'iGent Myths Busted!' - Page 12

But why did they write those sentences? Because the effect was better than if they slavishly obeyed the rule. They judged things on what is important: the quality of the outcome; not on what was unimportant: the following of a rule for its own sake, or for the sake of conforming. 

 

Following the rules only makes sense if the rules make sense. If the rules say to wear kipper ties and bell-bottom flares, or to wear short tight suit jackets that crumple around the fastened button, and leave half the bottom exposed, then following the rules will just result in a wardrobe full of ugly clothes that you never wear 5 years later when they go out of fashion. If the rules are sound then following them should never clash with what looks good. A rule that can be frequently broken to superior effect does not deserve to remain a rule, it is more honestly described as a mere suggestion. 

 

Fashion is not like science or deer hunting. It is not based on objective performance or facts. Science is good if it makes accurate predictions about the world. Deer hunting techniques are successful if they catch lots of deer. Fashion is not necessarily good if it is fashionable, if lots of people adopt it. So, the rules in fashion deserve far less respect than the rules do in fields where they are proven to get results. 

 

The 'rules' in style are based on universal aesthetic truths; the rules of fashion are based on short-lived popular fads and/or tradition for the sake of tradition. So the former are worth considering but the latter should be mostly ignored. 

 

I agree about fitting in. People's reactions matter, and dress is mainly a social activity (we dress with more care in public than at home). So, I include 'appropriateness' in the rules of style. This is one way in which clothing is different to thinks like science or athletics, where being right or being best is always superior to fitting in. 

I don't agree fully - that implies that other people's opinion is the driving factor. What you described there is appropriateness, not style. Appropriateness is knowing the done thing. Style is looking good. So, some ghetto pimp might dress totally inappropriately at an upmarket nightclub, but he may still be stylish if his outfit is particularly beautiful and well co-ordinated. 

 

I accept there is a combination of style and appropriateness that, when done together, results in someone who both looks good and stands out, but in a way that is always accepted. That is someone who knows the rules, knows what looks good, and knows how to push the boundaries without crossing them. I'm not sure that is what I'd call style, but maybe I'm misunderstanding the terminology. I'd say that's something like 'panache'. A well-dressed Masai could have style at a black tie dinner if he took his hunting outfit, but he wouldn't have panache. And yes I agree that style + appropriateness is probably the epitome of dressing well. 

 

Goodnight, ladies and gentlemen!

Quick question un and cosmic . Who are the successful rule breakers in this forum? I am also curious to know if Manton accepts or at least recognizes their approach
Edited by Tirailleur1 - 2/11/13 at 8:51pm

 

I would say you, for one. Parker. TTO. Most of the others, like Barims and LabelKing, aren't around much anymore, sadly. 

 

I would say that those who can do it have a combination of a broader sense of aesthetic judgment beyond just clothes, and a deep knowledge of several traditions, and the palettes, materials and cuts involved, plus a willingness to learn and experiment drawing on those two elements while at the same time constantly improving them. I guess they also need to be relatively unaffected by the ridicule of the ignorant and be able to work out who is worth listening to.  

I was going to name these three. Parker and LK I just haven't seen enough photos of, but I'm sure FM is right. But really I think the "rating scale" kind of mentality does more harm than good. And I'm not really interested in getting into a semantic debate about what "style" is vs. "panache" or whatever else.

My point is, what you wear projects an image of you, just like what you say and what you do. This can be understated and subtle or it can be loud and boisterous. But you should figure out who you want to portray yourself as, it should have something to do with the rest of who you are, and you should learn the language and custom in order to articulate it in what you wear. Combinations should be coherent.

The loud and boisterous types are always going to get more attention and provoke more varied responses. Some people will think they're "successful" in this, or cool, others will think they're obnoxious and self-centered. But the "best dressed" people to me are the ones that project the image they want to project. They read situations and people well, and are self-aware enough to see how others see them.


Consider the following true story:

A young, dashing gent is invited to a dinner party at the house of an imperious but very socially influential older lady. He is given the honor of being seated next to the host. The host repeatedly drops her napkin from her lap and asks the young gent to pick it up and hand it to her. Finally after another such incident, the young gent asks, "wouldn't it be better if I ate my dinner under the table, madame, to be able to hand you your napkin more quickly?"

Is this stylish? In good taste?

IMO, the people who were successful at breaking "the rules," as David said, tend to know themselves well and dress for their environment/ lifestyle. Examples include Barims, TTO, and LabelKing. But I would add that each of these people also had something to say. Their styles were very distinct and delivered a message. They were not people who wore a navy suit and white shirt, but then inserted a little "personality" through their socks. That's not having something to say; that's just twisting a classic so that you feel more comfortable about it.

Also in the case of Barims and TTO - both are very tall, striking looking dudes. They are going to attract attention no matter what. They can't "hide" in a navy suit and white shirt. Given that they will already attract eyeballs, they can look like they welcome them or look like they are afraid of them.

 

LK is lightyears beyond TTO/Barims. 

 

What if an outfit violates a given rule or rules, but actually looks better or creates a better impression than outfits that conform to the rules? In this case, the rules are not serving their purpose, and are actually inhibiting good dress and style.

 

In any field, rules only have validity to the extent that they serve purpose and function - to the extent that they impede it, the rules can and should be violated. 

The meaning of "better" here is vague.

Cosmic, can you give a concrete example of what you're supposing? Because I can only imagine a moron falling for something like this: "It's Monday, and I'm going to work at a bank in the city, so I shall wear black captoe oxfords and a navy suit and a silk tie!" However.... the moron is just a teller in Charlotte, North Carolina, and he doesn't fit in at alllll! Or, "It's against the rules to wear tweed in the city, but it's January and my only coats are a brown tweed overcoat and a brightly colored down ski jacket... I MUST go to my custody hearing in the ski jacket!!"

Wait, that's not exactly what you said. You're not saying that following the rules will make you look worse, but that NOT going against the rules will inhibit better style. In that case, I think it's a fair enough point, but it's not a criticism of the rules. (I should put "the rules" in quotes every time) If I dress according to sensible rules, I may not become a LK-like superstar, but I can look good, and I definitely won't look bad.

DOW broke many rules - as did Agnelli - but many people have found their styles inspirational. On any given day you'll find a throng of men on Wall Street wearing a gray suit and light-blue shirt, but most of them are uninspiring.

I agree.  you take the rules, and see what is appropriate for your circumstances, while still being aware that the rules are there.

I think that this comment is neither here nor there.  What Makoto said was that he didn't feel 'pushed around or belittled' by the rules, not that he dismissed them, or found them ridiculous.  He even said 'rules that he learned', implying that he read the information, took it in and went on with his life.  I believe he was speaking about his, for lack of a better word, 'reaction' to the rules, as opposed to saying that he didn't care for them.