Contemplating investing in my first quality pair of dress shoes - new member, noob questions :/

[dieworkwear]

You're dead wrong on this. Beauty is largely objective, driven by biological mechanisms, which themselves were naturally selected.

This is the dumbest thing I've read on this forum.

 

[starro]

Neither you nor I have statistical evidence, so i'd have to let it rest. What I will say though, is that there is a general trend, at the very least, for the last 50 years or so that fits are shifting closer and closer towards a slimmer/tighter cut. I'm sure you know what I mean by that when you look at Brioni (for example) in the 1950's to this:

Again, there is no fixed duration of time a "trend" has to stay before it can be considered "classic."

Your wrong on your facts AGAIN. The over arch of fashion history is that things oscillate, not move in a set direction. Suits are slim in the 20's, full bodied in 30s, moderate in 50s, skinny in 60s, very big in 70s and 80s etc. Ties and lapels get skinny, then fat, then skinny, and so on. Right now we simply happen to be in a skinny phase, taken to an extreme. And this due largely, to the cultural saturation of the metrosexual.

The point is, what someone would call classic and elegant can differ very much from another person.

This is why i've said over and over, taste is subjective. there is no right objective yardstick that you can measure elegance by

Maybe you mean by "taste" something completely different from what I mean, but good taste certainly isn't subjective. But then again, who else but a fascist propagandist would embrace relativism more enthusiastically than yourself?

 

[starro]

This is bar none dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum.

But no balls to make a case for yourself? Why am I not surprised?

 

[IChen]

Brothers.

Relax.

 

[starro]

Concepts like "social norm" must include the opinions of others. You find TF unattractive, i'm fairly sure i can find tons of women and gay men on the streets of NY that would bed him in an instant even if he wasnt rich or famous

You're mixing stuff up. I never talked about social norm at all; I find it largely to be a canard in this case. What I suggest for you is Sociology 101. You'll learn that trends are not set democratically. Influencers gather momentum around their set of ideas, and once critical mass is hit the masses are powerless but to succumb to pressure.

You keep throwing up straw men. I'm sure you can corral "tons" of people of both sexes. Is that because they believe he's beautiful, or the "best they can get"?

 

[starro]

For the record, I still stand by TF:

IMO this is good.

What I want to see in this shot is the back side. It's common practice in fashion shoots like this to clip excess fabric on the back, to impress a close fit from the front. In other words, you're all being played folks, it ain't anything like real life.

 

[dieworkwear]

But no balls to make a case for yourself? Why am I not surprised?

1) There are a million examples of both contemporary and "pre-modern" cultures where beauty doesn't follow today's Western standard. I mean, seriously, the list is too long -- binding of feet, stretching of bones, ideas that corpulent people are more desirable because weight is linked to wealth, etc. Even as recent as the 1920s, women in the US sought to hide curves. Ever seen the painting Venus at a Mirror?

2) We're not **** monkeys. Humans have complicated societies and culture plays a big role in dictating what's considered beautiful. Those cultural norms are often wrapped up in politics, economics, and fantasy. And, of course, fashion. You know, the subject of this board.

3) Also, on the subject of not being **** monkeys, people can find things beautiful PRECISELY because they don't conform to norms. You know, because we have brains and can hold concepts. And concepts can be both attractive and alluring. See some of the work of Japanese designers from the 1980s on forward. Go look up designers such as Rei Kawakubo, whose work explicitly defied classical Western norms of cutting. The idea was to hide the female form, not sexualize it, which in itself made it beautiful and interesting.

4) Again, on the subject of **** monkeys, fashion isn't just about attracting the opposite sex. It can be art, tribal identity, personal expression, etc. People don't just wear clothes because they want to get laid, they wear stuff because they find it artistic, personally gratifying, a statement, etc. Hippies wore M-65 field jackets in the 70s because they made a political statement, which later turned into a fashion statement. Fashion isn't just about sex or physical attractiveness.

5) The idea that beauty is objective and connected to biology, in a way that would be relevant for fashion, is prima facie stupid because you can't use a constant variable to explain a changing variable. If X is contant and unmoving, and you're using it to explain Y, but Y is fluctuating all over the place, then there's obviously more to Y than X.

I could go on, but I have a work deadline I need to meet.

 

[starro]

I could go on forever, but I have a work deadline and your comment is too stupid.

Love the pre-planned exit strategy for when facts go against you. It's always for "work" or "family" right ol' boy? Now let's get on it, BS aside.

2) We're not **** monkeys. Humans have complicated societies and culture plays a big role in dictating what's considered beautiful. Those cultural norms are often wrapped up in politics, economics, and mythology. And, of course, fashion. You know, the subject of this board.

Wait, I thought this board was about style, not fashion. Didn't you get the talking points handed to you at orientation? Gotta keep your story straight son.

To your vulgarity-laced point, I can see that you desperately wish we have advanced farther than we did from our primate past. But surely you must know that the 4th F is largely under the purview of the amygdala. And if you believe that the prefrontal cortex is in control more than the amygdala, boy there's a stack of papers taller than Wadlow in neuroscience and the psych fields to disabuse you of that notion.

3) Also, on the subject of not being **** monkeys, people can find things beautiful PRECISELY because they don't conform to norms. You know, because we have brains and can hold concepts. And concepts can be both attractive and alluring. See some of the work of Japanese designers from the 1980s on forward. Go look up designers such as Rei Kawakubo, whose work explicitly defied classical Western norms of cutting. The idea was to hide the female form, not sexualize it, which in itself made it beautiful and interesting.

You clearly mistake the meaning of beauty. If you want to broaden it to include the pleasures of introspection, fine; but understand you're straying far away from the purpose of well fitting clothes -> you know, the POINT of this whole board.

People use clothes to send impressions of themselves to other people. And if anyone takes longer than 3 seconds to form an aesthetic opinion of your attire, there's something wrong with him. The "beauty" you want to lump in with what we're actually discussing is more an intellectual appreciation of an object's value, guided by the judge's predilections, value system, what have you.

Two entirely different beasts, and no amount of fuzzy thinking on your part allows the twain to merge in one.

Again, on the subject of **** monkeys, fashion isn't just about attracting the opposite sex. It can be art, tribal identity, personal expression, etc. People don't just wear clothes because they want to get laid, they wear stuff because they find it artistic, personally gratifying, a statement, etc. Hippies wore M-65 field jackets in the 70s because they made a political statement, which turn turns into a fashion statement. To reduce fashion to sex is the dumbest thing ever.

First of all, you're the one linking fashion to sex. You're projecting in trying to blame me for the misconception. And you would also be downright braindead moronic to think the 4th F isn't the undergirding impetus for why we have an aesthetic judgment in the first please. Is sex the whole story on beauty? Of course not. But you would be naive to deny that it doesn't have a big role.


OK, and to the core of it. I will go back to my analogy of multiple planes. The topmost plane is the judgment of beauty proper. It allows the subconscious to form an aesthetic assessment the second you lay eyes on someone, or something. Way before your mind gets around to rationalizing the what and why behind that particular beauty. Planes lower down can suppress aspects of the universal capacity for aesthetics, but cannot erase it completely.

Planes lower in the order include upbringing (in particular any traumas inflicted during the early parental relationship), pre-teen socialization, teen and post-teen socialization, formal education, workplace reorientation, and on and on. But to believe these later stages can have effects stronger than our instinctive beauty judgments, is a gross misread of everything we know about human psychology.

 

[raggedsweater]

Oh, wow. I'd like to join in the fight because this looks like a lot of fun. However, I think it's time to back away or start a separate thread. I feel bad for the OP.

 

[Caustic Man]

Threads go off topic. It happens. The sad thing to me is that starro's lesser stupidity is distracting from K's greater stupidity. Or maybe that's a good thing. I haven't decided.

 

[Kierrane]

My view is objectively correct

everyone else is wrong. period.

 

[Caustic Man]

I can summon him at will, now.

 

[raggedsweater]

The personalities and "styles" on this forum are something else. I'm not used to the frank nature of people here, I suppose. Calling each other out, criticizing and name calling. I'm not sure if it's a reflection of reality or a product of relative anonymity. Maybe this isn't even representative of the forum as a whole... I'm not opposed to it. It's an interesting distraction on the Friday.

Okay, I'll chime in.

Starro: Beauty is subjective and categorically broad. Attraction is, in part, biological.

Dieworkwear: Our **** monkey origins may form the foundation for all of our social tendencies, hence the study of evolutionary aesthetics.

Kierrane: That was funny.

Caustic man: Even funnier.

 

[Kierrane]

I can predict when people are going to reply, im psychic

 

[dieworkwear]

Dieworkwear: Our **** monkey origins may form the foundation for all of our social tendencies, hence the study of evolutionary aesthetics..

Evolutionary psychology is a really, really bad field if you're a stickler for understanding causality. This discussion would go well beyond the topic of this thread, and even the forum, but it's maybe one of the worst fields out there in terms of science.