good taste in clothes but

[Lord Foppington]

Well, this is interesting. I'm sure there are people here with highly developed tastes in most everything. I'm not sure I for one fit that category. I don't know much about wine, for instance. And I have an aggressively low-brow approach to some things too, like music, and various other pop-culture things, and liquor. That's a species of pretentiousness in itself, I suppose.

I'd say highly visually oriented people (like those here) tend to care about how things look across a broad spectrum--cars, art, clothes, interior design, architecture, gardens. Maybe they are better at using taste to approach non-visual beauty too.

But with people devoted to other "aesthetic" areas--literature, "serious" music (many composers I've met dress like Frankenstein), perhaps it's more hit and miss. Sometimes their concentration on their chosen area of devotion leads them to neglect other things. All exceptions happily admitted, of course.

 

[ROI]

So far, we've been talking about whether people who are sensitive to style in clothing are also sensitive to style in other areas such as art or home decoration. I'd like to twist the question a little. The term "lifestyle" has been stretched so thin it has lost all precision. A couple decades ago, however, "lifestyle" referred to a specific strategy in marketing. A good example of the strategy is Ralph Lauren extending his reach from apparel to home decor. This was more than a brand extension (Tylenol, Tylenol PM, Arthritis Tylenol, etc.), "lifestyle" marketing proceded from the idea that people who bought a particular style of clothing would also buy a corresponding style of towels, carpeting, and paint. If a person bought into the Ralph Lauren's English country house fantasy in his wardrobe, he would also, given the chance, embrace English country house style in other areas of his life.

The question, then, is: Is your taste in clothing consistent with your preferences in other aspects of your life?

 

[gregory]

The question, then, is:  Is your taste in clothing consistent with your preferences in other aspects of your life?

I don't actually get to live the lifestyle I want. Given the choice, I'd either dress more formally than I would do every day (suit) or more casually (polo-collar shirt + shorts). I don't really like the in-between (shirt+slacks, which is what I wear to the office). My home decor is also Ikea-swedish, except that it is much more minimalist. I live in a modern high-rise building. Given the choice, I would have my private and secluded estate close by the beach with a large front lawn. It would have a decor very similar to Ritz-Carlton, with museum-quality furniture bought from auction houses. I like Chinese decorative objects, but not Chinese paintings.

 

[benchan]

Is your taste in clothing consistent with your preferences in other aspects of your life?

For stuff like electronics products/phone/Hi-Fi/TV and cars, I would not put too many emphasis on aesthetics. E.g. I love the boxy Lancer Evo just as much as other much more expensive and tasteful looking cars.

 

[Lord Foppington]

I like traditional Anglo-American clothes. I have a special interest in eighteenth-century British literature, music, art, and decorative arts--with a wider interest in British literature in general.

But then I collect mid-20th-century Scandinavian (Danish and Finnish, mostly) design, furniture, art glass etc. (like everybody else is doing these days, it seems).

So my tastes are pretty incoherent. Are there Danish modern blazers?

On the form/function question in regard to audio, I'd like to get my hands on an old Bang & Olufsen Beomaster, though I think true audiophiles would turn their noses up at that.

 

[stache]

My first room mate when I was out of high school ( a wonderful guy) had great taste in clothing but his house was strictly Early Seveties pimp. (WAY before that look became 'hot' lol) - Plus I always get a kick out of well turned out people carrying the NY Post.

 

[mnemonic]

"taste" is thin ice in the first place. i forgive people for thier narrow focus, or for thier clueless-ness in certain venues. having taste, to some degree, means you are amidst collossal distraction, and can afford to consider trifles. there are many people that have lives that do not permit them these considerations.

 

[Fabienne]

I highly recommend Molière's play "Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme" (1670) in and around this subject.

 

[linux_pro]

Lord Foppington

On the form/function question in regard to audio, I'd like to get my hands on an old Bang & Olufsen Beomaster, though I think true audiophiles would turn their noses up at that.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws....58&rd=1 Bang & Olufsen's are a bit better than Bose, although they fall into the same category: excellent aesthetic, mediocre sound (with Bose, make that horrible sound), terrible imaging, etc. Bang & Olufsen is one of those companies that "looks" hi-fi, but the rest kind of falls by wayside (sort of like sonus faber, IMHO). Of course, if you mostly just listen to standard CD recordings and aren't extremely worried about picky little things, a B&O would probably be great. If you liked the look but wanted great sound, you could pair it up with some PSB Stratus Golds and you'd have a pretty decent setup which even a true fanatic audiophile would probably enjoy, although they might not admit it.

 

[Mark Seitelman]

The prime example of "good taste in clothes, but bad taste in other things" is the Duke of Windsor.

His place in the history of style and mens clothing is unquestioned.

However,

1. He married that Simpson woman;

2. He gave up the crown for her;

3. He spent WWII having a jolly, old time on the French Riveria and the Bahamas while his subjects were being blown to bits by the Nazis;

4. He was a Nazi sympathizer who had communications with the enemy which might constitute treason; and

5. He spent his remaining days as a moucher and man of leisure.

 

[Phil]

Whats wrong with the NY Post stache?

 

[Gatsby]

I believe that "taste" in general is a reflection of personal economic philosophy. While I try to dress as timelessly trad as possible at work, my casual clothes are a trendy mix of cheap and chic (j'adore Dior, so sue me). Why? Because I want to look good for as much as possible, but I'm not going to throw away my 'youthful prime' dressed all the time like a British octogenarian. Though I spend hours looking for the perfect scotch or bourbon, I spend 10 minutes when buying a wine and rarely more than $20.

Simply put, the modern working man has neither the time nor money to have 'taste' in everything. It is simply a matter of how we individually choose to economize. So I'm sure there are tons of people who have terrible taste in art, literature, etc. but have great taste in cusine, furniture, wine etc. I do believe that the greater lot of us STRIVE to have taste in everything but simply don't have the opportunities to do so. It follows the fundamental rule of economics: matching unlimited wants with limited resources.