or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › If style is your beautiful wife fashion should be your exciting young mistress
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

If style is your beautiful wife fashion should be your exciting young mistress - Page 3

post #31 of 54
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by add911_11 View Post

I concur with the title.
Wife is something sophisticate, timeless, and will(or have the potential) to spend the rest of time with you, although shape and form changes, the allure remains constant.
On the other hand, mistress is excitement, sexy, filthy, it only stays good for a short time, certainly not something you want to keep for a long period.

I am not going to discuss whether a man must have a wife and mistress, but in clothing everyone should accept style and fashion. Style only comes with consistent pattern of fashion.

You understand my position perfectly.
post #32 of 54
I'm not sure I fully agree that style comes from fashion (or the consistent pattern of fashion as noted above). While there is clearly overlap between the two and the "language" is similar (in the sense that shoes or pants mean the same thing in both style and fashion) style is (to quote Raymond Chandler from my earlier post), a projection of personality. Fashion is the expression of brand name designers using the same language.

I suppose you can base your sense of style purely on designer clothes (fashion) and there are certainly people who can do that (some of those referred to as "flippers" on this forum may well fall into this camp). However, that does not mean style must be, or has historically been, based on fashion. It is equally possible to have a sense of style using archetypical clothes (e.g. traditional savile row or traditional Italian tailoring) that is not related to fashion at all. I think some people on this forum argue that style must, in fact, be based on these archetypical clothes and specific combinations (also know as "the rules"). Perhaps David, that is a point you were getting at?

Note again, my definition of fashion is the cycle of clothing product development created by brands/designers and based on the need to create products to fill time-specific demands of the market. Fashion is thus inherently based on perpetual change incuding colours, cuts and fabrics. If your definition of fashion is different you might reach a different conclusion.

I think the most interesting and important part of Chandler's quote, however is that you should have a personality before you can project it. One hypothesis is that many people who aspire to dress better simply emulate the style of others when it is unlikely to match their own personality or their own personality is underdeveloped. The result is a style disaster/"divorce" where the incompatability issues are insurmountable. The practical result is sometimes called "the clothes wearing the man" rather than vice versa.

If one has a personality and expresses it through a sense of style, adding a mistress of fashion may not create any harm and even add a sense of excitement. The French seem to be able to pull this off but most every other nationality struggles with it. The inherent dangers of trying to add fashion to an underdeveloped sense of style will, most likely, end in tears.
post #33 of 54
Originally Posted by David Reeves View Post

Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post

I'm far too tired to keep up with a mistress on a daily basis. I'd rather stay at home with the wife and watch Star Trek TNG while eating a deep dish pizza. 

I am glad you are all getting into the spirit of this debate.

I myself have probably seen every episode of STNG at least 5 times. Currently I am more of a fan of DS9......(deep space nine).

My favorite is Weyoun.

 

Which one? :)

 

Actually, to drift back from Star Trek to the style/fashion topic, there's an interesting parallel here.

 

DS9 SPOILERS BELOW!

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

For the uninitiated, a running gag with Weyoun is that he's a clone, and so occasionally gets killed off, only to pop up again a few episodes later in a new body. IIRC, there was some kind of personality back-up too, so most clones ended up very similar but one "went wrong" (in this case, I suppose "went good" might be more accurate) and felt regret for the immoral actions of his predecessors. The Chandler quote about personality and style is pertinent as you could say that Weyoun had a certain consistent style and succumbed to a transient fashion when his personality was altered. :D

 

But the Chandler quote is misleading too, for various reasons. For example, it implicitly assumes that the ultimate goal of an art form is to express the artist's personality. This is a relatively recent concept, only a few centuries or so old, and only taken to the fullest extent over the last century. Moreover, even if deemed to be true, not everyone who dresses does so with the aims of personal expression in mind; many dress (often, subconsciously) with the precise opposite goal: to obfuscate their actual personality in favour of creating the image of a (sub)culturally-acceptable one. The obvious question then, is whether it's possible to work within a constrained framework and be truly stylish, if the aim of style is to express personality?

 

Logically, it would only be possible if your personality happened to naturally coincide with the strictures of that framework. However, what we call "personality" is itself (often, heavily) a product of our upbringing and early experiences. It's considered very durable in adulthood, but not entirely immutable. Expose it to enough contrary & powerful stimuli and it is possible to effect (at least outward) change, especially when allied to a strong motivation to do so. In other words, grow up in a different setting, and your concept of style will likely be different as would your personality.

 

This is precisely why I, as a rather stubborn & individualist person, dislike the position of seeking to emulate an ideal/eternal/classic (or even glacially-moving) style. For there to be such a style, there must be a collective agreement on what that is. It is by definition a collective construct ("taste", to use the loaded word), whereas personality is by definition individual. If style is collective, Chandler is wrong to say that style is the product of personality; rather, the two are an interdependent relationship, one influencing the other. A strong/durable personality will tend to have a more consistent style but this may or may not be helpful to them, depending on their life situation, and it may not be the style they want.

 

IMO, David is actually quite correct to consider both Style & Fashion to be essentially the same thing (women, by his analogy), but trapped/categorised by individual perception into different contexts (wife vs mistress). Neither is a full or true representation of the actual woman, only that slice of the person that is relevant to the perceiver. Equally, when we look at another person - or even ourselves - we don't see their personality, regardless of what they're wearing (or doing), we see a construct which may or may not have been deliberately conceived. A consistent construct is what we call a personal style, just as a consistent cultural construct of dress is called Style. It is not necessarily an expression of personality in either case, however (and even less an example of moral rectitude).

 

In a way, at least Fashion is intellectually honest about its own superficiality, ephemerality & glamour (to use that word in its oldest/truest sense).

post #34 of 54
Now I don't disagree with you - however, I (and Chandler) was focusing on personal style versus a "collective construct" to use your term. I think your analysis is more relevant to the notion of the broader concept while I was taking a narrower view. It seems to me that many of the debates here on SF end up going into multi-page threads just exactly becuase of the different definitions of style.
post #35 of 54
"Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." (Oscar Wilde)
post #36 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by bertie View Post

Fashion is the expression of brand name designers using the same language.

no, that's not a good definition of what fashion is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bertie View Post

It is equally possible to have a sense of style using archetypical clothes (e.g. traditional savile row or traditional Italian tailoring) that is not related to fashion at all. .

But it was and is related to fashion. It came from fashion and it remains a part of fashion. It is a fashion in itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by add911_11 View Post

Style only comes with consistent pattern of fashion.

yeah I like this
post #37 of 54
fashion is an evolving element that permeates life and gets incorporated into style in some shape or form.
post #38 of 54

I guess I see Style as something which has coalesced over a number of years, really solidifying in the last century (perhaps because of the popularity of photography, which would both preserve and spread certain types of dress, providing something more concrete to build upon). Fashion seems more open and eclectic than Style, which is not to say Style can't adapt, but it is definitely more rigid. Fashion allows for a greater expression of creativity. But with that freedom comes a lot of silliness and weird-for-weird's sake.

 

 

In practice, I've always thought of the two in terms of a picture test. If I look back at a picture of myself 20 years from now, will I say "That looks good" or "What was I thinking?" The way in which I frame those options clearly demonstrates my bias, and there are certainly more fashion forward looks that will stand the test of time (and will even worm their way into Style).

post #39 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claghorn View Post

In practice, I've always thought of the two in terms of a picture test. If I look back at a picture of myself 20 years from now, will I say "That looks good" or "What was I thinking?" The way in which I frame those options clearly demonstrates my bias, and there are certainly more fashion forward looks that will stand the test of time (and will even worm their way into Style).

Worrying yourself over how the future "you" will judge your sense of style I've always thought a bit neurotic, but I can see how invoking the future (and the past) might make you more aware of the excesses of the present.
post #40 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by hendrix View Post

no, that's not a good definition of what fashion is.

Ah - you best provide one yourself then. My tactic is to try and define what I mean as part of my thesis. Unless we can agree on definitions or at least acknowledge how they differ, we are just talking at each other not with each other.
post #41 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by hendrix View Post


But it was and is related to fashion. It came from fashion and it remains a part of fashion. It is a fashion in itself.

So if I understand you style is fashion and fashion is style.
post #42 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivar View Post

 a bit neurotic

Hi! Have we met before? biggrin.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by bertie View Post


So if I understand you style is fashion and fashion is style.

But who is the eggman? Goo goo gachoo

post #43 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by bertie View Post

So if I understand you style is fashion and fashion is style.

No, IMO fashion is clothes and trends (whether they are "designer" or not doesn't matter), style is how you choose to adopt (or not) those clothes and trends. Savile row and even the most anachronistic of clothing is still part of fashion.

So fashion is like the available ingredients, and style is the chosen recipe.
post #44 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by hendrix View Post

No, IMO fashion is clothes and trends (whether they are "designer" or not doesn't matter), style is how you choose to adopt (or not) those clothes and trends. Savile row and even the most anachronistic of clothing is still part of fashion.

So fashion is like the available ingredients, and style is the chosen recipe.

Thanks - that helps me understand your perspective. Despite our disagreeing on the definition of fashion I think we are coming to a similar conclusion which is that style comes from making personal choices about adopting clothing. We also both use style from a personal basis rather than a collective one.

That said, it seems to me your definition of fashion is synonymous with clothing itself which i do not find personally helpful in relating to the spirit of the OP's question.
post #45 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdfast View Post


But the Chandler quote is misleading too, for various reasons. For example, it implicitly assumes that the ultimate goal of an art form is to express the artist's personality. This is a relatively recent concept, only a few centuries or so old, and only taken to the fullest extent over the last century. Moreover, even if deemed to be true, not everyone who dresses does so with the aims of personal expression in mind; many dress (often, subconsciously) with the precise opposite goal: to obfuscate their actual personality in favour of creating the image of a (sub)culturally-acceptable one. The obvious question then, is whether it's possible to work within a constrained framework and be truly stylish, if the aim of style is to express personality?

Logically, it would only be possible if your personality happened to naturally coincide with the strictures of that framework. However, what we call "personality" is itself (often, heavily) a product of our upbringing and early experiences. It's considered very durable in adulthood, but not entirely immutable. Expose it to enough contrary & powerful stimuli and it is possible to effect (at least outward) change, especially when allied to a strong motivation to do so. In other words, grow up in a different setting, and your concept of style will likely be different as would your personality.

This is precisely why I, as a rather stubborn & individualist person, dislike the position of seeking to emulate an ideal/eternal/classic (or even glacially-moving) style. For there to be such a style, there must be a collective agreement on what that is. It is by definition a collective construct ("taste", to use the loaded word), whereas personality is by definition individual. If style is collective, Chandler is wrong to say that style is the product of personality; rather, the two are an interdependent relationship, one influencing the other. A strong/durable personality will tend to have a more consistent style but this may or may not be helpful to them, depending on their life situation, and it may not be the style they want.

IMO, David is actually quite correct to consider both Style & Fashion to be essentially the same thing (women, by his analogy), but trapped/categorised by individual perception into different contexts (wife vs mistress). Neither is a full or true representation of the actual woman, only that slice of the person that is relevant to the perceiver. Equally, when we look at another person - or even ourselves - we don't see their personality, regardless of what they're wearing (or doing), we see a construct which may or may not have been deliberately conceived. A consistent construct is what we call a personal style, just as a consistent cultural construct of dress is called Style. It is not necessarily an expression of personality in either case, however (and even less an example of moral rectitude).

Thoughtful response. I was using the Chandler reference to get at the basis for real, meaningful personal style. It seems to me that when we talk about people who have a personal style we admire, there is some basis for that. We use terms like "they seem comfortable in their own clothes" or "they seem put together". Sometimes it is because they conform to some collective norm (CBW) or to some aesthetic that seems pleasing to us based on colour/texture combinations. Others seem to adopt a style from others (goth kids come to mind) because of what the think it represents and how they want to be seen by others.

I guess I'm using a definition of style that implies a reflection of the true inner person (or personality). It seems to me that people whose style I admire use clothes in a coherent and consistent manner over time. I suppose it could be a carefully created image but feel that it would simply not be possible to maintain a facade for years or even decades without obvious cracks. The Agnellis, Grants Astairs (apologize for the cliched list but it's late and the best I can do right now) expressed some part of their personality through clothing and the result was both pleasing in many cases but also memorable. Tom Ford and Giorgio Armani also have distinct personal styles but both resort to a standard uniform which seems more designed to convey an image than a true reflection of who they are. In their cases, their actual designs are more interesting than their own personal sense of style.

This is all rather pointless though unless it has practical applications. For me, it's to try and understand why I make certain clothing choices (and not others). I don't have any great aspirations of becoming a style icon but I would like to understand the basis for my choices. I'm trying to explore whether i choose certain items because they seem to be aligned with how I perceive myself or whether they reflect how I want to be seen.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › If style is your beautiful wife fashion should be your exciting young mistress