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

No effs given... correctly - Page 2

post #16 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

I don't think that's it. Maybe part of it, because you get more comfortable as you wear something more often too, but I think a lot of it doesn't come across in photos on the Internet anyway. There's nothing "objective" about it though. It's all subjective.

 

I have a suspicion that most subjective things have a basis in objective fact. Like why we can tell you why certain songs are successful, or why some people like the taste of chocolate. If it were all subjective then I could just as easily say that any particular person DOESN'T look comfortable in unique clothing, and there would be just as much of a chance of that as someone saying that they do. Over time it's basically 50/50. But some people, I think, objectively do look more comfortable stepping out a bit. Tirraileur (sp) for instance.

post #17 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post

I have a suspicion that most subjective things have a basis in objective fact. Like why we can tell you why certain songs are successful, or why some people like the taste of chocolate. If it were all subjective then I could just as easily say that any particular person DOESN'T look comfortable in unique clothing, and there would be just as much of a chance of that as someone saying that they do. Over time it's basically 50/50. But some people, I think, objectively do look more comfortable stepping out a bit. Tirraileur (sp) for instance.

Objective and subjective are now boring and meaningless words. Let's agree not to use them.

We may all agree that a particular song is good, or we may not. But any attempt to classify good songs and bad songs based on some criteria measurable by something other than our own personal judgment is doomed. All the "rules" are just retrofitting our own preferences. Once you notice you like something, you can go back and claim that it's because of the way this texture plays with that or whatever, but it's only a justification. There's no system that is capable of producing flawless, original, and interesting work. Originality requires inspiration, which is a gift from the muses, not the philosophers.

"Good" and "bad" is not a useful classification for clothing either. To me it's more about the impressions you get from someone and the inferences you make about them. Two different people can wear the same clothing and it can give a very different impression.
post #18 of 477

The ability to look great while wearing rather atypical things is very close to my personal definition of what makes someone stylish, as opposed to just being well-dressed/elegant. The latter requires some inclination, great patience and a moderate chequebook. The former is impossible for most of us, as it takes a touch of genius/inspiration.

 

How they do it is beyond me in terms of the underlying mechanics. It's probably a combination of lots of practice (constantly pushing the envelope of what works together & reflecting on successes & failures), a considerable natural sympathy for aesthetics (an eye for proportion, colour, pattern, detail, etc), and a restless imagination. These things feed off each other, incrementally developing the skillset. Having a profession/lifestyle where it's easy to experiment is probably a necessary but not sufficient requirement too. Finally, and this probably goes without saying, but being good-looking (or intriguingly not) also makes a great deal of difference to pulling off good peacock-type outfits.

 

I would love to be able to work these kind of looks consistently well, but lack at least a couple of the above requirements (I leave it to you to deduce which), so settle for having fun instead. Ah well, there are worse fates. But I do have a sneaking envy for the Tirailleurs, barims, TTOs, Parkers, etc of the world!

 

PS. I do think it would have been rather nicer to simply hyperlink to the waywrn post of the poor fellow with the unfortunate outfit in the OP rather than embedding the entire post inline for ridicule. It's not a pleasant way to treat another person in my opinion - logically defensible, of course, but still not pleasant - but each to their own I suppose.

post #19 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post


Objective and subjective are now boring and meaningless words. Let's agree not to use them.

We may all agree that a particular song is good, or we may not. But any attempt to classify good songs and bad songs based on some criteria measurable by something other than our own personal judgment is doomed. All the "rules" are just retrofitting our own preferences. Once you notice you like something, you can go back and claim that it's because of the way this texture plays with that or whatever, but it's only a justification. There's no system that is capable of producing flawless, original, and interesting work. Originality requires inspiration, which is a gift from the muses, not the philosophers.

"Good" and "bad" is not a useful classification for clothing either. To me it's more about the impressions you get from someone and the inferences you make about them. Two different people can wear the same clothing and it can give a very different impression.

 

The problem with defining good and bad is that the words themselves are subjective. I'm not dealing with that though. I'm just talking about what makes things appealing. And beyond that, what makes things seem natural. Oh, and another thing, as Aristotle may have pointed out, philosophers actually exist. Muses do not.

post #20 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHolliday View Post

Something I'd genuinely like to see discussed: What's the secret to dressing "interestingly" without looking like you're desperate for attention? TTO and Barims do this very well. Most guys who try it don't strike me as interesting at all, but TTO and Barims do.

I have some thoughts but will hold off for now.


I think presence has something to do with it, along with a sense of drama. You never want your clothes to have more presence than you do -- TTO and Barima (who was most active before my time on here, to be honest) can keep up with the stuff they wear, but I'm pretty sure if you put me in their best rigs, I'd be worn by them.

 

There are also a lot of people who think a little too much about Styleforum when they put something together. For better or worse, I'm learning how to dress from the internet too -- but I'm conscious of the differences between SF and the real world. Heck, I'm conscious of the differences between SF, AAAC, and Tumblr.

 

I think a wide range of influences, beyond the #menswear miasma of Lino/Luca/Connery, is vital. Holdfast, who's being pretty modest here, in my estimation, is somebody who's certainly talked about drawing influences from some pretty varied sources. Like, in the last few months, the biggest influences on how I dress have been more big picture concepts from art classes than specific combinations of clothes I've seen online.

post #21 of 477
Thread Starter 
Let's take contextual appropriateness as a given.

I realise it's not and its actually probably one of the things people struggle with the most.

But assuming you're not egregiously over or under dressed, what makes some outfits outside of generally accepted guidelines workable while others are just uhoh.gif?

I'd suggest that fit is one of the keys.

Something garish and ill fitting looks like it was too cheap (for a reason!) to pass up at Nordstrom Rack. Whereas something that looks deliberately well tailored would generally get the benefit of the doubt.

Luca Rubinacci wears some pretty weird / garish stuff but he's almost always a cut or two above the other guys checking their phones on that halfwall at Pitti.
post #22 of 477
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by YRR92 View Post

Holdfast, who's being pretty modest here, in my estimation, is somebody who's certainly talked about drawing influences from some pretty varied sources.

IIRC after a Lord of the Rings marathon, Holdfast briefly considered commissioning a cloak. Or, to be a little more fair, a cloak-like overcoat.

That really has no bearing on this discussion.
post #23 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantabrigian View Post


IIRC after a Lord of the Rings marathon, Holdfast briefly considered commissioning a cloak. Or, to be a little more fair, a cloak-like overcoat.

That really has no bearing on this discussion.

And that's awesome.

 

Your point about fit is well-made, I think. I didn't dislike GMMcL's look nearly as strongly as most people did, but I do think it would have been cooler if that pants draped better -- either through a slimmer cut, or a quick hit with an iron. That would have made sense to me, given that the risk the top half ran was that it was rather "sharp."

post #24 of 477
Thread Starter 
Similarly, seems like it helps to stick to a classical color palette--

Ya feels me?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thin White Duke View Post


Extra crispy

Vs
Quote:
Originally Posted by TTO View Post


-TTO

Original recipe
post #25 of 477
I think well fitted clothes look more deliberate - it looks like you created the outfit with intention. Combine that with elements used commonly in MC and it looks like you know what you're doing but choosing to deviate from standard rule-based dress. Thus adding loud pants or a hat or a colored shirt to such an outfit looks like you know but don't care. How you carry yourself matters as well. A look of confidence adds to the sense of knowing but not caring versus just not caring.

Just my $0.02
post #26 of 477
Thread Starter 
The more I think about it, I do believe that nailing fit and color palette allow you to leave all effs behind.

E to the g
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tirailleur1 View Post





stumbled across a pic of me at a Kentucky Derby party.

Trousers especially are spot on.

Black, white and grey? Okay I'll give him a pass on the dress slippers.
post #27 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantabrigian View Post

The more I think about it, I do believe that nailing fit and color palette allow you to leave all effs behind.

E to the g
Trousers especially are spot on.

Black, white and grey? Okay I'll give him a pass on the dress slippers.


Well, it's not as if nailing fit and color aren't essential when giving multiple rat's asses, it's just that you can get away with not considering color if you're wearing a mid-gray suit, light blue shirt, quiet tie, and white linen square.

post #28 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantabrigian View Post

The more I think about it, I do believe that nailing fit and color palette allow you to leave all effs behind.

E to the g
Trousers especially are spot on.

Black, white and grey? Okay I'll give him a pass on the dress slippers.

Now imagine if any parts were rumpled (like he did not iron as opposed to linen) or was ill fitting or if any colour was totally incoherent or if he broke a major rule (like three striped elements with stripes all same width such as original pic). He would look like a slob, like he was trying too hard and failed or his mom dressed him. Also if he stood really stiffly.

One either is a savant to pull it off or well practiced like HF suggests.
post #29 of 477
Thread Starter 
So be good or be good at it?
post #30 of 477
Thread Starter 
Also I think SwagStance looks good because he has multiple interesting items.

Slippers but with a blue blazer = Pitti
Sportscoat with shiny black loafers = it was a really good sale or (and possibly worse) this is my sprezz coat!! See my sprezz?!? LOL

But the two together work IMO
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › No effs given... correctly