On why we like modernist chairs and houses, but classical clothes.



Coburn said:

+1. Indeed. 19th century English were infatuated with Classical Greek Civilization, Classical English tailoring recapitulates that neo classical aesthetic.

The clothing analog to modernist architecture would be the Mao Suit.

Click to expand...

Mao suit is more Brutalist than modernist, maybe.

In regards to the OP, there seems to be a preference for tailored clothing with neo-classical design ideals. I wonder if there is such a thing as neo-classical furniture or furnishings.



Coburn said:

+1. Indeed. 19th century English were infatuated with Classical Greek Civilization, Classical English tailoring recapitulates that neo classical aesthetic.

Click to expand...

Well, infatuation is probably a bit too strong a word It was certainly fashionable in the early 19th century, however

As the 19th century progressed, there was something of a rejection of Neo-Classical/Palladian architecture and Neo-Gothic became more prevalent.

'The clothing analog to modernist architecture would be the Mao Suit.'

In more ways than one.



AldenPyle said:

Mao suit is more Brutalist than modernist, maybe.

In regards to the OP, there seems to be a preference for tailored clothing with neo-classical design ideals. I wonder if there is such a thing as neo-classical furniture or furnishings.

Click to expand...

Of course there is. Empire, Federal, Greek Revival, Regency, are all particular periods of furnishings or interior designs that might be considered as 'neo classical'. Some more so than others.



Gdot said:

Of course there is. Empire, Federal, Greek Revival, Regency, are all particular periods of furnishings or interior designs that might be considered as 'neo classical'. Some more so than others.

Click to expand...

You're right. Those seem to cohere more with classical principles of dress.

On why we like modernist chairs and houses, but classical clothes....
To respect the old while searching for the new.

I don't agree with Mafoo's argument about cost-benefit at all. The vast majority of people, when they come round to building a house, especially a family home, choose to build it in a traditional style. People opt for the nostalgic idioms of pitched roof, wooden floors, bow/bay windows, fireplace, etc. Furthermore, often people will opt for modernist furniture inside a home that has a traditional facade. And as other people have mentioned, often people mix antique furniture and modernist furniture in one room -- something one would never do with clothing (without looking absurd).

Also, it is not true that in general people "like modernist chairs and houses, but classical clothes". It's something very specific to this crowd, i.e., people who really enjoy finely designed and crafted things. I think that's all it amounts too. Classical clothes look beautiful and involve craft and design that I can really get my kicks from. The same applies to some modernist furniture. The chronology and cost-benefit is basically irrelevant to me.