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

No effs given... correctly - Page 31

post #451 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Journeyman View Post


+1 - but then again, it was always going to be a difficult topic.

There's a lot more "peacocking" going on in menswear nowadays, quite a lot of it inspired by #menswear on Tumblr and so on.

I think that the trick of "no effs given" is essentially sprezzatura, as used in dressing and appearance.

However, the problem is that there's an awful lot of "false sprezzatura" out there - where people try to look nonchalant and effortless but where they have, in fact, put a great deal of thought and effort into their clothing, and an awful lot of "faux sprezz" photos pop up in the #menswear feed on Tumblr, such as people wearing ties where the back blade is much longer than the front blade, or where the back blade is tied alongside, instead of behind, the front blade of the tie, or where buttondown collars are deliberately left unbuttoned (as a few, small examples).

In terms of appearance, it can be a very fine line between real sprezz and false sprezz, so it can be difficult to tell whether one is "no effs given correctly" and the other is not!

Really, people are purposely tying their ties incorrectly? I just thought they weren't good at it. puzzled.gif

 

You learn something new everyday. 

post #452 of 477

It seems we are working with three definitions:

 

a) Knowing the rules/traditions, but breaking them with clear intent

 

b) Not knowing the rules and traditions, but breaking them unwittingly (and ideally looking good)

 

c) Not giving a shit about what you wear

 

I like (a) for reasons I've already stated.

 

I think (b) is interesting, but shouldn't qualify as "no fucks given' " as to not give a fuck, one should really know what one isn't giving a fuck about. If I leave home without an umbrella because I don't know it's going to rain, I wouldn't say "HA! No umbrella. I don't give a fuck about rain." Though you could argue that I don't give a fuck about the weather in general, which is why I didn't check the forecast before going out, which takes us to (c). I'm not sure a study of (c) would be useful at all.

post #453 of 477
So who thinks that the "father" of sprezzatura, Gianni Agnelli, didn't know how to tie his tie, button his collar, and put on his watch? Does anyone think that he just couldn't be bothered to pull back his sleeve before strapping on the watch?
There's a common misunderstanding about sprezzatura and menefreghismo in that it isn't a conscious choice of those who REALLY have it and if it is a conscious choice, one doesn't have it. Considering that the definitions for both actually include knowingness and intentionality, that is clearly false.
So how does this relate to the foregoing discussion? Because some people seem to think that NEG/NFG means that the wearer doesn't care, or didn't spend time thinking about, what he is wearing or how he is wearing it, and if he does he isn't NFG, but instead many FG.
Clearly that's inane. As a professor I can state firmly that most of my colleagues genuinely spend no time thinking about what they are wearing and despise the idea of having to think about. No one would describe them as stylish, NFG, sprezzatura, or anything else. So clearly that isn't the definition.
Bt as a professor, I actually think that Cantabs original premise...learn from example / examples as cases, is much more useful than hypothetical discussion.
The difficulty seems to be that anytime someone posts a potential fit, people rail against it as too try-hard or whatever. So how about posting fits by the man himself, and determine what it is about his outfit and his style that allows him to get away with unconventional choices without looking like he is intentionally trying to draw attention to himself?
Incidentally, my favorite example of a menefreghista is Maxminimus and he has a disciple in these parts in SouthernStyle, who is one who has been accused many times of trying too hard with his long rear blade, flood water pants, etc. So it clearly pays to be the prophet rather than the apostle, I guess.

TL/DR...blah blah blah pointless soliloquy on men's style.
post #454 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claghorn View Post

It seems we are working with three definitions:

a) Knowing the rules/traditions, but breaking them with clear intent

b) Not knowing the rules and traditions, but breaking them unwittingly (and ideally looking good)

c) Not giving a shit about what you wear

I like (a) for reasons I've already stated.

I think (b) is interesting, but shouldn't qualify as "no fucks given' " as to not give a fuck, one should really know what one isn't giving a fuck about. If I leave home without an umbrella because I don't know it's going to rain, I wouldn't say "HA! No umbrella. I don't give a fuck about rain." Though you could argue that I don't give a fuck about the weather in general, which is why I didn't check the forecast before going out, which takes us to (c). I'm not sure a study of (c) would be useful at all.

It is very subjective to distinguish (a) from (a'), where (a') is knowing the rules, breaking them, and looking ostentatious, gaudy, and ugly as fuck, ie the full pitti the clown, blogger blue jacket, or #menswear hell ya. No eff given... incorrectly.
post #455 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post

It is very subjective to distinguish (a) from (a'), where (a') is knowing the rules, breaking them, and looking ostentatious, gaudy, and ugly as fuck, ie the full pitti the clown, blogger blue jacket, or #menswear hell ya. No eff given... incorrectly.

Agreed.

I think that this thread is really about the difference between (a) and (a'), where (a) is "no effs given, correctly" and (a') is "no effs given, incorrectly".

Of course, (a') isn't really "no effs given" because I would argue that, in fact, those who dress up like that actually do give an eff as they are seeking the approval of those around them.

So, really, "no effs given, correctly" means that firstly, you know what the rules are, you break them, you look good/confident breaking them, and you don't care what other people think, anyway.
post #456 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterFu View Post

Really, people are purposely tying their ties incorrectly? I just thought they weren't good at it. puzzled.gif


You learn something new everyday. 

Yes, indeedy.

Tumblr is replete with examples which show that the wearer intended to tie the tie with the back blade longer than the front, and the back blade actually alongside or even in front of the wider, front blade.

A couple of quick examples:

http://cadeandco.tumblr.com/post/44929048744/ascot-chang-carmina-drakes-ring-jacket

http://cadeandco.tumblr.com/post/44609853031/ascot-chang-made-with-caccioppoli-fabric-drakes

http://lnsee.tumblr.com/post/44130693582
post #457 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Journeyman View Post


Yes, indeedy.

Tumblr is replete with examples which show that the wearer intended to tie the tie with the back blade longer than the front, and the back blade actually alongside or even in front of the wider, front blade.

A couple of quick examples:

http://cadeandco.tumblr.com/post/44929048744/ascot-chang-carmina-drakes-ring-jacket

http://cadeandco.tumblr.com/post/44609853031/ascot-chang-made-with-caccioppoli-fabric-drakes

http://lnsee.tumblr.com/post/44130693582

Okay, that is just plain ridiculous. That is right up there with guys wearing trousers with button cuffs.

 

post #458 of 477

I'm currently reading the Tao Te Ching, and it has fewer arcane philosophical paradoxes than this thread... tongue.gif

 

More photos, dudes. Of it being done right, preferably.

post #459 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdfast View Post

I'm currently reading the Tao Te Ching, and it has fewer arcane philosophical paradoxes than this thread... tongue.gif

More photos, dudes. Of it being done right, preferably.
This
post #460 of 477



?
post #461 of 477

Duke Prince Michael of Kent knows exactly how to not give a fuck. Though he does get carried away with his tie knots sometimes. I suppose his beard and his wife large bosom give it some balance. 


Edited by Claghorn - 6/8/13 at 5:53pm
post #462 of 477
That is Prince Michael of Kent, not the Duke, his brother Prince Edward.
post #463 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomW View Post

That is Prince Michael of Kent, not the Duke, his brother Prince Edward.

I had never heard of the guy before, but damn, he is badass. That beard is magnificent. The tie knots are ridiculous, but he gets away with it.

 

post #464 of 477
The beard guy pwns!
post #465 of 477

I showed that to Mrs. Claghorn, and she said I could grow a beard like that when I'm in my 40's icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif

 

 

 

(just noticed he's wearing a black odd jacket)

 

Alright, so the list of people who consistently pull off not giving a fuck are:
Prince Michael of Kent

TTO

 

(Dubious) Honorable mention:

Tira

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