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

Rules: common sense or religion?

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by alchimiste, Mar 8, 2005.

  1. dah328

    dah328 Senior member

    Messages:
    4,603
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2003
    You make a very accurate and theologically astute point, Alex. Â Every person serves a "god" (or gods) whether of an "organized" religion or not. Â Although you earlier stated "I have carefully avoided citing rational and non-rational religious tenets in an effort to keep the thread from becoming embroiled in controversy over the basis of the various beliefs of the many organized religions," I think you're well into it now. Â And the original poster may come to regret his choice of words as this topic gets towed to Current Events, Religion, and other Flame Wars... [​IMG] As an aside, I think there's still room here for those of us whose answers to your questions above were not the ones to which you profess advance knowledge. Regards, dan
     
  2. Manton

    Manton Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    41,568
    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Location:
    In Hiding
    Alex: everything you say about the habits and inclinations of the people on the boards may be true, and yet that would not change the metaphysical differences between religion and convention or custom. I am not "protesting," only pointing out an important distinction.

    The original post should perhaps have been titled, for the sake of precision, "Rules: rational or conventional?"
     
  3. Alexander Kabbaz

    Alexander Kabbaz Senior member

    Messages:
    1,272
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Location:
    East Hampton & New York
    OK. I concede. In my utterly simplistic fashion, I was merely trying to avoid selecting any particular belief of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism or any of the other popular organized sects in an effort to avoid inciting ire.
    Of course. I consider my shirts in a religious manner. Shoes ... New Balance will do fine. [​IMG]
     
  4. Alexander Kabbaz

    Alexander Kabbaz Senior member

    Messages:
    1,272
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Location:
    East Hampton & New York
    My point exactly. You, and many others, are having the discussion in the de jure metaphysical arena. In contrast, I insist upon remaining on a de facto level. Possibly, both are equally correct? Perhaps we can all just blame it on the non-specificity of alchimiste and void his free shirt request? [​IMG]
     
  5. LA Guy

    LA Guy Opposite Santa Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Messages:
    33,419
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Location:
    Moscow, Idaho
    I believe this to be the most concise and precise formulation of the question. Let's go with it.

    In my oipinion, the "rules" as codified (I accept that Flusser et al codified the rules rather than actually laid them down) are rational within a narrowly defined set of conditions, namely, the conventions of male costume from just before the turn of the century to just before the WW II, but that these conditions no longer exist, and are therefore conventions only, and archaic ones at that. Moreover, I would go so far as to say that the codified "rules" are in fact much stricter than the "rules" as they existed within the framework in which they would have been rational.
     
  6. Alexander Kabbaz

    Alexander Kabbaz Senior member

    Messages:
    1,272
    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2003
    Location:
    East Hampton & New York
    Dear Manton and LAGuy,

    I think that I have been answering the question as originally posed, to wit: That to quite a number of sartorial devotees, clothing is a form of religion. Personally, I find great interest in members' answers to the original question for it is something I have been studying for a couple of decades.

    However, throughout this thread, you have been struggling mightily to alter the original question to one which better fits the answers as you would like to offer them. Might you not reserve that privilege for alchimiste? Alternatively, there is a button up at the top of the page titled "New Topic". Convention (see 'Hijaaking') would dictate that you push it.

    Objecting ... but with great admiration and affection,
    Alex
     
  7. faustian bargain

    faustian bargain Senior member

    Messages:
    2,523
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Bay Area
    i'm interested to hear what these conditions were, and why they are no more, and why they should be no more.

    some random thoughts:

    - to me, style (whether in clothing, architecture, typography, etc.) has more to do with language than with religion.

    - you can make up a style, although it's hard to avoid being derivative. if you are guided by so-called 'common sense', you will unavoidably make a style that resembles another one.

    - there are mainstreams, and there are alternatives. is one better than the other?

    - it seems the extent to which dressing is a social act, is the extent to which the 'rules' of dressing constitute a religion. the extent to which a person wishes to be a social individual is one way the 'rules' can be both a religion and 'common sense'; i.e. whether one dresses to meet or to thwart expectations.
     
  8. LA Guy

    LA Guy Opposite Santa Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Messages:
    33,419
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Location:
    Moscow, Idaho
    Okay, really busy, but some changes:

    Before WWII:

    - The end of the American Great Depression.
    - The emergence of the assembly line as the predominant form of production.
    - The increasing ubiquity of catalogue/mail order shopping.

    After WWII

    - The continued popularization of military styled and work clothing. Many clothing conventions to that time had military roots, but WWII was the most conscripted war in modern times (unless you count the Napoleanic wars) and the uniform traditions that were adapted were not those of dress or officer uniforms, but the drab, durable and function uniform of infantry conscripts.
    - The emergence of Method Acting (I kid you not) and the emergence of the anti-hero, from Brando in Streetcar to James Dean in Rebel without a cause. The hero was no longer elegant and dandified - he was a man who sweated, rolled up his sleeves, and slouched in his clothing.
    - The baby boom and the reaction against the status quo by the boomers in the 60s - those who grew up in the 60s have never put the yoke of the suit on as comfortably as they did in the past. And putting on a suit came to symbolize conformity and drudgery (See "Man in the Grey Flannel Suit".)
    - Related to the above: the youth movements of the 50's and 60's, from the mods to the hippies, who defied or redefined the conventions previously held.
    - the continued democratization of fashion to the present.

    Many more changes. Will post more later. Point is, we are not in the 20's anymore.
     
  9. faustian bargain

    faustian bargain Senior member

    Messages:
    2,523
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Bay Area
    still not sure how any of those points lead to the conclusion that the 'rules' we're talking about are now obsolete.

    within the subculture begun by the elements represented by the anti-hero, youth movements, etc., perhaps they are. that subculture has set up its own set of rules which necessarily are counter to the establishment's.

    but to those in the mainstream, the 'rules' we're talking about play an important role in getting along well with others. same as etiquette, manners, and customs. it doesn't matter much whether these things are 100% pure logic and common sense, what matters is that they are understood and expected.

    democratization notwithstanding, there will always be centers of power and hierarchies emanating from them. as long as that happens, aspirants to power will dress to impress, and the rules will still be relevant.

    it just so happens that in our current time, there are multiple centers of power and influence that issue a wider range of 'rules', such that the jeans-and-tshirt crowd can still obtain at least a modicum of social success without the constricting ties and braces.

    however, until eminem becomes president (and dr. dre is minister of agriculture), i will not believe that the codified rules are too narrowly defined, because they still apply to the mainstream of power and culture.

    /andrew
     
  10. LA Guy

    LA Guy Opposite Santa Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Messages:
    33,419
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Location:
    Moscow, Idaho
    We are confusing 2 issues here.

    First, even with regard to distinguishing oneself as a member or aspirant to a particular place in the class structure, or "centers of power" or "hierarchies" as you put it; the codified "rules" are not as strict and unchanging as Manton and Flusser and other codifiers would have you believe. Anyone who has spent any amount of time in Washington on New York could tell you that some of the people at the very top of the food chain (who still dress themselves, so let's forget the president for the time being) dress in what some people on this forum would deem to be rags - ill-fitting BB or Jos. A. Banks suits, chunky black shoes, etc...

    Secondly, and I think more on topic, I think that these changes have allowed redefinition of what constitutes a "stylish" man that lied far outside of traditional "rules". I would seriously question the grasp on reality of anyone who would tell me that Steve McQueen or Yul Brenner or the David Bowie are not style icons in their own right.
     
  11. faustian bargain

    faustian bargain Senior member

    Messages:
    2,523
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Bay Area
    good points LAGuy. i agree that the range of things we call 'stylish' has broadened much from the traditional.

    ...

    anyway, back to the topic, i think many people believe things based on received 'knowledge', and cannot easily explain or describe their judgements rationally. i think the better efforts at codifying rules of dress are aimed at providing a more rational basis for judging style, as opposed to merely dogmatizing.

    i think if one can't be reasonably precise/logical in explaining why something is wrong, one should probably re-examine the judgement.


    ***edit - sorry for the confusing quote, i just wanted to bring the original question back into view.
     
  12. alchimiste

    alchimiste Senior member

    Messages:
    577
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    a fine country
    My version makes for a better title. I thought of using "dogma" instead of "religion", might have been better.
    I just need to post 49*10 times [​IMG] Who would not post 490 times for a free shirt from A. Kabbaz?
    That's fine, I'll get my free shirt faster.
    No way.
    Alex, I was asking whether the rules were a religion not clothes themselves. So I think that Manton and LAguy rephrase my question more than they really change it. Are rules rational (can be derived logically) or dogmatic (there has never been any logical reason or this reason is outdated)?
    I would agree with this. People don't leave the bottom button of their jackets unbuttonned because of a fat English noble man but because everybody does the same and doing otherwise would not be accepted.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by