1. Welcome to the new Styleforum!

    We hope you’re as excited as we are to hang out in the new place. There are more new features that we’ll announce in the near future, but for now we hope you’ll enjoy the new site.

    We are currently fine-tuning the forum for your browsing pleasure, so bear with any lingering dust as we work to make Styleforum even more awesome than it was.

    Oh, and don’t forget to head over to the Styleforum Journal, because we’re giving away two pairs of Carmina shoes to celebrate our move!

    Please address any questions about using the new forum to support@styleforum.net

    Cheers,

    The Styleforum Team

    Dismiss Notice

whnay.'s good taste thread

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by Manton, Jul 30, 2012.

  1. Cantabrigian

    Cantabrigian Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,741
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Location:
    London
    


    I did not get your Gödel quip.

    But even now that you had to explain the joke, I don't think it changes the my point that math generally does not fall into category (1) since most (or at least many) parts of math / mathy statements can be proven a Russellori.

    So long as part is knowable without the scientific method and - I'm guessing / don't really know - some things can't be definitely proven experimentally but can be proven with like proofs, I think you have to take math out of category 1.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2014
  2. archibaldleach

    archibaldleach Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,222
    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Keep in mind that @patrickbooth likes the dark suit, white shirt, conservative (often solid) tie look with black shoes more than a good bit. Both dress well, but I think each has a different style (understatement of the year).
     
  3. patrickBOOTH

    patrickBOOTH Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    33,325
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Location:
    New York City
    I get pigeonholed by people who assume I don't like anything else. This simply isn't true, I like a lot of things that I just don't wear myself.
     
    3 people like this.
  4. Stencil

    Stencil Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    196
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2014
    Location:
    Oakland, CA
    Yeah, I'll buy that. But I spent a tortuous semester of college listening to a dull Englishman drone on about experimental mathematics and the philosophy of math, and I feel its worth pointing out to people that math occasionally resorts to the base means of lesser sciences. Color me sensitive.
     
  5. Stencil

    Stencil Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    196
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2014
    Location:
    Oakland, CA
    My feeling is that most new SFers (and most who are generally unfamiliar with tailored clothes) wouldn't know what they're looking at well enough to like or dislike something for a firm reason. The next step is learning enough to firmly like or dislike things for invalid reasons.

    That being said, there is a point in my life when I probably would have met Foo's gunclub fit above with unqualified approval. Now I simply acknowledge it as good, or at least workable, but not without flaw. Like Foo pointed out earlier, taste exists on a spectrum, and one's standards are subject to change over time.
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. YRR92

    YRR92 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,345
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2012
    ICYMI: The best joke in the thread in somewhere in there.

    Foo, may I ask if the tie in the London shot is madder or challis, or something else?
     
  7. mafoofan

    mafoofan Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    20,793
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Faux madder.
     
    2 people like this.
  8. Stencil

    Stencil Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    196
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2014
    Location:
    Oakland, CA
    edit: nvm.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2014
  9. in stitches

    in stitches Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    68,895
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Location:
    Charm City
  10. Manton

    Manton Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    41,568
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    In Hiding
    I don't think the language analogy works here. In brief (and this is a rare area of agreement between Chomsky and Aristotle), the capacity of language--logos--is natural to man. The content of language is wholly conventional, beyond the "deep structure." So evolving linguistic norms really don't tell us anything about the permanence or impermanence (or "intrinsicality") of non-scientific things. Humans have invented entire languages (Esperanto, Klingon, Elvish, etc.) which shows how conventional the form of language is. So, in that sense, linguistic stricture belongs in cat (1) or (2) but its content firmly in (3).

    But aesthetics depends on some recognition by the mind or soul of "the beautiful" which must in the final analysis exist as a real thing, if any of our conversation is to make sense.
     
    1 person likes this.
  11. Cantabrigian

    Cantabrigian Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,741
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Location:
    London
    

    Not sure I'd go that far.

    There are things that are, at first blush, look striking or otherwise appealing but as you consider them a bit more / compare them to other things out there, lose a lot of their luster. I'm thinking specifically of everything I've seen from Phineas Cole.

    And, while fewer, there are certainly things I've come to appreciate and then really like as I've understood them better. I'd put drape in this category.
     
    3 people like this.
  12. ctp120

    ctp120 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    681
    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    I stand by my love for the Foo fit, especially the jacket and tie combo. Its slight color discordancy is part of what makes it serendipitously good. I agree that the square could be better. Manton is right that it's a white shirt kinda square.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2014
  13. lawyerdad

    lawyerdad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,807
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    

    :teach:

    [​IMG]
     
  14. ctp120

    ctp120 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    681
    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    I don't think you know what you're talking about.

    Since discordancy is usually a bad thing, but it's unexpectedly good in this case, serendipitously is exactly what I mean.

    On the other hand, your quote of my post did help me notice that I accidentally typed the wrong form of "its," so thanks for that.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2014
  15. lawyerdad

    lawyerdad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,807
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    

    Fair enough, I was mostly kidding. But serendipity usually implies an element of chance, not just unexpectedness. The point (to the extent there was one) was that Foo Fits may be many things, but I suspect they're rarely inadvertent or the result of chance.
     
  16. ctp120

    ctp120 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    681
    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
  17. Xiaogou

    Xiaogou Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,793
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008

    So now you are an English teacher, huh?
     
  18. lawyerdad

    lawyerdad Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    21,807
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    

    Well, that and race car driver.
     
    2 people like this.
  19. Xiaogou

    Xiaogou Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,793
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008

    Touché. Well played. Imports?
     
  20. in stitches

    in stitches Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    68,895
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Location:
    Charm City
    

    That is fair. But I still think that for the most part, most people here that have developed a reasonable degree of taste/knowledge/understanding, once they see a fit as lacking, its unlikely that that will change. And Im not saying that as a bad thing, its just that I think personal preference is a bigger factor than maybe some want to admit. I dont think there is some great need for everyone to agree about every fit as being bad or good, or even less than optimal or optimal. It can be both good and bad, or less than optimal and optimal, at the same time, depending on the viewer.

    There are certainly things that are objectively bad and objectively good, but there are no shortage of things that are good to some and not good to others, and I dont think either camp is objectively wrong in those cases.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2014

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by