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 4

post #46 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post
 

I need this word in my vocabulary.  

 

I'm all for words with Greek etymologies. Bring it on.

post #47 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by starro View Post

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.

The shoes originally used for country walking, were used, or rather, are used, in their original form, as city shoes.

In any case, your step 2 is merely a condition that you've put on to make it artificially difficult to prove the transition.

In all of the cars that you mentioned originally, from jeans to sneakers to the peacoat, the forms at typically see being used outside of their original usages are already not the originals (peacoats are lighter weight, sneakers are lacking the features of functional athletic shoes, etc...), and yet you object to them. In your original response to my original post, these should be acceptable as "new" garments created for new situations. The minimalist sneaker that is made by brands like Common Projects, for example, were made specifically for casual wear, rather than for athletic activities.

My point was educational, rather than argumentative, and just to point out that the "original function" criterion for whether a garment is appropriate is a construct which has no historical validity.

I don't disagree that desert boots with suits generally look bad. However, saying that they will always look bad together because of their origins is a bridge too far.
post #48 of 50

Amazing thread A+ would read again.

The title alone is worth the price of admission.

 

I present: crocs with a suit

 

 

Stage 1: garment appears for no reason and/or for hospital workers and people in line kitchens

Stage 2: Mario Battali brings garment to city life for wearing on the streets

Stage 3: Project Runway personality Tim Gunn wears crocs with custom made suit (fig. 2)

post #49 of 50

@LA Guy:

If you're not being argumentative, I'd expect you to be even-handed, and not twist what the other has said while being inconsistent in your own positions. So let's just go back to the original wordings.

 

My original wording:

Quote:
Form follows function. Articles of clothing designed and invented for a specific activity usually only works in that context. It's rare that something designed for one environment translates into another.

What was implied by the underlined statement is that those garments were designed for a specific situation, hence optimized for that situation alone. So it is unlikely to fit an entirely different situation if all you do is plop it down with zero adaptation. Of course, if you adapt that original garment, optimized for the original situation, and optimize for the new situation, then all bets are off and it could be a great fit.

All this was fairly obvious to me. Apparently not to alot of other people (and I will take the blame for assuming too much of others' comprehensions). So my initial economy of writing has ironically lead to much verbosity later on. (see, for example, posts 24 and especially 28)

 

Your response:

Quote:
[The] history of clothing is one of evolution, rather than revolution. ...the first step in evolution is to use that original garment in a new situation.

Please read the underlined part carefully, then my description of Stage 2:

 

Quote:
  • 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

If you think this is "arbitrarily difficult" to prove, perhaps it is because it was you who took the untenable position in the first place?

 

 

Stepping back into the big picture, my original point stands. Obviously it's not meant to be a ToE; to treat it as such, and attack it, would be the very essence of a strawman argument (hate that term as you may). I was talking about transposing un-evolved, specialized garments from one situation to a wholly different situation. Some others, seeking to score points in argument, brings up evolution of clothing (which, I must be clear, I did not address in the original post).

Then I re-phrased a basic principle of Evolution 101: "Necessity is the mother of Invention." Once again, you took issue with what I did not address at all (let's see, Goldman, Hartmann, Lipman... Strawman!), and insisted on the existence of Stage 2. After me asking multiple times for an example, by your admission Stage 2 remains unsubstantiated. To suggest that Stage 2 is my position is, once again, (say it with me) a strawman argument.

 

In fact let's put the brogue thing to rest once and for all. What would you want in a shoe if you're walking over wet bogland? For the water to get out. What would you want in a shoe if you're walking on a city street (and let's recall the turn-of-the-century city streets were much filthier)? For pebbles and dirt and grime not to get in. Are these two objectives compatible or incompatible? Now, seriously speaking, do you think even a city schmuck at the time would tell his shoemaker to copy the country brogue for use as a city walking shoe? Do you think any shoe company (they were probably in their infancy at the time) would sell a country brogue in their city catalogue?

 

In all likelihood, the skeuomorph would have triumphed over its parent on Day 1 in the big apple.

post #50 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprout2 View Post
 

Amazing thread A+ would read again.

The title alone is worth the price of admission.

 

I present: crocs with a suit

 

 

Stage 1: garment appears for no reason and/or for hospital workers and people in line kitchens

Stage 2: Mario Battali brings garment to city life for wearing on the streets

Stage 3: Project Runway personality Tim Gunn wears crocs with custom made suit (fig. 2)

 

Come on, give these guys some credit here. At least they knew to color-match to their shirts!

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