whnay.'s good taste thread

[TheFoo]



You are trying to say that a look that you alone identify as ugly is in fact aesthetically objectively/intrinsically ugly. Unless you can make the case for some Archimedian point beyond nature as it is known and experienced by the rest of us, on which aesthetics rests, you have no basis for saynig that. Your response is nothing more than your taste/opinion.

No, earlier, you raised the comparison between "not ideal" and "objectively bad." You stated that the difference is not trivial. I took you to be acknowledging that white-and-white may not be ideal, but is still good, and not bad. I was responding to that.

I'm not saying that my single opinion reflects unimpeachable fact. I'm saying it doesn't matter how many people subscribe to one opinion over the other. You keep talking about convention, as if the number of people who adhere to a belief or practice somehow vindicates it. Even if I am the only one who thinks what I do, it doesn't make me wrong.

At any rate, I'm not asking anyone to simply accept my opinion because it's mine. I've gone on and on justifying it. If you don't agree, that's your prerogative. But this nonsense about whether my opinion is just an "opinion" or a claim to "fact," or whatever, is entirely a distraction. I've said what I've said. I assume if people have comments worth contributing, whether in agreement or dissent, they will voice them--rather than waste time on motive and character labeling.

 

[unbelragazzo]



Yes. The standards hold up very well. If social science is your think, know that it's been studied.

Apologies for the further thread derailment, but I wrote something on topic with links to some of these articles...if you're interested in this topic, click on the links.

http://ivorytowerstyle.tumblr.com/post/22595839474/they-like-big-butts

 

[etkl]



Yes. The standards hold up very well. If social science is your think, know that it's been studied.

I'm not aware of the studies on humans but there have been studies on animals that suggest that for certain genetic and evolutionary reasons, certain physiological traits are favored. As a layman, however, I think the jump from animals to humans is problematic paticularly because the effect of culture is more profound on humans. Do you think that the indiginous people of Europe and Africa have the same sense of what is ugly? Do you think that the Europeans of the 14th century had the same sense of human ugliness as the Europeans of today?

Disclaimer: I am posting in this thread because I have been at home sick for the past two days.
,

 

[TheFoo]



Foo, I take it you must hold all your ties and shirts and squares as perfectly equal in beauty, no? We'll leave out suits because different styles and weights can have uses depending the circumstance. And we know your thoughts on shoes.
But surely you have several silk ties that are more or less interchangeable and can be worn in any season to any occasion, with a multitude of suit-shirt combinations. So, they must all be exactly, perfectly aesthetically equal--right? Because to prefer the beauty of one means that it must be the optimal one, which means that it should always be worn, and the others never worn ... indeeed the others should never in that case have been bought ...

Nope. I consider different items ideal for different outfits and occasions. I just never consider white and white ideal. Ever.

 

[unbelragazzo]



Do you think that the indiginous people of Europe and Africa have the same sense of what is ugly?
,

Dude seriously, read the papers. The basic answer is yes - the range of tastes is fairly small, although there is some correlation with race and culture. The links in my post will get you started. If you want to read more, read the papers that cite and are cited by the papers I linked.

 

[etkl]



Apologies for the further thread derailment, but I wrote something on topic with links to some of these articles...if you're interested in this topic, click on the links.
http://ivorytowerstyle.tumblr.com/post/22595839474/they-like-big-butts

Didn't see this when I wrote my post but your observation only goes so far; that is, that a "healthy" look is inherently more attractive. Bu that look encompasses a whole lot of shapes and sizes.

 

[Manton]

It IS nonsense to say that a gray+gray sock+trou, or blue+blue, is objectively ugly. I would call that combo "not ideal" but never objectively ugly. The same way that I often see on the street, and posted here, outfits that are not ideal but not objectively ugly.

White shirt + white square I never identified as "not ideal." I in fact do think it is ideal for certain occasions. I both like the way it looks and I think it is correct for certain occasions, and better--on those occasions--that other alternatives. I think it always looks objectively good but that there are some occasions when an alternative combo both would look better and better fit the occasion--the latter influencing the former.

 

[Axelman 17]



Well here's me two days ago, with white shirt and white square. Personally I think white square is pretty good in this case.

This looks good but I think a light blue shirt would be better than that white one.

 

[etkl]

Dude, seriously, I plead guilty to not being familiar with the research and relying on intuition. I didn't realize I was walking into a sociology symposium. But if you can ghten us,please do so.

 

[unbelragazzo]



Didn't see this when I wrote my post but your observation only goes so far; that is, that a "healthy" look is inherently more attractive. Bu that look encompasses a whole lot of shapes and sizes.

It's not my observation. Just read the papers that I linked, there's no sense in derailing the thread further. They specifically discuss hips-to-waist ratio, which was Manton's original point. But if you read through the papers you'll find other dimensions along which men have very similar preferences across different cultures.

 

[Manton]



Nope. I consider different items ideal for different outfits and occasions. I just never consider white and white ideal. Ever.

but according to the terms of your own argument, there should only be one prettiest tie. You need a black bow for the DJ, a black grenadine after that for funerals, a wedding tie for weddings, and maybe one conservative business dress blue twill print for job interviews ... but after that, there are no required ties. Indeed, the perfect job interview tie could well go with everything else. But let that slide, so four "necesary ties" and after that, either there should only be one most beautiful tie or else all the rest should be exactly equally beautiful or else they have no place in your closet.

 

[mktitsworth]

Unbel - is that one of the new Vandas?

 

[TheFoo]



but according to the terms of your own argument, there should only be one prettiest tie. You need a black bow for the DJ, a black grenadine after that for funerals, a wedding tie for weddings, and maybe one conservative business dress blue twill print for job interviews ... but after that, there are no required ties. Indeed, the perfect job interview tie could well go with everything else. But let that slide, so four "necesary ties" and after that, either there should only be one most beautiful tie or else all the rest should be exactly equally beautiful or else they have no place in your closet.

No. I never argued there was one prettiest of anything. I am arguing that white-and-white shirt/square is never prettiest. Big difference.

That said, I think you could potentially select four or five ties to suffice for all regular wear. It's just very hard to do.

 

[Slewfoot]

My head hurts.

 

[Manton]



No. I never argued there was one prettiest of anything. I am arguing that white-and-white shirt/square is never prettiest. Big difference.

backtracking