or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › On why we like modernist chairs and houses, but classical clothes.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

On why we like modernist chairs and houses, but classical clothes. - Page 4

post #46 of 96

But when there is a patron, is not the patron the artist, since the original idea is created by him, and the artist a mere technical adviser, as the interpreter of the idea?

 

In that case we agree that art is a collaborative process and that the weltanschauung of the artist [patron] is blended with that of the technician, who while, no doubt, using some artistic license to promote their singular worldview, is strictly limited by the desire of the artist [patron] for the completed work to have some, if not perfect, fidelity to the original idea.

 

Hence, the origin of the frustration of all artists who at first willingly accept the role of technician at the expense of their political freedom or freedom to express themselves, who later have second thoughts and chafe at the idea of political oppression by a rival artist bereft of technique but blessed with financial wealth.

 

Of course the patron is never benevolent, he is a rival artist, but with far less talent and skill.

 

As indicated earlier, there is a third party to this conspiracy of political expression; the one that ultimately promotes the art. How and when the art is displayed can be yet another form of political oppression or instead, a shill like aggrandizement of the political statement.

 

The viewer of the art also plays his part, although he is usually far less informed than artist, technician [if present], and the promoter, often mistaking pure political propaganda for entertainment. And in the case of one that might view the clothing of others, possibly an unwilling participant in this conspiracy.

 

With bespoke clothing, the offices of artist and promoter are combined in the patron, and if the patron has any tendency towards narcissism, he may also the viewer in a what might be viewed as a very closely held circle jerk. The only restraint preventing a full expression of the patron's political views is the lack of ability to find a tailor/technician/rival artist who would share a similar one that would work on a commission that the patron is capable of providing.

 

Again, the "artist" or tailor is rendered a mere technician, and a possible source of contention for the patron.

 

The "love of clothing" is really a form of narcissism, since it is an attempt by the patron to promote his weltanschauung to a largely unwilling audience of the public.

 

So, there is unlikely to be anything more likely to express one's weltanschauung or world view, than how one dresses, lacking an ability to communicate with the public on a mass scale. Even houses, furnishings, and automobiles are limited to a fraction of the dwell time for a political statement or weltanschauung put on display by clothing that is universally present wherever the patron as promoter attends.

 

So, the way people dress is pure politics restrained only by their ability to find a proper expression of their weltanschauung to wear. This is why discussions about clothing and other political displays such as houses, automobiles, etc, are so passionate and likely to raise ire or worse. And probably none more so than clothing which is by definition personal and artistic or political expression.

 

Cheers!

post #47 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkinnyGoomba View Post

Thonet is the manufacturer of those chairs and always has been, from their website:

The famous coffee house chair is an icon and considered the most successful mass produced product in the world to date: it initiated the history of modern furniture. The basis was a new technique - the bending of solid wood - that Michael Thonet developed and perfected during the 1850s and it was the first time serial furniture production was possible. Added was an ingenious distribution model: 36 disassembled chairs could be packed into a one cubic meter box, shipped throughout the world, and then assembled on site. With its clear, reduced aesthetics this classic has been placed in the most diverse environments for more than 150 years. It is produced in our Frankenberg facility.

Ineresting. Ours were purchased in Quito, Ecuador in the late 60s. At the time they were probably 60+ years old.
Shortly after we returned to the US we found them in a Thonet catalog from around 1900.
post #48 of 96

It's interesting to me that there isn't more discussion here about aesthetic.

Obviously function is the decisive factor both in interior design and in classic menswear (nobody wants something that doesn't work) but aesthetic is the driving factor; it's like choosing a woman: personality is most important, but without the initial physical attraction a man will look elsewhere.
When we start to analyze the function of classic menswear this entire discussion becomes moot. Even a man who wears classic clothing probably sports a pair of jeans from time to time, probably wears sweatpants at the gym, probably owns a piece of vintage furniture, and would probably wear overalls if they were to mow a plot of land on a vintage tractor; none of this though has much to do with why he also likes modernist furniture.. 

In my opinion, a man who wears classic clothing chooses to do so because it makes him feels more elegant, more sophisted, more decisive, more successful, cleaner, possibly even more intelligent... when it comes to furniture that same man will probably look for the same qualities, finding that same elegant, refined, clean look in modernist furniture.

post #49 of 96

Just to dial back a moment and address the concept, largely mentioned by mafoofan, but implicitly accepted by some others that Modernism as a concept is consistent with a broad cost-benefit assessment of adopting a change or not (in other words, accepting that the cost of implementing the change should be taken into account when determining whether the change should take place, rather than simply analysing whether the end point is "better" than the status quo or not):

 

I think this is certainly a practical compromise that makes Modernism more useful in daily life. However, I'm not convinced it's entirely consistent with the ideological ethos of the movement itself (or at least, of how it is perceived in hindsight). My - admittedly limited - understanding of it was that it was essentially radical, revolutionary & progressive in outlook. Thus, if the endpoint was deemed better (as in more rational or whatever specific frame of reference was adopted) than the status quo, then the new version should be implemented, regardless of temporary transitional costs. As such, the cost-benefit analysis shouldn't take the transition into account.

 

Using a pre-existing, non-rational cultural frame of reference as a "cost" to weigh against the change runs somewhat contrary to that. So a truly modernist suit would get rid of lapels or extra unused buttons or whatever, as they have no impact on the functionality of the item and detract from its pure suit state. In fact, I think some designers did indeed experiment with such looks. As has rightly been said, this disrupts its function as a cultural signifier/social lubricant signficantly, but to a purely modernist perspective, this is equivalent to the example being given above of getting rid of the columns in a building if they're not needed. Screw the pre-existing language; implement the better one and so society will progress towards a more rational state. The transitional costs of doing so, be damned.

 

As I mentioned above, I have little sympathy with that outlook, conceptually, and actually find the variant being suggested a much more pragmatic iteration. But I'm not convinced it really is Modernism anymore (it seems like more straightforward utilitarianism, lacking the radical associations Modernism acquired as a movement). All a bit semantic I guess, but that's what all these discussions inevitably tend towards anyway, so... :)

 

My reading of modernism is limited by my disinterest in many of its goals, so I welcome correction of misapprehensions I have about it from those more steeped in its politics.

post #50 of 96
Thanks for tackling my argument, Holdfast!

Perhaps the question of "what is modernism?" is a much broader question than we really need to answer. After all, the original question is: how is it possible to prefer so-called modernist design in some contexts, yet not others, in a coherent way? To answer that question, we don't really need to all agree on what is "modernism." The definition I proffered (which I'm glad to see someone else understands!) can be called practical modernism, or merely pragmatism, whatever you like. The important issue is not what we call it, but whether its logic makes i possible to have a coherent taste for both "modern" design and classic menswear.
post #51 of 96
Anyone who has admired the work of Mies Van Der Rohe might disagree with the idea of cost/benefit of modern architecture. His work was extraordinarily expensive, combining new techniques and building materials with exotic facades such as Macassar ebony, zebrawood, onyx and marble.

There are certainly architects who worked to achieve a good balance of cost to benefit but IMO modernism has much more to do with application of new material and building techniques that required new form to be used appropriately.

Much like in today where we would cringe at the thought of someone putting aluminum siding on a queen anne house, and while the thought of using it may still be cringeworthy, we don't really find it inappropriate for use with newly constructed homes of the quickly constructed fashion.
post #52 of 96
You are applying cost-benefit too narrowly. First of all, I'm not sure one of Mies's buildings cost any more to build than the classical, marble and column festooned equivalent. But more importantly, there is the huge functional gain. Mies understood the importance of maximizing usable space. The spaces he created are not possible with classical methods and materials.
post #53 of 96
Foo, I really dont believe it to be until the mid-century that cost/benefit was a strong consideration. This is the argument of the chicken and the egg, but the roots of modernism are the search for a more appropriate use of new building materials.

One of the goal's of the Eames was to design a chair that would sit the most for the least. Along those lines were the case study houses which were specifically goaled toward providing inexpensive but efficient homes. That was a challenge shared by many of the mid century architects.
Edited by SkinnyGoomba - 1/29/13 at 10:43am
post #54 of 96
Whether a building material is "more appropriate" is part and parcel to cost-benefit analysis.

I'm not sure what you mean by cost-benefit not being considered until mid-century. Whether someone identifies their thinking that way or not, we can nonetheless interpret decision from a cost-benefit perspective.
post #55 of 96
OK Foo, you're correct.
post #56 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

Thanks for tackling my argument, Holdfast!

Perhaps the question of "what is modernism?" is a much broader question than we really need to answer. After all, the original question is: how is it possible to prefer so-called modernist design in some contexts, yet not others, in a coherent way? To answer that question, we don't really need to all agree on what is "modernism." The definition I proffered (which I'm glad to see someone else understands!) can be called practical modernism, or merely pragmatism, whatever you like. The important issue is not what we call it, but whether its logic makes i possible to have a coherent taste for both "modern" design and classic menswear.

 

I thought it was an interesting & novel interpretation of the movement's values, so I couldn't resist discussing it.

 

I certainly have broad sympathy to rising above the epistemological need to pigeon-hole an outlook into a philosophical box, so once we take it out of the Modernism box, I certainly won't argue with your variant of it being labelled practical modernism, pragmatism, broad utilitarianism, or even, dare one suggest, fooisim... Addressing the core question of whether it squares the circle of having an intellectually coherent preference for both modern(ist) design & classic menswear, yes, it does. It is a very broad justification, though, and leaves a couple of hostages to intellectual fortune, most obviously based on who gets to judge what is pragmatic or not. For all its faults, Modernism was quite specific on this: there was a putative objective best state (the most rational/functional form of an object). Once more pragmatic/"fuzzy" considerations are introduced, judgements about what is better are much less easy to justify. Cost-benefit analyses that incorporate sociocultural "fudge factors" are tricky beasts to interpret entirely objectively.

 

I don't think that's a bad thing at all (I like fuzzy value judgements, being essentially relativist in my outlook), but it moves your position a fair bit closer to relativism than the more objectivist/rationalist space I previously expected you to prefer to occupy. Having said that, I do have a lazy tendency to zone out of threads when they become very long, so I have probably misinterpreted your position and my apologies if so.

post #57 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

The important issue is not what we call it, but whether its logic makes i possible to have a coherent taste for both "modern" design and classic menswear.

Question for anyone who thinks there is an incoherence here: is it possible to simultaneously have a taste for modern design and pre-modern design? Or is it incoherent for me to like both 20th century and 18th century furniture?

If that is possible, how is this even a topic we are discussing?
post #58 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbrown View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

The important issue is not what we call it, but whether its logic makes i possible to have a coherent taste for both "modern" design and classic menswear.

Question for anyone who thinks there is an incoherence here: is it possible to simultaneously have a taste for modern design and pre-modern design? Or is it incoherent for me to like both 20th century and 18th century furniture?

If that is possible, how is this even a topic we are discussing?


My understanding of the topic under discussion is whether there is an objective/rational/intellectual basis to underpin that simultaneous taste, not whether it can exist. Obviously it can (EDIT: and can be justified perfectly acceptably using a number of alternative axes, without reference to any sort of rationalist position). But the thread is about whether it's possible to derive a purely intellectual/rationalist argument/foundation (as taking a modernist position in itself would require EDIT: i.e. liking modernist furniture because of its underpinning ideological principles and therefore wanting that to be the gold standard by which these things should be judged) to support that simultaneous taste preference rather than one that appeals simply to emotionally or culturally derived aesthetic preferences.

 

It's a pretty esoteric question, admittedly... but nonetheless interesting on its own terms, I think. Foo's answer is an elegant solution, achieving its workaround by bypassing (or at least, peeking out above the parapets of) the box of what would strictly be interpreted as Modernism. I've exhausted pretty much anything relevant I had to say on it though... blush.gif


Edited by Holdfast - 1/29/13 at 12:19pm
post #59 of 96
corbself.jpg
post #60 of 96
miesvanderrohe.jpg
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › On why we like modernist chairs and houses, but classical clothes.