GQ Business Casual Article

Given that magazines are geared to the general public I think it does a decent job. If you're already on the cutting edge you obviously dont need tips from GQ.

Think of where these mags end up? Last time i flipped through GQ it was on the stand at my Barber shop.

They always go more extreme in the pictures because they want to highlight what actually changed, if the average guy is thinking that the fashionable guys are going no-break on their pants then he will move to a light break on the next pair.

I think it's funny how they say no to square toed shoes (which I agree with). Weren't they telling everyone to buy them earlier this year?

Really great interesting article!

Originally Posted by chrisb0109

Click to expand...

I hear this over and over again on here. You guys have got to realize that the fashion industry doesn't care about the average man or woman.

Most young men and women may not have the means to buy the clothing represented in these magazines, but i would wager that a significant portion of these fashion brand's sales come from the small group of young, thin, modelesque people who can afford them.

While the average middle aged man or woman is more likely to be able to afford these clothes, they aren't interested in buying them. These magazines and advertisers aren't just bullshitting. There is a reason that ads are aimed at a certain group of people. It is making them money.

Agreed, but they would make much more money by inviting a lot more people to the party, so to speak. GQ (Details, etc) are still very useful magazines to newcomers.

The fashion mags are who invite newcomers to the party. If you dont know the first thing about menswear you still know what GQ is.

Originally Posted by althanis

Click to expand...

Are some of those pants too tight? I personally think it's all well fitted stuff that I'd really like my wardrobe to eventually look like, but you guys have an expert eye.

Remember: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. GQ does exclusively antithesis. Their pants reliably show pulling at the crotch even when the model is standing still. (GQ is also staffed by eunuchs, so they don't favor pleats.)

Originally Posted by Man Of Lint

Click to expand...

Agreed, but they would make much more money by inviting a lot more people to the party, so to speak. GQ (Details, etc) are still very useful magazines to newcomers.

I imagine their market research team would disagree. These people aren't just making it up as they go.

Moreover, I think the average person fails to realize that on an aesthetic level, the fashion industry is not only not concerned with them, but dead-set not to accommodate them. Its simple, people with a body shape don't make a good foundation for clothing.

I think you need to be in the industry to get it to some extent. Fashion designers, photographers, etc are artists. They have an aesthetic in mind and don't wish to accomodate people outside of that aesthetic. Thats just how the game works. Of course money is a driving factor, but if they can make enough without letting "normal" people wear their clothes, why give in?

Originally Posted by Metlin

Click to expand...

...

I wish more shoes came with a rubber sole option -- aesthetic over comfort seems to be the mantra today, unfortunately.
I wish!

As for the article, I think that rubber soles can be practical (for worse weather, intense use etc.).
I don´t share their hate for pleated pants. Some of my pants have single pleats, some of them have no pleats, I don´t think it really matters for my body type. Double-pleating is a no-no though, I agree with that.
Other than that, this article can surely give some valuable basic inspiration for beginners.

Originally Posted by chrisb0109

Click to expand...

I imagine their market research team would disagree. These people aren't just making it up as they go.

Moreover, I think the average person fails to realize that on an aesthetic level, the fashion industry is not only not concerned with them, but dead-set not to accommodate them. Its simple, people with a body shape don't make a good foundation for clothing.

I think you need to be in the industry to get it to some extent. Fashion designers, photographers, etc are artists. They have an aesthetic in mind and don't wish to accomodate people outside of that aesthetic. Thats just how the game works. Of course money is a driving factor, but if they can make enough without letting "normal" people wear their clothes, why give in?

That was the answer I was looking for. Well stated.

Originally Posted by SkinnyGoomba

Click to expand...

The fashion mags are who invite newcomers to the party. If you dont know the first thing about menswear you still know what GQ is.
With respect, I both agree and disagree. It is true what you say. However, the fashion mags are leaning to inviting wealthier newcomers to the party, or wanna-be's who will spend every dime they have to gain social acceptance. The price tag 'weeds out the riff-raff' to use an olde phrase. I feel that most men don't even know they can dress better. It is as though they are out there, all 98% of them, waiting for someone to give them permission. Magazines like GQ are playing it safe with the anorexic mannequin models. People can and do find it very intimidating to see their own demographics left unrepresented. Maybe Rodney Dangerfield was onto something with his 'Regular Guy' look in 'Easy Money'? (Or was it 'Back To School'?) There are also not enough ethnic backgrounds represented. Remember the old Benetton ads? They were a master-stroke that invited the whole world into their stores. Everyone felt welcomed to shop there and explore and wear. We need to see more of this human diversity in GQ, that's all I am saying. I hope you understand my meaning. It is difficult to put into words my frustration on this issue.

Originally Posted by chrisb0109

Click to expand...

I think you need to be in the industry to get it to some extent. Fashion designers, photographers, etc are artists. They have an aesthetic in mind and don't wish to accomodate people outside of that aesthetic. Thats just how the game works.

Then it's a bad game.

Originally Posted by amplifiedheat

Click to expand...

Then it's a bad game.

Why?

Originally Posted by chrisb0109

Click to expand...

Why?

Why is exclusion on the grounds of body shape bad? Why is exclusion on the grounds of skin color bad?

Originally Posted by landshark

Click to expand...

I think it's funny how they say no to square toed shoes (which I agree with). Weren't they telling everyone to buy them earlier this year?

And the same with boot-cut pants. Two years ago boot-cut pants were all the rage and now, straight-leg is in style and boot-cuts are hard to find. Retailers just want you to buy and buy and buy.

Frank The J.Crew Dork has become a parody of himself.