HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part III

[DocHolliday]



So, if "MC" is the same as "SW&D," why the difference in dress?

Different strategies for how best to direct the blatant attempts at looking monied.

 

[acecow]



Ace, this is twaddle. There are plenty of brand whores in MC. Hell, there are plenty who give it up for anything some fellow forumites wear. The brands aren't the same, and the enthusiasm gets rationalized as an appreciation of "quality" but for most folks, that's just aspirational bullshit. It's the same phenomenon as SW&D, just not as nakedly displayed.

Like I said, who wouldn't want a Cesare Attollini suit? You're almost certain to get a great-fitting product. But if by some chance you stumble upon a Lauren RL suit that fits you well (impossible) you will be praised almost as much. There're brand whores everywhere, but SW&D has so many more of them, while in MC it's looked down upon.

 

[sugarbutch]

Ace, this is twaddle. There are plenty of brand whores in MC. Hell, there are plenty who give it up for anything some fellow forumites wear. The brands aren't the same, and the enthusiasm gets rationalized as an appreciation of "quality" but for most folks, that's just aspirational bullshit. It's the same phenomenon as SW&D, just not as nakedly displayed.

So, if "MC" is the same as "SW&D," why the difference in dress?

I fear you may be reading a broader point into what was intended to be a narrow one: MC, like SW&D, does care about brands.

 

[the shah]

Ace, this is twaddle. There are plenty of brand whores in MC. Hell, there are plenty who give it up for anything some fellow forumites wear. The brands aren't the same, and the enthusiasm gets rationalized as an appreciation of "quality" but for most folks, that's just aspirational bullshit. It's the same phenomenon as SW&D, just not as nakedly displayed.

So, if "MC" is the same as "SW&D," why the difference in dress?

i don't think that's what he's saying...two people can also stil fall into SWD and dress nothing alike. his point was that at some level both care about brands equally (not sure on this myself).

Let's not get crazy. If MoK gigantic, oversized overcoat was, say, made by Brooks Brothers and not yohji, he would have been ridiculed over in SWD. SWD is exceptionally brand driven, moreso than MC. It's also exceptionally "crazy outfit" driven. Like I said before, SWD of late is all about the flavor of the month, which is fashion, not style.

this is wrong on every point

anyway wasting too much time rehashing the same arguments, you guys should think of posting some interesting fits instead.

 

[Mr. Moo]

It's not wrong at all.

 

[sugarbutch]



MC doesn't care about brands as long as the piece looks good.

There're brand whores everywhere...

I will assume that I misinterpreted "MC" in your first post, and that you meant the concept of classic men's clothing rather the MC sub-forum here.

 

[acecow]



I will assume that I misinterpreted "MC" in your first post, and that you meant the concept of classic men's clothing rather the MC sub-forum here.

No, I actually meant most people in the MC subforum will accept an outfit regardless of brands. That has been my experience.

 

[Mr. Moo]

I live in the bay area and never see 95% of the outfits that get praise on SWD. MC is a totally different story.

 

[Holdfast]

Quote:
I sense the possibility that we're both circling around a certain basic agreed set of axioms, and are just following through on different corollaries. With that possibility in mind...

Regarding my personal position, I don't claim that my construct of self will never change (that would close off any potential for personal growth). But currently I can't see how the costume philosophy can logically be bettered. It strikes me as the theory of the language of clothes with the greatest universal applicability, even if it creates a greater risk of failure and a greater onus on individuals to actively think about themselves & others when getting dressed in order to successfully execute their outfit. In fact, I would view that onus on the individual as an advantage even if it creates (in your/mine/whoever's opinion) ugliness. The ugliness itself becomes something of interest, because it potentially reveals something about the nature of the ugly-dressed person; you can then test that provisional hypothesis when you interact with them and see if it's correct or not. That's both fun & useful, whether it's proved wrong or not.

Here's an extreme scenario that might act as a litmus test of other readers' own intellectual position: would you actually prefer it if everyone around you wore perfectly-fitting bespoke outfits hewing closely to the language of tradtional Western tailored clothing (fully accepting that there's a huge variety of potential looks within that narrow remit)? Personally, I would really hate such a world. I like seeing the variety of looks we currently have, and I actually like seeing that some people take more effort than others in both choosing outfits and in how successfully executed those outfits are. I think that's a more pleasant world to live in.

On a different point, I wonder if we're defining the word "costume" slightly differently because I'm uncertain how your penultimate para presents any sort of essential problem to the idea of clothes as costume. I would happily cede that all clothes today are in some way influenced by older forms of clothes, as modified by the passage of time & cultural change (and influencing culture in return). There's a continual two-way conversation between clothes, individuals and society. But I don't follow how accepting that all the costumes of today are in some way influenced by the costumes of the past in any way negates them as being costumes. There isn't an inconsistency here. What we wear today is costume, what our grandfathers wore was costume, and so often ad infinitum.

Finally, if you don't mind some bare-faced cheek (quite literally), here's an amusing little thought which crystallises out why I think the costume philosophy of clothes makes sense. On the first day that primitive man decided to wear the skin of the animal he just killed, he actually created two costumes. One was the skin of the animal - it didn't just provide a utilitarian warmth, such an invention would have inevitably subsequently influenced his interactions with others and his social function/place within his tribe. The other was nudity. Clothes allowed the differention of the clothed self from the nude self. Today, nudity is still a costume, with its own specific etiquette of usage. There's even a condensation of this concept; it's made concrete in our language with the phrase "birthday suit". If nudity is a costume, clothes themselves must also be.

 

[Threadbearer]



Different strategies for how best to direct the blatant attempts at looking monied.

...and getting laid.

 

[acecow]



...and getting laid.

As a young person, I find this point to be the most important one.

 

[KingJulien]

Quote:

No, I actually meant most people in the MC subforum will accept an outfit regardless of brands. That has been my experience.

There's a couple posters over in SW&D (mellowfellow off the top of my head) that regularly get 10-20 likes every time they post a fit which usually consists of mostly uniqlo, which would be about the price equivalent of your Lauren RL suit. There's another that wears mostly stuff I've never heard of (I think he finds them in the bargain bin at yoox) and combines them in a cool way and, again, usually is very appreciated.


Quote:
...
You seem to be stuck in your world view and unable to accept that other people don't share your priorities and aspirations. Not wearing a suit isn't always, or even often, 'desperately rebelling against society.' Life isn't a big golden path to your way of thinking that the poor unfortunate people who don't like tweed are stuck lagging way behind on.

 

[acecow]



Quote:


There's a couple posters over in SW&D (mellowfellow off the top of my head) that regularly get 10-20 likes every time they post a fit which usually consists of mostly uniqlo, which would be about the price equivalent of your Lauren RL suit.  There's another that wears mostly stuff I've never heard of (I think he finds them in the bargain bin at yoox) and combines them in a cool way and, again, usually is very appreciated.



...
You seem to be stuck in your world view and unable to accept that other people don't share your priorities and aspirations.  Not wearing a suit isn't always, or even often, 'desperately rebelling against society.'  Life isn't a big golden path to your way of thinking that the poor unfortunate people who don't like tweed are stuck lagging way behind on.

I wear suits maybe 3-4 times a month. I even started the MC Casual thread here, because it's more relevant to me. Would you tell me why most guys that come from SW&D to defend their point of view resort to childish and/or personal insults, and misinterpreting and twisting other people's posts and arguments? Also, they tend to try to raise the level of hostility instead of having a civilized argument? I thank Shah for holding a logical and argumentative discussion, even if I disagree with him.

 

[KingJulien]

Quote:

I wear suits maybe 3-4 times a month. I even started the MC Casual thread here, because it's more relevant to me. Would you tell me why most guys that come from SW&D to defend their point of view resort to childish and/or personal insults, and misinterpreting and twisting other people's posts and arguments? Also, they tend to try to raise the level of hostility instead of having a civilized argument? I thank Shah for holding a logical and argumentative discussion, even if I disagree with him.

I apologize, my post came off as a lot more combative than I intended. My intent wasn't to insult, and I'm sorry it came off that way, the second paragraph was specifically a response to this, and not a personal attack on you:
Quote:
I don't agree that dressing differently is rebelling against society, or rebelling against anything, really. I think for a lot of people the progression goes the other way, from menswear to more eclectic clothing, and I don't see either way as more valid or better than the other. For the record, I usually dress relatively conservatively, jeans, boots etc, but I really enjoy all sorts of other things from an aesthetic standpoint.

 

[james_timothy]

The big difference is that many who are active in the MC forum do not have this perpective. Their particular viewpoint is to seek an unbroken connection to the past through the specific avenue of tailored clothes. For some (a diminishing subset), it is a simple daily requirement of professional and social life...to dress as their father, grandfather, and so on among other men who also dress the same way. For some, it is an aesthetic decision to recover and preserve old things that are more beautiful than new things. For yet others, it is a form of nostalgia bound up in concepts of society and culture. It can be one, two or all three.

Restated into something I can buy into:

"MC seeks an unbroken connection to the past through the specific avenue of tailored clothes. For some it is a simple daily requirement of professional and social life...to dress as their father, grandfather, and so on among other men who also dress the same way. For some, it is an aesthetic decision to recover and preserve old things that are more beautiful than new things. For yet others, it is a form of nostalgia bound up in concepts of society and culture. It can be one, two or all three."

That idea is just great. It also points out where the "anti-costume" mind-set must fail: what if your father, grandfather, and so on did not follow the specific avenue of tailored clothing? To honor that past requires disrepute? Intellectually indefensible.

Seeking an unbroken connection to the past through the specific avenue of tailored clothing? What a wonderful concept. Stand proud when pursuing it.