Black Suits

[j]

BTW Manton, any elaboration on why you disliked it? I have no opinion on it really, it's kind of fluffy and interesting to read, but I'm not sure whether I agree with her argument or care about it.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by Manton

Yes. How dare anyone doubt such literary brilliance: http://www.haroldpinter.org/poetry/p...football.shtml Honestly, I think even you are capable of better writing than this.
Like you, I have been published so qualities of writing are not lawns to re-tread over.

 

[ruben]

Originally Posted by Manton

Yes. How dare anyone doubt such literary brilliance:

http://www.haroldpinter.org/poetry/p...football.shtml

Honestly, I think even you are capable of better writing than this.

Brilliant, or at least funny.

Pinter may be a jerk-off apologist for genocidal maniacs and baathists, but that made me laugh.

How many other Nobel prize winners write about Joe Namath and Suzy Kolber?

 

[Manton]

Originally Posted by j

BTW Manton, any elaboration on why you disliked it? I have no opinion on it really, it's kind of fluffy and interesting to read, but I'm not sure whether I agree with her argument or care about it.

As I recall, the whole of her argument was "For most of Western history men dressed as peacocks to display their sex, but around 1800 they stopped doing that and adopted the modern suit which, while not formless, is far more asexual than anything men had worn since ancient times." OK, fair point. 200 pages later, she has added nothing to that. It was a magazine article stretched waaaaay thin.

 

[Sator]

Originally Posted by Manton

As I recall, the whole of her argument was "For most of Western history men dressed as peacocks to display their sex, but around 1800 they stopped doing that and adopted the modern suit which, while not formless, is far more asexual than anything men had worn since ancient times." OK, fair point. 200 pages later, she has added nothing to that. It was a magazine article stretched waaaaay thin.
This sort of stereotypical contracted history of post-French Revolution dress is always written these days by facile fops who write from the perspective of the modern coulture house mentality which want to justify dressing men like women. Nineteenth century dress also had its moments of extravagance such as during the D'Orsay reign as arbitur elegantiarum but even then overall it was still a reserved and understated elegance of imacculate fit garnished with peacock flourishes. Look in ancient times or at the courtly extravagances of l'Ancien Regime whose influence spread throughout Europe and nowhere will you see the sort of absolute perfection of fit that you find post-French Revolution. For we are all Children of the Revolution.

 

[Sator]

Originally Posted by Manton

Beethoven is better. Especially quartet Op. 131.

Oh yes, and I shouldn't let this comment pass by without a word of praise for such excellent taste. Op 131 is absolutely stupendous - along with Op 133. Marvellous, simply marvellous.

 

[Film Noir Buff]

Originally Posted by j

I suspect you've read this, but I'm nearly through this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Suits-Evol...489442-2294557

and it talks a lot about this... kind of interesting especially in the context of our MC forum and the clashes that appear there.



I am also currently reading this. I like the author's observations, theories and analysis. I am pressed for time, and after reading the first few chapters I have been skipping around randomly.

I like the fact that she writes engagingly and I like the fact that it is written by a female intellectual which I think gives it a fresh perspective for several reasons.


A couple I find particularly interesting are her admissions that women admire the male suit because it bequeaths power to the wearer both the sort that other men pay attention to and the sort that creates sexual attraction between men and women. Additionally, I like the idea that, contrary to popular belief, men actually have more clothing choices than women and the suit is much more modern than outdated female clothing.

 

[tiger02]

Originally Posted by Manton

Yes. How dare anyone doubt such literary brilliance: http://www.haroldpinter.org/poetry/p...football.shtml Honestly, I think even you are capable of better writing than this.
Artaud? Score one obscure surrealist poet reference for me in a Manton - LabelKing

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by tiger02

Artaud?



Score one obscure surrealist poet reference for me in a Manton - LabelKing

Or perhaps Jarry.

Fuk!

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by tiger02

Artaud?



Score one obscure surrealist poet reference for me in a Manton - LabelKing

Was he really a surrealist though....

 

[tiger02]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Was he really a surrealist though....
Without him, would there have been surrealism?

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Or perhaps Jarry.

Fuk!

There's a representation of Ubu King in town right now, might end up seeing it.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

There's a representation of Ubu King in town right now, might end up seeing it.
The play also lent its name to the excellent band, Pere Ubu.

 

[Sartorian]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Some people like to make the assertion that Fashion can be Art which I disagree with. Fashion is an inherently useful thing whereas Art has no practical purpose.
While I'm not too interested in being pulled into this fray, I'd like to say a bit about this last statement. While you posit it as fact, it's a very subjective idea, that art must not be 'practical.' Those who believe this pretty much discount the majority of art made in the non-western world, almost all of which is made for practical purposes. It also draws that problematic definitional line between art and craft. Additionally, many practitioners of various pursuits object to such a narrow definition. In chess, the greatest practitioners often speak of art in chess. I once had an argument with a friend who insisted this was an oxymoron, because anything in chess is inherently done for a reason. I would guess there are plumbers out there who describe the work some of their colleagues have done as art. Would you deny them your lexicon simply because their purview normally resides in the realm of construction and repair? When people speak of things like this, they mean to imply a certain way in which the merely practical or utilitarian surpasses its purely utilitarian nature. The converse to this really is not proveable, however, other than through artificial categorization--because it is practical it is not art. Anything can be art. If you constrain the definition in an attempt to buttress an argument about how to differentiate bad from good (a purely subjective and masturbatory exercise), you're being intellectually dishonest, and you're only subverting or compromising the 'joy in the sublime' or whatever the hell you want to call the good, queezy feeling art gives you, into a feckless, rhetorical tool. Who really cares if people wear black suits or not? Isn't it enough to feel you've figured things out a bit better than the average ill-fitted, wide-lapeled, lounge suit hack? You all rip rabid on the latest haute couture/fashion-babe of the moment (see the recent Thom Browne and Tom Ford threads), then you go at each other over whether it's 'proper' or 'sophisticated' to wear a black suit or not, winding your way as you go into whether Beethoven's better than jazz or abstract expressionists really understood the 'sublime,' or post-modernists are more right than the modernists. At the end of the day, you're still going to be back talking about whether or not those Paul Stuart shoes on ebay really are worth $399.99.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by Sartorian

While I'm not too interested in being pulled into this fray, I'd like to say a bit about this last statement. While you posit it as fact, it's a very subjective idea, that art must not be 'practical.' Those who believe this pretty much discount the majority of art made in the non-western world, almost all of which is made for practical purposes. It also draws that problematic definitional line between art and craft.
I admit that my statement was rather didactic. However, you also mention that people who believe this also tend to regard "ethnic" forms of esthetics as inferior. That is not true; if I recall, only Hegel made the explicit statement that anything that was not Christian was inherently inferior. Kant, however, did not make such a statement. He made the implication that there are various planes of appreciation. Also, I would not commit to the idea that "ethnic" forms of art-pieces are made for utilitarian purposes--how of Chinese painting or their decorative vases? China's gentlemen scholars used to write treatises about the subtle elegance and esthetic nuances of such things as inkstones and jade pieces. Also, what a lot of people call art--such as Mayan carvings--I would argue that they were intended as decorative architectural/ritual elements.

Originally Posted by Sartorian

Additionally, many practitioners of various pursuits object to such a narrow definition. In chess, the greatest practitioners often speak of art in chess. I once had an argument with a friend who insisted this was an oxymoron, because anything in chess is inherently done for a reason. I would guess there are plumbers out there who describe the work some of their colleagues have done as art. Would you deny them your lexicon simply because their purvue normally resides in the realm of construction and repair? When people speak of things like this, they mean to imply a certain way in which the merely practical or utilitarian surpasses its purely utilitarian nature. The converse to this really is not proveable, however, other than through artificial categorization--because it is practical it is not art.
It seems to me the art behind chess--or some other active pursuit--is not rooted in the actual, sheer Physical Activity; rather, the emotions such things arouse.

Originally Posted by Sartorian

Anything can be art. If you constrain the definition in an attempt to buttress an argument about how to differentiate bad from good (a purely subjective and masturbatory exercise), you're being intellectually dishonest, and you're only subverting or compromising the 'joy in the sublime' or whatever the hell you want to call the good, queezy feeling art gives you, into a feckless, rhetorical tool.
Do you feel that's true? What I object to is the categorical assumptions and usurptions by people to call whatever they wish to, Art--indeed, what you call a "feckless rhetorical tool". These people have no compunction by formulating ugliness founded on a semantic aggression.

Originally Posted by Sartorian

You all rip rabid on the latest haute couture/fashion-babe of the moment (see the recent Thom Browne and Tom Ford threads), then you go at each other over whether it's 'proper' or 'sophisticated' to wear a black suit or not, winding your way as you go into whether Beethoven's better than jazz or abstract expressionists really understood the 'sublime,' or post-modernists are more right than the modernists. At the end of the day, you're still going to be back talking about whether or not those Paul Stuart shoes on ebay really are worth $399.99.
Are Corthays worth it?