The London Lounge

It is nice to give self expression to your moods and to dress for yourself, as you wish. The Flaneur is such a person and is not obliged to conform to some dreary business requirement. He is the captain of his own ship and does what he wants without apology. However, I see a difference between what I call the Alpha-Flaneur and the Beta-Flaneur. The Alpha is never an attention seeker. He is much too confident and his self esteem comes from within. He has no need to wear loud clothes, unlike the Beta, who screams Look at me, with his dress.

The Alpha commands respect naturally without trying. The Beta is always trying too hard.

How are these attitudes conveyed in pattern choices? The Russell check is a good example. When done in the classic large unapologetic check, but with toned down colours. The wearer is unafraid to stand out...and possibly unaware or unconcerned that he does stand out...because he is naturally outstanding. I have noted certain patterns that suggest this attitude. The Russell check, as mentioned. Also large scale pow checks, but in muted colours. Patterns that speak of natural authority, but quietly and without shouting. Less contrived outfits ( not covered in details )...but where the quality speaks for itself. Perhaps, some patterns have become metaphors for this look and only have the effect when worn the right way? Given this notion....has anyone any ideas as to what Flaneur type outfit is Alpha-Flaneur....and what is Beta-Flaneur? A black old school Continental R. Vs a bright yellow Lamborghini, if you will?....thanks..

Nice notion, Rowley!
What about the ultimate, Omega Flaneur, who can dress well with plain clothes which, taken piece by piece, have nothing special, but the whole thing is remarkable for some mysterious reason? The one who is a master of subtle harmony, without looking plain or boring. Of course, the Omega, who can master simple things, is also perfectly capable of doing the part of the Alfa any time.
Doing the Alpha part can be technically challenging, like a Liszt piece. Doing the Omega part is all about expression - it is Mozart.
The Beta is the virtuoso, perhaps

Nice thought , Costi....especially if the Orchestra is conducted by Rex Harrison ( Alpha) in Unfaithfully Yours.

If I might quote Alden from the Odd Waistcoat thread...

The man makes the clothes! If a man is weak spirited wearing dashing clothes, the clothes will overpower him and he will veer towards the ridiculous. If he has magnetism and taste, the clothes will follow the master with the docility of a newborn thoroughbred romping in the fields. The vision of this man will appear natural and self-evident despite the fact that the individual elements of his dress may include pieces that inspire curiosity and awe. The elements of his dress will form the organic whole that I have often written about; the unified result will leave novices saying things like “he can pull it off” or “I don’t know how or why, but it works, it works.”

The Alpha makes the clothes...the Beta veers towards the ridiculous. Are there certain outfits that will be favoured by one type or the other?

Rowly wrote:Are there certain outfits that will be favoured by one type or the other?

Rowly, I guess not - if we accept your premise (and Michael's). It's a matter of how, not of what. Of course, there are items the Alpha will never pick, but I think he can't explain why...
There is a good lead in what you write here:

Rowly wrote:large scale pow checks, but in muted colours. Patterns that speak of natural authority, but quietly and without shouting.

Balancing pattern and colour is one way.
The cut is also paramount. A good cut can save an average cloth. But a nice cloth cannot redeem bad tailoring. You say it well here:

Rowly wrote:Less contrived outfits ( not covered in details )...but where the quality speaks for itself.

The Duke of Windsor, for instance, was an Omega (he could dress very plainly and still look excellent and not at all uninteresting), but we see him often embodying the Beta, too: apparently ridiculous patterns and colours worn together to great effect. Some of the coats you see on hangers in the photographs of his wardrobe are pieces you would probably shun if you were to choose. Yet in wearing them, he could "pull it off", as Michael writes. You might think they are Beta pieces, but in fact the Alpha can manage almost anything. And the Omega can even manage simplicity, the ultimate challenge...

Costi,

if we accept your premise (and Michael's). It's a matter of how, not of what. Of course, there are items the Alpha will never pick, but I think he can't explain why...

Yes, I suppose it's not possible to impose a scientific structure on the art of dressing.

I find Windsor's dress sense very interesting. I wouldn't have thought his more flamboyant outfits were a cry for attention ( Beta)...more, perhaps, a flagrant disregard for convention (Alpha)....so Yes,...it's about how it's worn. I agree with you that, without knowing why, the Alpha type would shun certain things...I suppose trying to find patterns ( forgive the pun) in these choices is a bit ambitious!.....thanks for the interesting insights.

Costi wrote:

Rowly wrote:Are there certain outfits that will be favoured by one type or the other?

Rowly, I guess not - if we accept your premise (and Michael's). It's a matter of how, not of what.
Of course, there are items the Alpha will never pick, but I think he can't explain why...

Yes, yes, so let's try to trace those contours -- see if we can consider what kinds of things he does or does not wear in practice, thereby forming a sort of oblique heuristic. Maybe this mysterious Alpha character will appear in sharper relief.

You began to above, with reference to your Duke, but in my mind he is neither Alpha, Beta, or Omega -- just Goofball.

Here is an initial stab: that the Alpha may choose to wear contrarian, somewhat surprising patterns or combinations and execute them with a suave candor is a testament to his "magnetism," to use Michael's words. But in practice, I think we find that he often does not -- he simply doesn't need to, when something with subtle gravitas will do the job just as well, and still speak volumes about his strong and compelling personality. He has some funny houndstooth and donegal numbers, maybe, even the checks mentioned above, but they are worn at moments of extreme ease or play. He feels no need to wear his knowledge of textiles on his sleeve, as it were, greeting his date in a three-piece gunclub suit with Tyrolean hat.

So how does that play out? He has a preference, I think, for solid colors in textural weaves. The Beta is all windowpanes, always leading with outstretched hand and showing a lot of toothy grins. The Alpha greets you with an easy smile; you will have much more to learn about him later, long after the windowpane windbag has exhausted himself.

I think the Alpha is more like raku pottery: showing lots of burbling depth beneath the surface and interesting crags. Maybe even kind of bland at first glance, and yet you keep turning for a second and third look. Something is compelling. The Beta is more like cloisonné pottery: very wild and astonishing, but only good in small doses. You keep him around for awhile, but eventually you just grow so tired of the same swirly colors that you sell him at the local flea market.

I think, though, that the Omega is like imari pottery...

Arky, yes - and welcome! - but didn't we get them mixed up?

Arky wrote:Here is an initial stab: that the Alpha may choose to wear contrarian, somewhat surprising patterns or combinations and execute them with a suave candor is a testament to his "magnetism," to use Michael's words. But in practice, I think we find that he often does not -- he simply doesn't need to, when something with subtle gravitas will do the job just as well, and still speak volumes about his strong and compelling personality. He has some funny houndstooth and donegal numbers, maybe, even the checks mentioned above, but they are worn at moments of extreme ease or play. He feels no need to wear his knowledge of textiles on his sleeve, as it were, greeting his date in a three-piece gunclub suit with Tyrolean hat.

So how does that play out? He has a preference, I think, for solid colors in textural weaves.

That would be the Omega.

Arky wrote:I think the Alpha is more like raku pottery: showing lots of burbling depth beneath the surface and interesting crags. Maybe even kind of bland at first glance, and yet you keep turning for a second and third look. Something is compelling.

Omega again?

Arky wrote:I think, though, that the Omega is like imari pottery...

Alfa?

Anyway, that's just a scholastic classification. In practice, there is an instinct at work that defies explanation as far as origin and mechanism are concerned, but the effect of which is easy to notice in practice. One can learn how to play an instrument, but nobody can teach someone else music... It can be an object of study, but it remains a mystery why one player makes music and another just plays the instrument.
Coming to "music", when not innate, is usually a matter of overcoming obstacles. Clothes can be a serious obstacle to fine dress. Clearly, the desire to impress (Beta) is an obstacle. Playfulness (which the Alfa displays) not so much, as it is genuine. The Omega has interiorized his playfulness... (but still enjoys to let it show every now and then)

Rowly wrote: has anyone any ideas as to what Flaneur type outfit is Alpha-Flaneur....and what is Beta-Flaneur? A black old school Continental R. Vs a bright yellow Lamborghini, if you will?

I know there are a few driveways and parking lots in which arriving in a black Continental R is normalcy, but in 99% of other cases the driver of such vehicle is aware that it´s a big call for attention (black Continental Rs seem to be the car of choice for sport celebrities in LA). It´s difficult to assimilate those people to Alpha-Flaneurs in your definition.
So besides the clothes themselves one would have to judge subjective intentions as well, which is so much more difficult.

I did suggest black old school Continental R......(Circa 1997), not the current hip-hop monstrosity ...but, I do take your point.

Connecting style and elegance with moral virtues are difficult. You will find people, who have no self-esteem but magnetic style. Many actors will fall into that category. Moreover, you will meet persons, who are most well-balanced but lacks style completely. Criminals may possess great style. Also, I cannot see, why loud and bold clothes should be opposed to style. In short, too much simplification is going on here.

Au contraire, dear Gruto - things ARE simple. For those who want to see the simple truth - it is always naked and it has great style with no need whatsoever for clothes. Relativism has no power to dissolve the truth: as soon as you stop stirring, it coagulates and rises back to the surface, like oil above water.
You are talking about hypnotic fascination - that of criminals, unbalanced personalities etc. But that is not style, although I admit its victims may misperceive it as such. A deeper look is enough to reveal the weak foundation of this illusion of style: masters of deceit.
But beyond that - I see no discourse connecting style and moral standing here. Where did the idea come from?
Of course bold clothes are not opposed to style - that's the idea here, that it depends on how they are used. Some, however, CAN prove unusable...

- things ARE simple. For those who want to see the simple truth - it is always naked and it has great style with no need whatsoever for clothes.

Yes, evident for those who want to take a deeper look or who automatically look below the surface seeking affirmations that they are dealing with reality and not affectation.

Costi wrote:Arky, yes - and welcome! - but didn't we get them mixed up?

Hello, Costi, and thanks

Yes, partway through replying I began to doubt myself as to whether I was even using the right terminology. It seemed like Rowly proposed a tentatively ambiguous conceit, then it metamorphosed into further categories in your response and, well, by the time it got to me, I had only a dim clue as to what I was grappling with. Clearly you had an impressive taxonomy in mind.

Costi wrote: Anyway, that's just a scholastic classification. In practice, there is an instinct at work that defies explanation as far as origin and mechanism are concerned, but the effect of which is easy to notice in practice. One can learn how to play an instrument, but nobody can teach someone else music... It can be an object of study, but it remains a mystery why one player makes music and another just plays the instrument.
Coming to "music", when not innate, is usually a matter of overcoming obstacles. Clothes can be a serious obstacle to fine dress. Clearly, the desire to impress (Beta) is an obstacle. Playfulness (which the Alfa displays) not so much, as it is genuine. The Omega has interiorized his playfulness... (but still enjoys to let it show every now and then)

Yes, I'm beginning to agree with you: it is sort of an reductivist exercise. Our compulsion to categorize paints the sartorial cosmology in a very binary way... still, I wish one of us would knuckle down and just paint a portrait of the Alpha-Flaneur in all his glory, if only because it would make for a good chuckle.

After sleeping on it, here is my heartfelt opinion. I reckon that for most of us it is a particle/wave kind of phenomenon. Here's a thought: as we move through life, we are in perpetual flux and moving through the moods and appurtenances of the Alpha, the Beta, and the Omega (all three!) at different intervals -- sometimes even at the same time! We want to extinguish the distasteful thought of ourselves as Beta, but some days, we just are. Maybe that's not so bad. The confident, discreet, worldly, sexy Alpha flaneur vs. the gauche Beta bumpkin is maybe too dualistic. Maturing into one archetype is to become ossified. What do you think? Do we really want to reach sartorial nirvana?

A Heian-era poet wrote, in the Japanese, ゆく川の流れは絶えずしてしかももとの水にあらず
that is, "The river flows ceaselessly, yet the water is never the same as before."
I think the α, β, and Ω are proving hard to pin down because they're states that we move through, rather than defined characters or a terminus. BUT, we know their moods well, so they are recognizeable for sure. It is also why when we talk about the Alpha, Omega, etc., we always resort to mythological Silver Screen legends and make-believe characters like Mr. Duke of Windsor. They are cardboard cutouts.

Even so, I think the A., B., and O. are useful signposts and they have a nice ring to them!

Forgive me for being romantic; I don't know what it is about reading the LL and discussing clothing that causes me to make the above allusions. I blame some of your past posts about "Zen and Clothing," Costi

Rowly wrote:I did suggest black old school Continental R......(Circa 1997)

Yes you are right, old school makes a difference.
I have always thought that, if money was no issue, driving a classy old car was the way to go in style without falling into the traps of ostentation (in my case something like a 1969 Blenheim). But sometimes I think that I would be fooling myself, since I still would be crying for the attention of a more reduced knowing group of people. An Alpha/Betha flaneur.

Arky, we should refuse to live in a world where we feel the need to apologize for being romantic, or where some form of idealism is cynically disregarded as "unrealistic" or dismissed as "unscientific": of course it is, that's why we feel it is true
Therefore yes, wavelengths... I like the image, it can be a matter of fluctuating frequency. And, of course, we morph from one to another. Then every now and then we materialize (the particle) - or, rather, we particularize. Perhaps the Beta, who only reaches as far as his arms and sees as far as the tip of his nose, embodies the FM: ripples. The Alpha may be the MW, with a wider area of reception and broadcasting, moving in wider spaced waves of more stable amplitude: currents. The Omega could be the LM, who receives his inspiration from such great inner depths (or faraway peaks) that interference starts to become a problem as far as broadcasting is concerned. He may not be able to particularize too well in a given moment in time, but being capable of that wavelength is what really counts. We do want to reach sartorial nirvana, but not necessarily stay in it forever - occasional visits is the best we can hope for