Introduction

[alden]

Many of our readers would like to improve their image, their presentation in a way that is pleasing and seductive. Some of us believe that this has little to do with clothes though clothes do have their part in the theater of style. So rather than discuss aesthetics in the Bespoke forum, I have created a new place for these more complicated (whilst being in reality more simple) discussions.

Our member Shredder has given us a perfect summary of the task that faces us as we begin to discuss STYLE:

The Japanese distinction between elegance and style is visually quite obvious once one sees a few live examples. In the abstract, the former can be taught; it is an external entity. In contrast, style cannot be taught; it is an internal entity that happens to manifest itself externally. Elegance can be put on. One cannot put on Style.

Cheers

Michael Alden

[Costi]

I think elegance can be analyzed and therefore studied or taught. We can speak about the mechanics of elegance in terms of techniques, of how various elements articulate towards a desired result, though elegance is certainly not mechanical.
Style does not support analysis, it is synthetical by nature. Organicity refers to the interconnectivity and interdependence of the parts that work together. But there are no parts to Style, no articulations - it is a quality of the spirit, an immaterial property. We can see its manifestation, but that does not conduce to its origins (as in the case of elegance). It cannot be taught, it has to be lived, experienced.
Can you teach humour to one who never gets a joke? The more you explain, the farther you drift from humour and the less probable your subject will ever laugh at it.