Of the many issues which touch on taste in clothes, the concept of art is one and the ability to communicate talent in taste is another.


When i say art, i mean the ability to determine what is and is not attractive in terms of colors, textures and patterns.

Color matching between accessories is the most common route. Sometimes this can be done well but just as often a man will force the concept of color matching to the point where it is either forced or the attempt is several mismatched shades of the same color which deduct from the art of the outfit. For example, sometimes several different shades of orange for shirt, tie, pocket square and socks will look awful even though the wearer believes it all integrates into a more tasteful, matched whole.  In any case, the concept of art with regards to clothing colors and patterns can be a trap because although one should understand that art can play a part in what is pleasant to see, it is sometimes at odds with the actual message a man needs to send with his clothes. Ex. It might be artistic to wear a blue, shirt, with blue suit, tie, pocket square, socks and even shoes but such an art would be best left to someone who is an actual artist. This would be a failure for your typical chartered accountant and if done poorly enough could make people question his judgment (taste!).

But there is also the pretense a man can have when he reads what another "expert" writes is an indication of taste and he pretends he hasnt read this book but asserts that this is in fact a known rule always known and exercised by people with good taste. This I will refer to as "Fronting". A perfect example of fronting  is where Author Alan Flusser wrote about not matching tie and pocket square materials (silk with silk or linen/cotton with linen/cotton) and also not wearing matching tie and pocket square patterns.


Mr. FLusser wrote this at a time when most Americans wore printed ties and there were few well done woven pocket squares. The idea is that a glossy or wet finish printed tie with clash with the same in a printed handkerchief.  Now, with more men wearing woven ties a printed handkerchief goes nicely. Thus, there is no need to anxiously fret about placing a linen/cotton pocket square with a silk tie to avoid perceptions of "bad taste".

For matching tie and pocket square sets. Mr. FLusser again wrote at a time when the available sets may have been very poor quality or tacky. Also it was not the fashion in the USA for sophisticated men to do so. Additionally, men wore more jacket and tie outfits then. Now there are stunning matching tie and pocket square sets which can be quite sophisticated in an age where men wear less ties overall and you get points for doing your own thing. We also are in a more International age in terms of mens clothing which is quite different from the mostly American look Mr. Flusser was writing about. Ironically, wearing a matching tie and pocket square would always be more artistic and one would think the practitioners of the first fronting practice mentioned in the previous paragraph would embrace it. But the social condemnation forms an artistic rule all by itself which blocks a more natural artistic result. Thus, culture often determines art in clothing.

And, in any case, the fronters are missing the point because it's not always whether it is done at all but HOW it is done.  Thus, the misplaced superciliousness of someone who follows a set of outdated rules poorly and with bad ingredients vs. someone who breaks that perceived code and does it with flair.

As for colour the most interesting thing ive read and worked with recently is the idea of consonance, dissonance and tensions (when a colour is dissonant as well as consonant to other colours in the palette). This relates to the relationships between the intervals of colours. The idea being you have a mix of all three in a palette including neutrals to create what id describe as the full story. This doesnt limit you to 3 colours but it has to be above three to create the effect otherwise you just have consonance or dissonance. Which does not deliver the same amount of interest to the eye

The eye and the ear can be trained IMO. We are not (in general) taught visual language at school. I was lucky enough to study music and art. And for somethings I had a grasp of it other things I learnt. A good argument for natural ability vs dedication and applied study is picasso and matisse. Both greats but one a natural the other dedicated to improving himself and learning because of his lack of natural ability.

Another good example is I couldnt tune a guitar when I bought one. With practice I could.  I trained my ear and the idea a brain cant be trained goes against a lot of research to suggest otherwise.

I would say like with any system it can be taught. Its just the fact that art unlike language does not get taught in a way that gives the student rules and structure.  Youll always get naturals but art/design is not magic or mystery the basis of beauty is in mathematics. A good artist or designer is someone who has become aware consciously or sub-consciously of the system of visual language.

Well, this bloke was about 40 and to me it was glaringly obvious that red didn't go with lilac. And I didn't want to tell him. It was a shit suit anyway.

Agreed Rob but,...if you've not got the idea by the time your 40 and have been ambling along regardless you'll never get it. Its no mystery but some men have to be told and some don't. I watched an interview with Edward Sexton in which he said the same thing.

Reminds me of a guy on MC years ago who was saying how religious he was about polishing shoes...he'd never heard of melting polish, or using water when shining up, hell, the guy didn't even take his laces out. Some men are just deluded about stuff because they don't know any better.

Last edited by Dudley Clarke (2013-11-23 04:43:36)

Last edited by NJS (2013-11-25 04:05:57)