Economist article on history of the suit

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by the shah, Apr 24, 2012.

  1. the shah

    the shah Persian Bro #2 and enabler-in-chief

    Messages:
    16,570
    Likes Received:
    10,785
    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Location:
    lying furtively
    I didn't see this posted here nor an equivalent of Random Fashion Thoughts so started a thread. Let me know if it should go somewhere in particular. I thought this is an interesting article. Perhaps there are some here (Manton?) who can elaborate, verify, or give countering evidence, for the history of the suit ? Well it was interesting to me. In particular the paragraph I've quoted below. I have 1 suit, a single-butting Raf from spring/summer 2008, and I've never worn it. I don't like the concept of fitting the human form much but don't take this as representative of SWD, I am not speaking on their behalf. I prefer that my outfits, uniforms or otherwise, drape gently over my body, not to hide anything (I've nothing to hide) but rather I find the concept quite elegant. Anyway, thought I'd share and get your reactions to the article !
    http://www.economist.com/node/17722802
     


  2. Twotone

    Twotone Senior member

    Messages:
    1,019
    Likes Received:
    41
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Location:
    Denver
    Interesting article -- thanks!
     


  3. I am DIL

    I am DIL Senior member

    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    155
    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Location:
    8====D
    [​IMG]
     


  4. Holdfast

    Holdfast Senior member

    Messages:
    10,562
    Likes Received:
    6,340
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    The relationship between clothes and form is interesting, and not one that should be approached statically or narrowing. What I mean is that is you just look at clothes & bodies and try to draw lessons from their relationship to each other, you risk missing the overall context of that relationship in the culture of the age, and how that evolves over time.

    Brummelian dress acted as a powerful contrast to the older aristocratic order in existence at the time, and can be conceived as a middle-class expression of disquiet at that regime. Its adoption by the Prince Regent can be seen within that sociopolitical lens, especially when you consider the Regent's close political relationship with the Whigs (vs. the Tories under George III). As for its figure-hugging romanticised form, it expresses a certain desire to return to more "natural" or "classic" form, despite actually being very non-classical compared to actual clothes worn during classical times (which, while clinging to the body during movement, actually achieved that through drape and careful cinching & folding). In many ways, Brummel's insistence on tightly figure-hugging clothes aped classical statues more than it did actual classical people. I'd suggest that womenswear showed some similarly incongruent thinking during this period, but that's another topic.

    Creating volume and space between body and clothes is an interesting area to discuss, as it speaks directly to what concept of self one wishes to project. Even a figure-hugging outfit is a conscious projection of a certain image. Creating space adds a different complexity of meaning, one more specifically crafted. As such it can appear "less natural" but "more structurally interesting" if done intelligently. I personally like some structural/architectural interest in a look.

    More generally, closely fitting clothes come and go, depending on the mode of the age. But leaving that aside, Brummel's more essential appeal to perfection of fit & standing out from others through cut rather than colour or extravagance is a very bourgeois attitude that makes its popularity on the more staid internet style forums (AAAC or this subforum) entirely unsurprising given that they are the ultimate modern expression of an anxious desire to fit into middle class respectability. "What should I wear to interview?", "What should I wear to prom?", "What should I wear to my wedding?", "What should a lawyer/doctor/businessman wear?", "Need a new wardrobe now I've left college?", "how do I look one step above the rest"... the average list of recurrent topics speaks volumes in this regard, as do the correct but obvious (and to my mind, uninteresting) answers. But given that most people live a certain way, the questions do make sense in their own way.

    By the way, and without regurgitating the whole tired debate, this difference in intent is partly why MC and SW&D end up butting heads more often than not, from a conceptual perspective.

    The Economist article is quite right to point out the versatility of the suit, but I find that almost a trivial statement, as it's not really any different to saying that clothes generally are versatile, given that a suit is just a matching jacket & trousers. Well, yes, it's versatile. But so what?
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2012


  5. Bounder

    Bounder Senior member

    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    464
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Very nice, Holdfast.


    There is no question that Regency dress looked to classical dress for inspiration, especially for color and "restraint." But tailored clothing was itself part and parcel of the industrial revolution and self-consciously modern. Tailored clothing was, in Regency England, extremely hi-tech. Tailors were not craftsmen so much as engineers. I suspect there is also something to the idea that tailored clothing fit neatly into the idea that science and technology would finally allow mankind to re-make that natural world to suit its purposes. Close fitting clothing depended on the wearer for its shape. Loose, flowing clothing could hide the body but little more. Tailored clothing, however, allowed the wearer, within limits, to control body shape. Got a few extra pounds? No problem! Are you a spindly git but want broad shoulders? We can fix that.

    So while tailored clothing was "a middle-class expression of disquiet" with the old aristocratic order, it was also a badge of support for the new trends that would, in fact, eventually result in the overthrow of that order and the triumph of the middle-class. In summary, tailored clothing was the Regency iPhone.
     


  6. Holdfast

    Holdfast Senior member

    Messages:
    10,562
    Likes Received:
    6,340
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2012


  7. Bounder

    Bounder Senior member

    Messages:
    2,293
    Likes Received:
    464
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    

    I think the problem is that there is no longer a language of dress. Rather, we have a sartorial Babel. Until very recently, popular culture was pretty hierarchical in the West and there were only a few channels of dissemination. This made it easy to establish norms. In fact, norms established themselves. But today, there is no such thing as "popular culture" in the sense of stylistic norms that are broadly adhered to.

    Popular music is a good analogy. Once upon a time, popular music was very well defined and what constituted "popular" was accepted by almost everyone. People might get "stuck" on the popular music of a certain period, typically that of when they were young, but it was very easy to define what constituted "popular" at any given time.

    But there will never be another Beatles. Popular music has been fragmented into a thousand different streams. Some are smaller, some are larger, but none are dominant. I think the trend began with cable TV but the internet has accelerated it by orders of magnitude.

    The same thing is true of clothing. Tailored clothing is now just one of many possible sartorial choices. While it still has a certain cultural dominance -- a vestige of it being a cultural superpower for 150 years -- it now exists in a multipolar sartorial world.

    Tailored clothing, especially the suit, still carries with it a certain connotation, not so much of wealth but of power and status. But that is fading and may be completely gone in another 20 or 30 years.

    Or not. It is interesting to contrast the average person's reaction to "bling" vs. that to tailored clothing. Very conspicuous consumption does signal wealth but it also suggests a certain marginalization. A suit, even a not particularly nice suit, suggests that one has a position in the hierarchy that runs things, even if it isn't a particularly exalted position. Chicks totally dig this. Well, in its proper context, at least.

    Again, this is being eroded by casual Fridays, etc. and may not survive. But for the moment, this explains why people tend to treat you much better when you are wearing a suit. The question is whether this is culturally re-enforcing or a sort of vestigial reflex. If people have an inherent "respect" for suits just because they remember their grandfather wearing one, this is the last generation where wearing a suit will allow you to sweet talk your way into an aisle seat. So my advice? Work it while you can.
     


  8. Coburn

    Coburn Senior member

    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    45
    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle
    


    "...that science and technology would finally allow mankind to re-make that natural world to suit its purposes.."
    Yes.
    And here, in the US, we embraced that idea more fervently then the English. You could say this was the American state religion.

    And to follow that thought, here in the US, the 1960s marked the disenchantment with that American faith that science and technology would liberate man. The 60’s also marked a major repudiation of the classic suit and tie.
     


  9. OlSarge

    OlSarge Senior member

    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    48
    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Location:
    www.thesportinggentry.com
    The '60's, as one who lived through them, marked a rejection of the grey suit-white shirt-black tie dogma of the post-WWII corporate world. Much of what was 'new' in the '60's was a return to the flamboyant styles of mens' suits from the 30's and 40's. And now that we have gone through the Peacock Period, the Slave to Designer Era and the current Stupid Short and Skinny Style, perhaps we can once again dress like men.
     


  10. Ianiceman

    Ianiceman Senior member

    Messages:
    2,651
    Likes Received:
    485
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Location:
    Keyboard War Room
    
    You'd better tell the costume designer of Mad Men cos they are up to 1965 and still have the men dressed frequently in gray suits, white shirts and black ties.
     


  11. Doughnuts

    Doughnuts Member

    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2012
    Location:
    NYC

    Sorry old-timer, but I wouldn't count on it. The break-up of society as Bounder has described it is most likely going to be the new norm, and while some people might start dressing "like men" (as you call it), the majority will not.
     


  12. TheTukker

    TheTukker Senior member

    Messages:
    2,512
    Likes Received:
    118
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    This article has certainly been posted here before, probably in 2010.
     


  13. jamesny

    jamesny Senior member

    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Location:
    NYC
    The article seems familiar but anyhow tailored clothing still matters and it's really in demand now more than ever.
     


  14. OlSarge

    OlSarge Senior member

    Messages:
    420
    Likes Received:
    48
    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Location:
    www.thesportinggentry.com
    More is spent on fine men's clothing than at any time in the past fifty years. Likewise sales of neckties, despite 'casual Friday' and 'business casual' continue to increase. Either what is portrayed in the media is simply more "geewhiz" or those few who want to dress like men are spending one hell of a lot of cash. And please don't tell me what your favorite celebrity is wearing. He's getting paid to look like that.
     


Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by