TRS:

'We were the only people in the rather shabby room. It had only one angle - that of the college roots. Not a smidgen on anything else. Nothing on modern jazz, nothing on the boom between 55-65, nothing on Japan, or the wider cultural influences of the style. It was very narrow, exclusively American, largely 1920s to 1940s, very white, very elitist and very fucking boring. Brooks Brothers, the originators of the language and silhouette of the Ivy Look, were virtually invisible. It was Dicky's show, lots of Press, all Ivy colleges and nothing else.'

Skipper:

'It's so boring how the same nonsense is being claimed here over and over again. This whole business with jazz and the democratization of Ivy is a very strange historical distortion, which is mainly cultivated in Great Britain. There, however, the reference to Ivy comes from the subculture area and thus had its own origin.

Yes, there was a period when Ivy was mainstream marketed in the US. That doesn't change the fact that Ivy has never been inclusive, and never will be. On the contrary, it has always been elitist and always will be.

This has to do with the fact that it is not just a matter of clothing but of a lifestyle that is based on certain values and cannot be represented without a certain income. Ivy is (or was) the dress style of a very specific socioeconomic group. Of course, anyone can live by the values of this group, dress accordingly, and work towards achieving social status.'

Also Skipper:

'I'm not suggesting that he has no idea about the subject. I know he knows his stuff well. However, he is highly biased and sells his personal views as facts, mixing it with politics and class warfare in a very ideological way. In addition, he immediately becomes offensive when someone contradicts him. Overall not the level I'm used to in discussions.

I respect the British interpretation of the issue. However, it only illuminates a tiny part and enriches it with things that originally had nothing to do with it. Anyone who claims that only this interpretation is valid and that all others can be neglected is, as I have already mentioned, falsifying history.'

Which specific parts of TRS's above post are falsifying history?

‘Which specific parts of TRS's above post are falsifying history?’

The second sentence concerns itself with the result or aftermath of an established style. While not ‘falsifying’ it is looking at a much bigger picture. One that others may have no interest in.

'The second sentence concerns itself with the result or aftermath of an established style. While not ‘falsifying’ it is looking at a much bigger picture. One that others may have no interest in.'

There are lots of things that I have no interest in. I don't accuse those who do have an interest in them of falsifying history.

Falsifying history is the easiest thing in the world, providing one has a receptive audience.  It's a game politicians play with consummate skill, knowing as they do that the average man does not know his arse from a hole in the ground.  Stalin and his people played the game superbly and was imitated by Hitler.  Boris Johnson is probably too much of an upper class twit to do it convincingly.

'Exclusive, American, white and upper class'.  KingstonIan is undoubtedly correct in what he says here but even someone as pig-headed as I can see to what extent those on 'other forums' are stupidly simplifying The Look, turning into some kind of online 'Trad' construct.  Those particular Americans remind me of our Sloane Rangers, our Hoorays, the types that pissed off Ian Strachan and John Lally in Richmond.  The Timberland/rugger-bugger-'prep' brigade.  I've known quite a few like 'em myself. 
The umbrella name is 'shits'.

'Others are interested in the essential style - not what happened afterwards. Maybe they would consider that ‘falsifying’.'

The 1950s and 196os were 'afterwards'? I don't think they were.

Great post thanks Slimm, I used to enjoy Billax’s posts and his meticulously staged photos, is he still active anywhere on the web?

Yes, slimmm67 raises some interesting points there, doesn't he? 
I can remember seeing, many years ago, 'Kiss Me Deadly' with Ralph Meeker (circa 1955?).  I think some of the characters - blue collar-ish - were wearing Lacoste polo shirts: a touch aspirational if you like.

The fact that you haven't responded to my post suggests that, in this instance, you're unable to justify your previous comments.

You haven't answered anything. TRs made a seemingly innocuous, objective appraisal of the exhibit and you responded by accusing him of falsifying history. How the hell did you come to that conclusion? Surely if that were the case, it would be easy to justify.

Last edited by Yuca (2022-06-03 09:20:40)

Seriously, part of me wishes I'd not drawn attention to Richard Press and his 'video walk-through'.  But I had no way of knowing that TRS was, at the time, observing the proceedings through jaded, hypercritical eyes.  I mean, I simply enjoyed it for what it was, in an idle moment.  Nothing more or less.

I think he was commenting on Richard Press's alleged/apparent lack of balance/perspective.

Is this what’s called a Brouhaha?