No effs given... correctly

[YRR92]

From a recent event: Glenn Plaid for an evening event. Sprezz tie. FU lapels with matching gigantic boutonniere. This is about as "no *****" as it gets for me.

This is awesome, though the boutonniere might be a bridge too far.

 

[sugarbutch]

Did no one read the article I linked? Even he isn't truly comfortable in that crap.

The longer this thread goes on, the less confidence I have in its premise. Without some context re the person wearing the clothes, it's impossible to determine whether or how many ***** were given. The guy in the Barney the Dinosaur jacket may give zero *****, but from the picture I can only ascertain that he looks like a clown. Maybe he has the charm and panache to pull that **** off in real life, but that doesn't come through here.

 

[Garasaki]

Allow me to spill random and generally inconsequential thoughts:

"No Fs given...correctly"

First one must understand what "No F's given" really means. As far as I can figure, it is dressing in a manner that pushes or breaks traditional style/fashion rules. So, in order to even know if an outfit is "NFG", one has to have a pretty thorough understanding of the fashion rules.

"Correctly" - this seems to mean that the outfit still manages to live within a boundry, either of stylistic good taste or simply aesthically pleasing. This is a very subjective area, it would seem.

I originally said I'd certainly appriciate some "how to". It seems to me that dressing one's self can be considered a form of art. It reminds me of architecture in a way.

From my vantage point, the "quality" of the art has several main influences. The artist must have some natural talent. The artist must have been educated in the ways of the art (the "rules" that are being pushed/broken by NFG). And finally the amount of practice the artist has had (which relies on the resources of the artist). Lastly, of course, is the perspective of the viewer.

If I apply those thoughts to, perhaps the D Wade pictures (or any other picture in this thread), the following questions come to mind:

What fashion rules (guidelines?) are being pushed or broken? What is being adhered to?

Is the outfit pleasing to the eye of an individual viewer? Why or why not? Is there one particular item that breaks or saves the outfit?

Is the context of the outfit important? How is it influenced by the things around it?

In what ways does the body of the outfit wearer influence the aestetics of the outfit?

Taken in the context of a forum like this, it seems that posters may be able to discuss the boundries being pushed by each outfit and whether or not each outfit remains pleasing...

 

[in stitches]

the term no effs given is nothing but a cruel ruse.

 

[chogall]

From a recent event: Glenn Plaid for an evening event. Sprezz tie. FU lapels with matching gigantic boutonniere. This is about as "no *****" as it gets for me.

must have given a lot of F for such coordinated way of dressing.

 

[bourbonbasted]



This is awesome, though the boutonniere might be a bridge too far.

It was my date's idea. She was quite insistent. It was quite worth it.

 

[YRR92]

It was my date's idea. She was quite insistent. It was quite worth it.

That was my guess. Whatever works, right?

 

[Elegantly Wasted]

No Fs given... like in here?:

TOTALLY No Fs given

 

[chogall]

exactly. thats no f given.

any coordinated effort of dressing well for the occasion is not NFG; rather, its all F given.

same **** w/ sprezz. if its studied and intentional, then its not sprezz.

 

[archibaldleach]



exactly.  thats no f given.

any coordinated effort of dressing well for the occasion is not NFG; rather, its all F given. 

same **** w/ sprezz.  if its studied and intentional, then its not sprezz.

True, but faux sprezz has been going on for a long time. Per Brummell:

"My neckcloth of course forms my principal care,
for by that we criterions of elegance swear,
and costs me each morning some hours of flurry,
to make it appear to be tied in a hurry."

Seems the trick is to give a ton of ***** while appearing to give none.

 

[Monkeyface]

Guys, we defined NFG as knowing the rules, but deviating from them in some way that still looks good. Zuckerberg does not know the rules, nor does he look good.

 

[Tirailleur1]

I wish some people READ the previous convos beforehand before they comment.
Why are some of you taking this literally?
Should we not call American Football Football because they mostly use their hands?
Why the hell should we call something Rock music when they are no stones involved?
why would you call me Black and Canta White when my skin is actually mocha and his is more eggshell than white?

 

[in stitches]



Guys, we defined NFG as knowing the rules, but deviating from them in some way that still looks good. Zuckerberg does not know the rules, nor does he look good.

correct.

he also does not care. i think his style, or lack thereof, has been discussed enough here, imo.

 

[Numbernine]

By definition and its true nature sprezzatura is studied .If what you seek need be unstudied than it cannot be said to be sprezzatura

 

[NORE]

NFG means you don't give a F what closeted ******** a clothing forum think or anyone else for that matter. This is what I'm rocking and this is how I'm rocking it. You think I give a F if Foo or anyone else doesn't approve? That's what's wrong with some of you fools; you post pics for e-pats-on-teh-back to bolster your already low self image and don't realize that you have lost your personal sense of style*

*for those of you who had a sense of style to begin with. For the rest, keep studying.

That said, I'm starting this thread for those of you who have a set.