1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

If style is your beautiful wife fashion should be your exciting young mistress

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by David Reeves, Feb 25, 2013.

  1. bertie

    bertie Senior member

    Messages:
    808
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Location:
    North of
    

    Dunno - my style - I mean wife - tweets but I'm a dinosaur that way. I would prefer if we did this by regular mail.
     
  2. bertie

    bertie Senior member

    Messages:
    808
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Location:
    North of
    

    lederhosen?
     
  3. YRR92

    YRR92 Senior member

    Messages:
    2,345
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2012
    Wore a kilt once.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2013
  4. bertie

    bertie Senior member

    Messages:
    808
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Location:
    North of
    

    You must persist in your kiltish ways lest it be seen as fashion. Own it - make it your personal style
     
  5. JLibourel

    JLibourel Senior member

    Messages:
    8,602
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Given the current state of "fashion," with these ridiculous undersized suits that bisect your fly and your ass, I'd say that Fashion is not an "exciting young mistress" but a cheap, skanky whore! (Not that I haven't frolicked with some of the latter!)
     
  6. YRR92

    YRR92 Senior member

    Messages:
    2,345
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2012
    But kilts are in fashion... I already have enough in common with Kanye West...

    ... That's a lie. I should have more in common with Kanye West. Also, "habitually wear a kilt" is somehow not the worst advice I've read on here.
     
  7. bertie

    bertie Senior member

    Messages:
    808
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Location:
    North of
    

    when you say "latter" are referring to cheap whores or skanky whores (just for a complete record mind you)? Never mind - I just remembered the difference between former and latter.
     
  8. bertie

    bertie Senior member

    Messages:
    808
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Location:
    North of
    

    You have made my day.
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. YRR92

    YRR92 Senior member

    Messages:
    2,345
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2012
    And it's not yet 2:00 AM for me yet.
     
  10. add911_11

    add911_11 Senior member

    Messages:
    2,994
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    I concur with the title.
    Wife is something sophisticate, timeless, and will(or have the potential) to spend the rest of time with you, although shape and form changes, the allure remains constant.
    On the other hand, mistress is excitement, sexy, filthy, it only stays good for a short time, certainly not something you want to keep for a long period.

    I am not going to discuss whether a man must have a wife and mistress, but in clothing everyone should accept style and fashion. Style only comes with consistent pattern of fashion.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2013
  11. David Reeves

    David Reeves Senior member Affiliate Vendor

    Messages:
    3,111
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Location:
    New York
    

    You understand my position perfectly.
     
  12. bertie

    bertie Senior member

    Messages:
    808
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Location:
    North of
    I'm not sure I fully agree that style comes from fashion (or the consistent pattern of fashion as noted above). While there is clearly overlap between the two and the "language" is similar (in the sense that shoes or pants mean the same thing in both style and fashion) style is (to quote Raymond Chandler from my earlier post), a projection of personality. Fashion is the expression of brand name designers using the same language.

    I suppose you can base your sense of style purely on designer clothes (fashion) and there are certainly people who can do that (some of those referred to as "flippers" on this forum may well fall into this camp). However, that does not mean style must be, or has historically been, based on fashion. It is equally possible to have a sense of style using archetypical clothes (e.g. traditional savile row or traditional Italian tailoring) that is not related to fashion at all. I think some people on this forum argue that style must, in fact, be based on these archetypical clothes and specific combinations (also know as "the rules"). Perhaps David, that is a point you were getting at?

    Note again, my definition of fashion is the cycle of clothing product development created by brands/designers and based on the need to create products to fill time-specific demands of the market. Fashion is thus inherently based on perpetual change incuding colours, cuts and fabrics. If your definition of fashion is different you might reach a different conclusion.

    I think the most interesting and important part of Chandler's quote, however is that you should have a personality before you can project it. One hypothesis is that many people who aspire to dress better simply emulate the style of others when it is unlikely to match their own personality or their own personality is underdeveloped. The result is a style disaster/"divorce" where the incompatability issues are insurmountable. The practical result is sometimes called "the clothes wearing the man" rather than vice versa.

    If one has a personality and expresses it through a sense of style, adding a mistress of fashion may not create any harm and even add a sense of excitement. The French seem to be able to pull this off but most every other nationality struggles with it. The inherent dangers of trying to add fashion to an underdeveloped sense of style will, most likely, end in tears.
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. Holdfast

    Holdfast Senior member

    Messages:
    10,562
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2013
    2 people like this.
  14. bertie

    bertie Senior member

    Messages:
    808
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Location:
    North of
    Now I don't disagree with you - however, I (and Chandler) was focusing on personal style versus a "collective construct" to use your term. I think your analysis is more relevant to the notion of the broader concept while I was taking a narrower view. It seems to me that many of the debates here on SF end up going into multi-page threads just exactly becuase of the different definitions of style.
     
  15. Ianiceman

    Ianiceman Senior member

    Messages:
    2,651
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Location:
    Keyboard War Room
    "Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months." (Oscar Wilde)
     
  16. hendrix

    hendrix Senior member

    Messages:
    9,452
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    

    no, that's not a good definition of what fashion is.


    But it was and is related to fashion. It came from fashion and it remains a part of fashion. It is a fashion in itself.


    yeah I like this
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2013
  17. Xenon

    Xenon Senior member

    Messages:
    602
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    fashion is an evolving element that permeates life and gets incorporated into style in some shape or form.
     
  18. Claghorn

    Claghorn Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    10,005
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Location:
    Texas.
    I guess I see Style as something which has coalesced over a number of years, really solidifying in the last century (perhaps because of the popularity of photography, which would both preserve and spread certain types of dress, providing something more concrete to build upon). Fashion seems more open and eclectic than Style, which is not to say Style can't adapt, but it is definitely more rigid. Fashion allows for a greater expression of creativity. But with that freedom comes a lot of silliness and weird-for-weird's sake.


    In practice, I've always thought of the two in terms of a picture test. If I look back at a picture of myself 20 years from now, will I say "That looks good" or "What was I thinking?" The way in which I frame those options clearly demonstrates my bias, and there are certainly more fashion forward looks that will stand the test of time (and will even worm their way into Style).
     
  19. Ivar

    Ivar Senior member

    Messages:
    928
    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Location:
    Stockholm
    

    Worrying yourself over how the future "you" will judge your sense of style I've always thought a bit neurotic, but I can see how invoking the future (and the past) might make you more aware of the excesses of the present.
     
  20. bertie

    bertie Senior member

    Messages:
    808
    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2009
    Location:
    North of
    no, that's not a good definition of what fashion is.

    Ah - you best provide one yourself then. My tactic is to try and define what I mean as part of my thesis. Unless we can agree on definitions or at least acknowledge how they differ, we are just talking at each other not with each other.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by