STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by VRaivio, Feb 9, 2013.
Quite. I think "The Rules" should properly be viewed as a sort of sartorial "best practice".
Part of what I think Sator is getting at is the rigidity of the iGent mentality via the internet. He cites historical examples of rules/rule breaking but in the name of poking fun at people who learn a little and then propogate this knowledge as rules blindly without a proper knowledge base.
Yes, but he himself is rigid in his denunciation.
NJS was by far best contributor in that thread.
I don't disagree - I just saw this thread driving towards a debate of whether rigid rules really exist and away from (at least part) of what Sator was getting at. If he was rigid or otherwsie clumsy it distracts from his overall thesis.
There has been much discussion on this board recently about these rules being the starting point for all aspiring styeforumites so it seems to me a worthy debate as to how these rules actually arise and whether they are simply old wives tales (no offence to old wives) passed along without any really questioning as to their validity or historical acuracy or whether they have some real basis.
Sator is definitely the sort of guy who is likely to be persuaded by that. I think you'll find it well worth the effort.
I did the majority of my "research" or reading or whatever you'd like to call it well before I actually signed up for an account here. To be honest I think it's best to have some understanding of things before you attempt to "contribute." Though I know that is a dangerous idea. And, as you are no doubt aware, it's a dangerous assumption to correlate post counts or date of membership with insight. Though I did the majority of my learning here from much older threads of which I was not a part. Aside from a few threads or off-hand discussions, the vast majority of what gets discussed here now has already been covered. But, then again, that is the nature of the beast as new people take an interest and old people have new experiences.
I really hang around now for insight into bespoke processes and to exchange PMs with more experienced members than myself. Anything outside of that generally falls into the category of snark or trying to inject some sense of reality into the conversation.
EDIT: Likely more to your point/question, I very rarely post fit pics here because I don't need the validation. Half ignorance is bliss, half cyber eliitism.
That devolves quickly into personal preference.
I suppose you can criticize someone for a lack of internal consistency among their preferences but he can skirt that by making any norms sufficiently specific.
Manton's philosophy, as I understand it, relies on a univesal aesthetic sense though one, quite obviously, not shared by all or even by all of the relevant audience.
The implications follow much more clearly from that premise than they do from yours. Though, in the abstract, his premise is much harder to defend.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to read your rebuttal.
I just don't want you to burn yourself out and then only post in CE for three months.
Guys, I don't see what's so complicated. A good rule isn't necessarily one that's always been. So what if no one ever said "no charcoal odd trousers?" Somebody is saying that now, and giving you reasons for it. Use your brain and ask yourself if those reasons make sense. That's why Sator wound up wasting his time trying to crack these so-called "iGent myths." That they were pronounced by so-called "iGents" doesn't necessarily make them bad.
One great thing about the internet is that communities like ours can now get together and exchange ideas. It wouldn't be surprising if we came up with some newly-distilled best practices together.
I think you're trying to read two views as necessarily exclusive to each other, when they are not. My essential point is that "rules" have meaning and history, and we should contemplate them to determine how they should be applied (if at all), rather than merely mimmic what others have done before in a rote fashion. Nobody here, not even Manton, strictly adheres to every rule. Dressing is a thinking art. You don't dress well by simply following what's "correct" (AAAC) or dressing on impulsive whim (WAYWRN). You have to think about what you're doing.
Believing in a universal aesthetic is only helpful if you attempt to derive guidance (aka "rules") from it. That leads you to the problem of distinguishing good rules from bad, which is what I was addressing. Separate issues.
I completely agree with this. My issue with the way "rules" are sometimes presented is the claim that in the past they were societally enforced on a wide basis, when evidence is to the contrary.
I am happy with the assertion that for decades exceptionally well-dressed men would never pair Thing X with Thing Y, nor ever contemplate wearing Thing Z. But that is often extended into an untenable claim that in the past no reasonably acceptably-dressed man would do so.
I was banned from the CE!
There is always a degree of societal enforcement with clothes. You have to wear them in public or face arrest for example.
Did you go to school in England, did you wear a uniform at school. Why do you think this was. What were they trying to achieve?
Separate names with a comma.