A Daily "Mens Clothing" and "Streetwear and Denim" Fit Comparison Thread

[fritzl]



Yamamoto has had a documented fascination with chunky shoes for a long time.

ah ok. very helpful. ty

 

[Quadcammer]



Some of you guys take the fact that you 'don't like it' and extrapolate that into a negation of any aesthetic value.  I don't really like opera but I'm not going to sit here and tell you that everyone who does is a misguided imbecile, come on.

It doesn't have any aesthetic value to me, so why do I care if you think it has aesthetic value.

I think 90% of the SWD combos look like total dogshit. They look sloppy, badly fitted, and entirely ordinary. I don't like them. If you do, thats great, but don't give me **** if I have no interest what some designer thinks looks good.

MC and SWD should just stay on their sides of the aisle...the value systems are different.

 

[LA Guy]



I'm not trolling or close-minded, I just know what I like and what I don't like. I don't particularly care if yakamoto, james bond, or jesus christ himself thought it was a good idea or looks good or is interesting, if I don't like it, I don't like it.
I don't really get what makes these items or styles so interesting or influential. Its a tight jacket with parachute pants, it didn't look good in the 80s and it doesn't look good now.

The fact that you don't care to understand, makes you close-minded, pretty much by definition. You don't have to personally like something to appreciate that it has aesthetic value, or at least accept that it has aesthetic value. Is that concept particularly difficult to understand?

 

[LA Guy]



MC and SWD should just stay on their sides of the aisle...the value systems are different.

You should speak only for yourself. We started this place in 2002, and SW&D and MC styles (two very broad categories, btw) shared common space for a good long time, and people respected that styles different from their own could have value.

 

[brad-t]



Yes. fine. But.
How much of that was pose?

Well if you're taking pictures of your clothes for the internet it's kinda your problem if your photo doesn't accurately reflect the reality of the clothing.

 

[dieworkwear]



I'm not trolling or close-minded, I just know what I like and what I don't like. I don't particularly care if yakamoto, james bond, or jesus christ himself thought it was a good idea or looks good or is interesting, if I don't like it, I don't like it.
I don't really get what makes these items or styles so interesting or influential. Its a tight jacket with parachute pants, it didn't look good in the 80s and it doesn't look good now.

You're comparing different things.

Clothing really should be segmented into three realms - commercial, artisanal, and conceptual. Commercial being things like Ralph Lauren and Tom Ford; artisanal being things like Ambrosi or Matuozzo; and conceptual being things like Yohji Yamamoto or Thom Browne.

Obviously every line, in practice, incorporates elements from each of the three spheres, but we should recognize when something should be judged on its own terms.

The problem with your analysis (and much of the analysis that happens on MC) is that everything is dominated by a commercial understanding of things. When something such as hand construction or detailing comes up, people on MC often ask questions such as "does this make it fit better" or "will this add to the garment's longevity?" Sometimes handwork may make something fit better or last longer, but more often than not, it doesn't. Instead, it should be appreciated on its own terms.

In fact, the measures we have for "goodness" in the commercial realm are often turned on their head in the artisanal realm. Where I seek machined perfection in commercially made, industrially produced clothes, I admire the imperfections in handwork. I think it gives a garment a sense of humanity. Again, the point is to take something on its own terms, not to shove a commercial paradigm into an artisanal world.

The same thing can be said about the conceptual paradigms. Here, as I've said before, something can be valuable because of how it fits into (or adds to) to current discourse about themes. This can be about things such as workwear or heritage, or whatever. It can also be valuable in how it fits into the current discourse about concepts and forms (fabrics, silhouettes, etc). Or it might be valuable because it just hits us on a gut level.

It's fine to say that you're only interested in a Flusserian idea of fit, and that you only care about the commercial paradigm of clothing. Most people only care about clothes on those kinds of terms. It's kind of stupid, however, to say that this view of clothing means anything to the other realms. It's also kind of stupid to compare parachute MC Hammer pants to Yohji Yamamoto.

 

[Lionheart Biker]

Some people just can´t and won´t understand anything outside their visor view. They refuse to accept any outfit that doesn´t fit or is perfectly tailored. Fortunately it´s just a small percentage, but still, some guys are truly narrow minded and won´t even acknowledge that, even when it´s painfully plastered on every post they write.

 

[LA Guy]

To further complicate Derek's analysis, what he calls the "artisanal" and the "conceptual" are often related. So, for example, it may be fairly easy to understand (at least from an MC point of view) the artisanship of a handmade suit. It may be considerably more difficult, from the MC point of view, which *starts* at the commercial point of view, to understand the artisanal value of something like an M.A.+ bag, which is really leather origami, and really, uses stoneage construction methods. I'm looking at my MA+ cardcase, which is essentially an extremely expensive piece of leather (it's very beautiful leather, but still, a single piece of leather) with no stitching, and held together with a rough piece of silver. If someone shows you how to fold it, you could (I've unfolded mine, and refolded it easily, a few times). But judging it by the technical skill needed to put it together would be sort of akin to saying saying that my 4 year old daughter could easily paint a Rothko (to say nothing of Pollocks.)

 

[dieworkwear]



To further complicate Derek's analysis, what he calls the "artisanal" and the "conceptual" are often related. So, for example, it may be fairly easy to understand (at least from an MC point of view) the artisanship of a handmade suit. It may be considerably more difficult, from the MC point of view, which *starts* at the commercial point of view, to understand the artisanal value of something like an M.A.+ bag, which is really leather origami, and really, uses stoneage construction methods. I'm looking at my MA+ cardcase, which is essentially an extremely expensive piece of leather (it's very beautiful leather, but still, a single piece of leather) with no stitching, and held together with a rough piece of silver. If someone shows you how to fold it, you could (I've unfolded mine, and refolded it easily, a few times). But judging it by the technical skill needed to put it together would be sort of akin to saying saying that my 4 year old daughter could easily paint a Rothko (to say nothing of Pollocks.)

The lines are definitely very blurred in practice. It can also be difficult to say why the fantasy world of Rick Owens is any more conceptual than the fantasy world of Ralph Lauren.

 

[Quadcammer]



The fact that you don't care to understand, makes you close-minded, pretty much by definition. You don't have to personally like something to appreciate that it has aesthetic value, or at least accept that it has aesthetic value. Is that concept particularly difficult to understand?

I've tried to gain some understanding, but the statements you guys present don't make any sense to me (stacking is a good example). If I don't like something, its precisely because I don't think it has aesthetic value.

Yes, its a difficult concept for me to understand.

You should speak only for yourself. We started this place in 2002, and SW&D and MC styles (two very broad categories, btw) shared common space for a good long time, and people respected that styles different from their own could have value.

so why did you split them up?

You're comparing different things.
Clothing really should be segmented into three realms - commercial, artisanal, and conceptual. Commercial being things like Ralph Lauren and Tom Ford; artisanal being things like Ambrosi or Matuozzo; and conceptual being things like Yohji Yamamoto or Thom Browne.
Obviously every line, in practice, incorporates elements from each of the three spheres, but we should recognize when something should be judged on its own terms.
The problem with your analysis (and much of the analysis that happens on MC) is that everything is dominated by a commercial understanding of things. When something such as hand construction or detailing comes up, people on MC often ask questions such as "does this make it fit better" or "will this add to the garment's longevity?" Sometimes handwork may make something fit better or last longer, but more often than not, it doesn't. Instead, it should be appreciated on its own terms.
In fact, the measures we have for "goodness" in the commercial realm are often turned on their head in the artisanal realm. Where I seek machined perfection in commercially made, industrially produced clothes, I admire the imperfections in handwork. I think it gives a garment a sense of humanity. Again, the point is to take something on its own terms, not to shove a commercial paradigm into an artisanal world.
The same thing can be said about the conceptual paradigms. Here, as I've said before, something can be valuable because of how it fits into (or adds to) to current discourse about themes. This can be about things such as workwear or heritage, or whatever. It can also be valuable in how it fits into the current discourse about concepts and forms (fabrics, silhouettes, etc). Or it might be valuable because it just hits us on a gut level.
It's fine to say that you're only interested in a Flusserian idea of fit, and that you only care about the commercial paradigm of clothing. Most people only care about clothes on those kinds of terms. It's kind of stupid, however, to say that this view of clothing means anything to the other realms. It's also kind of stupid to compare parachute MC Hammer pants to Yohji Yamamoto.

I agree with your last few lines. I don't look at clothes as art or as conceptual anything. I look at the runway stuff and recoil in horror. The **** looks awful. I realize that companies take little pieces or details for use in retail, but I don't care, the runway stuff looks bad.

Again, I've seen the stuff, tried to understand it, and simply can't. I has absolutely no appeal or aesthetic value to me.

 

[Mr. Moo]

Often times, strange SWD aesthetics aforementioned here and elsewhere are met with "you don't get it, stop commenting" arguments from people who seem to "get it". Is it possible to both get it, not like it, and comment? I don't think that all those who say "that doesn't look good" are also saying "you should wear something else".

 

[the shah]

stop whining moo

I agree with your last few lines. I don't look at clothes as art or as conceptual anything. I look at the runway stuff and recoil in horror. The **** looks awful. I realize that companies take little pieces or details for use in retail, but I don't care, the runway stuff looks bad.

Again, I've seen the stuff, tried to understand it, and simply can't. I has absolutely no appeal or aesthetic value to me.

it's quite a surprise that you stick around a place called styleforvm despite this attitude given that it's centered around, you know, things like the fashion industry.

 

[black_umbrella]

Yes. fine. But.
How much of that was pose?

Well if you're taking pictures of your clothes for the internet it's kinda your problem if your photo doesn't accurately reflect the reality of the clothing.

Ha! True. True.

Really what I was trying point out is this is like art criticism. People invent fancy language to explain, ex-post, why they like something. The phrase structural juxtaposition rings hollow as a reasonable and objective term.

In truth, I kinda liked Moo's fit. I also like maomao's. That where my aesthetic sensibilities lie. Subjective and personal, no need to generate pseudointellectual language to explain it.

 

[Mr. Moo]



stop whining moo

Who is whining? Why are you constantly starting **** whenever I post and then run to the Mod Thread to complain about what happens when I post? Don't you see that you're the one starting ****, pretty much every time I post, in every thread? Fly your magic carpet elsewhere.

 

[LA Guy]



Again, I've seen the stuff, tried to understand it, and simply can't. I has absolutely no appeal or aesthetic value to me.

Okay, so you see no appeal in it. That's fine. And you don't understand it, nor apparently, wish too. I find that sad, but also, fine. However, in that case, you should probably constrain your commentary to "It's not something I like, personally." You simply cannot apply a single, normative, standard, to all types of clothing.

Let's take an example to illustrate how absurd it would be:

"I hate classical music. Most of that crap has no beat at all. You ever try to dance to a Mass? It's freakin' impossible. There is no value in classical music."

See how dumb that sounds?