Hopefully, if the trolls/sock puppets fuck off.

I agree with the second two statements as they apply to mens clothing but I disagree somewhat with Mr. Rogers.  I think there is taste and people do get judged by it and that it doesnt have to do anything with aesthetics. The major clashes are between member and non member. Good clothing designers can percolate the collective good taste of what people think is success or social attraction and sell it. A dandy would be able to kick it up to the next level and make people wonder. But it does not follow that mens clothing must always mirror art neither in form nor in color.

I would strongly disagree with most of 1 and only half of 2. I agree with 3.

One thing is for sure and that is easthetics play into beauty and that it is absolutely not neceesary to have a prior understanding or knowledge to find soemthing beautiful. Beauty is like lightening, where you experience it first and then learn about it afterwards because it left its mark. Explanations are unlikely to make me reconsider something beautiful even though they are important after the fact.  I remember finding some of my fathers suits quite beautiful when I was a toddler and then when these were replaced all of a sudden his newly acquired suits were ugly. I had no knowledge of the suits vocabulary or any specifics but the overall form was quite different and quite unappealing. I wondered a long time why my father changed styles. It took me 30 years to gain the necessary knowledge, but my instinctual reaction hasn't changed. I realise now that my father was just buying what was available and I suspect he didn't have any strong opinions on the matter.

Beauty is definitley massively dependant on form although taste and beauty are very subjective still. However to this day it surprise me how many folks are blinded with bells and whistles and are unable to pick up on the basic form. This applies to clothing, cars, female faces, etc. when speaking of mature adults who are otherwise articulate.

Last edited by xenon1 (2013-03-26 14:20:58)

Rogers and Wharton can kiss my @rse.

Aquinas was responsible for enumerating six of my favourite pass-times (plus a seventh I always avoid) and is an all round jolly good egg. I much prefer his definition of 'beauty'.

The beauty that he speaks of in the passage quoted, though, is God. Tommy the Saint would have it that all pleasing proportions are calibrated by that Great Architect.

Last edited by doghouse (2013-03-28 12:00:07)

The only people who do not judge on appearance of clothing are naturists - now wouldn't the introduction of the convention of naturism solve all the i-gent problem: Dress Code: 'Full Nude Undress Uniform' (some events might require 'Black Tie Nude', admittedly). But - whichever - the i-gentry would all fade away, as the mist in a morning sunrise - lest they were judged by their short-comings - or the possibility of remarks like: 'Too much belly on those pecs'; ' 'lack of balance on that tit and ass', and I have never come across such a wondrous example of combined dropped crotch and fallen arches before'. - 'Really? Mr Everest? Well! Do let me introduce you to the world-famous schmozer - Simon Contson!'

RR

Last edited by Reckless Reggie (2013-03-28 15:24:36)