or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › 'iGent Myths Busted!'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'iGent Myths Busted!' - Page 15

post #211 of 301
This is a Classic menswear forum, so anyone's overalls are as irrelevant as mention of Mongolian goat-herders and Masai warriors.

Change is evolution, as long as it's successful. It's the very definition of evolution. And it's irrelevant whether we're talking about bow tie colour, jacket length, or genetics. The mechanism is irrelevant. But for the record, if one person introduces a new style or change, and it gets widely chosen (selected), and copied (reproduced), then that is exactly what reproductive success is. Perhaps it would help if style were thought of as a meme, which I guess it is. Style is just an idea in our heads. And memes act like genes do: changing, evolving, succeeding or dying off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbrown View Post

Maybe you would, but my ancestors certainly weren't wearing morning dress... if clothing and styles didn't change I'd presumably inherit their tradition, not the tradition that your ancestors apparently followed, and I would be wearing homemade overalls or something similarly befitting of my family's working class roots.

Be careful not to over-estimate the past ubiquity of the clothing tradition you have chosen to follow.
post #212 of 301
Sincerely, I don't see how the first half of that sentence is any different from the second half. I'm not trying to be argumentative. frown.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post

However garments do not survive and thrive because they are better adapted to their environments, it is more likely that their environment determines the evolution of the garments themselves.
post #213 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post

If by "evolve" it is meant that the form specific garments take can be traced back to other specific garments that preceded them than yes. However garments do not survive and thrive because they are better adapted to their environments, it is more likely that their environment determines the evolution of the garments themselves (so a complete reversal) and even then it is not a given for most stylistic changes.

Or I guess +1, with some precisions.

Evolve means to develop gradually.

Darwinian evolution is a specific type of evolution which conforms to Darwinian principles. Yep, more fuckin Rules!!!
post #214 of 301
I think what he is saying that changes to style do not emerge randomly (a la Darwin); rather they are responsive. So, when the English start colonizing the tropics at first they wear all these London clothes, but they are so miserably hot that they have to adapt to the enviornment.

However, I would make space in the theory for "acts of will" that in the end function like random mutations. E.g., the PoW wearing suede shoes with a city suit, which shocked people at the time. But it caught on because it looked nice and people liked it. However, it was not a response to enviornment but arose as an act of will by one man.
post #215 of 301
I'm sure the first time DOWwore suede shoes in town, people were all up in his face going, "Now that's some random mutation right there!". lol8[1].gif
post #216 of 301

If I might chip in, I'd add that such "acts of will" might well be designed deliberately to create a discussion.  Not necessarily for a love of controversy, but simply to make a statement about one's independence of thought.  That's not any kind of evolution, it's anti-conformity for its own sake, as an affirmation of self.

 

Like yellow socks or spectator shoes. 

post #217 of 301
So, what are some rules (rules of thumb) that you have found hold true or at least work for you?

For me, I'd say wearing colours that blend with the surroundings is appealing. Hence browns and oranges in autumn, brighter shades or corals in summer, black at night, grey in town, etc.
post #218 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by becnal View Post

This is a Classic menswear forum, so anyone's overalls are as irrelevant as mention of Mongolian goat-herders and Masai warriors.

No, you are talking about evolution, and therefore it is. Overalls are irrelevant to the "rules" of "classic menswear", but if you want to start talking about what "we" would all be wearing if style didn't change, then I think it is important to note just how few people in America (let alone the world) would actually be wearing "classic menswear" in the first place.

Yes, we have all chosen to follow a certain tradition of dress; that is why we are here. Just don't extrapolate that back and draw the wrong conclusions about where we all came from.

Edit: I see you are in Germany, not the US. The point still holds - my German great-grandfather had probably never heard of "morning dress", and certainly brought no such tradition with him when he emigrated to the States.
post #219 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

I don't see why you think those two things are unrelated. Normativity in either case is problematic. In both cases, popular consensus often challenges what the "rule" pronounces. In both cases, rules must be derived from bigger principles.

But there are no bigger principles. That's really the point.

You have societal expectation or the force of 'but it looks better - don't you see?'

Though you've never suggested this outright, you seem to believe that because something can be directly derived from an easily articulated principle that anyone / everyone should find it compelling.

The reality is that that sort of thinking leaves you with a neatly organized cigar box full of preferences but not something that can or should persuade someone else.

If you can't agree on a premise - and I'm suggesting that there are only two viable candidates - then you can't have a discussion.

So you can detail how someone/something will be percieved and how that relates to someone's aims with some degree of normativity.

But you can remonstrate that something is aesthetically pleasing until you're blue in the face but if the other person simply does not see that, then the discussion has ended. Elaborate exercises in semiotics, necessarily, are futile in those instances.

How this relates to this place - showing is better than telling in most of these discussions. I've rarely seen anyone argued into doing something differently but I've seen any number of people respond to visual examples of a superior aesthetic.
Edited by Cantabrigian - 2/12/13 at 11:14am
post #220 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

It is equally difficult to maintain meaningful discourse with those who refuse to acknowledge that someone might legitimately hold a different view as to what is aesthetically pleasing.  This tends to be a defining element of the 'rules rule!' element.  By definition, anyone with an aesthetic preference that is different from their own - and that of the inevitable cloister of like-minded blowhards - is inherently wrong.

I think that you're conflating a desire to follow rules and an opinion on what is aesthetically pleasing. People of course have different opinions on what looks good and what works for them; aesthetics is somewhat subjective, albeit also somewhat informed by convention and others unless you want to be style's Howard Roark. With rules, we have much in the way of history, tradition and various writings that we can use to be informed. My personal take is that the rules represent guidelines that should be followed unless you have a reason to not follow them, i.e. that tradition is innocent until proven guilty. The main reason to not follow a rule is that you like the outcome of not following the rule better than the outcome of following it. That's an informed decision of one who is fully cognizant of what the appropriate norms are.

Perfect example. I am wearing a french cuff shirt with dress trousers and loafers with no tie today. The horror, the horror. Technically this violates a rule that french cuff shirts, being more formal, should be worn with a suit or at the very least an odd jacket and tie. I like the look of french cuff shirts more than I am concerned with following that particular rule, so I don't care. In this case, if someone called me out on it, which has not happened to me in about 6 years of doing this, I'd defend the decision with aesthetics (or more likely, just laugh and ignore them).

I do think that some people who are die-hard defenders of the rules automatically assume that the rules always produce better aesthetic outcomes simply because they are the rules. Perhaps you are thinking specifically of this?
post #221 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by archibaldleach View Post

I do think that some people who are die-hard defenders of the rules automatically assume that the rules always produce better aesthetic outcomes simply because they are the rules. Perhaps you are thinking specifically of this?

 

Yes, exactly.

post #222 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by bertie View Post

...
It would seem that I need to buy Manton's book as that seems the only place these rules are actually discussed. That's not a veiled request for you to share your intellectual capital Manton - seems like a very reasonable price to pay to get in the club.
There are lots of books about these guidelines that pre-date Manton's. Alan Flusser's Clothing and the Man may be the best. Pretty much everything thought of as a "rule" here is recommended there.
post #223 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

Yes, exactly.

Perhaps they become 'rules' because they do produce aesthetically better outcomes.

Have you considered this?
post #224 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


In the pic above, he is stylish, garish, and his tie is tonally too close to his shirt. No fucks were given.

I think there is an interesting point here related to what Foo's been saying. While the tie is tonally close, it's easily distinguishable from the shirt because their patterns and textures are so different.

The intent of the tonal rule is not "Make sure tones aren't too close" but that you don't create some sort of visual dissonance by putting two things together which are close enough in appearance (and that includes patterns and textures as well as colors) to never let the eye settle down. Which is not to say you shouldn't ever do it, but if you do, make sure it's intentional and know full well what you're trying to achieve.

But the general point (not aimed at SB in particular) is to understand the intent of the rule, and not just take it at face value.
post #225 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantabrigian View Post

Though you've never suggested this outright, you seem to believe that because something can be directly derived from an easily articulated principle that anyone / everyone should find it compelling.

Of course--one has to buy the fundamental premise before anything else can convince. I thought that was self-evident, not as a matter of aesthetics or style, but of logic.

Ultimately, we are left to explain phenomena the fundamental character of which people may not even agree on (whether something is good lucking, stylish, in good taste, etc.). That does not excuse us from trying to explain what we see and what we judge, which includes appealing to bigger, broader principles that may capture a larger audience. What I object to in your previous comment is that a historical basis frees you from this problem. For reasons having to do with interpretation, perspective, values, and fallibility, it does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Y View Post

I think there is an interesting point here related to what Foo's been saying. While the tie is tonally close, it's easily distinguishable from the shirt because their patterns and textures are so different.

The intent of the tonal rule is not "Make sure tones aren't too close" but that you don't create some sort of visual dissonance by putting two things together which are close enough in appearance (and that includes patterns and textures as well as colors) to never let the eye settle down. Which is not to say you shouldn't ever do it, but if you do, make sure it's intentional and know full well what you're trying to achieve.

But the general point (not aimed at SB in particular) is to understand the intent of the rule, and not just take it at face value.

Yay! Someone gets me!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › 'iGent Myths Busted!'