or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Why does the MC tailored aesthetic fetishise the idea of insouciant dressing?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why does the MC tailored aesthetic fetishise the idea of insouciant dressing? - Page 5

post #61 of 106
I would rather be "supernatural" than "natural".

I never really affect the idea that how I dress up is easy or effortless. I like the idea of effort, of being dressed up. The thing is my personality and manner offset a very controlled look which I am comfortable with so, I don't really look awkward or like I am trying hard in the way that we think of people dressing up.
post #62 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Reeves View Post

I would rather be "supernatural" than "natural".

 

That is a great line. I dig the attitude behind it, too. fistbump.gif

post #63 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdfast View Post

 

That is a great line. I dig the attitude behind it, too. fistbump.gif

 

Yes, that actually captures it for me too. I don't actually like the contemporary Italian 'sprezz' approach. It most often fails because it is clearly a studied attempt to look unstudied. And when I say this, I am refering to all those ridiculous playboys who rather too many seem to admire here. Basically, what people are really doing is admiring is their money and envying their lifestyle. David Reeves is really reiterating the classic English approach (which is, dare I say it, shared by the French and some other European traditions of dress too), which is all about that balance between display and control. Of course you want to look like you have made an effort, but it is an effor that speaks of taste and personality not money and vulgarity. Which, by the way, what I have seen of his suits seem to demonstrate.

post #64 of 106
Interesting topic, OP, but i disagree with your theory. For me, the explanation is in the overall decline of the western culture, and the mutually related slides into barbarism and decadence. Since the US leads the decline, the trend towards ridiculousness is the most pronunced.

Decadence, because it is now an end in itself to possess the most extravagantly elaborate, rare, artisanal, or expensive articles of clothing. Barbarism, because dressing is no longer dressing, but piling on of idols and lucky charms to signify virility and status. There is no inherent difference between red cashmere socks and a huge bone stuck through your nose.ffffuuuu.gif

Basically, the status anxiety and striving already mentioned by Foo and others are real, I simply mean that they are far more real, vulgar, and intense than anyone likes to admit.

I guess that's what we get when we pretendeth too much that class warfare does not and should not exist. In fact, we need more of it. Maybe then we'll see some genuine style, rather than pathetic and meek attempts to conquer upper class style by perverting whatever good is left of it. (and I am beginning to think that there is not much there to begin with - why would we consciously want to identify with the coat and tie outfit? The uniform of the most ruthless group of people to ever exist on earth, the ones that colonized, brutalized, exploited, and killed millions of people - and continue to do so to this day, always in a suit and tie. The only difference is that the real heavy hitters rarely care how the suit fits. )


Yep, that's what the suit and tie is all about.ffffuuuu.gif The ridiculous sprezzatura comes a bit later, perhaps also out of guilt and denial. As if painting a tank baby blue changes the fact that it is primarily a tool for destruction and domination:slayer:
Edited by SamSpade - 8/9/12 at 6:59am
post #65 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post

Interesting topic, OP, but i disagree with your theory. For me, the explanation is in the overall decline of the western culture, and the mutually related slides into barbarism and decadence. Since the US leads the decline, the trend towards ridiculousness is the most pronunced.
Decadence, because it is now an end in itself to possess the most extravagantly elaborate, rare, artisanal, or expensive articles of clothing. Barbarism, because dressing is no longer dressing, but piling on of idols and lucky charms to signify virility and status. There is no inherent difference between red cashmere socks and a huge bone stuck through your nose.ffffuuuu.gif
Basically, the status anxiety and striving already mentioned by Foo and others are real, I simply mean that they are far more real, vulgar, and intense than anyone likes to admit.
I guess that's what we get when we pretendeth too much that class warfare does not and should not exist. In fact, we need more of it. Maybe then we'll see some genuine style, rather than pathetic and meek attempts to conquer upper class style by perverting whatever good is left of it. (and I am beginning to think that there is not much there to begin with - why would we consciously want to identify with the coat and tie outfit? The uniform of the most ruthless group of people to ever exist on earth, the ones that colonized, brutalized, exploited, and killed millions of people - and continue to do so to this day, always in a suit and tie. The only difference is that the real heavy hitters rarely care how the suit fits. )
Yep, that's what the suit and tie is all about.ffffuuuu.gif The ridiculous sprezzatura comes a bit later, perhaps also out of guilt and denial. As if painting a tank baby blue changes the fact that it is primarily a tool for destruction and domination:slayer:

Its a suit not a Death Star.

Seriously I understand what your getting at. I think before you can hope to control things you first have to control yourself and a tailored suit shows discipline, civility and control in the wearer. Just because a piece of clothing is associated with a certain group of people however does not mean that they "own" that look or that it belongs to them forever. Context and who the wearer is can make huge difference and anybody, even those that have been colonized, can and have made the suit and tie there own thing.
post #66 of 106
Certainly, a few strong words added... but largely that I believe they are justified smile.gif.

There is no doubt that the global capitalism, personified by the British businessman/officer in a suit involves a great deal of discipline and self-control, reflected in the austere suit look. But so does being a buddhist monk. The ones that try this in our culture are denigrated as stupid hippies, although if they are doing it right, they are far closer to the ideal of self-mastery taught by the "masters of living" since antiquity, than any burgeois douche who can only understand returns on investment.

Anyhow, the bombastic claims notwithstanding, i think that a great deal behind the striving to master (and slap around through sprezz) the coat and tie outfit above all involves subconscious desire to acquire, if symbolically, some of the power and dominance symbolized by the suit, and very little of this rationalizing bullshit "i dress for myself", " i like to look good" - LOL.

#menswear may be just advanced hipsterdom - "Hey, look at me, I'm wearing a suit, but I don't really mean it because of the unbuckled monks, but wait, maybe I do". A total acknowledgement that our culture sucs, but it is comfortable, so might as well have some fun while it disintegrates smile.gif

I may be extrapolating my own journey, but i'm no special snowflake to be the only one realizing this....
post #67 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elegantly Wasted View Post


It means your wife doesn't care about her own looks but praises you for going to the beauty saloon perhaps? ffffuuuu.gif

 My wife says she's thrilled to have in her words, "a dandy for a husband" given that most of her friends husbands consider a clean Red Sox cap dressing up.

post #68 of 106
I ordinarily hate "deep" discussions about seemingly superficial topics, but, being an SFer, this is obviously something in which I take interest.

There have been a lot of good points made, many with which I agree. The topic of the double standard of male-female dress is one I see the most often. Out for dinner, it is incredibly common to see the woman in a dress, jewellery, and make up, and the man in shorts and (maybe) a polo. I agree that this both in fear of being perceived as too interested in attire and a possible affront to his masculinity. Amongst those younger than me (I'm 30), this is even more pervasive.

I also think that Half a Loaf's comment of differentiating "your grandpa's suit" from your own is something that applies to those of us here in our dealings with the "outside world". To the vast majority, a suit is a suit is a suit (even when it's a patch-pocketed tweed sport jacket), and therefore no different than what their grandfather wore back in the day. "Sprezz" and all the goofiness that comes with it could then be perceived as an attempt to say, "Hey, I'm wearing a suit, but I'm also cool like the guy in his ripped jeans."

Speaking for myself, I don't necessarily try to appear "insouciant", though I do want to appear comfortable and natural in what I wear, in that I'm not constantly tugging at or adjusting my clothes. I dress for myself, in that I enjoy wearing suits, ties, sport coats, and the whole lot, and, possibly more importantly, in that I enjoy the feeling of being recognized for it.
post #69 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Layered Player View Post

 My wife says she's thrilled to have in her words, "a dandy for a husband" given that most of her friends husbands consider a clean Red Sox cap dressing up.

Replace "thrilled" with "mildly and frequently annoyed", and this certainly holds true.
post #70 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post



There is no doubt that the global capitalism, personified by the British businessman/officer in a suit involves a great deal of discipline and self-control, reflected in the austere suit look.
..

But the lounge suit came later. Of course I know people that think only hippies wear a lounge suit to something like a wedding.

BTW you're all missing the real difference between men and women.

The problem with men agonizing over what they wear is it shows an inability to make quick decisive decisions. It shows a lack of confidence. That doesn't mean you aren't supposed to look good. It means you need to seize the moment. Not stand there trying to make a choice.
post #71 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Reeves View Post

[...] Just because a piece of clothing is associated with a certain group of people however does not mean that they "own" that look or that it belongs to them forever. Context and who the wearer is can make huge difference [...]



Handy counterexample here:


5235.jpg
post #72 of 106
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post

Certainly, a few strong words added... but largely that I believe they are justified smile.gif.

There is no doubt that the global capitalism, personified by the British businessman/officer in a suit involves a great deal of discipline and self-control, reflected in the austere suit look. But so does being a buddhist monk. The ones that try this in our culture are denigrated as stupid hippies, although if they are doing it right, they are far closer to the ideal of self-mastery taught by the "masters of living" since antiquity, than any burgeois douche who can only understand returns on investment.

Anyhow, the bombastic claims notwithstanding, i think that a great deal behind the striving to master (and slap around through sprezz) the coat and tie outfit above all involves subconscious desire to acquire, if symbolically, some of the power and dominance symbolized by the suit, and very little of this rationalizing bullshit "i dress for myself", " i like to look good" - LOL.

#menswear may be just advanced hipsterdom - "Hey, look at me, I'm wearing a suit, but I don't really mean it because of the unbuckled monks, but wait, maybe I do". A total acknowledgement that our culture sucs, but it is comfortable, so might as well have some fun while it disintegrates smile.gif

I may be extrapolating my own journey, but i'm no special snowflake to be the only one realizing this....

 

I like reading ballsy opinions; thank you for chiming in.

 

I think there's a bit of conceptual conflict between lamenting a "slide from civilisation into... decadence" (from your 1st post) and simultaneously decrying the historical role of uniforms/suits/Western civilisation more generally in creating our current world. They feel more like opposite sides of the same coin to me, but I suppose a route out of this impasse would be to try to seek some sort of aristotlean mean between the two. I'd be interested to hear how you square that circle.

 

Anyway, on one of the other points you raised, I would hope that most would be able to agree that the seeking spiritual self-mastery/knowledge is a more rewarding end-point than pure financial reward without those aspects! But it's true that a lot of people don't necessary practically follow the consequences of a theoretical agreement with that position! ;)

post #73 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicola View Post

The problem with men agonizing over what they wear is it shows an inability to make quick decisive decisions. It shows a lack of confidence. That doesn't mean you aren't supposed to look good. It means you need to seize the moment. Not stand there trying to make a choice.

This is a bunch of sexist twaddle. The notion that MEN! must quickly size up the situation and carpe diem is responsible for more mistakes than success. Plus, only someone who lives with you has any notion of whether you agonize over what you wear.
post #74 of 106
I am diametrically apposed to sprezz or insouciant (without worry). But perhaps a portion of they're origin really was in neglect or need and not deliberately thought out. Sometimes there is no time to tie the perfect knot or button all the buttons etc. Sometimes a loose tie is really more comfortable when it is stinking hot. Example I have a high instep and my double monks all hurt when I buckle the top strap. Sure I know maybe I shouldn't have purchased them if they didn't fit perfectly ---but i did so the temporary solution is to leave the top strap unbuckled.

Another component might be the fear of being different. If the trend is sprezz and you aren't really concerned at getting at the heart ot things then the default is sprezz. The alternative can be scary because you may be called out on your choices and be unable to explain.
post #75 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

This is a bunch of sexist twaddle. The notion that MEN! must quickly size up the situation and carpe diem is responsible for more mistakes than success. Plus, only someone who lives with you has any notion of whether you agonize over what you wear.

What's your point?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Why does the MC tailored aesthetic fetishise the idea of insouciant dressing?