The London Lounge

In we continue from the sculpture metaphors from Michelangelo and Orson Welles that suggests that by carving away all that is not stylish from ourselves then that which remains must be stylish. So, in this thread, let's talk about things that are "not" stylish so we can recognize them and shuttle them away from ourselves.

I am not sure if I understand the point. In carving away all that is not stylish from ourselves, so as to keep the stylish core, we may end up as the man trying to peel off an onion in order to find the real onion beneath its surface.

What if we compare the "stylish core" to a brute diamond someone has painted colourfully on the outside (to look pretty ), when all one has to do is clean it off and polish it to bring forward its intrinsic splendor?

I think the idea works on two levels.

Chekov has Astrov say, “Everything in a human being should be beautiful: face and clothes, and soul, and thoughts.” Will the ugliness in the soul and brain not appear on the face and clothes?

Let’s think a bit about chivalric codes, or the precepts of bushido: if we know what is right and wrong do we not also know what is stylish? Is there a style code?

On a more practical level, men would do well when after dressing to remove one article, pare down their look to the essential and see if the overall image is not better. Remember, to the uninitiated, style is the process of embellishment, but the old samurai knows better…

Cheers

marcelo wrote:I am not sure if I understand the point. In carving away all that is not stylish from ourselves, so as to keep the stylish core, we may end up as the man trying to peel off an onion in order to find the real onion beneath its surface.

But you could be an artichoke...

shredder wrote:But you could be an artichoke...

Yes, of course. - Unlike onions, artichokes have a heart beneath their outer shell.

alden wrote:In we continue from the sculpture metaphors from Michelangelo and Orson Welles that suggests that by carving away all that is not stylish from ourselves then that which remains must be stylish.

Or we could be left with nothing, alas. As they say, there are things one can't polish.

Edit: Just read Marcelo's response, which makes the same point. Apols.

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/0 ... ow_18.html
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/0 ... ow_16.html
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/0 ... ow_10.html

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/style/index.html

Share your opinions.

Kind regards,

Paul

Not so stylish? Slavish reinterpretation of the past and pushing the boundaries of good taste in order to shock. Still, I would rather see someone try and fail than to give up the quest to find style (in good taste.) I like that idea postulated in another thread of "the continuing creative present".

I think the trouble lies in what the average man thinks of as style. I've been told that I look as if I stepped from the pages of GQ, which horrifies me. Style is meant to have a positive association, but more often than not it is used to describe "fashionable". Fashionable may be stylish, but it will be so for a very short time.

Dear ccox, I can well understand your immediate reaction of horror on being described as 'GQ,' but consider that most people don't have as nuanced a vocabulary for articulating their impressions on this subject as those of us for whom it is something of a hobby horse. It's quite possible that your interlocutors were using the best term that came to mind precisely to say that you struck them as having style. What other shorthand is there in current popular culture to indicate male style? If Manself is successful, perhaps Esquire will pick up that mantle again, at least in England, but in the States (now that Men's Vogue is kaput and there's no Rake) I suppose it's Details, GQ, or some TV show I haven't seen. Maybe the Bond films.

Anyway, my point is that maybe the comments weren't meant so literally as to require the (understandable first) horrified reaction. Unless you have reason to assume the comments were meant in an unfriendly spirit, they might mean just the reverse--an innocent attempt to say that you'd made a good impression. Especially if they came from women.

I've often thought that Brummell's oft-quoted dictum about the man whom John Bull turns to look at being not well dressed, but too stiff, tight, or fashionable was very context dependent. No doubt Brummell himself at his most austerely elegant would have caused eyes to bug out in Limehouse or Cheapside. That reflects less on his choice of dress than on the resources and opportunities for cultivation of those around him. This is a long-winded way of agreeing with your statement, "I think the trouble lies in what the average man [or woman] thinks of as style."

So we must not dress for the average man. And accept ill-formed compliments with grace (as I'm sure you did).

Hello couch,
Thank you for the kind comment. I did accept the compliment in the spirit in which it was intended. Particularly as it came from a very well-dressed (very preppy) acquaintance.

I'm not sure where our style touchstones are these days. I do know that my neckerchiefs are more accepted as there is a character on "Gossip Girl" who frequently wears an ascot. He is, of course, twenty plus years my junior. Small steps.

I hope to see these threads on style continue as the topic is one in which I am most interested. Defining style, like describing taste, isn't easy.

What do you all think of Alan Flusser's current look? There is much to admire in my opinion. Not everything is to my taste, but I do believe him to have developed his own style. But he is taking a lot of flak for flouting the rules which he as so beautifully laid out in his books.

What is not stylish...
Materially, I think any texture that is very shiny, very rough or very stiff will almsot never be stylish, in an item of apparel. The commingling of very bright colors and very bold patterns is typically not stylish, but that seems like an obvservation which has many, many exceptions.

Ostentatious logos, artifically distressed material and stitching, 'fake' badges of belonging are not stylish.

Beyond that, it gets much, much more subteland complciated, though I'm sure I've elft a lot out.

Here is what Rumi, the great poet, wrote about love:

"Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it."

Isn't that so true about Style, as well? And doesnt' that alone speak tons about the nature of Style? About it being inherrent in us, always and already there - only blocked by the barriers and walls we raise ourselves.
What are these barriers? Some are mental - we are not content with our appearence, so we look for ways to change it; we don't realize how we look (we don't actually see ourselves), so we create a mask instead; we are afraid we are not interesting enough, so we add what we think will make us interesting. Others are physical, when we get absorbed in the things we use to express Style; yes, our suits, our shoes, our ties, our colognes, our watches are all barriers in the way of true Style, until we are able to understand that Style does not reside in them or depend on them. We use them to create a character, a "personal mark", a brand, instead of conveying our true identity.
So perhaps it's not that we need to carve the block of marble, but simply let the barriers fall. Style, presence is about authenticity, sincerity, honesty. When we are able to convey that freely, with no blocks and barriers, nothing can be unstylish in us. When we lie with our created "style", people sense the effort and turn on us an attitude that makes us feel uncomfortable. Our created "style" may even become a line of defence, a fortress between us and the rest of the world, when the point of Style is to get close to others, to comunicate more easily, to reach out to them and allow them to share in your life.
When people see someone very attentively put together, they instinctively find pleasure in spotting the weak points, the spoils so to speak. When a man looks fine, but natural and unforced, weak spots according to the textbook are perceived as beauty marks, they give charm.
So what is not stylish? I agree with Luca - shiny, rough or stiff are not stylish; not in terms of textures, though, but in terms of character traits: affectation, rudeness, conceit. Bright colours and bold patterns? - I translate that as vulgarity. Fake anything (aging, badging) - pretense. However, shiny or rough or stiff fabrics, bright colours and bold patterns, even fake aged jeans and phony badges may be worn by a man of Style in homeopatic doses, with inspired aplomb and in the appropriate context, without taking anything from his charm.
In a dinner suit we have it all: shiny silk, rough linen, stiff bib - yet it is one of the most elegant ways a man can dress, if he wears it well. A tweed suit can be both bright and boldly patterned, but worn well where it belongs it is a pleasure to see.

ccox wrote: I'm not sure where our style touchstones are these days. I do know that my neckerchiefs are more accepted as there is a character on "Gossip Girl" who frequently wears an ascot. He is, of course, twenty plus years my junior. Small steps.

I feel as though younger generations have fewer and fewer 'style touchstones'. As our society sheds more and more prejudices the resulting effect is an greater acceptance of others opinions. Including those on style. I think you will find that most philosophy's of dress are well accepted in the circles that your acquaintance travels.

I am not implying that anything goes. You can't wear sweat pants to the office, even if they cost $500. Merely that more traditional options no longer seem dated when paired next to a more 'preppy' look.

It has been stated here many times that style is organic. Your ascot surely looks fantastic on you but your acquaintance might not be able to achieve the same presence in one. After all, when it comes to the essence of style the man makes the clothes as much as the clothes make the man.

As it pertains to the original post I feel it is not stylish to simply dress in an acceptable manner for the situation. With the exception of the most formal occasions one must express themselves in their dress. Be it odd trousers or ascot's, a man at home in his own clothes is well on his way to being stylish.

NRSPDX wrote:As it pertains to the original post I feel it is not stylish to simply dress in an acceptable manner for the situation. With the exception of the most formal occasions one must express themselves in their dress. Be it odd trousers or ascot's, a man at home in his own clothes is well on his way to being stylish.

I think I like that: stereotype dress and mere conventionalism are not stylish. But what about being acceptably dressed for the situation AND expressing yourself in some way at the same time?
A sonnet is a poem with a fixed form and clear rules, yet no two are alike. There is a charming quality to the traditional expression of a personal feeling or idea - if you feel the expression is appropriate to you, why look for another? On the other hand, originality for its own sake is a great enemy of style... Perhaps it is between the overpopulated plains of cliche and the tall lonely mountains of eccentricity that the varied landscapes of style lie.