The London Lounge

In a certain sense rules and norms undermine style. They take away the responsibility from the individual. They make him think that he rely on what other people say. As we have talked about many times, style is an authentic personal expression.

Idiosyncrasis are different from rules and norms. Idiosyncrasis can be hallmarks of style (as well as signs of bad taste). An idiosyncrasy is a conviction that you more or less have arrived at yourself, which usually opposes dominating opinions. You may want to tell others about your idiosyncrasis but you often have no deeper interest in preaching them. What can idiosyncrasis be? Well, a few examples from myself: No perfume, no hair wax and the like, and no wrist watch. I don't care much about what others say about that, and I have no deeper interest in elevanting these positions to general rules. I just don't use perfume, hair wax or wrist watch, and I feel that is how it should be for me.

Gruto wrote: I just don't use perfume, hair wax or wrist watch, and I feel that is how it should be for me.

I was wondering whether you just didn't use a wrist watch but carried a pocket watch instead. Or better yet, a trench watch. Not carrying a watch at all is a statement that tells a lot about your idiosyncrasy, but using a pocket or a trench watch would say so much more about your style.

hectorm wrote:Not carrying a watch at all is a statement that tells a lot about your idiosyncrasy, but using a pocket or a trench watch would say so much more about your style.

Well said.

Maybe it is more edifying to speak about self-imposed rules than idiosyncrasy. Artists often use self-imposed rules to maximize personal and free expression. I can recommend this elegant and witty movie by Lars von Trier and the poet Jørgen Leth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Five_Obstructions

Yes, Gruto. I would find myself lost were it not for my self-imposed rules. It's amazing how these limitations give structure and freedom of expression at the same time. I'm not sure if the rules themselves allow to say much about one's idiosyncrasy (besides the fact that you have them). I think it's more what you do within their framework what gives you out.
Thank you for the recommendation. I have added "The Five Obstructions" to my must-see movie list. Having watched von Tier's "Antichrist" recently I'm looking forward to this older one.

Gruto wrote:An idiosyncrasy is a conviction that you more or less have arrived at yourself, which usually opposes dominating opinions.

By the very nature of this definition, idiosyncrasies and rules are correlative and the former need the context of the latter so they may exist as such. Perhaps rules don't actually undermine style, but I agree they do not constitute style. Instead, they offer a framework, a structure, a syntax to express style. Rules are grammar, style is poetry - it makes use of grammar, but we may afford licenses and we go beyond correctness. However, poetry with grammar mistakes born of ignorance is a terrible thing... So the rules must be there at all times.
Interesting that your idiosyncrasies are negative: they are things you DON'T do / wear/ use. I don't know how much idiosyncrasies actually constitute style, just as rules (well, they ARE rules - personal rules) - but style is often as much (if not more) about the things we DON'T do than about what we do.
Perhaps style manifests itself best when we go beyond both rules and idiosyncrasies - even if we don't usually wear perfume, we may rub a little cologne on our necks one morning if we feel like it. That is, not having rules (personal or general), but acting on instinct, on impulse. That depends on the reasons underlying our idiosyncrasies, of course - the "no perfume" rule may be self-imposed, or we may simply have a sensitive liver that gets turned inside out by strong fragrances. The character on which La Traviata is based was known as "The Lady of the Camellias" because she only wore these fragrance-free flowers due to her sensitivity to perfume.
We have in common the fact that we don't wear a watch - but I am not sure if mine qualifies as an idiosyncrasy, because it's not a rule, I simply got used without one and I never even think about it. It's not like I sometimes feel like putting a nice watch around my wrist but then I remember I have this idiosyncrasy, so I have to be consistent with it and leave it at home...
Then there is the difference between idiosyncrasies and personal convictions. I don't wear watches, but I like to see nice ones around others' wrists and appreciate their beauty and their place in context. I don't feel like men should not wear watches. What about your idiosyncrasies, do you hold them as personal convictions and appreciate more a man who, like you, doesn't wear watches, perfume or hair wax?

Costi wrote: Rules are grammar, style is poetry - it makes use of grammar, but we may afford licenses and we go beyond correctness. However, poetry with grammar mistakes born of ignorance is a terrible thing...

Very well said!
But, one moment, (while we await Gruto´s response and I apologize for the interruption):
wouldn´t that mean that we have to know the poet beforehand (to actually know whether his grammar mistakes are born of ingnorance) instead of getting to know the poet through his poetry?

Well, hectorm, that's what distinguishes the poet (read "man of style"): you read the line and realize immediately the skilled, effortless, meaningful use (or bending) of the rules. If you don't, it means he needs to try again Like music and jokes, poetry (and style) shouldn't need explanations - it gets through or it doesn't. Of course, after you get to know the poet, you can enjoy the poetry at deeper levels, no doubt. Or realize it's nothing more than wannabe...
PS: no interruption, thank you for intervening, the more the merrier

Costi wrote: Perhaps style manifests itself best when we go beyond both rules and idiosyncrasies

Style must go beyond rules and idiosyncrasies, but these obstacles may help you to find sublime style (as Lars von Trier has shown in his movies, take Dogville for instance). Creation and opposition are related.

Costi wrote: What about your idiosyncrasies, do you hold them as personal convictions and appreciate more a man who, like you, doesn't wear watches, perfume or hair wax?

I do like the thrift in those idiosyncrasies, and I think they could work well for others too but I don't see them as rules that everybody ought to follow.

By definition, if many followed such 'rules', they would no longer be idiosyncratic...

I too appreciate the grammar/poetry analogy regarding rules and style. To extend it, there is no hope of writing even passable poetry without a firm knowledge of grammar and vocabulary; most writers aren't poets and shouldn't try to be. This is even truer (indeed, MUCH truer) in the realm of classical architecture: be sure you know what you are doing before you presume to improvise or innovate.

While on the subject of idiosyncrasies, mine might be the following;
- I detest wearing a watchband or belt that is not the same basic color as my shoes
- I've recently taken to wearing a simplified cravat quite often, when dressed 'casually'. Then again, Living in London one can "get away" with a lot more than, say, Kansas City.
- I refuse to wear socks, unless I'm wearing a tie also, in any of the months during which one would not eat an oyster (the 'R' thing); frostbite be d__'d
- Instead of a commercial ('clippy') cummerbund, I sometimes wrap a silk scarf around my midriff but it must have tassels.

Gruto wrote:Artists often use self-imposed rules to maximize personal and free expression. I can recommend this elegant and witty movie by Lars von Trier and the poet Jørgen eth:The_Five_Obstructions

Thanks to Gruto´s recommendation (and Netflix) last night I finally could watch The Five Obstructions. Quirky indeed and every bit enjoyable. It left me chewing on the sources of creativty and the use for self-imposed limitations in my own life.
Now, following Gruto once again, I´m looking forward to watching Dogville on more time but under a new light. Being a fan of both Lauren Bacall and Harriet Anderson (since her Bergman time) I saw it several years ago and, I confess, I barely remember it.

hectorm wrote:Thanks to Gruto´s recommendation (and Netflix) last night I finally could watch The Five Obstructions. Quirky indeed and every bit enjoyable. It left me chewing on the sources of creativty and the use for self-imposed limitations in my own life.

I am glad you that you liked it

Dogville is something very different, a real movie, so to speak, but it also plays with austerity or self-imposed rules in search of an authentic and powerful voice. I think that you find the same Nordic minimalism in Bergman's movies but he didn't play as much as von Trier does. Many movie lovers love to hate Dogville (like they love to hate most of von Trier's movies) but it is a great movie Like Kubric von Trier only makes strange masterpieces

Gruto wrote: Dogville is something very different, a real movie, so to speak, but it also plays with austerity or self-imposed rules in search of an authentic and powerful voice. Many movie lovers love to hate Dogville (like they love to hate most of von Trier's movies) but it is a great movie.

An update.
Last night I watched Dogville for the second time and under a different light. Thank you Gruto. I liked it better this time. When I saw it before I thought it was a cleverly filmed play expressing anti-American sentiment. Now I realize that it touches human nature at a much deeper level. Its critic of self righteousness and xenophobia could be made of any country in any time. I loved the nuances of Von Trier playing with Nicole Kidman´s character suffering of many limitations, although I don´t think they were self-imposed this time. Von Trier is a master indeed (and what a cast!).

hectorm wrote:When I saw it before I thought it was a cleverly filmed play expressing anti-American sentiment. Now I realize that it touches human nature at a much deeper level. Its critic of self righteousness and xenophobia could be made of any country in any time. I loved the nuances of Von Trier playing with Nicole Kidman´s character suffering of many limitations, although I don´t think they were self-imposed this time. Von Trier is a master indeed (and what a cast!).

Lars von Trier often uses provocations and clichees (like anti-americanism), and he can be quite silly but there is always a deeper level in him and his movies. He knows how to handle the laterna magica.