The London Lounge

I am struck and somewhat disconcerted by the amount of discussion about "style" in this sub-forum given that there seems to be no clear agreement about what that word means.

Lexically, it is a word that in English (and other European languages) has a long history and variety of subtle differences in meaning; quite obviously. Just look at its etymology and the length of the entry in the OED.
In this forum I would say that "style" is the quality possessed by one that is "stylish", which, again resorting to the OED, is defined as: "Noticeable for 'style' or conformity to the fashionable standard of elegance; showily fashionable."

I feel mowt posters would recoil at that definition but we must recognize that historically, lexically and culturally the line between a elegance, style, fanciness, dandyism and foppishness has forever been faint and exquisitely subjective.

The evolution of the meaning of "elegant" chronologically goes thus:
1. Tastefully ornate in attire; sometimes in unfavourable sense: Dainty, foppish.
2. Characterized by refined grace of form (usually as the result of art or culture); tastefully ornamental.
3. Characterized by refined luxury.
4. Correct and delicate in taste.

The ancient etymology is from Latin: related to eligere to select. The etymological sense is thus 'choosing carefully or skilfully.' In early Lat. elegans was a term of reproach, 'dainty, fastidious, foppish', but in classical times it expressed the notions of refined luxury, graceful propriety, which are reproduced in the modern English use.

So, I throw down the gauntlet: to define "style" (better yet: "good taste" or "elegance") pithily, without resorting to aphorisms or other pre-post-modernist “word tricks”, but rather empirically or phenomenologically.

Dear Luca,

some members here will now engage in a long discussion; which, at times, is interesting to follow. For myself, I have decided long ago
- not to worry
- to keep things simple and practical
- to feel good and at ease in what I'm wearing

And the LL now offers me the good cloth worth tailoring All theories about style and elegance will not replace practice.

cheers, david

Quatrain 27 of Edward FitzGerald's translation of The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám, First Edition, Quatrain no. 27 wisely tells us:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by that same door as in I went.

It's the same here, surely: there is no trophy; no prize; no acknowledgement; no ultimate certainty of definition. There is just the summit and the quest. We may be graced to stand upon the summit but we may not show the way; or even record or try to define it exactly. Arguably there is no structure and there certainly is no definition. Those who look in dictionaries to define Style might as well (maybe even better) try reading tea leaves .

Besides, besides flanning here, what on earth else would we do with our time?

 
 
Luca
 
In this subforum we are exploring a phenomenon that can roughly be described as human magnetism. To give the phenomenon a name, we have coined the word Style with a capital “S” to differentiate it from the word “style” whose definition you have been kind to publish. Balzac was fascinated by the subject and proposed a full fledged scientific study to finally come to terms with it. He chose to call it Elegance.
 
There are many words that describe one or another aspect of the particular attraction of Style:charisma, charm, sex appeal, class, magnetism, star quality etc. None of them completely fits the bill. In theatre, it is called “stage presence.” And in every generation there are a few actors who possess it in varying degrees. Most acting teachers will tell you it can’t be learned, it is born. But there are methods and techniques that can create a facsimile of presence for those who are not endowed. Michael Chekov wrote a good deal on the subject and his exercises have been used to help actors learn to “radiate" and create presence.
 
In cinema there are actors who have natural “camera presence.” One example was Gary Cooper and in an interview with Peter Bogdonavich Orson Welles had a tough time coming to grips with defining it.
 
OW: Cooper was a movie actor-the classic case. You’d see him working on the set and you’d think, “My God, they’re going to have to retake that one!” He almost didn’t seem to be there. And then you would see the rushes and magically he’d fill the screen.
 
PB: How do you explain that?
 
OW: Personality? I wouldn’t presume to explain the mystery. It always matters more than technique.
 
The French were exasperated a long time ago trying to describe it and they decided to create the noun and say a person has je ne sais quoi. It is an honest though imprecise a way to describe what we postulate as Style.

It is easier and in our lazy moments we tend to concentrate too much on describing what Style is not. We have pretty much concluded that you won't find it in fashion, magazine, reading blogs, slathering your face with cosmetics or buying clothes. And yet that is how 99.9% of men go about finding it.
 
So we are studying the phenomenon of Style to learn from those who possess it with a view to improving our own and that might indeed lead us to exercises and training to improve and develop magnetic Style.  As such, the subject is of much greater importance than that of clothes or fashion, the things we normally understand as style.

Cheers

off topic (?)

The intellectual quest is exquisite like pearls and coral,
But it is not the same as the quest of the spirit.
The quest of the spirit is on another level altogether,
Spiritual wine has a subtler taste.
The intellect and the senses investigate cause and effect.
The spiritual seeker surrenders to the wonder.

Rumi

Charisma is close but the trouble with this quality is that it lets in Hitler and Mussolini and, given what they did, it produces a difficulty because the charisma that we want to recognize as Style has to be (at least i think that it has to be) essentially good and charisma can be either a gift of grace from the gods or just stage magnetism. I am sure that Cruella de Vil and even Lucifer would share the darker shade of charisma. I knew an intellectual and level-headed woman who went, out of curiosity, to a Nuremberg rally in the 1930s and found herself heiling Hitler and waving her arms around. Later, in WWII, she was a code-breaker (for us). However, even she had been momentarily overwhelmed by Adolf. It is true that there was also mass hysteria but he caused it. The point, though, is that few would say that Adolf had the 'Style' of our quest.

"Your eyes have a nice shade of blue - what's your brand of contact lenses?" - this is style.

"The way he looks at me sends tingles up my spine" ("what is the colour of his eyes?! I never even noticed...") - that is Style

Costi wrote:"Your eyes have a nice shade of blue - what's your brand of contact lenses?" - this is style.

"The way he looks at me sends tingles up my spine" ("what is the colour of his eyes?! I never even noticed...") - that is Style

The contacts are hip, hip-hop, magazine-styling-accessories and the very reverse of what the wearer is aiming at.

They are just putting the roof over Centre Court at Wimbledon - I had to smile at the way that one of the vacuous presenters gave us the line: ''And Victoria Beckham has arrived, with husband, David, of course'' - two perfect examples of mod-mag-styling-gone-mad.

''And Victoria Beckham has arrived, with husband, David, of course'' - two perfect examples of mod-mag-styling-gone-mad.

The Empress' new skin and bones.

I was thinking, when watching some old films and interviews, how beautiful some people are, with the tiny flaws that reveal reality. A slightly crooked tooth that gives character to the face. A smile with teeth of a colour that nature intended to actually harmonize with the colour of the complexion. Style is an outward expression that inside, you are happy with who you are, and are celebrating it. The other is an outward expression that you need the constant approval and acceptance from others that requires you to present yourself in a phony way, whether it is porcelain veneers, or whatever else.
Reality....attractive.
Phoniness, or shallowness....unattractive.
IMHO, of course

Rowly wrote:

''And Victoria Beckham has arrived, with husband, David, of course'' - two perfect examples of mod-mag-styling-gone-mad.

The Empress' new skin and bones.

I was thinking, when watching some old films and interviews, how beautiful some people are, with the tiny flaws that reveal reality. A slightly crooked tooth that gives character to the face. A smile with teeth of a colour that nature intended to actually harmonize with the colour of the complexion. Style is an outward expression that inside, you are happy with who you are, and are celebrating it. The other is an outward expression that you need the constant approval and acceptance from others that requires you to present yourself in a phony way, whether it is porcelain veneers, or whatever else.
Reality....attractive.
Phoniness, or shallowness....unattractive.
IMHO, of course

It's her perpetual scowl and hair of shuperiori'y that gets me.

Luca wrote:So, I throw down the gauntlet: to define "style" (better yet: "good taste" or "elegance") pithily, without resorting to aphorisms or other pre-post-modernist “word tricks”, but rather empirically or phenomenologically.

I tend to agree with you. The problem is that our discussions shuttle between very different terminales like:

- inward quality and outward quality
- moral value and aesthetic value
- snapshot and movement
- picture and live
- personality and clothing

and so on.

My own view is that it is meaningless endeavor to take away superficiality in style leaving us with an internal quality only. Style is related to the outer world.

In regards to style, I have been drawn to Nietzsche's words about the ancient greeks, who were "superficial by depth" or "out of profundity" according to N. ("Oh diese Griechen! ... Diese Griechen waren oberflächlich—aus Tiefe!")

Gruto wrote:"...oberflächlich—aus Tiefe!"

That's interesting!

Some well considered, answers, I think.

So far, I think we might be arriving at some early points of agreement (if I haven't got it completely wrong):
> in discussing style we should avoid conflating it with other desirable qualities like honesty, brilliance, physical beauty, etc.
> unless we really stretch the definition beyond all use, it is fair to say that, however deeply felt or naturally displayed, it is an essentially exterior quality.

Yes?

Luca wrote:Some well considered, answers, I think.

So far, I think we might be arriving at some early points of agreement (if I haven't got it completely wrong):
> in discussing style we should avoid conflating it with other desirable qualities like honesty, brilliance, physical beauty, etc.
> unless we really stretch the definition beyond all use, it is fair to say that, however deeply felt or naturally displayed, it is an essentially exterior quality.

Yes?

I disagree with that conclusion. It has to be there, regardless of external evidences of it; otherwise they would never be externally perceptible. A good example of this may be found near the beginning of Laurence Sterne's 'A Sentimental Journey'. He is approached by a mendicant monk and refuses him alms. Too late, he regrets the refusal but determines 'to learn better manners as I go along.' In this passage, he behaves badly (as we all do sometimes); he recognizes his own fault; he has something within him that regrets the fault (of meanness) and resolves to try to do better next time. The qualities that take him to his conclusion are the fount of style. Next time he would do better: this is an example of 'intelligent effort' in action by 'frail, fallen humankind'. As long as we remain conscious of our own failings and faults, and remain anxious to do better, the fount still springs with the promise of reaching Style. Maybe then, since we can all, always do better, Absolute Style must remain just beyond our grasp as an actual 'trophy'. It is, forever, an objective for next time. But the determined quest is all in this. I can recall, on a slightly prosaic note, beginning in my career and having early drafts of Opinions thrown in the bin with a sneer by those training me. Just not good enough. Not by a mile. But, gradually, by defeat, by error, extra effort, and the preparedness to remain sensitive to our own failings and by our self-doubts, we become competent at an accomplishment. Gradually, we come to be good. Then, maybe, we excel. But what we do is never absolutely perfect because nothing, and no one, ever is. But, as Dickens says, there is the desire to hunt something present; deep within the human breast. The quest then is all. We know that we will never reach the end (Dorothy Parker: ''We all want to get there but when you get there, you realize that there's no there there) - but, I suggest that we are ennobled by the fact that, knowing this, we persist in the journey; in the hunt; in the quest. It's all well beyond knowing about, or having, or even wearing, clothes; as Michael and Costi have often said. If you are getting there, you are getting there even when you are totally naked. But, as you go along, then, with intelligent effort, you will improve your appreciation and acknowledgement of all things; different people and their customs bring an expectation of different ways of behaving and dressing.

Coming to that realization and running with it, is much more worthwhile than bespeaking clothes and cloth and pattern-matching your clothes, according to some parochial formulae! They are not, in the right context, unimportant - but they are consequential abilities and evidences of your stage on the the journey of (corney as it sounds) enlightenment. I haven't even yet found the right tree under which to find it - but I keep my eyes open for it.

Just make sure that you don't go naked in front of any mendicant monk, seeking alms! He'll see right through you. Hell, he probably won't even speak to you...

NJS

PS And another thing...I once knew a couple who had a particularly opulent lifestyle, which included a big, black, low, snarling Humber saloon. As a hobby they collected antiques. For their hobby, they had a beaten-up, old Mini pick-up truck. They used to enjoy going to a particular beach with their dogs and, in the holiday season, there was a car park plus attendant. When they drove up in the Humber, it was all ''Yes, sir, no sir, three bags full sir!''. When they drove up in the Mini truck, there was no oleaginous greeting; nothing - just '''Ere's yer change, mate!''. Same people; same lifestyle; same qualities of character but they were treated quite differently by Joe Bloggs, just by reference to their perceived 'externals'.

The fact that Joe Bloggs treated them differently was a fraud, in any event because, regardless of the reality of their opulent lifestyle and the external evidences of their existence, they were the very same people. They (rightly) used to laugh about it - and I still regard the matter as a most important lesson for me as a child. It is all too easy to lose sight of the fact that we are all just extremely tiny, little specks of stardust. To my mind, this is a fundamental, beyond any organized 'religion'.

For all that I know, the man who brushes the pavement outside my house might be The Christ reborn, or Buddha, or a form of Krishna or, maybe, he's just a simple man doing me a service on this earth. But he is, then, at least, a part of the wholeness of creation and, if he does his job well, then I have to say that he has something approaching Style.

And now ............. my Good Lady................ has just intervened............. and suggested.......... a break...She is saying that I should try sitting under a plum tree in Hampstead anmd listening to a Nightingale singing.

There's a thought. AArgh"! all right, all right,I'm 'finishe..................................................................................

But I'll beeeeeeeeeeeee back.....................................
NJS

Hmmm. But then, again, what is "style"? It seems to ebb and flow with the tides of each posting; never fixing itself upon a solid bough but flitting around like a firefly, brilliant but random.

Some posters seem to be saying that style is some state of perennial seeking for... what? Nice clothes? Kindness to the unfortunate? Satori?
All encompassing -- encompassing nothing.

I am minded of the Spartans' resposne to the Athenian's speech