also I don't think someone with "The Look" would ever ask "how do I look in this" because he knows, whether good or bad.  And if bad, maybe doesnt care....well, at least today while he's wearing it

Tomorrow is always another day.

and the "punk attitude" wasn't birthed by Punk either

the attitude existed with all the myriad youth cults that came prior to it, of course "punk" gets all the credit

James, I find your thoughts on this aspect of the whole...hobby? Preoccupation?  Psychosis?...interesting, because it kind of gets on my nerves.

For some reason, I can't relate to this notion that I'm putting one over on the squares or angling for inclusion in an invisible club of the sussed.  Maybe I don't understand it--if the hair on your neck and your watch strap and coffee maker really matter so much, if there is such emphasis on things being "right" or beneath contempt, how can this be characterized as not "seeking approval?"

I've argued this point before, and we probably just don't understand each other.  I'm very chary of all this coded, secret handshake business after many annoying years spent in the indie music scene, where having the wrong white label single meant you were a complete Herb, anything touted by a national magazine was automatically garbage, etc.  Very parochial and petty--an enthusiasm for interesting music curdled into a lame "scenesterism" whose practitioners lived in terror of revealing an uncool opinion or making a style slip.  What if you just liked catchy melodies and weird, angular guitars?

So, can loving of the Look just be about clothes?  Probably not.  I know I enjoy some of the cultural/social/historical associations with the Ivy thing, but I hate the idea that, because a brand or store or maker has fallen out of favor with some notional cognoscenti, that entity's wares are somehow less desirable.  If a 30-year JS customer sneers at, say, the stuff Gant puts out now, and I see a great shirt on sale there, should that put me off buying it?

I hope someone can explain this mindset to me, or point out how I'm getting it totally wrong, because it continues to nag at me.  Probably I'm just weird.  I never liked team sports, fraternities, clubs, or other heavily coded subcultures.  Too many rules, too much fear and anxiety and striving and insecurity.  Like me or don't like me, I won't be jumping through hoops to fit in.

That kind of behavior only makes sense, to me, if you're trying to get laid.  If you are a cute Asian girl with a bit of boob, I will wear/act/say/buy whatever you tell me to.

I dont think Jim's points are about snobbery.  I took it as people who like these kind of clothes don't just happen upon it for no reason.  There's always some driving force for every style out there, whether it's ivy, goth, Ed hardy, etc.

It's not that you need to know the secret handshake to join the club, as there never was one.  But that, by nature and default, the people who are into all this just have an innate common bond which can be misinterpreted as a secret handshake or snobbery.

After all what's hip and cool for one tribe is seen as passe and affected by another.  It's all a matter of perspective, and I think his point is that those who have an ivy foundation within their style share the common perspective.

and I think there have been countless times where it's been mentioned that it's about the look of a garment, not its pedigree.  So if Gant makes a good shirt in 2009, we will buy it.  If Juicy Coutoure put out something akin to vintage 1960s ivy style shirts with no emblazoned logos, I would be all over it

the most appealing bit about this forum is it's lack of rules (unlike say the iGent cognescenti who are all about rights/wrongs).  I dont know how many times Jim has expressed an "Ivy for everyone" attitude

Last edited by Get Smart (2009-03-17 14:46:35)

i totally see where you're coming from brownshoe.  it's basically "my version of aspiration is better than your's but since mine isn't socioeconomic, it's not even aspiration." 

it's amusing every now and again, but gets a bit tiresome...especially when you consider that there's probably a good 50-60 threads that serve no other purpose than to state this mantra ad nauseum.

Last edited by dustindeed (2009-03-17 14:56:53)

While I can appreciate and agree with much of Brownshoe's take, I find his stance to be equally "annoying" as Jim's, not that I find either annoying but you know what I mean.  2 sides to same coin and all

This forum is a niche bag of interest.  This isn't the everyman's forum that appeals to the general population.  Brownshoe's post reminds me of the same bickering that went on in 50s rocknroll/rockabilly forums, the one camp that said you didnt need to drive a 50s car and wear a pompadour with vintage cut selvedge jeans (and they were right), and the other camp said that the rockabilly scene was a lifestyle subculture that encompassed all facets of their life (and for them they were right).  Point is, it's something different to everyone, but the fact that *we're* all here on this forum means there's a common bond shared otherwise why would we be here.  There are countless amount of men wearing OCBDs and loafers, but they don't post here and if they knew about Talk Ivy they still wouldnt post here.

I think what Jim is trying to say is that for the few that have come to Talk Ivy, it means >this much< more than wearing a buttondown with chinos and loafers.  And if it doesnt mean any more to you then that's fine too.

Because the topics here are so niche, it's easy to think everyone that posts is living in some kind of Ivy fantasy world where we only watch b/w movies and drive vintage cars.

I doubt anyone here lives in a timewarp so it isnt as if we don't have interests that would make the next forumite's eyes roll, I know I'm full of them.

Last edited by Get Smart (2009-03-17 15:46:00)

Last edited by Alex Roest (2009-03-18 14:56:22)