On why we like modernist chairs and houses, but classical clothes.

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by radicaldog, Jan 28, 2013.

  1. AldenPyle

    AldenPyle Senior member

    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    84
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    

    Mao suit is more Brutalist than modernist, maybe.

    In regards to the OP, there seems to be a preference for tailored clothing with neo-classical design ideals. I wonder if there is such a thing as neo-classical furniture or furnishings.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2013


  2. Lovelace

    Lovelace Senior member

    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    33
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2012
    

    Well, infatuation is probably a bit too strong a word It was certainly fashionable in the early 19th century, however

    As the 19th century progressed, there was something of a rejection of Neo-Classical/Palladian architecture and Neo-Gothic became more prevalent.

    'The clothing analog to modernist architecture would be the Mao Suit.'

    In more ways than one. :)
     


  3. Gdot

    Gdot Senior member

    Messages:
    5,248
    Likes Received:
    273
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    

    Of course there is. Empire, Federal, Greek Revival, Regency, are all particular periods of furnishings or interior designs that might be considered as 'neo classical'. Some more so than others.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2013


  4. AldenPyle

    AldenPyle Senior member

    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    84
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    
    You're right. Those seem to cohere more with classical principles of dress.
     


  5. MyOtherLife

    MyOtherLife Senior member

    Messages:
    6,501
    Likes Received:
    474
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    Location:
    The Arena - Centerfield
    On why we like modernist chairs and houses, but classical clothes....
    To respect the old while searching for the new.
     


  6. Loathing

    Loathing Senior member

    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    198
    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2011
    Location:
    London
    I don't agree with Mafoo's argument about cost-benefit at all. The vast majority of people, when they come round to building a house, especially a family home, choose to build it in a traditional style. People opt for the nostalgic idioms of pitched roof, wooden floors, bow/bay windows, fireplace, etc. Furthermore, often people will opt for modernist furniture inside a home that has a traditional facade. And as other people have mentioned, often people mix antique furniture and modernist furniture in one room -- something one would never do with clothing (without looking absurd).

    Also, it is not true that in general people "like modernist chairs and houses, but classical clothes". It's something very specific to this crowd, i.e., people who really enjoy finely designed and crafted things. I think that's all it amounts too. Classical clothes look beautiful and involve craft and design that I can really get my kicks from. The same applies to some modernist furniture. The chronology and cost-benefit is basically irrelevant to me.
     


Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by