or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Australian Members - Part II - if you read the first post, you'll get what this is all about.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Australian Members - Part II - if you read the first post, you'll get what this is all about. - Page 195

post #2911 of 3516
THE AGE


Experience within retail trend analysis companies has earned Louise Edmonds cred in the luxury menswear sector. The founder of MenStylePower.com utilises her passion and understanding of fashion to deliver a fresh, edgy take on men's style.

Read more: http://www.executivestyle.com.au/weekend-style-guide-what-to-wear-when-youre-off-duty-gri1z1#ixzz4KaNFsnnq

If anyone has shared my men's style journey, MenStylePower turned 7 in August. I have officially called it, my 7 year old son. The sweat and tears that have been shed - not to mention thousands of dollars invested to maintain being an authority in the men's style arena, I almost felt like I should have thrown it away last week. Through the frustration of the absent returning reward for all of the energy, late nights, sacrifices you make wasn't adding up. Until the last 30 days where this article for Brands Exclusive, my story with CEO magazine, my freelance employment with Executive Style, vlogging for AskMen and yesterday an editorial shoot for David Jones as the head stylist and project manager came to light. Many of us often question what path we should be on. My purpose is a deep, complex and contradicting agenda that only few will understand but it includes lifting the spirit and confidence of men for the better of all. This article will explain some of it.


Louise Edmonds, the founder and style director of men's lifestyle portal MenStylePower, believes one of the strongest statements a man can make is with his sense of style.

"It's incredibly important to align your talents, skill set, position and personal brand with your attire," Edmonds says.

"Within a 20-second time frame you are judged on the way you look and how confident you are in what you're wearing.

"I've always called the boardroom the modern-day battlefield, and knowing what armour and ammunition you bring in is vital."
post #2912 of 3516

TO counter point that here's an article arguing that clothes as self expression is a myth. Not sure which points I agree with, but it's an interesting diversion:

 

http://the-rosenrot.com/2016/09/the-myth-of-fashion-as-self-expression.html

post #2913 of 3516
Quote:
Originally Posted by LonerMatt View Post
 

TO counter point that here's an article arguing that clothes as self expression is a myth. Not sure which points I agree with, but it's an interesting diversion:

 

http://the-rosenrot.com/2016/09/the-myth-of-fashion-as-self-expression.html

The article makes a common "mistake" (from my world view) of assuming that "self" is independent of one's actions and will. But self is defined by one's actions. Your socio-economic status, background, life experience, your friends, your work, your accent are all parts of who you are. Clothing is but one of the various ways to communicate it. If you do great things, you are a great person. If you commit a crime, you are a criminal, even if you say "that's not me, that's not who I really am, that was just a one off". If you feel a particular affinity to the social group that likes Southern Trad, then that is part of your identity as well. YOU choose to spend time educating yourself about various trends in clothing, and then expressing yourself within the constraints of that "artform" - the choice of context is a personal choice for which responsibility should be taken, not absolved or blamed on "circumstances". It is not a negation of self but an affirmation of individualism. It is a source of happiness and pride, not anxiety, even if others perceive it that way (just as you think a Rolex is a waste of money and many posters feel pride and joy every time they put theirs on).

 

I haven't replied to your reply in our earlier discussion (whether art is propaganda or free of message), although I wanted to. So I'll dump some quick thoughts here and blend it back onto this subject.

 

I still stick to my guns: all art has a message, all authors are trying to convince you of something. Now what that something is might have been paid for by someone else (Bach, Haydn, Da Vinci) or it could be the author's own opinions and world view (Kerouac). Some authors take something and use it in a different context to give it a different meaning, thus creating new propaganda for their ideas and observations (e.g. in Senso: Bruckner's 7th is basically the entire soundtrack; Bruckner was a deeply religious man whose music can be considered inspired by religion and the sacred; yet the context in which it is used in Senso is such that the emotions are "reused" for a romance that is "bad" from a religious point of view: betraying her husband and her country). I struggled a lot with this as a young composer, because I wanted to believe in art qua art, yet my best works came about as a result of constraints and conformity and a patron: for example the music for a theatre play, in other words, implementing someone else's message and adding a little bit of mine with it.

 

Art is fundamentally manipulation: it attempts to hijack and direct your emotions to achieve a particular goal. If you look at the mechanics of manipulation - be it ad hominem, red herrings, appeal to moderation, fallacy of composition - they all rely on departing from logic and using some form of appeal to emotion to cover it up and lead you to accept a conclusion you might have rejected. Another argument might be that communication between humans is naturally high bandwidth and even with the bandwidth afforded by commonly understood context and the fuzzy logic of the language itself, emotions are a necessary path to communicating higher order things that would be otherwise impossible to "word". For example: if I make a mental picture of a wife telling her husband "can you be more considerate?" every married man out there understands and is laughing right now, there is a common ground here, a lesson that experience teaches you about EQ, first with instinct and only much later with logic as you have gained the necessary experience.

 

And so we get to fashion as emotional manipulation (using the physical world, this time, instead of fallacies) to achieve a goal. What you put in the morning sets out to achieve a series of goals: it might be to obtain attention and consideration from others ("your dress is so nice, it makes me happy just to look at it"), it might be to signify your social status, which is not linear: putting on a suit for clients is telling clients you have a professional kind of personality; shining your shoes that you are detail oriented; being on time that you are reliable. The suited man does this because he is professional, detail oriented and reliable - these traits are part of his personality and thus his "conformist" dress counts as self expression.

 

This very post is also attempting to convince you of something, it is thus also propaganda, caveat emptor.

post #2914 of 3516
Quote:
Originally Posted by crdb View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonerMatt View Post

 
TO counter point that here's an article arguing that clothes as self expression is a myth. Not sure which points I agree with, but it's an interesting diversion:

http://the-rosenrot.com/2016/09/the-myth-of-fashion-as-self-expression.html
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The article makes a common "mistake" (from my world view) of assuming that "self" is independent of one's actions and will. But self is defined by one's actions. Your socio-economic status, background, life experience, your friends, your work, your accent are all parts of who you are. Clothing is but one of the various ways to communicate it. If you do great things, you are a great person. If you commit a crime, you are a criminal, even if you say "that's not me, that's not who I really am, that was just a one off". If you feel a particular affinity to the social group that likes Southern Trad, then that is part of your identity as well. YOU choose to spend time educating yourself about various trends in clothing, and then expressing yourself within the constraints of that "artform" - the choice of context is a personal choice for which responsibility should be taken, not absolved or blamed on "circumstances". It is not a negation of self but an affirmation of individualism. It is a source of happiness and pride, not anxiety, even if others perceive it that way (just as you think a Rolex is a waste of money and many posters feel pride and joy every time they put theirs on).

I haven't replied to your reply in our earlier discussion (whether art is propaganda or free of message), although I wanted to. So I'll dump some quick thoughts here and blend it back onto this subject.

I still stick to my guns: all art has a message, all authors are trying to convince you of something. Now what that something is might have been paid for by someone else (Bach, Haydn, Da Vinci) or it could be the author's own opinions and world view (Kerouac). Some authors take something and use it in a different context to give it a different meaning, thus creating new propaganda for their ideas and observations (e.g. in Senso: Bruckner's 7th is basically the entire soundtrack; Bruckner was a deeply religious man whose music can be considered inspired by religion and the sacred; yet the context in which it is used in Senso is such that the emotions are "reused" for a romance that is "bad" from a religious point of view: betraying her husband and her country). I struggled a lot with this as a young composer, because I wanted to believe in art qua art, yet my best works came about as a result of constraints and conformity and a patron: for example the music for a theatre play, in other words, implementing someone else's message and adding a little bit of mine with it.

Art is fundamentally manipulation: it attempts to hijack and direct your emotions to achieve a particular goal. If you look at the mechanics of manipulation - be it ad hominem, red herrings, appeal to moderation, fallacy of composition - they all rely on departing from logic and using some form of appeal to emotion to cover it up and lead you to accept a conclusion you might have rejected. Another argument might be that communication between humans is naturally high bandwidth and even with the bandwidth afforded by commonly understood context and the fuzzy logic of the language itself, emotions are a necessary path to communicating higher order things that would be otherwise impossible to "word". For example: if I make a mental picture of a wife telling her husband "can you be more considerate?" every married man out there understands and is laughing right now, there is a common ground here, a lesson that experience teaches you about EQ, first with instinct and only much later with logic as you have gained the necessary experience.

And so we get to fashion as emotional manipulation (using the physical word, this time, instead of fallacies) to achieve a goal. What you put in the morning sets out to achieve a series of goals: it might be to obtain attention and consideration from others ("your dress is so nice, it makes me happy just to look at it"), it might be to signify your social status, which is not linear: putting on a suit for clients is telling clients you have a professional kind of personality; shining your shoes that you are detail oriented; being on time that you are reliable. The suited man does this because he is professional, detail oriented and reliable - these traits are part of his personality and thus his "conformist" dress counts as self expression.

This very post is also attempting to convince you of something, it is thus also propaganda, caveat emptor.

Please provide proper footnotes and bibliography or we will have to mark you down.
post #2915 of 3516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince of Paisley View Post


Please provide proper footnotes and bibliography or we will have to mark you down.

Buckley's chance of that happening.

 

(is that expression still used?)

post #2916 of 3516
Matt, just to be clear I think the Louise Edmunds stuff is a joke. Slightly rewritten PR/shilling/ advertising copy dosed with feel good positive inanities. It's about as informed as getting menswear advice from a rural hens night planner.

There's plenty to discuss about clothes and meaning. Just not in the pages of Executive Style.
post #2917 of 3516
Seems like how to dress to show I have lots of disposable income from a skim.
post #2918 of 3516
I believe you need to follow your passion, do what makes you happy. As long as you are not harming others. The key is to work hard and keep priorities in order. I think (common )people makes mistakes distinguishing between passion and materialism. They are two completely different prospective.
On the Rolex- mrs didn't like the sub.So decided on new Explorer . It's now with longer minute hand and chroma lights on dial(including 3/6/9).
post #2919 of 3516
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxh View Post

Matt, just to be clear I think the Louise Edmunds stuff is a joke. Slightly rewritten PR/shilling/ advertising copy dosed with feel good positive inanities. It's about as informed as getting menswear advice from a rural hens night planner.

There's plenty to discuss about clothes and meaning. Just not in the pages of Executive Style.

 

I think that it's a joke, too - just not a deliberate one on the part of Ms Edmunds. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by LonerMatt View Post
 

TO counter point that here's an article arguing that clothes as self expression is a myth. Not sure which points I agree with, but it's an interesting diversion:

 

http://the-rosenrot.com/2016/09/the-myth-of-fashion-as-self-expression.html

 

I can't help by think that there are a few contradictions in that article that Gracia could have done more to tease out (if she realised them, that is).

 

I think that the idea that what we wear is an expression of ourself is true, but I also suspect that, for most people, it's strongly influenced by marketing departments. 

 

After all, *why* do we dress the way we do? As Gracia says, often-times the way we dress is constrained by various factors - the job we do, the socio-economic milieu in which we live and a range of other influences. However, even taking those factors into account, most adults still have a fairly wide range of options when it comes to dress, particularly in a country like Australia. That being the case, the way that we choose is to dress, then, is because we which to be perceived in a particular way. The very fact that we wish to be perceived in a particular way is an expression of ourself. Do we want to be thought of as successful? Cool? Alternative? Into hip-hop? Into haute couture/upmarket brands (which can feed back into being "cool" or "successful")? 

 

The way that we dress is, I would argue, often a strong expression of ourselves but it is not at all pure - it is filtered through a whole range of factors and influences, many of which we don't even think of when we are deciding how to dress. 

post #2920 of 3516
Interesting series of posts that I feel deserves a well reasoned response. First off Art while it has been used as a propaganda tool is not essentially out to make you feel anything in particular. Both Stalin and Hitler sought to incubate a specific state sponsored art exemplifying the ideals of their dictatorship. Hitler failed, Stalin to a degree, through intimidation and threats to life succeeded in forcing artists to bend to his will and produce state specific art. As visual propoganda Soviet realism worked in promoting a specific lie as art forget it.

Art if it's real will provoke a response in the viewer, listener dependant upon a number of factors. Education, experience, ability to think in terms of sensation and feeling, openness to new ideas experience. Textural response eg books is a different discursive and cognitive response.

Individually is a complex process of formation dependant upon milieu, social & cultural history, myths(Barthes) experience, beliefs, practice I could go on about the complexity of the human condition but I won't.

I agree with JM I think we do dress for the occasion as we seek to, comply isn't the right word but as we are social animals we seek to belong. Clothing makes a statement about who and what we are and how we perceive both ourself and our place in the world and enables us to navigate particular social customs which align to our role, function in said society. Sadly their is nothing pure about it. Every action displays intent either consciously or unconsciously.

As for fashion that's a game for children. Style and panache is where it's at in my discursive dictionary.
post #2921 of 3516
That's exactly what I got from the rosenrot article, if anything I thought the title was just there to garner attention while it seems the article discusses 'the myth of fashion as a pure form of self expression, and why thinking it is may be misguided.'
post #2922 of 3516

I think people who are really conscious of dressing are basically playing a version of dress ups mixed with that scene in the Matrix where Morpheus talks about Neo looking like his own mental image.

 

Like I said, I am not agreeing with the article - to be honest I didn't read all of it because it wasn't really that interesting to me, but since it came up I thought I'd throw it up and see what happened.

post #2923 of 3516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey Firmin View Post

As for fashion that's a game for children. Style and panache is where it's at in my discursive dictionary.

 

2012 called.

post #2924 of 3516
LM

Fashion is a product with a commercial objective. Its not just about clothing it is applicable to language social trends, dogs and so forth. Fashion is all pervasive in its commercial application and is dependent upon individual lack and desire. Fashion in terms of clothing is based on trickle down ideas which originate in couture and the catwalks and are espoused by a interconnected network of commercial interests whose objective is to make as much money as they can during the current season. Couture designers garner ideas from a variety of sources form past collections and the milieu they live in. Street styles, underground sub cultures are all sought out to harvest ideas from. I think the term is still in use 'cool hunters' or trend spotters are active in commercial terms to keep their clients one step ahead of the curve.

Fashion is a industry and this is the nature of the world we live in. Stye transcends fashion and Is timeless, why? Because it can be worn year in and year out and does not look dated. Style visually represents ideas about taste and culture as personified by the way the individual presents themselves to the world. Fashion is a game where the key players are always trying to stay one step a head of the curve and by the time the mass consumerist market catches up with the current trend the players have moved on.

Bowie says it all.

Edited by Geoffrey Firmin - 9/18/16 at 4:46pm
post #2925 of 3516
Quote:
Originally Posted by crdb View Post

Buckley's chance of that happening.

(is that expression still used?)

I still hear it occasionally. One of the pokie venues in Geelong is appropriately named Buckleys.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Australian Members - Part II - if you read the first post, you'll get what this is all about.