or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › What are the greatest menswear brands of all time?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What are the greatest menswear brands of all time? - Page 13

post #181 of 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Thin Man View Post

Sorry, if I had known a similar name already existed, I would have chosen another one. thinman is a good member, and deserves no doppelgangers.
I'd add that to me, any decent aesthically driven criticism is going to be centered on what a given innovator or conservator brand added to the conversation... what they teach/taught us about style, rather than what an academic or journalist can do to break down their influences. If they're a great brand, then they're going to be more than the sum of their influences, and I enjoy writing that can elucidate their unique genius.

The difficulty with that type of analysis is that there can be no agreement on what is "positive" and what is "negative", because, although some try, there is neither virtue nor vice in how we dress, (though some religions might beg to differ, and even in that case, they have very little to say on the subject of men's clothing, except that some materials should not be worn with some others, and some materials, not at all.)
post #182 of 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post

I would disagree with this. There is only so much that you can say about craft. At the end of the day, it is a sensory experience, and unfortunately, until I finish inventing the "Everything but the used clothing smells" module for Styleforum, we can only have pretty pictures and fairly uniform descriptions. However, brands that have been shaped the way men dress today, those make a compelling story. It's an interesting subject to approach from both as a historical sociologist and a cultural historian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rach2jlc View Post

+1, this is my whole interest in the subject: what is the effect on how an individual man, waking up in the morning and opening his closet, thinks about his own dress options. As you mentioned before, a man's options are limited, and yet over the past thirty years the range of "limitations" has opened considerably, while still being constrained.
So, who instigated those possibilities (followed by how those possibilities came about); who changed the "collective unconscious" of a man opening his closet doors in the morning and thinking about what he might put on and (1) not get fired from his job or (2) laughed at on the bus.
What changed and how is very fascinating, along with what hasn't changed (and what might not). For example, even though a lightweight, unstructured sportswear-inspired fabric shirt jacket might be a possible option (though it wasn't at a point in the pre-Armani past), a purple linen sundress or halter top is not and probably won't be.

they said it better, but that is pretty much what i was trying to say. we can argue all day and night about who makes the "nicest" tie or suit, and we will get no where. but like it or not, when we decide what to wear, and what we want to look like, those images are shaped by the most successful brands, and the ideas they put forth.

i dont mean that in a scary conspiracy theory kind of way. as if RL and his cohorts sat in a wooded cabin with cigars and scotch, and plotted how with their genius marketing and branding, they could get the world to dress a certain way and make money off of it, like some kind of pinky and the brain cartoon. rather, they had a vision for certain looks and lifestyles that they wanted to present to people, and for whatever reason, people related to it. many have tried, few have succeeded. that success and failure is measurable.

we can look at how we dress, and say, that right there, that drape, that lifestyle personification, that color palate, that "look," it came from this guy and that guy, and a little bit that guy. all these other designers, yeah, they exist because A, B and C, did X, Y and Z. that is is all measurable to a far greater degree than aesthetics ever will be. is that a good thing? maybe yes, maybe no, but it is the way it is in my opinion, and i am fine with it.

and to me, this list is all about recognizing, identifying and bringing that out, and who those people and/or brands are.
post #183 of 500
That's your best post stitches.
post #184 of 500
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post

The difficulty with that type of analysis is that there can be no agreement on what is "positive" and what is "negative", because, although some try, there is neither virtue nor vice in how we dress, (though some religions might beg to differ, and even in that case, they have very little to say on the subject of men's clothing, except that some materials should not be worn with some others, and some materials, not at all.)

And the same could be said of movies, music, paintings, so no discussion, no judgment? People disagree, end of conversation? Citizen Kane, Ernest Goes to Camp, they're both products of culture, and they both produced more culture?

So you own a clothing forum devoted to discussion of men's clothing, but there's no way to talk about what people prefer? Because people, you know, wear clothes, so therefore, all clothing is equally good. If we all adopt the slanket, well, that was just another one of those things that happened?

My sense is that one reason talk so much about preferences in discussing endeavors with a creative aspect is that there's only so many hours in a day or lifetime, and it's a bigger waste of time and less engaging to just state the obvious (influential stuff is influential) than to really try to get at the heart of why we like what we like.
Edited by The Thin Man - 9/24/12 at 4:01am
post #185 of 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hendrix View Post

That's your best post stitches.

awe shucks! shog[1].gif thanks, man.
post #186 of 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Thin Man View Post

And the same could be said of movies, music, paintings, so no discussion, no judgment? People disagree, end of conversation? Citizen Kane, Ernest Goes to Camp, they're both products of culture, and they both produced more culture?
So you own a clothing forum devoted to discussion of men's clothing, but there's no way to talk about what people prefer? Because people, you know, wear clothes, so therefore, all clothing is equally good. If we all adopt the slanket, well, that was just another one of those things that happened?
My sense is that one reason talk so much about preferences in discussing endeavors with a creative aspect is that there's only so many hours in a day or lifetime, and it's a bigger waste of time and less engaging to just state the obvious (influential stuff is influential) than to really try to get at the heart of why we like what we like.

since you seem very devoted to this cause, i recommend that you make a list of the brands that you feel, fit your bill. and start a thread and discussion on it. it would be interesting to see where it goes.

as to what people prefer, i think that SF group think is well established at this point. the general aesthetic that this community prefers is quite clear for the most part. however, we are a very small fraction of the men of the world who wear menswear.
post #187 of 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

since you seem very devoted to this cause, i recommend that you make a list of the brands that you feel, fit your bill. and start a thread and discussion on it. it would be interesting to see where it goes.
as to what people prefer, i think that SF group think is well established at this point. the general aesthetic that this community prefers is quite clear for the most part. however, we are a very small fraction of the men of the world who wear menswear.
Sorry if I was getting a little overheated. I was hoping to get people to think a little more critically about this, but it may just be coming across as annoying, so I will butt out.
post #188 of 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Thin Man View Post

Sorry if I was getting a little overheated. I was hoping to get people to think a little more critically about this, but it may just be coming across as annoying, so I will butt out.

oh no, no need to apologize. you should be passionate about how you feel. and have been very respectful, not annoying. no need to butt out. i still think you should start a thread about your topic.
post #189 of 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Thin Man View Post

And the same could be said of movies, music, paintings, so no discussion, no judgment? People disagree, end of conversation? Citizen Kane, Ernest Goes to Camp, they're both products of culture, and they both produced more culture?
So you own a clothing forum devoted to discussion of men's clothing, but there's no way to talk about what people prefer? Because people, you know, wear clothes, so therefore, all clothing is equally good. If we all adopt the slanket, well, that was just another one of those things that happened?
My sense is that one reason talk so much about preferences in discussing endeavors with a creative aspect is that there's only so many hours in a day or lifetime, and it's a bigger waste of time and less engaging to just state the obvious (influential stuff is influential) than to really try to get at the heart of why we like what we like.

I thought that Citizen Kane was sorta boring, and I laughed at Ernest goes to camp for about 5 minutes before I had to turn it off, but that's neither here nor there.

I think that it is very interesting to discuss the creative aspect of clothing. That's essentially what we did here re. Ferre, for example.

I think that the issue here is that you are conflating "creative aspect" with "why we like what we like." Why we like what we like is, to the first order, a combination of our shared cultural history, our relationship to society and different societal values. For example, in the developing world, where labor is cheap and mechanization is expensive, manufactured goods are highly prized. As a modern society develops, labor becomes expensive, and mechanization relatively economical, and handmade goods become more desirable. This is pretty well documented.

I think that in order to discuss the creative aspect of clothing, we have to get people out of the prescriptive mindset, e.g. a suit has to have a skirt that covers your bottom, or else you look like a lady, lol. X,Y,Z factors flatter a man's physique., etc... And I think that that's easier said than done. But we can try.
post #190 of 500
^ We both know that's never going to happen, at least not widely, which is why women's fashions will always be more interesting and inspiring than men's.

Regardless, I think what TTM was suggesting was that we (or someone) take an analytical approach to the aesthetics of classic brands. My only comment is that the website Jesse and I are writing for are allocating us something like 100 words per brand, and I assume the use of just one photo. This is actually supposed to be a fun, slightly arbitrary, light read. I've probably taken much more seriously than necessary, if only because I'm genuinely interested in the subject. But I don't know if we have the space to do a critical review of some brand's aesthetics.

But there's nothing to stop us from doing something similar here. By us I don't mean me, but someone. Instead of "In Praise of Navy" (which is all well and good), someone should start a thread called "In Praise of Sulka" or "In Praise of Arnys" or in praise of whatever brand might strike someone's fancy. Something beyond a photo gallery would be nice too - perhaps a show of the brand's evolution, a discussion of the designers behind the company, or maybe an explanation of what went into each piece (perhaps something in the spirit of The Cutting Class). That would be great.

I'm not one to believe that we can't judge the creative arts. I think there are better and worse things in literature, music, painting, and dance. Though, I wouldn't stake my life on that belief. If pushed, I'd agree with Fok that a lot of this depends on shared cultural norms, etc. But I think arguments can be made (if not terribly strong ones).

Anyway, someone should start such a thread already. Pick some brand you really know well and share it with the rest of us. I can take T&C Surf. icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif
post #191 of 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post

I think that in order to discuss the creative aspect of clothing, we have to get people out of the prescriptive mindset, e.g. a suit has to have a skirt that covers your bottom, or else you look like a lady, lol. X,Y,Z factors flatter a man's physique., etc... And I think that that's easier said than done. But we can try.

Are you suggesting that Manton is just another Republican killing the arts?
post #192 of 500
I've been in and out of paying attention to this thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating material that's already been covered, but the clothes-as-art idea is interesting to me. I enjoy the "creative aspect of clothing" and don't have a problem with viewing the creation of beautiful clothing and the collection of different items into an outfit as an art form.

But at the same time, there are really none of these "creative" major deviations from classic menswear that I find attractive. This looks ridiculous to me:
Gaultier pic (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rach2jlc View Post


as do men in jackets that barely go past their belt.

But my artistic tastes in general are very classical. Free form poetry I don't like. Not much interest in abstract art, aside from a few Rothkos. I do like some combo jazz, but nothing too out there. No Sun Ra free jazz.

So my point is, you don't have to accept men in skirts to think of clothing as a creative and artistic enterprise.
post #193 of 500
By look ridiculous, do you mean you don't approve of men actually wearing that? At least for me, I find that designer clothes are much more appreciable once you break out of the mindset of whether or not you'd wear something yourself, or approve of the every day man on the street wearing it. Those seem to be separate questions from whether something is particularly creative, interesting, or adds to the conversation of design.

To take an example, there's plenty of art in the world that I appreciate, but would not hang on my own walls (or think they should be hung on my friend's walls). But that doesn't make them less interesting when I see them.

I actually find most men's designer fashion fairly boring, and I think it's because everyone's trying to be too commercial - essentially catering to men's constant nagging question "is that something I'd wear or approve of others wearing." Some of the better women's clothing designers ignore that question all together, and as a result, come up with brilliant concepts. Perhaps their stuff does spill into the street, but when it does, it becomes an interesting social issue, beyond just design.

Addendum: Some examples. Wouldn't it be a shame if people looked at McQueen's work and just asked "yea, but who would wear that?"
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)



Edited by dieworkwear - 9/24/12 at 12:35pm
post #194 of 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post


I think that the issue here is that you are conflating "creative aspect" with "why we like what we like." Why we like what we like is, to the first order, a combination of our shared cultural history, our relationship to society and different societal values. For example, in the developing world, where labor is cheap and mechanization is expensive, manufactured goods are highly prized. As a modern society develops, labor becomes expensive, and mechanization relatively economical, and handmade goods become more desirable. This is pretty well documented.
I think that in order to discuss the creative aspect of clothing, we have to get people out of the prescriptive mindset, e.g. a suit has to have a skirt that covers your bottom, or else you look like a lady, lol. X,Y,Z factors flatter a man's physique., etc... And I think that that's easier said than done. But we can try.

This. While I think I get "the thin man's" overall point (critical thinking about subjective taste), ultimately I think it's impossible and will break down into exactly that kind of prescriptive mindset. In addition to what you write above, another reason is that it isn't possible to articulate WHY we like what we like, exactly, because we have neither complete information about it and also because we're influenced by so many factors automatically, over which we have no control. Thin man's argument seems dependent upon a kind of rationality and reflection about our own tastes that, ultimately, isn't possible, given various unconscious influences like priming, framing, bias, etc. (all those things that the behavioral economists have helped to show cloud all those perfectly rational agents!)

So, in the end, the discussion will largely devolve away from actual clothing and down to the social norms of the prescriptive type you outline above. If it is done "right," it will basically devolve down to "I like it because I like it and alternatives from that are ridiculous because they're stupid," or a rationally untenable argument.

People won't/can't think critically about their subjective tastes, because they aren't really in control of them. While on the one hand a man can say he likes RL because he likes "classic tailored menswear that is well manufactured," in truth (and given various behavioral experiments or brain scans) we might actually be able to make a more convincing case that latent sexual attraction to a coworker who happened to wear RL on Tuesdays caused the attraction to the brand. Likewise, it might be because his neighbor had a polo pony when he grew up. In short, the line between some sort of "aesthetic judgment" and a purely affective one is quite thin, and both can work together, "I like well tailored menswear because RL uses a polo pony that my neighbor had when i was young."

This is exactly why criteria drawing those lines for the discussants is imperative, IMHO. We CAN discuss a "creative aspect" according to some basic set of criteria, assuming requisite background knowledge, which is what we've tried to do (though may be difficult given that most on this site are "consumer" oriented and not critically oriented). Overall, perhaps having had a more set criteria from the start, as defined by the OP, would have helped him for the purposes of his article, though the organic way in which the discussion has developed has been interesting from an overall reading/writing/forum perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

I've been in and out of paying attention to this thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating material that's already been covered, but the clothes-as-art idea is interesting to me. I enjoy the "creative aspect of clothing" and don't have a problem with viewing the creation of beautiful clothing and the collection of different items into an outfit as an art form.
But at the same time, there are really none of these "creative" major deviations from classic menswear that I find attractive. This looks ridiculous to me: Gaultier pic (Click to show)
as do men in jackets that barely go past their belt.
But my artistic tastes in general are very classical. Free form poetry I don't like. Not much interest in abstract art, aside from a few Rothkos. I do like some combo jazz, but nothing too out there. No Sun Ra free jazz.
So my point is, you don't have to accept men in skirts to think of clothing as a creative and artistic enterprise.

Interestingly and unexpectedly, this sort of illustrates my (and, I think, Fok's) point. Without some basic lines being drawn or a willingness to suspend our own "consumer" perspective as a potential clothing buyer, the final decision will be whatever an individual personally finds "ridiculous," even accounting for what they feel is "art" or "creativity."
post #195 of 500
I agree it is a separate question, but in addition to not wanting to wear the Gaultier outfit, I also just don't think it's aesthetically pleasing. But I do much prefer it to the bastardization of traditional garments, like the too-short jackets.

There is some art that I appreciate aesthetically while not wanting it in my home - especially a lot of the more intense Christian art, as I'm not a religious person. But most of the art I like, I can envision it in some setting that's not a museum.

Maybe this aversion to completely new concepts in menswear is what forces designers to tinker with the suit in marginal ways that result in it looking much worse, such as the bum-freezer jacket. Also, the earlier poster who suggested the military as a major innovator in menswear was onto something. When men are forced to wear something, and then make war in it, it goes along way to ushering the garment into acceptability.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › What are the greatest menswear brands of all time?