Bop, is your theory essentially that it doesn't matter what the actual color is (navy, green, brown) of any item of clothing as long as there is an appropriate balance of lighter and darker shades? It's intriguing, but I want to make sure I understand it.
A three dimensional colour wheel! I always felt like you were holding something back, so this was it.
When selecting jacket and trouser combinations I always like a marked tonal contrast between top and bottom and preferably a colour contrast too. I'm wary of the outfit that consists of varying shades of the same colour, the ultimate faux pas in this direction being the pensioners choice of 'Mr Beige' i.e. head to toe in differing tones of light khaki - truly awful. Therefore in my book, if a mid grey herringbone jacket is to be worn with grey trousers then they must be a strong dark grey, charcoal (but never black). My perception is that someone who wears a mid grey jacket and mid grey trousers looks as if they wanted to wear a suit but didn't have one in that colour. I see this look a lot, and I'm starting to wonder as I write this if it's a British thing, this need for everything in an outfit 'to match'. Peoples ideas about dress here seem to be rooted in conventions like 'never wear brown in town' and the need for colour matching seems to stem from the same way of thinking. American men seem to be more free of this and happily wear a grey herringbone jacket with olive trousers, or visa versa, and look good in it. Yet when I wear such a combo it is liable to draw comments like 'I'm not sure if that jacket goes with those trousers', but I wear it regardless. Picking shirts and ties for jacket and trouser outfits can be tough but I usually try for them to predominantly go with the trousers.
Of course suits are where my top/bottom contrast ethos goes straight out the window. I think the shirt/tie choice is easier though.
The other thing that has to considered in colour selection is your own skin tone, in my case too much grey and I end up looking like a silhouette.
Oh.... and never more than one patterned item.
Very interesting reading! Now what about chroma? I've got a gnawing suspicion that a bright red sweater and stone-coloured trousers have a quiet but venomous argument. That's my kind of christmassy soul-searching...
Yep and say a light washed out colour with a mid-low tone high saturated colour is the way to go a lot of the time. Hence why a stone five pocket is an essential if your sweaters are normally bold colours
I just do it by trial and error. I try on different combinations until bam! suddenly something outstanding - or at least quite decent - is discovered. As long as I'm not running late for a train this works perfectly for me. Bear in mind I'm completely lacking in any artistic ability whatsoever (i.e. visual arts).
Exactly, we all recognise it when it works. This is why I think the idea that this is anything other than a logical system is just ignorance.
Im currently teaching a friend to paint who is a computer programmer. I can clearly explain the fundamentals that allow him to understand what underpins the painting.
Theres a lot of shit that goes on with visual arts because often a person doesn't understand their instincts. These instincts just react the science that underpins things.
The basics aren't that difficult what is difficult is building the system adding more things and not allowing it to fall apart. Which is apparently just like building a website.
A very good artist once told me there is no difference between a steam train and a painting. Now I think I understand his point. You are engineering an image. There is no mystery just our ignorance
Last edited by Bop (2014-12-26 13:57:20)
Still cannot figure out how to pair this infrared jacket. Interesting reading, though.
Last edited by stanshall (2014-12-28 20:41:12)
Yeah stan I know what you mean but then you can consider that as one part of the same plain even if the hue changes if the tone is similar or very close you see it as one plain. I maybe shouldve said plains and not objects.
Also I think subtle contrasts compliment strong ones so actually it makes sense to have both in an image
Last edited by Bop (2014-12-29 04:33:01)
Its good to have a wide choice, because ultimately you are completely restricted with clothes to whats in front of you, unlike painting where the options can be limitless. So suddenly massive amounts of shirts, trousers and shoes gives you a bigger pallette to work from. If you're content with one look that works like Beeston then you might find just changing accessories is enough. But for those that look to more and more choice then buying one thing may often mean needing another. It doesnt matter how understated the outfit you still need all the particular cohesive pieces in place for it to work, and that will always benefit from choice. Trouble is with clothes its a simple yes or no answer, does this work with this, and this, and this etc...so you have to be able to judge things honestly and recognise when you're right and when you maybe fooling yourself.
The one rule I have now after working in a more mindful way is do I like it, before I wouldve thought I need this green with this blue etc...it doesnt really matter. Buy something you like for itself...then find something it works with from a back catalouge of other things you bought with because you liked them. Then use honest judgement as to whether they work together. Use theory to sharpen that vocab and understanding but it all boils done to a simple yes or no, the variables are often too great for is to consider entirely. Ive said the complete opposite to this in the past but I feel like you have to go through some serious consideration and intellectualism to get to the next step. Which goes to fine tune your instincts. Also in painting you have to imagine the next step..with dressing you are given elements so you can just judge what works..you're not inventing your configuring theyre similar processes but differ slightly.
Last edited by Bop (2015-09-28 23:29:51)
I think that's the way to go at it. If you combine the right items that you bought for their own sake, the result should ultimately be more pleasing than going out to buy an exact 'partner' item that may eventually not suit you at all. What's more, with the discrepancies in colour representation when shopping online, you may well end up with something that's too light or too dark and you're back to step 1.
Yep I also think that I completely forget what may or not suit me when buying stuff online...in the shop you try it on and you know..a lot to be said for being honest with yourself and saying no that doesnt work even if you like it...i only normally find this to be a major problem with shirts or hats.. though maybe because these are sat directly to your face..
Bop tended to go on a bit, but there are some interesting bits and bobs here if you care to fill in the blanks.
Black - I think it'll work in knitwear and shoes but not much else. Wouldn't be my first choice.
If wearing, say, that Madras cao next spring, it'll be something very muted below. Maybe marl even.
The single stand-out item.
Madras cap, marl something-or-other, Levis, Jack Purcell.
Will that do it?
I once read (but now can't remember where: probably on here a dozen or more years ago) something (cords maybe) on sale at Russell Street that were described as 'muddy'. I always liked that.
This is perhaps where the 'limited pallet' can come in useful, either to the Ivyist approaching at entry level or one who has pondered it for a while and wants to up their game (not as easy as it sounds). But navy, periwinkle, white, dark green, maroon, charcoal in wool, cashmere or cotton ought to get you a fair way.
Bop and his colour wheel- oy vey!
Used to do my brain in. But I can't talk as I'm known for dressing in the colours of Robin Hood.
‘Muddy colour’ - it could be alright, maybe. There are some shades that just don’t seem to go well with anything. I remember having a pair of trousers that were, I’m going say, taupe … except that I’m not sure that’s what they were. Taupe is one of those colour names like cerise where most people would have to stop and think what is. Periwinkle … again I had to look that one up. The trousers in question were a sort of indeterminate grey/brown colour that didn’t look right with anything, eventually Mrs W christened them ‘The Unwearables’ and in due course they went to the charity shop.
Blue, you can’t go far wrong with blue. It’s no accident that jeans are blue.
'Periwinkle' is a shade of blue Jimmy and I agreed could be applied to a Brooks shirt: in that colour a former American poster said he would take a lot of time searching for. My last Makers was in exactly that shade and, I'm ashamed to say, is still being 'curated' in my wardrobe. It was so crisp and clean and neat and folded I haven't had the heart to actually wear it.