or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Appropriate Desert Boots w/Suit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Appropriate Desert Boots w/Suit - Page 3

post #31 of 50
And another...
image.jpeg 1099k .jpeg file

...from the back:
image.jpeg 71k .jpeg file

Contemplative:
image.jpeg 105k .jpeg file

The boys, after a large night, moonlight reflecting of the spam nicely...
image.jpeg 68k .jpeg file
post #32 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by starro View Post
 

Strawman, strawman, strawman. If you read what I am talking about, it is the un-evolved garments, specifically designed--and usually optimized--for a certain situation. Who's surprised taking that garment and dropping it wholesale into an entirely different situation fails most of the time?

 

As far as anyone's concerned, when a garment is adapted into a different situation, incorporating new elements, it becomes a new garment. Yes it does have its roots, but its new context as well as its own adaptations makes it a new animal we're examining.

 

To mix apples with oranges is pretty disingenuous if done on purpose.

Except that the first step in evolution is to use that original garment in a new situation.  The changes to that garment happen gradually and over time.  As for "Who's surprised taking that garment and dropping it wholesale into an entirely different situation fails most of the time?", I guess that that would be me, since history has shown that the typical arc is not "failure, abort mission", but "Well, that worked.  But really, the garment needs X,Y, and Z, and not W" is usually the way things go, with a lot of that evolution coming from a variety of makers, over time. 

 

Also, and this is a personal pet peeve, but there was no straw man, since I never restated your opinion.  I suppose that at most you an contend that I misunderstood your argument, but that's tenuous, at best.  

post #33 of 50

As for desert boots with suits, this only works for very specific types of fashion suits, and for certain types of fashion desert boots.  I've seen it work on stovepipe trousers, cut with a very short inseam, on desert boots that are really chukkas, nearly always in glossy black.  It's still not a generally recommended look.  Some guys can pull it off, which means that most cannot. It requires both a lot of personal style and special clothes.

post #34 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post
 

Except that the first step in evolution is to use that original garment in a new situation.  The changes to that garment happen gradually and over time.  As for "Who's surprised taking that garment and dropping it wholesale into an entirely different situation fails most of the time?", I guess that that would be me, since history has shown that the typical arc is not "failure, abort mission", but "Well, that worked.  But really, the garment needs X,Y, and Z, and not W" is usually the way things go, with a lot of that evolution coming from a variety of makers, over time. 

 

What would be an example of the transition process you're referring to? Also, going forward I think it would be helpful to clarify what "new situation" means to you. Because there's definitely a spectrum. Someone can argue no two situations are ever the same. Another can say all situations share much in common. Where do you draw the line?


Edited by starro - 9/25/16 at 1:03am
post #35 of 50
While the origins of a particular item of clothing or footwear do not strictly and exclusively define the parameters of their use ever more, said origins DO inform the appropriate level of formality for those items.

Which is why pairing desert boots with a suit is daft. And why I find jeans paired with a blazer to be a very poor choice, no matter how many studly and cool fashion model type dudes rock the look.
post #36 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by starro View Post
 

 

What would be an example of the transition process you're referring to? Also, going forward I think it would be helpful to clarify what "new situation" means to you. Because there's definitely a spectrum. Someone can argue no two situations are ever the same. Another can say all situations share much in common. Where do you draw the line?

The example that I am most familiar with is the evolution of jeans from workman's dungarees, designed for long days standing and crouching, to a more fitted garment that is more suitable for riding (i.e. from workmen to ranchers, so to speak) and then to a fashion garment, starting in the 50s.  

 

Another example is the evolution of broguing from a functional element to a purely ornamental one, and from brogues, particularly in America, evolving from a more rustic boot, to a city shoe. 

 

In both cases, the first use was probably with the original garment, because of the paucity of alternatives - if you were wrangling cattle, you were going to use rugged, inexpensive clothing, and many working people only had a single pair of shoes. 

post #37 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

While the origins of a particular item of clothing or footwear do not strictly and exclusively define the parameters of their use ever more, said origins DO inform the appropriate level of formality for those items.

Which is why pairing desert boots with a suit is daft. And why I find jeans paired with a blazer to be a very poor choice, no matter how many studly and cool fashion model type dudes rock the look.

 

Seconded. Classic menswear might be a big tent that's getting out of hand. Different people come in with very ideas in mind, so they end up looking for different things and valuing different looks. Some want to stand out, create a striking personal statement with their clothes. Some believe in that Brummell saying. Some want to look authoritative with their clothes; some want to showcase their physique. Some want to emphasize tailoring and cut; others want to enhance their sexual appeal. Disagreement as to what is acceptable menswear is inevitable under divergent objectives.

post #38 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerP View Post

While the origins of a particular item of clothing or footwear do not strictly and exclusively define the parameters of their use ever more, said origins DO inform the appropriate level of formality for those items.

Which is why pairing desert boots with a suit is daft. And why I find jeans paired with a blazer to be a very poor choice, no matter how many studly and cool fashion model type dudes rock the look.

The first is hard to do because there is nothing to model it on.  Some fashion designers have put a similar concept on the runway, with mixed results.  

 

Jeans and blazers, although I don't ever rock the look, is a lot easier, since it's a look that has been "rocked" by Ivy League students since about the 50s (or so photos would have us believe), since by that time, the blazer had ceased, for the most part, to be a garment used for sporting events, and had become a common use garment.  And jeans had similarly long before shed its original purpose.

post #39 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post
 

The example that I am most familiar with is the evolution of jeans from workman's dungarees, designed for long days standing and crouching, to a more fitted garment that is more suitable for riding (i.e. from workmen to ranchers, so to speak) and then to a fashion garment, starting in the 50s.  

 

Another example is the evolution of broguing from a functional element to a purely ornamental one, and from brogues, particularly in America, evolving from a more rustic boot, to a city shoe. 

 

In both cases, the first use was probably with the original garment, because of the paucity of alternatives - if you were wrangling cattle, you were going to use rugged, inexpensive clothing, and many working people only had a single pair of shoes. 

 

No comment on the jeans for now. I feel like that is a divisive issue: one camp thinks it should be worn under very few circumstances, another under very general circumstances. 

 

As to broguing, I'm sure you're aware the two forms are different in construction. THe "functional" brogue (as you term it) is nothing but perforations; the "ornamental" brogue is just that: a top layer of leather hole-punched decoratively. At best the "ornamental" brogue can be said to be an homage to the "functional"; it takes its inspiration. To support your theory of evolution, there has to be an intermediate stage, where townsfolk took to wearing the rustic boot, with all the original "functional" version of perforations. Can you point to any such instance?

 

Also, to make sure we don't wander off the path, broguing is a feature, not a garment. Let's make sure we keep the topic in sight.

post #40 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by starro View Post

 

No comment on the jeans for now. I feel like that is a divisive issue: one camp thinks it should be worn under very few circumstances, another under very general circumstances. 

 

As to broguing, I'm sure you're aware the two forms are different in construction. THe "functional" brogue (as you term it) is nothing but perforations; the "ornamental" brogue is just that: a top layer of leather hole-punched decoratively. At best the "ornamental" brogue can be said to be an homage to the "functional"; it takes its inspiration. To support your theory of evolution, there has to be an intermediate stage, where townsfolk took to wearing the rustic boot, with all the original "functional" version of perforations. Can you point to any such instance?

 

Also, to make sure we don't wander off the path, broguing is a feature, not a garment. Let's make sure we keep the topic in sight.

Hehe.  So, I cheated a bit here.  The "functional" brogue doesn't exist in "modern" footwear.  The term "brogues" was not used until the early 20th century, and was used in reference to country shoes which were not considered appropriate for the city.  By that time, people were not habitually walking through bogs.  So that was already the intermediate stage, in which a feature taken from a much earlier type of footwear was used in a later, more evolved type of footwear, the use of which still had connections to the original function.  We've all see the last step.  Broguing in today's world is seen not only as acceptable for city use, but is often preferred.  "Wingtips" are often considered as fancy as you get.  

 

Incidentally, "brogues" was pretty commonly used as term for an entire a category of footwear, not just to describe the feature of broguing,

post #41 of 50

"A skeuomorph (/ˈskjuːəˌmɔːrf, ˈskjuːoʊ-/) is a derivative object that retains ornamental design cues from structures that were necessary in the original. Examples include pottery embellished with imitation rivets reminiscent of similar pots made of metal and a software calendar that imitates the appearance of binding on a paper desk calendar." Wikipedia

post #42 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marsay View Post
 

"A skeuomorph (/ˈskjuːəˌmɔːrf, ˈskjuːoʊ-/) is a derivative object that retains ornamental design cues from structures that were necessary in the original. Examples include pottery embellished with imitation rivets reminiscent of similar pots made of metal and a software calendar that imitates the appearance of binding on a paper desk calendar." Wikipedia

I need this word in my vocabulary.  

post #43 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post
 

I need this word in my vocabulary.  

 

It's one of those words you start seeing everywhere (particularly in #menswear).

 

The next level:

 

 

Same joke on a Raf Simons' shirt (pocket reads "Repeat After Me", geddit?):

 

 

 

Obviously, classic menswear doesn't aim to do jokes, even if some might say iGentry can be unintentionally funny (action backs at the kebab shop).


Edited by Marsay - 9/24/16 at 6:01pm
post #44 of 50
Oh good grief. boxing[1].gif
post #45 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post
 

Hehe.  So, I cheated a bit here.  The "functional" brogue doesn't exist in "modern" footwear.  The term "brogues" was not used until the early 20th century, and was used in reference to country shoes which were not considered appropriate for the city.  By that time, people were not habitually walking through bogs.  So that was already the intermediate stage, in which a feature taken from a much earlier type of footwear was used in a later, more evolved type of footwear, the use of which still had connections to the original function.  We've all see the last step.  Broguing in today's world is seen not only as acceptable for city use, but is often preferred.  "Wingtips" are often considered as fancy as you get.  

 

Incidentally, "brogues" was pretty commonly used as term for an entire a category of footwear, not just to describe the feature of broguing,

 

You seem rather hung up on the words themselves--their usage, etymology, evolution--but as you are well aware, the connections between words and actual objects are (as you would say) tenuous at best. One sense of the word, you're quite right, refers to a loose collection of many different kinds of footwear (which all happen to share some level of broguing). But to insist brogues are a type of shoe makes just as much sense as someone else insisting red sweaters are a type of clothing. Unfortunately fuzzy thinking can only impede progress here.

 

So let's back up and go to the basics. Here's what you're claiming is the process of evolution for garments:

  • Stage 1: Original garment (garment A) appears outside the city (situation A), engineered for non-city life -> garment A in situation A
  • Stage 2: Garment is adopted, in its original form, for use in city life (situation B) -> garment A in situation B
  • Stage 3: Garment is altered (i.e. becomes garment B), presumably better to conform to the demands of city life and to lose the unnecessary remnants from non-city life -> garment B in situation B

 

So as you see, your brogue example shows stages 1 & 3. What I was asking for in my previous post, and still asking for, is an example of stage 2. It needs to be present in order to support your theory of the case.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Appropriate Desert Boots w/Suit