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

No effs given... correctly - Page 11

post #151 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post

Where is this wellspring of knowledge? This is the obscure shit that literally NO ONE outside of a few traditionalists cares about. And I want to know it because I am naturally conservative and if there are traditions and rules, I want to know them.

It's inductive. First, grasp basic principles (large patterns are more casual, small patterns more formal, etc.). That is a matter of simple research. Then, apply. Discuss with friends who care (i.e. Styleforum geeks). There may be no specific "rule" that states this scale glen plaid versus another is right for a certain sort of garment, but it is certainly so at least because other rules coalesce on the point.
post #152 of 477
Does it make a difference if it is part of a person's regular "uniform"? Don Cherry (wearing the curtains) has made these outlandish outfits his uniform. He is also provocative through his opinions. Does he not give an eff or is he just in character for his role in entertainment?

My view is that once it veers to uniform, it moves out of the not giving an eff. I would see not giving an eff as fundamentally a personal thing.
post #153 of 477
I just don't think whether one "gives an eff" is a useful metric for style or the right axis around which to think about things.
post #154 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post


It's inductive. First, grasp basic principles (large patterns are more casual, small patterns more formal, etc.). That is a matter of simple research. Then, apply. Discuss with friends who care (i.e. Styleforum geeks). There may be no specific "rule" that states this scale glen plaid versus another is right for a certain sort of garment, but it is certainly so at least because other rules coalesce on the point.

 

Oh, I thought there was a historical reason why one was more appropriate than another. I get what you are saying though. I was shopping recently and I think I have started to pick up on some of this. I saw various glen plaid sport coats and passed on them because I thought to myself "It looks like it is supposed to be a suit." I can't say that I am any kind of an expert, and I often feel right out of my element on a new thread I started http://www.styleforum.net/t/349096/the-serious-advice-thread inspired in part by your critiques, btw. I am sincerely not trying to plug this thread, but if you would like to contribute and get us on track I would welcome it simply because of what it would add to the community. I hope other old timers will contribute too. 

post #155 of 477
He definitely looks like a clown. He kind of is a clown. He's not making any effort to be taken seriously. If a coach dressed that way, it would be inappropriate and distracting. But his role does not command so much deference. 99% of the time his job entails asking meaningless questions during timeouts. He's not asking presidents why they declared war. He's asking coaches and players about why they are so awesome tonight.

I'm sure he'd find guys on the Internet giving a 0-foo.gif rating to his outfit because he clearly doesn't even understand all the rules he's breaking absurdly hilarious.

There are people who look ridiculous because they're attempting a refined and distinguished English gent or Italian playboy look and failing miserably. Then there are people who are perfectly happy looking ridiculous, and truly do not give a fuck.

There's a general assumption on this board that everyone is trying to look classy and elegant, or at least aesthetically pleasing, and any failure to project this image represents a mistake. For people posting their own pictures, that may be a fair assumption.

But this is not everyone's goal when they get dressed, even if they do get dressed with some purpose. For someone like that, criticizing them because they don't look like a gentleman is pointless.
post #156 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

There is not giving a fuck, then there is not giving a fuck.

On the one hand, there are those who simply dress without regard for the "rules." This always looks bad. Not understanding what sort of glen plaid is appropriate for a suit versus an odd jacket, not understanding what fabrics are appropriate for winter versus summer, etc. Most of the worst WAWRN outfits are of this sort. I know many will want to argue the point with me, but perhaps if you assume it is the same point Vox once made about coherency (it is the same), there will be no need for that. Another word for what I'm talking about: ignorance.

Then there is not giving a fuck when actually, you really give a fuck. All of the examples of people who look good, yet are said to not give a fuck, are people who are breaking rules in a concerted, purposeful manner that shows they know exactly what the rules are. LabelKing comes to mind. This is a whole sort of different animal--much more rare and exotic. It's also infinitely harder to pull off, because it is actually giving a whole ton of fucks.

Dont you find that posting images on the internet for the sole purpose displaying how you are dressed sort of undercuts any notion that you dont give a fuck
post #157 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by englade321 View Post

Dont you find that posting images on the internet for the sole purpose displaying how you are dressed sort of undercuts any notion that you dont give a fuck

Agreed.

I definitely give a fuck, myself.
post #158 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

There's a general assumption on this board that everyone is trying to look classy and elegant, or at least aesthetically pleasing, and any failure to project this image represents a mistake.

Personally, I don't assume that for a second.
Quote:
But this is not everyone's goal when they get dressed, even if they do get dressed with some purpose. For someone like that, criticizing them because they don't look like a gentleman is pointless.

I dont disagree. And im not criticizing him. Im just saying he dreeses like a clown. And you agree. I think he does it to stand out in his job, you seem to disagree. We should ask him.

smile.gif
post #159 of 477
I definitely don't dress to be "classy." Sounds pretty repugnant, actually.

I believe in aesthetic objectivity. Things look good, or they don't. It's not really a matter of opinion. If you think something looks bad that is good, it doesn't necessarily prove subjectivity--it could just mean you're ig'nant.
post #160 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post


There's a general assumption on this board that everyone is trying to look classy and elegant, or at least aesthetically pleasing, and any failure to project this image represents a mistake. For people posting their own pictures, that may be a fair assumption.

But this is not everyone's goal when they get dressed, even if they do get dressed with some purpose. For someone like that, criticizing them because they don't look like a gentleman is pointless.

Interesting point: Picture posters presumably are asking the forum whether they meet some common standard. Any failure in this regard is likely more the result of lack of knowledge/application or a deficiency in their wardrobe. In some cases some sprezz is thrown in to try and impress the Grand Poobahs but the motivation/goal remains the same.

Outside the forum walls motivations are likely to be different: being part of a group; striving for status; attracting a partner. In these kinds of circumstances, strict adherence to MC might lead to signifiant failure while some insouciance might lead to success.
post #161 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by englade321 View Post


Dont you find that posting images on the internet for the sole purpose displaying how you are dressed sort of undercuts any notion that you dont give a fuck

Thank you for this! Perfect!
post #162 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

I believe in aesthetic objectivity. Things look good, or they don't. It's not really a matter of opinion. If you think something looks bad that is good, it doesn't necessarily prove subjectivity--it could just mean you're ig'nant.

it most certainly is.
post #163 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

it most certainly is.

If you really believe this, you cannot ever "improve," as there is no better or worse. Sad. Also, there is no point trying. After all, under a system of total subjectivity, it is far more efficient to simply get comfortable with the status quo than meet others' arbitrary expectations.
post #164 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

Agreed.

I definitely give a fuck, myself.
As do I.
I think the best examples of style are looks where the rules , very much understood and in place , are broken or manipulated in such a way as to become appropriate for that "particular "situation. Thus something unique is is created from the mundane . I think people who do this and do it well are looked upon as stylish . Those who stick to the rules without fail can be well dressed or even sometimes fashionable but will not be stylish . Either way requires you give a fuck tho imo
post #165 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

If you really believe this, you cannot ever "improve," as there is no better or worse. Sad. Also, there is no point trying. After all, under a system of total subjectivity, it is far more efficient to simply get comfortable with the status quo than meet others' arbitrary expectations.

this is ridiculous. i am in no way championing total subjectivity, nor am i saying that rules are arbitrary expectations, so please do not pretend that i am to try and make your point.

of course there is better and worse. yet still, even within the good taste thread, amongst members who all would agree have good taste, there were more than enough disagreements on certain fits being good or not good. even if something is executed well within the rules of what is considered correct, there is no guarantee that everyone will like it, for one reason or another.

as well, there will always be single items that even if their pattern, seasonality, color and texture all fit the criteria of what they should be within the context of the other items being worn, some people just wont like it. ties being the easiest example. you have ties that some people might simply find to be ugly, and other may like a lot. and therefor, even if it "fits" within all the required criteria for a combination, someone may like the tie and someone else may not.

taste to a degree will always be suggestive. regardless of rules and coherency being accomplished. so yes, i really believe what i said, and i certainly have, and can continue to, improve. i think there is nothing sad about that at all.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › No effs given... correctly