'iGent Myths Busted!'

[unbelragazzo]



The people telling me that longwings (or open laced shoes in general), medium or light gray suits (and I saw flannel suits included for a WTF moment) aren't conservative business dress appropriate astound me. Rewind to the 50's for a moment. What was the iconic standard attire of the conservative city businessman? Mid gray flannel suit, black longwings, often in a pebble grain or shell. Made by Florsheim, of course.

What was once the beau ideal of conservative attire somehow, through iGent reinterpretation, becomes inappropriate for conservative settings.

This is kind of getting the wrong lesson IMHO. While there is a long-lasting conversation in menswear that is important, since connotations of different garments today are often dependent on the functions of their ancestors, going through arcana of the 30's or 50's and trying to replicate exactly is the wrong way to figure out how to dress today.

Sure, you can wear a mid-grey flannel suit with black longwings in shell. You will look like a businessman. From the 50s. There's nothing wrong with that, if you like the look. But the idea that it's perfectly normal and unremarkable dress in, say, modern day DC political circles or NY banking circles (I'm guessing - less direct experience here), is ridiculous. It's not "wrong". But at the same time, it's not what everybody else is wearing. People are a little more familiar with it at this particular moment because of Mad Men, but that's not necessarily a good thing, as now you're the Don Draper wannabe.

This is not (or at least not exclusively) an iGent interpretation. It's a modern interpretation. There's a reason all the politicians wear dark suits and white shirts. Just like all the businessmen and news anchors you see on TV (sportscasters are a whole nother cesspool). It's the modern day business uniform. It's what you wear today in formal business settings in many industries when you want people to think that you're serious but don't want them to talk about what you're wearing. Which is usually what you want in a formal business setting.

As Fok said, for many meetings in California, this would be ridiculous. You show up in suit and tie and everyone else is in hoodies. This is almost as wrong, unless you're comfortable with your dress being conspicuous.

If you want to go for historical accuracy instead, just show up in morning dress and have done with it. Don't forget to bring a wallet full of photos of business being done in morning dress in the old days to show everyone else how correct you are and how wrong they are.

 

[Balfour]

^ Well said.

 

[aravenel]



Do I need to write a lengthy rebuttal to all this nonsense? It would be like a time machine taking us all back to 2005.

Oh, please do!

Spoiler

This is kind of getting the wrong lesson IMHO. While there is a long-lasting conversation in menswear that is important, since connotations of different garments today are often dependent on the functions of their ancestors, going through arcana of the 30's or 50's and trying to replicate exactly is the wrong way to figure out how to dress today.

Sure, you can wear a mid-grey flannel suit with black longwings in shell. You will look like a businessman. From the 50s. There's nothing wrong with that, if you like the look. But the idea that it's perfectly normal and unremarkable dress in, say, modern day DC political circles or NY banking circles (I'm guessing - less direct experience here), is ridiculous. It's not "wrong". But at the same time, it's not what everybody else is wearing. People are a little more familiar with it at this particular moment because of Mad Men, but that's not necessarily a good thing, as now you're the Don Draper wannabe.

This is not (or at least not exclusively) an iGent interpretation. It's a modern interpretation. There's a reason all the politicians wear dark suits and white shirts. Just like all the businessmen and news anchors you see on TV (sportscasters are a whole nother cesspool). It's the modern day business uniform. It's what you wear today in formal business settings in many industries when you want people to think that you're serious but don't want them to talk about what you're wearing. Which is usually what you want in a formal business setting.

As Fok said, for many meetings in California, this would be ridiculous. You show up in suit and tie and everyone else is in hoodies. This is almost as wrong, unless you're comfortable with your dress being conspicuous.

If you want to go for historical accuracy instead, just show up in morning dress and have done with it. Don't forget to bring a wallet full of photos of business being done in morning dress in the old days to show everyone else how correct you are and how wrong they are.

Spoiler

Spoiler

Well said, Unbel. I'm always impressed by how well thought out many of your positions are.

Anyways, the plural of "anecdote" is not data. Just because one can find an example of someone doing something a particular way does not make it a norm.

I will agree that there is a lot of focus on the "rules" here. But for good reason--you need to know the rules and the basics before you can break them. Judging by a lot of fits I have seen, some of mine included, a focus on the basics would be good thing. People are too fast to jump straight to the advanced, trying to show their sprezz. In doing so before they know why the "rules" exist, or even that there are guidelines for these things. They end up looking like clowns. Learn to walk before running and all that.

By the way, I use "rules" loosely here. By rules I mean social norms within a particular context.

I think :foo: said recently that personal style will come naturally out of focusing on the basics. This is very true.

 

[Manton]

There's a great deal of stupidity in this thread, including the obligatory contradictory nonsense from GBR, arguably the worst poster in the history of Style Forum.

Maybe I will get around to making a coherent response and maybe I won't, but has anyone actually looked at the pics SATOR and gang have posted? If so, did you notice that nearly all of them look like complete ****?

So, if you want to look like a fool in order to make a point that the "iGents" are wrong, please be my guest.

 

[RogerP]

Yeah, this... I have never felt pushed around or belittled by any supposed rules that I learned on the internet.

When was the last time you bucked one of the Forum Commandments - like suggesting you'd like to purchase a black suit - or some other near-apocalyptic heresy?

 

[Manton]

Oh, and this thread needs more foo.

 

[bourbonbasted]

I've read and done enough "research" to come to a simple conclusion: If I see something I like, I wear it; Internet need not apply.

Perhaps it's happenstance that my proclivities match those of many here. Perhaps it's some abstract validation of "taste." In any event, like it or not, we no longer live in a society where "rules" dictate a man's wardrobe to the point that some random dude will look down on you or call you out for wearing brown shoes with a navy suit. And trying to create some imaginary line in the sand separating "iGents" from "real gentlemen" adds a further level of delusion and absurdity that can only serve to make outsiders think of us as even more inane.

Put the gun down. It's just clothes.

 

[Samurai-5]

I've read and done enough "research" to come to a simple conclusion: If I see something I like, I wear it; Internet need not apply.

Perhaps it's happenstance that my proclivities match those of many here. Perhaps it's some abstract validation of "taste." In any event, like it or not, we no longer live in a society where "rules" dictate a man's wardrobe to the point that some random dude will look down on you or call you out for wearing brown shoes with a navy suit. And trying to create some imaginary line in the sand separating "iGents" from "real gentlemen" adds a further level of delusion and absurdity that can only serve to make outsiders think of us as even more inane.

Put the gun down. It's just clothes.

^ This!

And I love the fact that Men TRY as opposed to the standard T-shirt and pajama pants/flip flops combo!

 

[aravenel]

You're right, no one will call you out. But that does not mean that there are not societal norms for dress.

I'd also argue that you are a more advanced dresser than most, and have internalized the guidelines well enough to know where and how to break them. I'm not saying you can't break the guidelines. I'm just saying that people should understand them and master them before doing so. They will almost always look better for doing so.

 

[bourbonbasted]

Firstly, thanks for the compliment. Secondly, I agree with learning the basics and doing your due diligence, per my first sentence. However, to argue "proper dress" down to the idea that people reading about it on the internet are inherently less tasteful/informed, or that ideas espoused by strangers on the internet should be taken as law (no matter how many 1940s news clippings they can find), is ridiculous. I suppose elitism is inevitable, but I think people live-and-die by judgment rather than taking the time to understand why a decision was made or appreciating the knowledge they've channeled to come to a conclusion.

If you know why you like something, no one should be able to shake that belief based on the assumptions of "rules" or "norms." Style is personal by definition and the ideas of utility or correctness or appropriateness will inherently vary.

 

[Tirailleur1]

This thread needs more bourbonbasted

 

[razl]



You're right, no one will call you out. But that does not mean that there are not societal norms for dress.

In most situations today though "societal norms" has evolved to - for better or worse - "group norms". There are plenty of supposed "black tie" events where few to none of the participants would pass muster in a classic, sartorially correct black tie event, yet all the participants are perfectly happy calling the event black tie. Indeed, showing up in actual black tie is probably going to be viewed as "over the top" by the participants.

Which is why we have the mismatch that we have in this thread - people are citing historical "rules" which, while they still have a historical footing, just aren't applied across the board any longer (again, for better or worse). Those who continue to stammer and point to the ever widening diversion from the historical norm are rapidly being drowned out by the actions of those in the present. It's quickly becoming less of "here's what you should wear" based on historical standards and more based on what the participant's group allows/desires.

Like it or not, there are fewer and fewer societal level norms that still apply across the spectrum. All that said, I'm still one who wants to the know the historical reason and the societal evolution so that I can include that in part of my own stylistic choices. That way I'm armed with enough historical knowledge, in addition to the current situation, to make better decisions.

 

[aravenel]

You're right that we live in a society that is much more "anything goes", for better or for worse.

What I, and I think several others, are arguing is not so much that you should dress by the rules because you will be ostracized for it. We clearly do not live in pre-war London. What I am arguing is that 95% of the time, you will look much better for adhering to the base norms, at least until you have mastered them well enough to know why they exist and how to break them.

Sure, all sorts of abominations are worn for black tie these days. And guess what? They almost all look like ****. I'd imagine that most people on this forum aren't deliberately trying to dress to look terrible. Learn how the rules work, learn why they are there, and once you have mastered that, do whatever you want.

I'm not advocating a uniform. I'm advocating that people learn the guidelines/rules and *why* they are norms/rules so that they can dress better. Break them all you want. But if WAYWRN is any indication, most people ignore the rules, or don't even know that there are rules, go straight for the sprezz, and just plain look terrible for it.

 

[RDiaz]

If you choose your mentors well, I don't know how on earth learning to dress in the Internet is any different from learning in "real life". In fact, you might grow up "learning" how to dress in coat and tie from people who dress like ****.

 

[Manton]

When I was in grad school, there were a couple of guys who were just out-and-out atheist/nihilists. Nothing is true, the pereciptible order to the universe is a sham (one went so far as to endorse Descartes' "deus deceptor" argument), all apparent reality is illusion, and so on.

Yet they showed up for class, read the books, wrote their papers and took their exams. I always wondered, though, what was the point? There is nothing, I get it. But then why study philosophy? Why study anything?