Thoughts on the Sartorialist

[TheBatman]

Greetings.

I shall confess that my first foray into the land of image and style consciousness was led by Scott Schuman, AKA The Sartorialist. Found his blog about 7 years ago... maybe longer?

In any case, it was in retrospect a good primer on the menswear spectrum. Scott's images range from the painfully mundane (Wow! Can you see how the last stitch on the inside of this leather belt is matching the heel of his socks? Do I spot a trend?) to those which capture a sartorial flair that is truly inspiring. And indeed, such images are more than common enough to warrant the blog's place in menswear and fashion in general.

As each year passes though, I find it both odd and increasingly tiresome that garments, people, and looks which are plainly ugly are lauded by Schuman and his commentators. Take this for example:

http://www.thesartorialist.com/photos/on-the-street-st-marks-place-new-york/

Seriously. What IS that??? And make no mistake about it, look through the comments. Sure there are those who are as bewildered as I am, but most of them eat this up.

This isn't just Scott's problem. It is endemic to so many style and fashion blogs. That which is ugly is praised. This is one of the reasons my discovery of styleforum was so refreshing. I have thus far found little of evidence of this kind of chicanery and willful desire for ugliness around these here parts. If something is ugly or weird, y'all call it out.

So what is it about Scott and other style bloggers and enthusiasts that drive them to such nonsense? This is going to open up a whole great big whopping can of meal worms... but I generally find that more conservative and successful men adhere to sartorial standards more in line with styleforum users than.... well, whatever standard that is in the picture linked above. Not to say that politics is the cause for such standards. Rather, is it that the same qualities that make one more conservative or monetarily successful also make one less likely to wear makeup and a man bun?

Your opinions in 5,4,3,2...

Maximum Warp!

 

[Fuuma]

Is this trolling?

 

[TheBatman]

Is this trollin

Is THIS trolling?

 

[FlyingMonkey]

Is THIS trolling?

Fuuma knows his stuff. Your OP, on the other hand, reeks suspiciously of being uncomfortable with style and people that don't conform to gender stereotypes. The not-so-hidden subtext is that 'ugly' = 'queer'... in other words, you're either trolling or you've got a bit of an unaddressed problem.

 

[LA Guy]



Fuuma knows his stuff. Your OP, on the other hand, reeks suspiciously of being uncomfortable with style and people that don't conform to gender stereotypes. The not-so-hidden subtext is that 'ugly' = 'queer'... in other words, you're either trolling or you've got a bit of an unaddressed problem.

I think that it is at least worth a discussion in the context of the guy's style, and specfically, whether it would have been worth mentioning outside of queer identity, and if this is just tokenism.

The dude is pretty basic, the queer equivalent of the girl with the crop top and high rise jeans.

 

[FlyingMonkey]

I think that it is at least worth a discussion in the context of the guy's style, and specfically, whether it would have been worth mentioning outside of queer identity, and if this is just tokenism.

The dude is pretty basic, the queer equivalent of the girl with the crop top and high rise jeans.

If that's how the OP had been expressed, I would agree with you. Does The Sartorialist get over-excited about a bit of basic and rather unremarkable gender-bending? To which the answer may indeed be 'yes.' But it wasn't, was it?

 

[LA Guy]



If that's how the OP had been expressed, I would agree with you. But it wasn't, was it?

Just trying to salvage it.

 

[nicelynice]

It's, uh, just a street snap. A snap on the street. Dude isn't writing a thesis on gender identity or even a net article on clothes. It's a street snap.

That guy looks pretty cool + confident. I like it.

 

[Dr Huh?]

Sometimes (often?) The Sartorialist takes photos of people who just catch his eye. It's not always about fashion. I do find some of the comments a bit breathless, though. "There’s something kind, proud in his eyes. An adult and a child. We can feel all his strength".

 

[TheBatman]

Fuuma knows his stuff. Your OP, on the other hand, reeks suspiciously of being uncomfortable with style and people that don't conform to gender stereotypes. The not-so-hidden subtext is that 'ugly' = 'queer'... in other words, you're either trolling or you've got a bit of an unaddressed problem.

Oh wow. I was wrong. I had hoped to never find someone as pedantically "tolerant" as you around the forum. You are so tolerant, so open minded, so progressive... that you are intolerant of views different from your own. Is the irony lost on you? I suspect it is. People like you never cease to amaze me. DId you even read your comment before posting??? You assume that there is no way I could have legitimately found such style ugly unless I am bigoted. Remarkable. You are EXACTLY the kind of person I disucssed in the original post.

If anyone is bigoted it is YOU. Did I say queer = ugly??? That is purely your imagination. I said that which is ugly is lauded by many fashion forward types, without explanation. My example was an image of someone who, if not 'ugly," is at the very least boring. And yet it is an image that was celebrated on the Sartorialist. Instead of discussing the merits of the image and style, you bring up what you ASSUME is the sexuality of the subject.Is there a sign on his chest that says queer? Maybe he just likes wearing makeup. How do you know he is queer?

Additionally, you go further by attempting to play amateur psychologist. So, I have a problem because manbuns and men wearing makeup is unappealing to me? Wow. Where did you get your training from.... Law and Order SVU? Wonderful detective work Benson. Could you open your mind just a teensy weensy bit more and consider the fact that maybe I simply don't like makeup and man buns and this means.... I DON'T LIKE MAKEUP AND MANBUNS.

Your ignorance bores me.

It's, uh, just a street snap. A snap on the street. Dude isn't writing a thesis on gender identity or even a net article on clothes. It's a street snap.

That guy looks pretty cool + confident. I like it.

No. This does not look "cool." Based on what standard? Compared to who? James Bond? I defy you to honestly swear you think that person looks "cool" or good. Confident? Maybe. The same way someone has to be confident to wear lime green shoes. Doesn't mean it looks good. And "cool" compared to what people around here typically consider looks good? No way! You betray your bias. You are simply saying it looks "cool" because you think the man is queer, and political correctness dictates that he is above criticicism - because people like flyingmonkey might call you a bigot if you do.

Wow. And on styleforum of all places. I am truly disappointed.

 

[TheBatman]

Sometimes (often?) The Sartorialist takes photos of people who just catch his eye. It's not always about fashion. I do find some of the comments a bit breathless, though. "There’s something kind, proud in his eyes. An adult and a child. We can feel all his strength".

I agree with you. Sometimes it is just something that is interesting to the eye. But, as you noticed as well, you find these simply odd praises in the comments or in the descriptions written by Scott himself.

Let's be honest. He looks terrible.

 

[TheBatman]

I think that it is at least worth a discussion in the context of the guy's style, and specfically, whether it would have been worth mentioning outside of queer identity, and if this is just tokenism.

The dude is pretty basic, the queer equivalent of the girl with the crop top and high rise jeans.

Exactly!

And again, just look at the comments. Inexplicable praise.

But be careful! Don't criticize him.... because then... you will be.... A BIGOT! Gasp!

Right flyingmonkey?

 

[flowcharts]

edit: guess I shouldn't have fed the troll.

 

[TheBatman]

yawn....devation from conventional beauty & fashion standards =/= ugly.

Oh God. Really? An aesthetic relativist.... bigger YAWN.

Get off your high horse. We all have standards of beauty. Whether we agree on what they are, and whether or not there is an objective standard of beauty is a different subject. So to pretend to be so enlightened so as to be above the judgement of others.... now THAT is boring. If you have ever judged someone else's looks you are a hypocrite.

More important than just being boring, this vapid perspective reduces any conversation about aesthetics and taste to nothing. The conversation is utterly meaningless. Without standards we cannot even say that Beethoven's pastoral symphony is better than Who Let the Dogs Out? by the Baja Men. So, do you really want to have this discussion?

I suggest you do a basic study regarding aesthetics and aesthetic standards. You will find your position to be untenable. It shouldn't take a reasonable person much time at all to discover the limits of moral and aesthetic relativism. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are reasonable - meaning, capable of using reasoning.

Quite frankly, I am stunned at the ignorance displayed on this thread from SOME members thus far. I am beginning to suspect that those of you with low brow taste suffer from ignorance of basic logic and aesthetic principals and dilemmas. This is quite inexcusable considering how easily such information is attained via the internet.

Lesson one: A statement is not an argument. "Deviation from conventional beauty & fashion standards =/= ugly." This is nothing. It's just a statement of opinion. I can do it too... ahem... "The moon is made of cheese." Again - basic logic. Asserting something is not arguing.

And let us take your statement that deviation from conventional beauty and fashion standards =/= ugly. Well, what is "ugly?" I assert that when we say "ugly" we mean that which is unpleasant or repulsive. You seem to have it completely backwards. You assume that classic standards of beauty are arbitrary - they don't correspond with that which is pleasing and alluring to the senses. Well if this is the case, then you are right. A deviation from beauty standards would not necessarily mean something is unpleasant or repulsive, because the standards do not correspond with what is pleasing and alluring to the senses. If however beauty standards DO correspond with what is pleasing and alluring to the senses, then ugly would in fact be a deviation from these standards. BUT, you must understand that aesthetic standards are simply there to define and clarify that which already exists - the standards do not CAUSE pleasantness. The standards reflect that which is naturally appealing. I assert the latter is the case. Aesthetic and classic standards exist because great artists and clothiers of the past attempted to outline and clarify just what it was that made something beautiful. Now, you can certainly argue whether or not such standards were successful in capturing the spectrum of what is pleasing to the human senses. Perhaps it is erroneous to assume that there is a universal aesthetic standard for ALL people. Perhaps there is a genetic component? Who knows. I would submit to you though that the CONSUMMATE and GREATEST works of art and beauty in the history of the world were created by Western master's from the Renaissance to the early 20th century (up to the modernist movement). And make no mistake, the Mozart's, Ralph Vaughan Williams, Carravagio's, etc. ALL had very strict aesthetic standards that they adhered to.

So if you are going to assert that conventional beauty standards do not correspond to a basic and inherent sense of aesthetic pleasure, well... you are pissing in the wind of history amigo. Doesn't mean you are ultimately wrong. You just have no proof on your side, and all the proof is on mine.

Oh... wait... that DOES mean you are wrong. My apologies.


You are dismissed.

 

[robinsongreen68]

honestly man i suggest YOU look into a basic course in philosophical aesthetics. also, you sound like you dress in vineyard vines