Alan Flusser Interview

[alden]

Mr Montauk

An excellent piece of writing.

I believe that that rationale can still be found where it's always been--in a sense of pleasure rather than knowledge (or "information" as Flusser rather apologetically terms it). Having absorbed the fundamentals of sartorial grammar while still schoolboys, men in the 1930s looked great because they unabashedly had FUN with the tailored clothes which they wore elegantly and appropriately in social contexts far beyond business or work. Fashion was something they followed with a conneuseur's eye rather than a consumer's anxiety

I think what is as disturbing is the lack of humor in dress. If you don't look in the mirror and laugh at yourself you're just not dressing well.

As all the great dressers have known, traditional men's clothing is worn best--and most effectively--with a healthy dollop of unpretentious bonhommie rather than starchy prescription or corporate ambition. Power, if one is bothered with such a thing, is after all conferred by ease

Once again its not something you teach with contrived formulas. But how do you teach people to swagger? Either its in your step or it isn't. So better to develop a formula. I have to laugh because I just don't know how many times I have heard men asking something like "now wait, what is the rule, a large pattern with a small one or is small one with a large one times two etc." It makes you want say "Stop, just put your clothes on and attach a ravishing smile and enjoy yourself."

That kind of unapologetic authenticity is the real stuff of masculinity; it's never lost its power to impress, but even more importantly, it's every bit as much fun as it ever was. Remind men of that much and they'll teach themselves the details.

I very much like the feeling of unapologetic authenticity associated with fun, the eye can only develop where the heart leads.

Cheers

M Alden

[jb]

I agree wholeheartedly, Montauk. You have hit the nail on the head with the single word, "fun". We are talking about clothing, not brain surgery.

Cheers,
Joel

[ottovbvs]

"I suspect that the aspirational "dress for success" school of sartorial instruction has, ironically, done more to dampen popular enthusiasm for tailored clothing than to expand or refine it, robbing it of the "cool" it possessed before the term was coined. As all the great dressers have known, traditional men's clothing is worn best--and most effectively--with a healthy dollop of unpretentious bonhommie rather than starchy prescription or corporate ambition. Power, if one is bothered with such a thing, is after all conferred by ease."

There's nothing new about the "dress for success" school of sartorial instruction. It was certainly very present in the 30's which Montauk believes, as many do, was a golden age of men's fashion. What were all those Esquire water colors so popular here all about. As Flusser's own book shows it was quite common for menswear manufacturers to produce color and physique charts to guide people in choice of suiting, shirts and ties. At the end of the day the middle and upper middle classes who were the major market for tailored clothing then and now live in a BMW 5 Series world and not in Maserati one. Flusser's point which I think is entirely valid is that today men do not, as you describe in the thirties, have the advantage of imbibing this body of knowledge from their parents and popular culture. As he points out most people in the thirties took their cue from above and now they take it from the streets with consequences we have seen. As I see it he's trying to educate people in doing it properly and this should be applauded not dismissed for being mechanical. None of his advice is at odds with humor or idiosyncracy, quite the contrary. I'm for more better dressed people and if Flusser helps bring that about more power to him.

[alden]

Clearly Flusser benefits from some well earned goodwill for his championing of dressing well. But the subject of the thread Peter Chong started is to discuss his “dress” and performance on the Charlie Rose show. He raises an excellent question: If a cobbler has no shoes, is it that an arbiter of taste has none? Or, to put it another way, is an arbiter of taste required to personally manifest the qualities he professes?

Flusser’s dress was not very good for a man professing to be a disciple of elegant dress. So, he may have had a bad hair day, but I have to agree with Montauk that he missed a golden opportunity both in his dress and discourse on the show.



You know his dress is not that bad and not that good. I am not sure if that’s good news for a style guru.

The shirt collar is the same squat, wide open one, with no tie space that accentuates his wide, heavy face. The trousers are dragging on the ground. The pose is affected. The tie has the same voluminous dimple that screams “I am trying to be stylish!” And then he wears Gucci loafers with the suit. The cloth he has chosen is obviously very light and is bagging all over the place.

I am terribly sorry to gore the sacred cow, but he needs a style consultant!

Cheers

M Alden

[storeynicholas]

Just on the shirt collar point - presumably the received wisdom is cutaway goes with a long slim face and a long pointed collar should be for the chubbier of chops but, given that these rules are applied by each to himself, who is going to look into the mirror and say, 'I have a round, fat face'. So maybe, it is not just humour but self-knowledge and acceptance of ourselves that enables us to dress well - even so

O wad some Power the gift tae gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An foolish notion:
What airs in dress an gait wad lea'e us,
An ev'n devotion!

[Robbie Burns]

NJS

[alden]

Just on the shirt collar point - presumably the received wisdom is cutaway goes with a long slim face and a long pointed collar should be for the chubbier of chops but, given that these rules are applied by each to himself, who is going to look into the mirror and say, 'I have a round, fat face'. So maybe, it is not just humour but self-knowledge and acceptance of ourselves that enables us to dress well - even so

NJS

I never thought of that in terms of a rule as it’s really just the use of contrasts and harmonies fundamental in aesthetics. If the man in the picture walked into a bar in NY I would say a stock broker down on his luck and trying too hard. I would not guess a writer on style.

It’s kind of like golf, it doesn’t matter how well you play, but how many strokes you take. Gianfranco Ferre breaks many rules and has it. Flusser doesn’t have it. And that “it” is what we admire because of its rarity. So there is no reason for anyone to be offended. The subject baffled Balzac and he wrote as well as anyone about IT.

Cheers

M Alden

[storeynicholas]

It was clumsy of me to say 'these rules' I should have said ' this information'!
NJS

[Guest]

and that cute handkerchief, how do you match it with anything?

[sartorius]

If a cobbler has no shoes, is it that an arbiter of taste has none? Or, to put it another way, is an arbiter of taste required to personally manifest the qualities he professes?

Flusser’s dress was not very good for a man professing to be a disciple of elegant dress. So, he may have had a bad hair day, but I have to agree with Montauk that he missed a golden opportunity both in his dress and discourse on the show.

Quite!

As a lawyer would say, it all goes to the question of credibility. And anyone puporting to sell advice must surely be credible? Without that, what else is there? I can tell all and sundry what they should be wearing, but why should anyone listen to me, let alone pay me for my pearls of "wisdom"? If Flusser is claiming authority as an arbiter of sartorial taste then he must surely present an image to back it up?

[storeynicholas]

There is truth in this but so is there in another Scottish quotation which occurs to me: The cobblers' bairn are aye the worst shod

And as for sitting down in a DB coat - is this It?:-

[img][img]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg55 ... -niven.jpg[/img]

NJS

[Costi]

I have another, Nicholas: Do as the priest says, not as the priest does!

It just happened that my loudspeakers would not work when I clicked on the link provided by pchong, so I only looked at Mr. Flusser without listening to what he said. As in ice skating, there is the technical mark and the "artistic impression". I assume Michael and everyone else appreciated the performance as a whole and I cannot but admit that, once I sorted out the loudspeaker issue and was able to listen to the interview, the general impression was disappointing. I maintain that, if he had stood up, we might have concluded his DB coat was well cut and fitted (and, Huzir, if you look at Montezemolo's coat, it behaves similarly when he leans forward over the table), but I must agree with Michael that a SB would have been a better choice given the circumstances.
We don't judge Mr. Flusser based on the work of his tailor, we appreciate him on the basis of the choices he makes: the suit in relation to the situation, the words, the discourse - and Charlie Rose did leave enough room for his guest to develop the topic in the direction he wanted. It is true, it was only a ten minute interview, but the whole thing was loose, like curdled mayonnaise. Who knows, some people are better at writing than at rhetoric.
If there was any doubt left in my heart that a man was being judged too hard based on inconclusive proofs (and here I empathize with you, Nicholas, and truly appreciate your chivalrous defense), it all melted away with the picture Michael posted above. I have no words for it...

[storeynicholas]

Costi - the saying about the priest is even more piquant
NJS

[sartorius]

There is truth in this but so is there in another Scottish quotation which occurs to me: The cobblers' bairn are aye the worst shod

And if you choose to patronise said cobbler, who am I to dissuade you! Judging by Mr Flusser's success, many do! It seems you can indeed fool some of the people some of the time...

[storeynicholas]

I once asked a great cutter how many suits he had of his own (he he always looked the same - immaculate - but the same) and he said that he had - and I forget the exact figure - but it was about eight - and he added ' when you're in the business, you don't bother'. I realize that Alan Flusser is more than just a clothier - he is a style guru - the book sales, the awards, speak to that but I suppose that, however he often presents himself, he is entitled to believe that we should expect him, on some very special occasion, to be able to out-dress most people; even if he chooses to idle along in a middle gear for most of the time. Moreover, I do not subscribe to the view that the best teachers are necessarily recognizable as the best incarnation of the principles that they are very well adapted to teach. Maybe it's akin to being a film director: Cecil B de Mille directed his 'young fellow' Gloria Swanson to the peak of fame - but he could hardly have taken her place now, could he? The same goes for Hitchcock and Cary Grant - and there we are - back to that bloody North By Northwest suit again....But that is not the end of it because there is an old saw that there is no such verb as 'to teach' - just that 'to learn' and, in my experience it is certainly true that the best 'teachers' do their best by making us desire to learn and to understand that this process never stops. If Alan Flusser has done much to inspire the quest in his area of understanding, then he may appear on Charlie Rose, Nude With Violin, and not have compromised himself. Several feverish entries since this thread began, is there any to deny that he has inspired that - and debate?
NJS

[Guest]

perhaps he dresses better in the summer?
i sincerely don't expect him to be a good dresser. which is odd because most writers, at least the classic ones were always well dressed, even while they wrote their books.
again, you should always dress your best when appearing on television, it not very often that occurs.