The London Lounge

Firstly, I will say I do not consider myself an expert on this topic, these are merely my observations and some thoughts...

I believe within a certain circle, namely the connoisseur in men's attire, the concept of sprezzatura have become this ultimate achievement. However, from my observations in society, I see this concept leads to two different reactions amongst everyday life. To the person unknown to the concept, it seems entirely weird why you are wearing your watch on top of your shirt, or your tie outside your sweater etc. To the person familiar with the concept, there's an acknowledgement.

However, what I have come to see is men who is simply trying too hard, I acknowledge it because I know what they are trying to do, but I do not agree with their approach. Is it a case of me knowing this concept, hence I am too sensitive to it? I personally see no point in wearing a watch over my shirt like Agnelli, I cannot think of anything more contrived. Another example that I see is that the back blade of a tie hanging lower than the front blade, I think it was a nice touch when it was a centimetre or an inch lower, then it just got plain ridiculous and stupid. The list of examples goes on and on.

Quite simply, this is not my concept of sprezzatura at all. I see men in seeking this ideal have managed to achieve quite the opposite. There is a great Chinese proverb which I will try to translate, 'at its extreme, it is opposite'. This to me speaks the truth.

Like I said, I am no expert on the topic. So I went and seeked the help of wikipedia, which states some interpretations of the word sprezzatura:

a certain nonchalance, so as to conceal all art and make whatever one does or says appear to be without effort and almost without any thought about it

It is the ability of the courtier to display an easy facility in accomplishing difficult actions which hides the conscious effort that went into them

Sprezzatura has also been described as a form of defensive irony: the ability to disguise what one really desires, feels, thinks, and means or intends behind a mask of apparent reticence and nonchalance

After reading these interpretations, at first, I thought it sounds about right. However, suddenly, something struck me. The words 'appear to be without effort', 'hides the conscious effort' and 'mask of apparent reticence and nonchalance', so it seems almost by definition, I am totally wrong, the whole concept is rather contrived and unnatural, just appear not to be, hiding it and masking it. I have always interpreted the word as style without thought, natural and nonchalant, it appears I am wrong, but I think in this instance, I will live my life my way.

pur_sang, I think your understanding of the term is exactly right. As Castiglione promoted the word and concept, it is precisely the opposite of "appearing to try too hard." We today might find an clear example in the performance of an athlete or musician. Many athletes and musicians rightly work hard to master difficult feats or technically demanding musical material. Some of them make no attempt to conceal the effort, strain, and discipline that attaining excellence might require--indeed, some of them showcase the hardships, perhaps thinking that the audience will value the achievement more if it seems hard won. Others, whether consciously or by instinct, minimize the strain--we say they "make it look easy." Castiglione would value these performers more highly, and say that we should follow their example. Sprezzatura is the result of consciously striving to make it look easy--it's the art that hides art. A wonderful example is the piano playing of Jorge Luis Prats, to which I was introduced by DonB's post in the Music of the Day thread. His technique (on his Zaragoza concert album for Decca) is so prodigious and highly developed that it almost disappears, leaving the impression on the listener that his playing is pure expression. He seems to conjure colors from the instrument at will, and we sense his emotional response to the music with a rare directness. He makes it look (on the video clips) effortless, as if without conscious thought. That is sprezzatura.

In dress, I think the term was used by manton and others initially to applaud those who did not look too perfectly composed. If everything is perfectly neat, perfectly symmetrical, perfectly coordinated, and perfectly new, it betrays too much thought and effort. It suggests someone is trying too hard, and lacks sprezzatura. On the other hand, if someone displays one or more distinctly asymmetrical, un-coordinated, or unusual details in his dress--but detail(s) known and associated with a famous predecessor, or that has become symbolic to amateurs of fine dressing on the forums, or that is simply exaggerated in proportion--it risks looking derivative and affected, rather than natural or arising from self-knowledge and mastery. That man will also seem to be trying too hard, and you would be right to say that, whatever his intention, he has failed to display sprezzatura.

The idiosyncracy that is original may well be charming, and, like a beauty mark or aquiline nose on a woman may increase the appeal of the whole. But something that both departs from norms of harmony and proclaims its nature as a copy is unlikely to seem either effortless or charming.

couch, thank heavens I at least have one person that agrees with me.

Interesting, you used athletes as an example, names that come to mind are Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer, Michael Schumacher, Usain Bolt et al. Although these guys might not dress all that well, but using sport as an analogy, definitely sprezzatura, they achieve greatness, not without work, but without thought, the jumpshot, the swing, the backhand, the speed, the sprint are all instinctive. Instinct that comes with years of work, greatness that cannot be pretended or imitated. I personally believe that they do not simply 'appear' effortless, but at that moment of clarity, it is effortless.

Pur_sang, I think a large proportion of style-conscious men will utterly agree with you.

For instance, given the examples you mentioned, quite a few men can emulate Gianni Agnelli and get along with it without being pretentious, ridiculous or merely artifitial. Luciano Barbera wearing his watch over the cuff might be one. Not much more, tough, imo.

Could you imagine having fun watching a juggler who sweats before you, obviously struggling to toss and catch his balls?
I believe intention turns sprezzatura into affectation. The effort should go into acquiring the skills (whether sportive, musical or of dress), not into hiding them. I think pur_sang is right when he writes above that "at that moment of clarity, it is effortless." It IS, not only it seems. Long practise and dexterity makes things look easy. Listen to Mozart or Schubert played by Christian Zacharias - you feel as if you could do the same if you sat in his place on the piano stool.
Here is what Virgina Woolf wrote about her experience reading Proust: "But Proust so titillates my own desire for expression that I can hardly set out the sentence. Oh if I could write like that! I cry. And at the moment such is the astonishing vibration and saturation and intensification that he procures—there’s something sexual in it—that I feel I can write like that and seize my pen and then I can’t write like that. Scarcely anyone so stimulates the nerves of language in me: it becomes an obsession."
Masters make it look easy because it IS easy for them (after all the effort invested in learning). They can afford licenses (which would make a novice ridiculous) because everything else about them speaks of mastery and gives a solid context to that one "beauty mark". An uninteresting woman with a "beauty" mark does not become pretty.
Therefore, sprezzatura - much like Style, perhaps, in THIS respect - is not something we can pursue, as a target. Good skills and long practise bring it about naturally. It is something that we may note, observe in others. If we can think about OUR OWN sprezzatura, then it is not sprezzatura, it is mere affectation.

I am not very experienced in dressing, but I find that wearing flannel, linen or tweed makes me feel more relaxed and unaffected. I have 30 serious darkish worsted suits and I don't feel so easily unaffected. I am now lucky that, at my age and position, I can wear whatever I want, so I tend to leave the worsted in the closet, except for the 16-18 oz variety.

How can you not be experienced with dressing yet have so many suits?!

yywwyy, I believe in this instance, fontana1 was merely being modest. However, in my opinion, the number of suits you own have little relevance to your experience in dressing.

Costi, I think your last sentence sums it up. People often try to think of their own sprezzatura, that thought alone have lost the point. So it seems, this whole concept is rather abstract and deeply philosophical, nothing you can physically possess or do will allow you to attain it automatically, hence its allure.

More thought have unconsciously gone into this, I am starting to believe that no young man can truly have it, because it takes time and experience to own it naturally.

It is also interesting to me that these supposedly modern day sprezzatura men (for the lack of a better word) are very much peacocks, attention seekers, whereas one of the icons of this concept, Gianni Agnelli, is for the most part very understated in dress.

Costi, I think we are in agreement in principle. Sprezzatura is not, or should not be, itself the object of intention or achievement. It is the result of mastery, or its byproduct, and we, and Castiglione, recognize it as a quality that signifies such mastery. However, it should be noted that in his book Castiglione is quite explicit about the deadly serious nature of the courtier's business and the paradoxical requirement that it be robed in an easy and lightly worn manner, and that such a manner can and must be learned. The rhetorical setting of the ladies setting questions for discussion, and the discussions themselves, would have no didactic purpose if only those had sprezzatura who were born to it, like titles of nobility or blond hair. As you say, the effort is to go into acquiring the skills, but neither the effort, nor the skills once acquired, are to be displayed or "shown off" in circumstances that would appear instrumental or self-promoting, even as Castiglione explains that the promotion of the courtier and of the interests of the prince he serves require the skills to be seen and appreciated. That's where the "art that hides art" comes in, in the original context of the term sprezzatura. It is a most delicate line to walk.

I think in our discussions of 'style' or of sprezzatura in contemporary dress, we are actually more idealistic than Castiglione, and yearn for an unselfconscious "authenticity" that is at least partly Romantic in its origins and would be puzzling to him. There's plenty of classical discipline and self-conscious self-command in Castiglione's ideal courtier (and a bit of cynicism too, perhaps). The first two are equally noble character traits that can just as successfully lead to an avoidance of affectation and pretension as can the cultivation of an "instinctive" fidelity to an individual's "true nature." But Castiglione would say that the discipline and self-command should not show, that the effort should not show. The confidence they bring should, just like the more intuitive path of "being truly yourself" lead to that easy and lightly worn manner. However, as in Michael's example of Michael Chekhov's To the Actor, technique can be a path to achieving presence, or style. When the technique becomes second nature, sprezzatura is likely to be observed.

I agree (and I think Castiglione would agree) that one cannot be the judge of one's own sprezzatura. Being a courtier is inherently a social occupation, and it is in the responses of others that success in that field is measured. That's another reason that dressing "solely to please oneself," while it may be a valid and admirable principle in itself, is not really related to whether or not one is judged to have presence or style or sprezzatura. Some people who please themselves are slobs, some fops, some dully practical, and some splendid examples of sprezzatura. It is equally true that someone who dresses only to please others is not guaranteed to achieve style or sprezzatura, however carefully he chooses his models and judges. As pur_sang notes in his last post, there is nothing that can guarantee it, and thus its seductive and evanescent allure.

couch wrote:When the technique becomes second nature, sprezzatura is likely to be observed.

Absolutely.
Sprezzatura is not inborn Style. It is acquired.
Style is nature (if any...). Sprezzatura is SECOND nature.

However, I was wondering whether I might have been mistaken about some conscious intention being inherent to sprezzatura. There is this intention to hide, not out of modesty, but in order to amaze with the very contrast between the difficulty of the task and the apparent ease of its execution.

I was watching an interview the other day with Glen Gould talking about Sviatoslav Richter. Gould said there were two kinds of musicians: the virtuosi, who have a particular mastery of their instrument and, when they play, they make one focus on this spectacular relationship with the instrument - Liszt, Paganini; and the Richter kind, who go beyond technique and display of mastery - they make one focus on the music itself.
Did Liszt and Paganini display sprezzatura? Or showing off is not sprezzatura?
Richter just didn't care enough for his own person to either show or hide his technique and skill, he just played - for himself. Sprezzatura or not?

If I may summarise the main points running through this thread, I would say that:
- If you’re trying to achieve sprezzatura… you haven’t. You are posing; rather tackily too.
- More specifically, if you consciously adopt idiosyncratic dressing touches to appear nonchalant, there is no sprezzatura involved, but out and out exhibitionism (not that this is necessarily a bad thing).

Perhaps the sprezzatura that people so reverently refer to simply occurs when someone who is conscious of and interested in their apparel adopts some habit, style or garment that is not, strictly speaking, elegant or fine but which for whatever other reasons suits them and therefore is not taking the whole thing too seriously.
I understand, for instance, that Agnelli just found wearing his watch outside the shirt cuff more comfortable. Similarly people used to go sockless with relatively formal shoes, away from the beach because they just liked the feel.

Unfortunately, as interest in semi-unfashionable male elegance becomes… fashionable and he blogs/articles proliferate, concepts like sprezzatura become a “a thing” to be “done” rather artificially. The next step in the mode adoption progression (tm) is for it to become a widely used marketing term (“This season’s purple and gold suit linings show the right amount of sprezzatura…”) .

I think it's useful to return to Castiglione:

I have found quite a universal rule which in this matter seems to me valid above all other, and in all human affairs whether in word or deed: and that is to avoid affectation in every way possible as though it were some rough and dangerous reef; and (to pronounce a new word perhaps) to practice in all things a certain sprezzatura [nonchalance], so as to conceal all art and make whatever is done or said appear to be without effort and almost without any thought about it.

However the term has been used or adapted by the clothing forums, it is clear (from this and other passages) that Castiglione understood this "practiced" nonchalance to be the result of effort ("trying"). It results from mastering many difficult skills (necessary for the idealized courtier to win and keep the support of the ruler he serves) to the point of making them seem innate or natural, when in fact they are a performance. The paradox is that when sprezzatura is successfully present, the observer cannot detect the effort, and so attributes the fluency to nature. When the effort shows, then the attempt at sprezzatura has failed. The unsuccessful effort can then itself look like affectation.

Many scholars have pointed out the conflict between the ideal of sprezzatura and the ideal of authenticity. You might think of this conflict as being symbolized by the "perfect" diplomatic ambassador, who must appear to embody and sincerely articulate the ethos and policies of the government he represents, regardless of his personal beliefs and positions. In contemporary discussions of style, something like Agnelli's wristwatch placement, if indeed it was an idiosyncracy resulting from an authentic personal preference or practical consideration, might be judged to have great style but would not be an example of sprezzatura (although, again, if we can't tell, then it could be either one).

Since the Romantic period, the cult of individual authenticity has exerted a powerful influence; I think in most discussions on these forums there's an unarticulated tension between valuing style that arises from the authentic nature of the individual (in which case less concern about "rules" and occasion is warranted, since the opinions of others are not the primary concern) and valuing that which results from a connoisseurship or informed judgment based on knowledge of history and technique, inflected by personality but mindful of the effect on others, thus respecting occasion and observing--or not, with full awareness--norms and "rules." This latter approach is the one in which sprezzatura can be deployed. I suspect most of us mix and match aspects of the two.

Unusually in my experience, the Wikipedia entry on sprezzatura has a nicely balanced and concise treatment of the costs and benefits of sprezzatura as the term was introduced by Castiglione and subsequently employed. Worth a look.

I agree with Luca that "sprezzatura," vaguely deployed, has become an iGent meme in danger of meaning everything and nothing. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it used in both fashion editorial and product marketing.

What a great thread! I am very much a novice of the sartorial arts and am just beginning to build a less t-shirt-oriented wardrobe, so many of my ideas on dress are more theoretical than practiced, but I agree with what many of you have said so far.

In order to justify my post, I will offer two examples of making it "look easy" to my mind:

The first, in sports, is the image of the acrobats and tumblers at the circus, they fling themselves and each other around like rubber balls, making it look effortless.

Secondly, in the arena of dress, Beau Brummel and his necktie. If I remember correctly, he would spend an inordinate amount of time making his white necktie look as though it were simply thrown around his neck... perfectly. I always think of his valet carrying a basket of linens off to the laundry and telling a curious observer, and I may be paraphrasing here, "Oh, these are our failures, sir."

But looking to a more practical application, and as many here have already noted, sprezzatura is something that is developed and acquired over time. We are often told that our dress should be a reflection of our lifestyles (which is why I own so many pairs of pajama pants), and I think it is healthy to have fun and play around with dress. But one shouldn't be afraid to look a fool when one does. There is a reason that many of the best dressed are so named in middle age, for it takes time to be at ease with one's lifestyle and be at ease in one's clothes. And when you have developed your habits and comforts, I believe sprezzatura will be naturally reflected in your dress and style. Isn't it a joy to find that you prefer button-down collars with suits because that post-lunch stroll always left your collar flapping in the oceanside wind? Or that you always reach for the mis-matched pair of cufflinks because those were the only one's left in your grandfather's drawer after your cousins had picked it over? One's idiosyncrasies, I believe, should be almost autobiographical, but quietly so.

A great discussion and a good opportunity to say hello after joining this community few days ago.

Little is my knowledge of this matter and therefore high is my attention. I end up thinking about sprezzatura every time I sit on the train and my eyes go to that unfastened button on the cuffs of the chap standing in front of me in his bespoke suit. Gone is the time when those buttons had a real meaning and could have been done and undone according to the activity carried out at a certain time of the day. I wonder whether that extra-care (and not 'lack of care') is a good example of sprezzatura. It seems to me that that button has become the password used to enter a certain social condition and find recognition among a group of people.

Different is the case with the last button of the waistcoat - I can see a practical reason in leaving (forgetting?) it undone after sitting, especially now that trousers have less rise and waistcoats are cut longer, which doesn't seem to me the best configuration for someone spending a considerable amount of time in the sitting position.

"Sprezzatura" is related to "disprezzo" (noun; = contempt) and "disprezzare" (verb; = to contemn).. and here I kindly ask you to forgive my poor English and acknowledge my Italian origin. I tend to consider a superb example of sprezzatura the one offered by the very special individuals who lack interest in meeting public recognition for what they do or for how they appear. Eventually, I ended up considering a much higher example of sprezzatura -- a lesson I want to learn and an example I want to retain -- the one offered by those who don't make a point of having working buttons on their sleeves or, having working buttons on their sleeves (..which is undeniably beautiful), keep the buttons fastened.

I still remember my dad trimming the grass of the huge garden in the 38C of an Italian summer. My mum shouting from the window of the living room - "Go get changed! Do you need to trim the grass in suit, white shirt and tie?!" I was too young then.. now, 15 years later, I live in a different country, speak a different language and am filled with respect for my father and the example he effortlessly and silently provided for many years.

Benvenuto nel Lounge!

Sprezzatura that contemns even itself... nice