or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › No effs given... correctly
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

No effs given... correctly - Page 8

post #106 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeyface View Post

WIthout the blue of the shirt and the red overcheck this outfit doesn't seem to work at all. The patterns just clash. This probably means that the patterns need to be in different colors in order for them to work together.

Italics are correct, bold is dead wrong. The patterns work together because the colors divide them up -- we don't see the pattern contrast between shirt and tie as much because the colors match. Also, the blue/white patterns are relatively less stark than the black/white patterns -- so when you put the picture in black and white, putting them on a equal footing, the shirt and tie become overwhelming. I'd be willing to bet that your solid tie 'shop would look better in black and white than the striped tie does -- even though it looks worse in color.

 

The red overcheck just keeps it from being matchy -- it would look precious with a blue.

post #107 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by YRR92 View Post

Italics are correct, bold is dead wrong. The patterns work together because the colors divide them up -- we don't see the pattern contrast between shirt and tie as much because the colors match. Also, the blue/white patterns are relatively less stark than the black/white patterns -- so when you put the picture in black and white, putting them on a equal footing, the shirt and tie become overwhelming. I'd be willing to bet that your solid tie 'shop would look better in black and white than the striped tie does -- even though it looks worse in color.

 

The red overcheck just keeps it from being matchy -- it would look precious with a blue.

The gingham against the POW works as the check scale offsets small vs large. The tie ruins the look because the stripes scale is to close to the POW check. A solid tie = would have rocked it. 

post #108 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie22 View Post

The gingham against the POW works as the check scale offsets small vs large. The tie ruins the look because the stripes scale is to close to the POW check. A solid tie = would have rocked it. 


I kind of agree with you about the scales -- it's certainly a factor in why the checks work together, though I dislike them in B&W. The tie and the suit don't bother me. The patterns are so different that, even though the scales are similar, they don't clash.

 

The solid blue tie in Monkeyface's example is pretty bad -- makes the square look like hell. A solid dark red tie? Perhaps an improvement. Certainly, it would make it more like something I'd wear, since I shy away from four patterns.

post #109 of 477
Are we back to the analyze-someone's-look-biz? Or this is still no eff given threak?

ps, the only no eff given part in any of TTO's outfits/style is his sorry, sorrow, poker, whatever-you-call-it face.
post #110 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

Are we back to the analyze-someone's-look-biz? Or this is still no eff given threak?

ps, the only no eff given part in any of TTO's outfits/style is his sorry, sorrow, poker, whatever-you-call-it face.


This, I think, is crucial -- the effs TTO's not giving are about SF orthodoxy, not about how things look. Aesthetically, this is the result of many effs given.

post #111 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeyface View Post


Either way, like I said, being unconcerned will come over time, as one starts to 'own' his outfits. Saying that an outfit works just because someone is unconcerned is an easy cop out. That's one of the main reasons why the general public doesn't dress well. So many friends have said to me: "oh I could never pull off that blazer" or "I'd be so uncomfortable". That mentality stops them from trying to step up their game. I'm convinced that putting together an interesting outfit is a skill that can be learned.

So, I propose we analyze interesting 'FU' outfits (colors/patterns/cuts/details, you name it) in this thread, instead of saying that it works just because someone is comfortable in it. Let's not take the easy way out smile.gif

Putting together an interesting outfit is definitely something that can be learned, and also be taught. To wear ti well, is something else altogether. This is one of the reasons I have always been against a set of rules that apply to everyone. I was watching Gianluca Migliarotti's O'Mast, and I really liked the way one of the tailors described his craft - it was to see the person as the person sees himself, and then create that for them, i.e. to help them realize their personal style.

By comfort, I mean psychological comfort, in all of its complexity. I don't think that there are "Zero fucks given" outfits, per se. Incidientally, this is very different from "Fuck you", which is a reaction against something. "Zero fucks given" implies that the individual doesn't care an iota about approval or disapproval. Whether zero fucks have been given depends entirely on the context. Steve Jobs Black turtleneck was zero fucks given. Tom Wolfe, from what I've read about him, is much more in the "Fuck you" mode, though I will defer to those who know him.

I much prefer zero fucks given to Fuck you. The first shows confidence.
post #112 of 477
I would say that Tirailleur1 seems to be in a "zero fucks given" mode. Let's go back a full decade: "Steez" = style with ease.
post #113 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by YRR92 View Post


This, I think, is crucial -- the effs TTO's not giving are about SF orthodoxy, not about how things look. Aesthetically, this is the result of many effs given.

Which is what I said way back on page 3, in a post that seems to have been too long for the SF attention span! Or maybe just rubbish...
post #114 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingMonkey View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliny View Post

not coincidentally peacocking works better with darker skins
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
This is, err... a little bit odd, to say the least. There are certainly particular cultural traditions of extravagant clothing but they are found all over the world and not limited to, or done 'better' by, people with darker skins, and there are undoubtedly particular combinations of clothing and skin colour that work better, but bright colours in general do not work better with one or other type of skin tone, and finally, 'peacocking' is about far more than colour.

 
Now back to the heart of the issue here...

I agree with Cantabrigian on the problems, but not completely on how to do this well.

I. It is absolutely not about 'giving no effs'. It is actually the opposite. Any good dressing requires aesthetic sensibility, knowledge and attention. There are very few people who have internalized these so much that they just dress well without thinking about it or caring about the effect they might create - indeed that insouciance is a myth. Giving the impression of insouciance is itself an art that takes a great deal of care.

2. Breaking conventions requires an intimate knowledge of conventions, and the ability to do things conventionally, before those conventions are broken. As Picasso said "It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child"...

3. Peacocking is not simply about breaking conventions anyway. It is actually drawing on rich alternative traditions of dress, some of which are actually at the heart of things that are taken to be conventional - like the art of the bespoke suit, for example. Tailoring has never been entirely or even primarily about the conservative business outfit - you can buy that off the rack. Colour is part of this and this is where I disagree somewhat with Cantabrigian (and where we have disagreed before - about Phineas Cole suits, I seem to recall...). Just because current conventions are towards muted colours - greys, browns and dark blues - this does not mean that colour is outside of the mainstream tradition of male tailoring. To take just Savile Row - Nutter, Boateng, and now companies like Dashing Tweeds, are part of a great tradition of colour in British men's clothing that was not killed off by Beau Brummel, even while it was adjusted in its expression.

4. The keys are beauty, fit and coherence. Coherence means that the outfit makes sense in its own terms - it 'works' - we once had a great thread here about the subject which was unfortunately deleted by its creator. Fit, well we should know about that by now - and I don't exclude in this understanding of fit, other cultural and experimental ideas although in MC types of peacocking, I would suggest an adherence to perfectly fitting clothing is vitall. But the key to peacocking is beauty. Dressing well is not just about 'fitting in' (although the most conventional business suit done perfectly can be one of the most beautiful things), but about the full range of ways in which what we wear can be aesthetically pleasing to the wearer and to others - it might make people laugh, smile, envious, happy - who knows, but the sum of beauty in the world would be increased. Exactly what this means is almost impossible to agree on, but we all seem to know when we see it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingMonkey View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by YRR92 View Post


This, I think, is crucial -- the effs TTO's not giving are about SF orthodoxy, not about how things look. Aesthetically, this is the result of many effs given.

Which is what I said way back on page 3, in a post that seems to have been too long for the SF attention span! Or maybe just rubbish...

OK, so you intrigued me enough to go back to page one and read your earlier post. Was well worth the effort I must say, great read. icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif
post #115 of 477
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankie22 View Post

The gingham against the POW works as the check scale offsets small vs large. The tie ruins the look because the stripes scale is to close to the POW check. A solid tie = would have rocked it. 

I'm not so sure about a solid tie.

I think it might be the tie that makes this. The texture echoes, for me, the visual texture of the suit while the colors obviously relate to the shirt.
post #116 of 477
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

Are we back to the analyze-someone's-look-biz? Or this is still no eff given threak?

ps, the only no eff given part in any of TTO's outfits/style is his sorry, sorrow, poker, whatever-you-call-it face.

The title is a red herring.

Please keep that information to yourself.
post #117 of 477
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post

TTO generally looks good because he seems comfortable in his clothes, seems to enjoy wearing them, *and* can put together an interesting outfit. I think that the last is teachable. The first two are learnable, but not teachable.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree.  TTO's look is anchored around him looking uncomfortable in his cloth disregarding how well they fit or how good the color combination they are.  Inorganic.

 

I like TTO's photos a lot, partly because they're rooted in a certain British character (the same archetype appears in a lot of Ealing comedies, often as the straight man from the Ministry manfully trying to cope with the chaos created by the lead characters around him). I do agree that his photos do not frequently project physical comfort; instead they project a certain physical tension between clothes and man. The tension in this case is actually positive/synergistic to the interest of the overall visual effect, because they create the effect of a man with a distinct & consistent personal style: "This is how he dresses, even when the world is falling apart".

 

(This consistency, in turn, probably means he is actually psychologically comfortable in his clothes despite the visual tensions).

 

I think this disconnect between inner comfort and outer tension is probably a key part of pulling off the kinds of look being discussed in the thread. It stems from knowing that the outfit you're putting together is complex/difficult-to-balance, and making the choice to do it anyway.

 

Also, most of these dressers actually stick to a fairly narrow aesthetic; it just happens to be one more complex and unusual than most wear. When they transition from one style to another, it's usually a big/complete change, made consciously. (It is also why I find TTO's casual outfits less successful, because they break the illusion of consistency).

 

The external measures of success are much, much easier to define in retrospect than to assemble for oneself. In the case of TTO's case, it is the very narrow colour palette, the powerful use of contrast between a strong upper-central core versus a weaker outer frame, and the use of differently-scaled patterns to create balance between them (substituting a single solid anywhere would not work as well), with the very strongest item at the center, near the face.

post #118 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post


Putting together an interesting outfit is definitely something that can be learned, and also be taught. To wear ti well, is something else altogether. This is one of the reasons I have always been against a set of rules that apply to everyone. I was watching Gianluca Migliarotti's O'Mast, and I really liked the way one of the tailors described his craft - it was to see the person as the person sees himself, and then create that for them, i.e. to help them realize their personal style.

By comfort, I mean psychological comfort, in all of its complexity. I don't think that there are "Zero fucks given" outfits, per se. Incidientally, this is very different from "Fuck you", which is a reaction against something. "Zero fucks given" implies that the individual doesn't care an iota about approval or disapproval. Whether zero fucks have been given depends entirely on the context. Steve Jobs Black turtleneck was zero fucks given. Tom Wolfe, from what I've read about him, is much more in the "Fuck you" mode, though I will defer to those who know him.

I much prefer zero fucks given to Fuck you. The first shows confidence.

Indeed, I completely agree with you when you put it this way. FU is a reaction to your environment, so externally based, while no fucks given is internally based, it has nothing to do with your environment at all. A small, but important difference. Peacock outfits are different altogether, as they're aimed at inciting a certain reaction of others, whether that's positive or negative matters less, as long as people react to you. At least those are definitions I use myself.

 

As a general remark, I'm really enjoying the discussion that has arisen in this tread. It certainly makes for interesting reading material!

post #119 of 477

For the people wondering about a solid dark red tie:

 

In B&W:

post #120 of 477
That doesn't work.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › No effs given... correctly