Sneakers With Tailoring: Yes, No, Maybe?

[ValidusLA]

My intention wasn't to be "snarky", sorry about that: English is not my mother tongue, I try my best to communicate my thoughts with it.

The giant quotes were due to a simple "cut and paste" from Cheaney's blog without further formatting, except what I was pointing out: a different view from what has being expressed along this thread.

Ah my apologies if English isn't your native language. My bad.

I still maintain though you can't:
1) Post a blog to make a point about opinion
2) say you don't take your opinions from others

Those are somewhat contradictory.

 

[VegasRebel]

I think you've taken a particularly hard stance on this because I'm criticizing shoes you've purchased, so it has become personal.

This seems to be going both ways, to be fair. It seems like you're against a wealth of opinions, from posters to established brands, because it doesn't fit your personal aesthetic. Not to 'both sides' the argument, but it seems like everyone likes what they like, and the division seems to be how much people will allow if they don't like it personally / how much people care about maintaining a rigid definition.

 

[dieworkwear]

This seems to be going both ways, to be fair. It seems like you're against a wealth of opinions, from posters to established brands, because it doesn't fit your personal aesthetic. Not to 'both sides' the argument, but it seems like everyone likes what they like, and the division seems to be how much people will allow if they don't like it personally / how much people care about maintaining a rigid definition.

I don't deny that there's a diversity of opinion. I also don't deny that aesthetics are subjective, and thus opinions are just opinions. Who would deny either of these things?

I've only said: If you like that period of dress, I don't think this specific iteration of CM has anything to do with it. The business casual with tan shoes, the ordering of strange MTO shoes, etc. I think the first is just about 1990s business casual, and the second is about the growth and development of online shoe culture. Both of these things are also related to people wearing oxfords in incoherent ways.

 

[VegasRebel]

I've only said: If you like that period of dress, I don't think this specific iteration of CM has anything to do with it. The business casual with tan shoes, the ordering of strange MTO shoes, etc. I think the first is just about 1990s business casual, and the second is about the growth and development of online shoe culture.

When you say it that way, I'm 100% on board. "This isn't what I define CM as" is entirely reasonable. I think it just sometimes reads as "This is Bad because it's not how I define CM." And I think you're getting more pushback than you otherwise might because people are disagreeing with the "this is Bad" part, and not with how you envision CM.

 

[acapaca]

Those blue adelaides are from the 1940s. I bought them, among a few other pair, when I had a particular interest in vintage shoes. I do collect, for lack of a better word, a number of vintage, rare, or otherwise desirable examples of craftmanship or art or expertise in fields that interest me, like clothing and music.

I'm not ashamed of that. I think it gives me a heightened appreciation of the craft. I know you would look down on that, given the criticism you repeatedly make of those who view such items as 'objects' above and beyond, or as the case may be, in place of their usefulness as things you wear (or listen to). But I think that's another example of an attitude you convey that is, to put it as gently as I can, unnecessarily closed-minded. Who are you to tell anyone else what they should or should not take enjoyment in? Nobody's telling you you'd be better off with a ballpoint pen.

In case it matters to you -- which all these things clearly seem to, a lot -- those shoes are too big for me, so I don't think I've ever even worn them. I'm not terribly opposed to it in theory, I think it's fair to say, mostly because I am not one of those people, who I guess you think you are speaking to among your camp, who is afraid of drawing attention to himself. I'm also not afraid of missing out on, or losing, the approval of any sort of in-group. And as a practical matter, I enjoy wearing navy loafers, have since I owned a favorite pair of topsiders in middle school, and own several variants. (And though I don't own a pair, I admire some of the navy non-loafers on offer from Alden.)

I do, however, very much enjoy my tan shoes, from loafers to derbies to a sweet pair of quarter brogue oxfords. I get to wear all the cream linen I want (I don't work in anything like an office environment), so I don't have to worry about breaking your rules by wearing them with grey or navy. I have plenty of dark shoes for those anyway.

But every so often, I have to admit, when I throw on cream linen pants and a breezy shirt and I'm putting on my loafers, I'm tempted to go the hell with it and grab those tan brogues, no socks or anything, and just say a big 'eff you' to anyone who might be offended. If I ever do, I'll post a picture in your honor.

 

[Mercurio]

I found an interesting article from the Spanish Costume Museum, dated 2005 and titled "300 YEARS OF MEN'S FORMAL SUIT".

https://www.culturaydeporte.gob.es/mtraje/dam/jcr:796649c7-1947-475f-9516-1379d233a392/03-2005-pieza.pdf

As it is in Spanish, I will attempt to translate some parts of it, as it shows a Spanish point of view on suits and their meaning.

THE CIVIL UNIFORM.
The uniforms reinforce the feeling of group integration by avoiding visible socioeconomic differences, they do not arouse envy or suspicion among its users. They are equally useful for schools with children of diverse economic origin, as for soldiers and businessmen.

The uniform was born at the end of the seventeenth century, extends throughout the eighteenth century (the first great century of diplomacy, the modern army and international trade) and is consolidated during the nineteenth with the political and economic predominance of the bourgeoisie. Finally, in the twentieth century, attentive to female emancipation, Chanel put it in her clients' closets: the female jacket suit. In short, the uniform was born to satisfy a new social function: to facilitate inter-class relations. The uniform is the suit's way of expressing democratic equality.

THE RENUNCIATION OF BEAUTY.
Since the late eighteenth century, men have renounced all forms of brighter ornamentation, making tailoring an austere and almost ascetic art. Men gave up the pretence of being considered beautiful. This repression against the nature seductive character displayed by the males of each animal species and which contemporary males have suffered, occupies the bulk of the books on the psychology of clothing. It is known as the great masculine renunciation of decoration.

Democratic ideal of fraternity.
Against the hierarchical dress of the Old Regime, preserved by the aristocracy with sumptuary laws, according to the new ideals of democracy that emerged from the French Revolution, a costume that did not clash with the doctrine of human brotherhood was imposed, incompatible with the grave goods that highlight the rank over other qualities. The problem was solved by greater uniformity in men's dress.
New valuation of work: Work earns integers because the bourgeoisie says it dignifies it. The male tailored suit means: "I work, I am not an idle aristocrat."

Psychic inhibitions against decoration.
From then on and to alleviate the sacrifice of elegance, the man emphasized in his suit more than his beauty, his rectitude, his property, his cleanliness, etc., becoming a matter of clothing more severe and rigid than the woman and, unfortunately, prejudiced and repressive.

In our days men are recovering the pleasure of dressing beautifully, although this openness to decorativeism is not occurring significantly in formal suits, but in sportswear, leisure and weekend clothing.

 

[dieworkwear]

Those blue adelaides are from the 1940s. I bought them, among a few other pair, when I had a particular interest in vintage shoes. I do collect, for lack of a better word, a number of vintage, rare, or otherwise desirable examples of craftmanship or art or expertise in fields that interest me, like clothing and music.

I'm not ashamed of that. I think it gives me a heightened appreciation of the craft. I know you would look down on that, given the criticism you repeatedly make of those who view such items as 'objects' above and beyond, or as the case may be, in place of their usefulness as things you wear (or listen to). But I think that's another example of an attitude you convey that is, to put it as gently as I can, unnecessarily closed-minded. Who are you to tell anyone else what they should or should not take enjoyment in? Nobody's telling you you'd be better off with a ballpoint pen.

In case it matters to you -- which all these things clearly seem to, a lot -- those shoes are too big for me, so I don't think I've ever even worn them. I'm not terribly opposed to it in theory, I think it's fair to say, mostly because I am not one of those people, who I guess you think you are speaking to among your camp, who is afraid of drawing attention to himself. I'm also not afraid of missing out on, or losing, the approval of any sort of in-group. And as a practical matter, I enjoy wearing navy loafers, have since I owned a favorite pair of topsiders in middle school, and own several variants. (And though I don't own a pair, I admire some of the navy non-loafers on offer from Alden.)

I do, however, very much enjoy my tan shoes, from loafers to derbies to a sweet pair of quarter brogue oxfords. I get to wear all the cream linen I want (I don't work in anything like an office environment), so I don't have to worry about breaking your rules by wearing them with grey or navy. I have plenty of dark shoes for those anyway.

But every so often, I have to admit, when I throw on cream linen pants and a breezy shirt and I'm putting on my loafers, I'm tempted to go the hell with it and grab those tan brogues, no socks or anything, and just say a big 'eff you' to anyone who might be offended. If I ever do, I'll post a picture in your honor.

I don't mean the vintage pair, but the pair below.

How do you suggest these can be worn in relationship to the aesthetic discussed?

 

[Mercurio]

Ah my apologies if English isn't your native language. My bad.

I still maintain though you can't:
1) Post a blog to make a point about opinion
2) say you don't take your opinions from others

Those are somewhat contradictory.

What I was pointing out with my post was the fact that there can be multiple points of view related to the same subject, not necessarily that I support one or the other. In fact, I tend not to be on the side of expressed rules on a subjective matter, closer to the arts than to an exact science, as it is clothing. I have my own opinions, but I don't try to impose it on others. I don't find it contradictory

 

[dieworkwear]

I found an interesting article from the Spanish Costume Museum, dated 2005 and titled "300 YEARS OF MEN'S FORMAL SUIT".

https://www.culturaydeporte.gob.es/mtraje/dam/jcr:796649c7-1947-475f-9516-1379d233a392/03-2005-pieza.pdf

As it is in Spanish, I will attempt to translate some parts of it, as it shows a Spanish point of view on suits and their meaning.

THE CIVIL UNIFORM.
The uniforms reinforce the feeling of group integration by avoiding visible socioeconomic differences, they do not arouse envy or suspicion among its users. They are equally useful for schools with children of diverse economic origin, as for soldiers and businessmen.

The uniform was born at the end of the seventeenth century, extends throughout the eighteenth century (the first great century of diplomacy, the modern army and international trade) and is consolidated during the nineteenth with the political and economic predominance of the bourgeoisie. Finally, in the twentieth century, attentive to female emancipation, Chanel put it in her clients' closets: the female jacket suit. In short, the uniform was born to satisfy a new social function: to facilitate inter-class relations. The uniform is the suit's way of expressing democratic equality.

THE RENUNCIATION OF BEAUTY.
Since the late eighteenth century, men have renounced all forms of brighter ornamentation, making tailoring an austere and almost ascetic art. Men gave up the pretence of being considered beautiful. This repression against the nature seductive character displayed by the males of each animal species and which contemporary males have suffered, occupies the bulk of the books on the psychology of clothing. It is known as the great masculine renunciation of decoration.

Democratic ideal of fraternity.
Against the hierarchical dress of the Old Regime, preserved by the aristocracy with sumptuary laws, according to the new ideals of democracy that emerged from the French Revolution, a costume that did not clash with the doctrine of human brotherhood was imposed, incompatible with the grave goods that highlight the rank over other qualities. The problem was solved by greater uniformity in men's dress.
New valuation of work: Work earns integers because the bourgeoisie says it dignifies it. The male tailored suit means: "I work, I am not an idle aristocrat."

Psychic inhibitions against decoration.
From then on and to alleviate the sacrifice of elegance, the man emphasized in his suit more than his beauty, his rectitude, his property, his cleanliness, etc., becoming a matter of clothing more severe and rigid than the woman and, unfortunately, prejudiced and repressive.

In our days men are recovering the pleasure of dressing beautifully, although this openness to decorativeism is not occurring significantly in formal suits, but in sportswear, leisure and weekend clothing.

I agree with everything written here. These norms come out of what historians describe as the Great Male Renunciation, which was basically British upper-class dress culture imposed on the rest of the world -- partly through imperialism, but also soft power.

This is how Louis XIV dressed for his portrait

And this is how Macron dresses today (along with most people in positions of power around the world).

Note the sobriety: dark worsted suit, white shirt, dark tie. We can't see his shoes, but the "tasteful" choice would be black.

I've been reading a lot of Bourdieu, who wrote about the social origins of "taste." Kant believed that taste and aesthetics could be derived if we just thought hard about these subjects. We can understand beauty in a disinterested, logical way. But Bourdieu believed that taste was sociological and often a mask for the upper classes to assert themselves. He saw "good taste" as just "legitimate taste" -- and legitimized through social and political power.

Bourdieu wrote about subjects other than clothes, mostly cuisine, but you can easily see this sensibility manifest itself through dress. Notions of "good taste" are mostly derived from a section of Western society. Every social group has notions of how to properly dress, but only one section gets to call their norms as "good taste."

There's a motorcycle gang that hangs out near my home. They too have a dress culture. But one would not describe their dress as "good taste." "Good taste" is basically that class that started to lose social relevance starting in the 1980s -- and people who chase good taste are often very middle class people with class aspirations. (Bourdieu's point).

I also agree that men are dressing much more flamboyantly now. And that notions of "good taste" are not the only forms of "legitimate taste." You now have sections of society that hold "cultural capital," such as artists and musicians and even blue collar workers, whose taste and norms can now appeal according to other grounds. So they are now legitimized.





This is a very sleazy outfit, and thus in "low taste" when put into context of "good taste" traditions. As Phileas Fogg would describe it, he looks like a gigolo (I assume UrbanComp would pump his fist and say "mission accomplished").





By contrast, here is an outfit that is in "good taste."

The one thing that these two very different outfits share is an understanding of the social meaning of aesthetics. UrbanComp knows how to use clothes to write a sentence, so to speak. He knows how to refer to social groups or point to some nostalgic thing.

I compare it to costume designers. If a costume designer were dressing Peter as an actor, they would know how to use these clothes to communicate something.

This is a markedly different approach than people who just randomly put things together. The only thing the outfits above communicate is that you're a cubicle farmer.

Similarly, the only thing that weird MTO shoes communicate is that you're into weird MTO shoes.

So even if we're well past the point of "The Great Male Renunciation," dressing in creative ways requires more than just festooning yourself or combining things haphazardly. Dressing "nice" or "well" is also about more than just sticking a pair of oxfords in an outfit, which is why I disagree with that Cheaney sentence, where they say "to make jeans look more sophisticated, just wear oxfords." This is not like adding ingredients to a soup; it's more like writing a sentence. You don't create a sophisticated sentence by just adding the word "sophisticated" to the sentence.

 

[yorkshire pud]

I agree with everything written here. These norms come out of what historians describe as the Great Male Renunciation, which was basically British upper-class dress culture imposed on the rest of the world -- partly through imperialism, but also soft power.

This is how Louis XIV dressed for his portrait


View attachment 1676277


And this is how Macron dresses today (along with most people in positions of power around the world).


View attachment 1676278


Note the sobriety: dark worsted suit, white shirt, dark tie. We can't see his shoes, but the "tasteful" choice would be black.

I've been reading a lot of Bourdieu, who wrote about the social origins of "taste." Kant believed that taste and aesthetics could be derived if we just thought hard about these subjects. We can understand beauty in a disinterested, logical way. But Bourdieu believed that taste was sociological and often a mask for the upper classes to assert themselves. He saw "good taste" and just "legitimate taste" -- and legitimized through social and political power.

Bourdieu wrote about subjects other than clothes, mostly cuisine, but you can easily see this sensibility manifest itself through dress. Notions of "good taste" are mostly derived from a section of Western society. Every social group has notions of how to properly dress, but only one section gets to call their norms as "good taste."

There's a motorcycle gang that hangs out near my home. They too have a dress culture. But one would not describe their dress as "good taste." "Good taste" is basically that class that started to lose social relevance starting in the 1980s -- and people who chase good taste are often very middle class people with class aspirations. (Bourdieu's point).

I also agree that men are dressing much more flamboyantly now. And that notions of "good taste" are not the only forms of "legitimate taste." You now have sections of society that hold "cultural capital," such as artists and musicians and even blue collar workers, whose taste and norms can now appeal according to other grounds. So they are now legitimized.





This is a very sleazy outfit, and thus in "low taste" when put into context of "good taste" traditions. As Phileas Fogg would describe it, he looks like a gigolo (I assume UrbanComp would pump his fist and say "mission accomplished").





By contrast, here is an outfit that is in "good taste."

The one thing that these two very different outfits share is an understanding of the social meaning of aesthetics. UrbanComp knows how to use clothes to write a sentence, so to speak. He knows how to refer to social groups or point to some nostalgic thing.

I compare it to costume designers. If a costume designer were dressing Peter as an actor, they would know how to use these clothes to communicate something.


View attachment 1676281


This is a markedly different approach than people who just randomly put things together. The only thing the outfits above communicate is that you're a cubicle farmer.

Similarly, the only thing that weird MTO shoes communicate is that you're into weird MTO shoes.

So even if we're well past the point of "The Great Male Renunciation," dressing in creative ways requires more than just festooning yourself or combining things haphazardly. Dressing "nice" or "well" is also about more than just sticking a pair of oxfords in an outfit, which is why I disagree with that Cheaney sentence, where they say "to make jeans look more sophisticated, just wear oxfords." This is not like adding ingredients to a soup; it's more like writing a sentence. You don't create a sophisticated sentence by just adding the word "sophisticated" to the sentence.

The guy in the Linen suit, pink polo shirt and sunglasses looks absolutely fine for downtown Palermo to me

The other fella in pinstripes and tassel loafers looks a little bit sleazy

I suppose there is a difference in what Americans and Europeans see as CM

 

[acapaca]

I don't mean the vintage pair, but the pair below.

How do you suggest these can be worn in relationship to the aesthetic discussed?

View attachment 1676273

Well, certainly not like that, because that was me trying them on for fit or breaking them in, right? I've still not worn those out of the house, but I suppose I would wear them with a navy suit if and when I do.

I can tell you that they are fantastic shoes, no doubt about that. A joy to handle. I can also now tell you that the Chisel 2 last fits me very well in size 7, though, which I was able to discover by making the purchase. (The Meccariello boots I have in the same last in 7.5 are, sadly, looser in the instep than I would like.)

I might sell them instead of wearing them, though. I'd hate to think I'm the kind of idiot who would wear navy shoes with a navy suit, and surely there's nothing else I would think to put them with.

 

[物の哀れ]

I've still not worn those out of the house, but I suppose I would wear them with a navy suit if and when I do.

I think this illustrates the divide well.

You considered the object first and the outfit second.

 

[JFWR]

I think this illustrates the divide well.

You considered the object first and the outfit second.

Isn't that how any outfit is conceived?

You have something you want to wear, then you think what pairs with it.

That could be any feature of your assemble: It could be a tie, a pocket square, a jacket, a shirt, a pair of trousers, a watch, etc.

Suits simplify this because you already know what your jacket is going to pair with (your trousers). But you still have to consider one's accessories and shoes and such.

 

[acapaca]

I think this illustrates the divide well.

You considered the object first and the outfit second.

I don't view navy adelaides as impossible to wear. I had several reasons for buying them, but filling a hole in my wardrobe was not one of them. I had and have no need for those as part of an outfit, no. But to go from there to criticizing someone for owning them would, in my opinion, take it too far.

But yes, your point is taken that it illustrates a divide. I, like many others who come to this forum, I am sure, can buy a piece of clothing just because I want to own it and not feel bad about it. I can also feel some pleasure, even if only a small amount, in supporting artisans or brands that I admire. I imagine there is a range of motivations among the members of this board, and that 'figure out how not to look like a newb' is not the only one.

 

[Mercurio]

@dieworkwear, I do agree with most of what you wrote, "good taste" is something that has to be learnt and developed from an early age, and it's related to everything in your life, not only clothing, food, arts and crafts but manners, the way you relate and express yourself every minute of your life. It doesn't mean following a set of rules, it's a way of life and understanding that everything is related.

The social meaning of aesthetics isn't standard, and it's not the same worldwide. Principles can be the same, but their interpretations are particular, thus they can't be classified as "good" or "bad" as they respond to different environments. As with food, some cultures like it spicy, others find it distasteful, but no one can say one is good or bad or better than others.

The photo you uploaded is an image of the new summer worker's uniform in an American city, but you can be sure that it's not the same in other latitudes. Where I live, we don't have seasons, it's like a permanent autumn, so you can't go just on a shirt. Fortunately, I don't need to wear "the" uniform any more, so I am recovering the pleasure of dressing beautifully, exploring without been constrained but always following my own rules, based on what I have learnt since I was a toddler and getting new inspiration and knowledge with what others share in sites like this forum and others.