or insignia déclassé regardless of how elite their connotations. Brand whoring is never the answer.
post #6887 of 12603
I consider the use of the word déclassé to be déclassé.
post #6888 of 12603
Wearing something solely because it hasn't jumped the shark is just as bad as wearing something solely because it has jumped the shark. If you like something, wear it. If you're worried about how much the big bad SF members are going to look down on you, then I think you have some underlying confidence issues that should trump concerns about your attire.

Style is personal, fellas.
post #6889 of 12603
Quote:
Originally Posted by bourbonbasted View Post

Wearing something solely because it hasn't jumped the shark is just as bad as wearing something solely because it has jumped the shark. If you like something, wear it. If you're worried about how much the big bad SF members are going to look down on you, then I think you have some underlying confidence issues that should trump concerns about your attire.

Style is personal, fellas.

I think nobody disagrees with that. The question is whether it's 'foolish' to avoid objects that have come to take on negative associations/connotations?

This is to say nothing about the fact that one (personally) thinks it looks bad when worn.
post #6890 of 12603
Quote:
Originally Posted by bboysdontcryy View Post

I think you missed my point. Like I said:
You said that people shunning an object is 'foolish'. I disagreed and said it's not foolish.

yes, and i explicitly apologized for that. i said that i think the shunning some of the items that have been mentioned is not how i feel, but that i respect those who feel otherwise. i made that quite clear when i apologized for using the term foolish towards others opinions.
Quote:
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.
You're stretching what I said out of context and imputing meanings I did not intend.
I most definitely did not say 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.

here is your exact words, below,
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 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.

maybe i am misunderstanding, but the bold reads to me as follows, in simple terms.

first bold, association with unstylish people = association with delinquents.

second bold, accepting the logic of avoiding wearing a swastika = accepting the logic of rejecting a clothing item that standalone looks good, because its associated with a group (unstylish people) that you dont want to be connected with.

that how it comes across, sorry. if you dont want to be taken that way, maybe try not inserting swastika analogies into double monk conversation, the idea alone is condescending to what that means to me and many other people.

if all you are trying to say is that it makes sense to avoid wearing something if you dont want to be associated with what it may connote, you really had no need to go so far as the swastika to make your point. i agree that it makes sense to avoid connotation you dont want, all i was saying was, that to me, unstylish people wearing an otherwise stylish garment, is not an association that i care to avoid, (that was what i called foolish, and subsequently apologized for) you disagree, i think that it was it boils down to, and that is fine. i think either approach is legitimate.
post #6891 of 12603
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

yes, and i explicitly apologized for that. i said that i think the shunning some of the items that have been mentioned is not how i feel, but that i respect those who feel otherwise. i made that quite clear when i apologized for using the term foolish towards others opinions.
here is your exact words, below,
maybe i am misunderstanding, but the bold reads to me as follows, in simple terms.

first bold, association with unstylish people = association with delinquents.

second bold, accepting the logic of avoiding wearing a swastika = accepting the logic of rejecting a clothing item that standalone looks good, because its associated with a group (unstylish people) that you dont want to be connected with.

that how it comes across, sorry. if you dont want to be taken that way, maybe try not inserting swastika analogies into double monk conversation, the idea alone is condescending to what that means to me and many other people.

if all you are trying to say is that it makes sense to avoid wearing something if you dont want to be associated with what it may connote, you really had no need to go so far as the swastika to make your point. i agree that it makes sense to avoid connotation you dont want, all i was saying was, that to me, unstylish people wearing an otherwise styling garment, is not an association that i care to avoid, you disagree, i think that it was it boils down to, and that is fine. i think either approach is legitimate.

I was dealing with the premise of your point. Your comment/point about 'foolishness', and how not wanting to wear smth despite its 'negative connotations' is foolish, is what I read as being a specific example of the underlying premise.

I don't see why using the example of swastika is wrong when animating an argument. It is purely academic and it's interesting you'd believe that one should shun all mention of it because of its negative connotations. Interesting, no?

Also you misread the meaning of my quotation below with you wrong equation in which you say that: 'association with unstylish people = association with delinquents'. I'm looking at within groups.

'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.'
Edited by bboysdontcryy - 2/26/13 at 12:05pm
post #6892 of 12603
Quote:
Originally Posted by bboysdontcryy View Post

I think nobody disagrees with that. The question is whether it's 'foolish' to avoid objects that have come to take on negative associations/connotations?

This is to say nothing about the fact that one thinks it looks bad when worn.

This is true. Though the levels of "foolish" or "bad" are inherently subjective to the point that almost anything, in the right context, is somewhat defensible.

I really think it all boils down to the abstract idea of "taste." Taste is molded by what catches our eyes or resonates with us just as much as it is how we were raised and what culture or ethnicity we readily associate with. There's no clean objective measure, and that's what makes having "taste" so elusive.

This thread is a step in the right direction, because I do feel it fosters a greater understanding of how and why things work in the context of "taste." And I agree with most of what is said 100%. But make no mistake, this "taste" is limited to whnay or manton or foo; basically it is the "taste" of SF. And even that definition is extremely limiting. Rules and historical precedence may offer support to arguments, but even then you're looking at rules or assumptions that have been gleaned from eons of influence.

I suppose there's no real reason to debate, since I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too: I agree with your quest to objectify correctness or taste, but I also agree with Stitch that there are many things I wear and like that would likely garner nothing but laughs from the majority of the "tastemakers" here. I suppose at the end of it all it's best to not categorically deny the legitimacy of something based on a subjective measure. Just my $0.02.
post #6893 of 12603
Quote:
Originally Posted by bourbonbasted View Post

Wearing something solely because it hasn't jumped the shark is just as bad as wearing something solely because it has jumped the shark. If you like something, wear it. If you're worried about how much the big bad SF members are going to look down on you, then I think you have some underlying confidence issues that should trump concerns about your attire.

Style is personal, fellas.

i think this is pretty spot on.
post #6894 of 12603
Quote:
Originally Posted by bourbonbasted View Post

This is true. Though the levels of "foolish" or "bad" are inherently subjective to the point that almost anything, in the right context, is somewhat defensible.

I really think it all boils down to the abstract idea of "taste." Taste is molded by what catches our eyes or resonates with us just as much as it is how we were raised and what culture or ethnicity we readily associate with. There's no clean objective measure, and that's what makes having "taste" so elusive.

This thread is a step in the right direction, because I do feel it fosters a greater understanding of how and why things work in the context of "taste." And I agree with most of what is said 100%. But make no mistake, this "taste" is limited to whnay or manton or foo; basically it is the "taste" of SF. And even that definition is extremely limiting. Rules and historical precedence may offer support to arguments, but even then you're looking at rules or assumptions that have been gleaned from eons of influence.

I suppose there's no real reason to debate, since I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too: I agree with your quest to objectify correctness or taste, but I also agree with Stitch that there are many things I wear and like that would likely garner nothing but laughs from the majority of the "tastemakers" here. I suppose at the end of it all it's best to not categorically deny the legitimacy of something based on a subjective measure. Just my $0.02.

I don't disagree with these points above. I'm not on a quest to objectify/rationalize correctness or taste, and I always qualify my opinions about taste and style as being subjective. I mentioned that right here two pages back
Quote:
Originally Posted by bboysdontcryy View Post

Victor, we do enjoy your posts, I believe. Given the subjectivity of preference and styles, there will always be disagreements about what looks good, but you shouldn't take it to heart (not that you are, just sayin).

Your posts definitely jazz up the thread (and I like more than a couple of outfits with a couple items I'd swop out), so do keep them coming -- credits go to your entourage of professional photographers too!

http://www.styleforum.net/t/309586/whnay-s-good-taste-thread/6855#post_6163697
post #6895 of 12603
Quote:
Originally Posted by bboysdontcryy View Post

I was dealing with the premise of your point. Your comment/point about 'foolishness', and how not wanting to wear smth despite its 'negative connotations' is foolish, is what I read as being a specific example of the underlying premise.

I don't see why using the example of swastika is wrong when animating an argument. It is purely academic and it's interesting you'd believe that one should shun all mention of it because of its negative connotations. Interesting, no?

seriously, how long are you going to harp on the fact i said the word foolish? i was brash when i said it, and i said multiple times that it was wrong, and that i dont think anyone is foolish for not sharing my vantage point.

i certainly do NOT think that any and all swastika mention should be shunned. g-d forbid. what i do think is, that any swastika discussion belongs nowhere near clothing trend discussion. that is my point of view. it lessens and cheapens the reality of what the swastika means to many people to even mention it as an example in an area of discussion so mundane as clothing choices. you dont have to agree, but that is how i will always feel.
post #6896 of 12603
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post


i think this is pretty spot on.

 

+1. That thought crossed my mind when I bought the coin buttons for my blazer today - I'm sure they won't be SF approved at all, but I love their look.

post #6897 of 12603

This may be the first time I have ever seen a real example of "Godwin's Law".

post #6898 of 12603
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

i think that that any swastika discussion belongs nowhere near clothing trend discussion. that is my point of view. it lessens the reality of what the swastika means to people to even mention is as an example in an area of discussion so mundane as clothing choices. you dont have to agree, but that is how i will always feel.

Don't be daft. It's a perfectly legitimate analogy.
post #6899 of 12603
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

seriously, how long are you going to harp on the fact i said the word foolish? i was brash when i said it, and i said multiple times that it was wrong, and that i dont think anyone is foolish for not sharing my vantage point.

i think that that any swastika discussion belongs nowhere near clothing trend discussion. that is my point of view. it lessens the reality of what the swastika means to people to even mention is as an example in an area of discussion so mundane as clothing choices. you dont have to agree, but that is how i will always feel.

Because that's the main point, and you keep bringing it up so I have to deal with it every time you bring it up?

You quoted me and impute meanings I don't mean to what I wrote, so won't I have to clarify what I mean by putting what I said in context? Or should I let you stretch what I mean?
post #6900 of 12603
Quote:
Originally Posted by bboysdontcryy View Post

I don't disagree with these points above. I'm not on a quest to objectify/rationalize correctness or taste, and I always qualify my opinions about taste and style as being subjective. I mentioned that right here two pages back

Ah the beauty of surfing this site from a phone. Sorry to have missed that. I think we have agreement on the overarching idea, then.

This conversation really has spiced up my afternoon meeting smile.gif
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