Just thought this link would be of interest : http://styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=35612

Jean-Jacques,

I do not know you or any of your brethren so I cannot possibly harbor any ill intentions towards you. However, I do take a particularly uneasy stance towards things that do not appear humorous or possess any slight of wit, at initial appearance.

Indeed, within any context of academic writing, that might have been a serious piece--and it would have been seriously bad if it was.

If you regard my anonymous "hysterics", as you put it, as immature or overwhelming, then perhaps you haven't spent enough time in academia, or the literary world! No one ever got by by being nice unless you were the typists. Anyways, I do not want any harsh residual so please go ahead, discuss the nuances of knit ties or whatever Alden lasts.

Last edited by Incroyable (2007-05-10 00:53:56)

Fair enough.

I can't comment on the philosophical stuff or academia since I only took one course on philosophy and didn't enjoy it at all.

However, I think his statement about ugliness/slovinless is absolutely correct.

This is an extension of Fussell's/William A. Henry III/that Book "Dumbing Down"s' comments on anti-elitism.

I realize that there is no specific cultural tie-in here, and perhaps that is the error, but the man properly describes a general trend of people dressing down so as not to make others "uncomfortable."

The Andover shop is an eddy in the stream of that trend.  I felt that was his point and even if he knows jack about everything else that was a point that was worth making.

It might be an obvious point to mens clothing forum people or something (though I doubt it's obvious from the shabby way some of them dress) but there is more than one college student who could do with having it made to him in the student paper.

Cut the guy some slack.

Rousseau...seriously man find something better to do than defend your article to anyone on a clothing forum.   When this place gets off clothes it gets kooky.

Last edited by Coolidge (2007-05-10 07:49:33)

For those of us who take philosophy almost as seriously as clothing, The Suit was a delicate and witty treatment of both.  Its playfulness with philosophical themes and superficial sartorial topics only adds to its charm.  There may be a natural affinity between abstract philosophy and childish playfulness, or at least the Ancient Greeks thought there was, often criticizing philosophers for acting like children playing stupid games.  A similar thought is expressed by the somewhat vulgar phrase, "intellectual masturbation."  And the wisest men were never hesitant to admit this about themselves and mock it among themselves.  For those who follow Antongiavanni's humor, some of the apparently tedious conceits are actually riotously funny.  Though I suppose it's worth asking whether it is worth getting the humor in the first place.

Okay, not to go too far off-topic...

I will simpy state that as my library of books on men's clothing grows, I find there have been many books written on the topic which are concise, clear, and quite serious. Increasingly, I find these books most useful and I return to them more and more. Unfortunately, the more serious books don't seem to engage the imaginations (or fantasies) of internet gentlemen and so they are ignored or neglected on the message boards, er fora.

What that suggests about the pompous tone of "deep significance to our culture" which is often taken on the other message boards, er fora, I will not say.

TV

the criticism of philosophers acting like children was not merely aimed at their peripatetic habits.  In fact, children usually stay close to home.  Socrates, for example, was never seen traveling from city to city, unless you count the Laws, but he wasn't identified as Socrates there.  It was rather aimed at their refusal to engage seriously in the serious matters of the city.  The sophists, too, were wanderers, but were never accused of acting like children.  I think the Gorgias makes this clear.

I for one will admit no little arrogance, but I think it takes a bit of arrogance to dress properly nowadays.  One must be willing to separate oneself from the merely popular.  (I'm merely throwing that out there, not trying to make any profound insights of cultural criticism.)

I suppose if the more whimsical writings tend to garner more attention, it is because people like marmalade on their english muffins.  I personally find them rather dry without it.

Rizzo's is on Church Street.  Living in Harvard SQ, I've had him alter a number of my jackets.  They do excellent work...never asked about shirts though.  Anyway, I've never been to the Custom Fit.  Thanks.

Coincidentally, an op-ed appeard in today's Crimson, the largest Harvard undergraduate newspaper, attacking those few of us who still try to maintain some standards of style for violating the principles of social justice, or something to that effect.  The entire article is available at www.thecrimson.com, but I've excerpted the relevant passages:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Etiquette columns have long singled out class, along with religion and politics, as gauche topics for conversation. At Harvard, though, we’ve long ignored the prohibition on the latter two. A typical lunch conversation in the dining hall might touch on the theological underpinning of the religious Right’s support for Israel, or a recent flurry of posters from Harvard Right to Life, but not whether you belong to a country club back home or receive financial aid. Why do we remain silent about the personal dimensions of class?

Class is still our dirty, little secret. We, like many Americans, prefer to pretend that class is something that exists out there. We can bemoan widening inequality America—even trumpet our own socioeconomic diversity (thanks to the Harvard Financial Aid initiative) to the outside world—without ever turning the gaze inward. Harvard students, many insist, occupy the same social playing field. Financial aid is generous; everyone eats the same dining hall food and lives in the same dorms. Due to public transportation and the paucity of parking in Cambridge, few students drive around flashy cars. In short, there are few ways for us to materially differentiate ourselves from each other.

The university is a temple to meritocracy, where the religious ardor of intellectualism purifies us of our class distinctions. To the extent that class does exist, it checks itself at Johnston gate. If legacy status gave you leg up in the admissions process, no one asks you about it once you’re here. Overt social elitism would be as shocking as racism, and condemned as such. Even some final clubs shield themselves from the shrill accusation of “classism” by waiving dues for cash-strapped members.

But, try as we might to suppress it, class at Harvard is like a cold sore: harmless but hard to miss. Globetrotting friends glibly recount their ski vacations at Vail or winter breaks in Fiji; BMWs line the parking lot between Lowell and the Fly; whole blocking groups oddly come from the same zip code.

Of course, class is not reducible to mere wealth. (Otherwise the most ostentatious of nouveau riches would be acceptable). Impeccable taste is key. Elaborate sartorial codes exist to this end. Middle class kids play dress up, donning blazers and cashmere their friends back home would surely ridicule.

Their more affluent peers—in the spirit of modesty, no doubt—prefer to make intimations of English country living, with green Barbour coats and tartan scarves. Even gaudy plastic jewelry is evidence of a campy sophistication, and can compensate for an otherwise dowdy wardrobe. Again, few students consciously intend to define themselves by class, it just happens.

Last edited by rousseau16 (2007-05-11 21:48:47)

Unfortunately, the deification of the clothes of others (the "rich kids") enslaves the wearer.  It's a second job - nobody wants to wear the flannels and "patinated" tassel loafers if they have a day off. It's bad enough to have the clothes preoccupation and expense without having to look like someone else. Of course, eventually, you may be able to gloat that others are imitiating you.

So, for curiousity, what's the current Ivy "class" regalia? I graduated many years ago and am curious about an update.

Regards,

Steven

Last edited by stylestudent (2007-05-12 04:42:16)