Originally Posted by unbelragazzo
^to rach's interesting post above, I think that "it looks good to me because it looks good to me" is an entirely valid justification for one's preferences over art or clothing or whatever. If this idea interests you, it's possible you will enjoy this thread:
I think hoping for rational arguments on clothing is something of a fool's errand. We can look for patterns in things that we like to try and produce more things that we like. But we take as fundamental our preferences, not these rules. An example is the color wheel. We have learned, or some think we have learned, that some pattern of colors from this wheel work well together, no matter how the wheel be rotated. This is a theory, which then must be tested by our preferences over these different color combinations. If we find a combination of colors that "should" work, based on the theory, but that we don't like, it is the theory that is wrong, not our preferences.
It's certainly valid, but my main point has been to illustrate that much of the discussion on this thread is between two largely incompatible categories of poster, each using the same set of terms to different effect (and, if we took the time, different operational definitions). The categories I drew were just for convenience, but I called them a (1) consumer mindset and (2) critical mindset. These two aren't, and won't, see eye to eye... but I think that almost every post on this thread can be put into one of these two categories, also accounting for much of the disagreement.
In (1), exactly what you said is the main point. The view is of fashion from the perspective of the consumer of that fashion, in the sense of putting one's own self in relation to the garment. How would it look on me, would I wear that, is it worth my time and/or money, does it look "ridiculous" (compared to what I wear or generally see worn in my social set), etc.
In (2), however, a different set of criteria and ideas are employed. It is viewed as a critic of fashion, in the sense of putting the garment in relation to a larger history and body of fashion, society, history, etc. How did that garment come about, what trends before it allowed it to "make sense" in a certain framework, what is it doing differently, and are those differences simply gimmicks or actual tweaks on our "ideas" about what a man can wear?
For the purposes of this thread, obviously there can be both, but for a "greatest" list to make sense as an article or blogposting for general readership from which one can learn information, I think (2) is more important and necessary than (1). Indeed, (1) is basically what much of styleforum is about, and while it can be useful in telling me about certain brands, it hardly lends itself to a discussion of superlatives like "greatest" that can be informative beyond just knowing that "member Ernest thinks that brown is for farmer" and such.
As well, as I said above, given that SF isn't an "industry" site of insiders, very few posters have the requisite background knowledge to do (2) effectively. As I said earlier, how many posters have ever been inside an actual Ferre or gaultier boutique, or have followed a runway season enough to comment on that "history?" Probably few, but almost all have their consumer tastes for fashion well set. It is, therefore, not surprising that many on SF come from the consumer standpoint.
That's perfectly fine, of course, but it makes for a discussion like the OP requested rather difficult. It also doesn't mean that a man's skirt, or a certain type of leather bag, or a fragrance marketed for a woman, is actually ridiculous for a man in any way... though often (perfectly validly) they are called as such by a certain body of consumers on SF.