Half way down a bottle of Argentinian table wine and half way between that and applying linseed oil to our inside sidegates (a task which, despite regular instructions, neither of our maids can quite find the time to accomplish), I had a thought, deriving from the provocative, recent post about Leaders' Wives. The question which arises is (taxation aside): Do Members Believe That The Government of The Day Has Any Impact On The Elegant Life Of The Individual?
NJS
Elegance and Politics
Nicholas,
I'm happy you come up with this question because I had been thinking about it lately since the discussion on Sarkozy. As we all know, in the past times of the feudal system in Europe, monarchs and aristocrats owned not only the land on which they ruled but everything and everyone upon it, including the peasant’s houses and properties and the peasants themselves. Nowadays, I would say it is pretty much the opposite: European monarchies, having lost most of their power and being relegated to merely representational institutions, have come to belong to the people. I realised this with the our king in Spain, who, although solid in his place, is so because what the people like how he behaves, and if the time comes that they don't like him anymore (which I doubt that will happen with this king), they will be able to destroy his figure. The same happens very much with politicians. They, belonging to the people, have to dress how the people want them to dress, or expect them to dress: if they don't wear suits on a regular basis, they won't be taken seriously, but moreover, the suit has to fit certain traits of normality, they should be conservative, in a small range of colours (those most common in business and offices, generally ranging other in the dark greys or the dark blues), and politicians are never too flashy, or 'dandy', you won't see them wear a nice combination of tie, shirt and handkerchief (if they wear one at all). Also, I noticed in the recent campaign for the elections that politicians don't wear a tie and wear the shirt collar unbuttoned for political meetings, probably to gain proximity to the people. What I mean with all this is that I think that instead of there being an influence from the dressing (or living) style of the members of the government on the people's, there is an influence from the people's dressing style on the members of the government.
And as I finish this post I finish smoking my Romey y Julieta Cedros de Lux nº 2, and smile as Real Madrid is near from becoming league champions.
I'm happy you come up with this question because I had been thinking about it lately since the discussion on Sarkozy. As we all know, in the past times of the feudal system in Europe, monarchs and aristocrats owned not only the land on which they ruled but everything and everyone upon it, including the peasant’s houses and properties and the peasants themselves. Nowadays, I would say it is pretty much the opposite: European monarchies, having lost most of their power and being relegated to merely representational institutions, have come to belong to the people. I realised this with the our king in Spain, who, although solid in his place, is so because what the people like how he behaves, and if the time comes that they don't like him anymore (which I doubt that will happen with this king), they will be able to destroy his figure. The same happens very much with politicians. They, belonging to the people, have to dress how the people want them to dress, or expect them to dress: if they don't wear suits on a regular basis, they won't be taken seriously, but moreover, the suit has to fit certain traits of normality, they should be conservative, in a small range of colours (those most common in business and offices, generally ranging other in the dark greys or the dark blues), and politicians are never too flashy, or 'dandy', you won't see them wear a nice combination of tie, shirt and handkerchief (if they wear one at all). Also, I noticed in the recent campaign for the elections that politicians don't wear a tie and wear the shirt collar unbuttoned for political meetings, probably to gain proximity to the people. What I mean with all this is that I think that instead of there being an influence from the dressing (or living) style of the members of the government on the people's, there is an influence from the people's dressing style on the members of the government.
And as I finish this post I finish smoking my Romey y Julieta Cedros de Lux nº 2, and smile as Real Madrid is near from becoming league champions.
-
storeynicholas
I think that you're onto a good lead here but, regardless of the fact that you are probably right, does this not mean that the leaders are being led and then what they do is copied as comme il faut - and so the downward spiral continues? Felicitations on your cigar and congratulations on the football - here the bars were full this evening because 9I think), Flumenense were playing Botafogo - but I just bought my bottle of beer and ran - as the bar owner was ticking me off about not bringing back the deposit bottles - so I don't know the result.
I do think there is some reciprocal influence, yet perhaps not as much as a century, half century, or quarter century ago. Here in Spain I've noticed that people have started wearing garments and accesories with the flag and colours of Spain, generally: diagonally striped ties, belts, braces, boxer shorts, socks, handkerchiefs... Not of my taste, but not completely tasteless, although I guess it is not so because the red and yellow tones in our flag happen to go together very well, and work specially now in spring. This is something very much influenced by politics itself, were nationalist Spaniards do this as a reaction to regional nationalists. So there you have an example, as politicians from PP very much welcomed this gesture and followed it.storeynicholas wrote:I think that you're onto a good lead here but, regardless of the fact that you are probably right, does this not mean that the leaders are being led and then what they do is copied as comme il faut - and so the downward spiral continues? Felicitations on your cigar and congratulations on the football - here the bars were full this evening because 9I think), Flumenense were playing Botafogo- but I just bought my bottle of beer and ran - as the bar owner was ticking me off about not bringing back the deposit bottles - so I don't know the result.
Thank you for the felicitations and the congratulations... When I see, hear or read things about Latin America it always makes me think about Spain, a poorer, more primitive Spain, but still a Spain...
-
storeynicholas
In certain respects, Brazil, which is really the only one I can talk about with any confidence, is more primitive than Spain (or other western European countries) much much less than you would think. Many roads are appalling and the defence system is probably weak but there is adequate free health care (well, paid for out of low local taxes), state compulsory education etc. and there are not bandits on everey corner. Most things can be had here - for a price. However, Brazil is most certainly not poor - it is one of the nations richest in natural resources - of all kinds from China clay to bauxite, to gold, precious and semi-precious stones, oil, wood and so on.there may be mismanagement of its economy for all that I know - but still it has a strengthening currency which is beating down and keeping down both the UK£ and the US$ and I have every belief that Brazil will soon be biting the nations which see themselves as at the van of progress right in their well-clad backsides!! Imagine - toothmarks in your tweeds!!
NJS
NJS
By primitive I really meant a sort of social privitivism, where society follows rules of behaviour no longer behold in (western) Europe, such as fanatism (football, religion), high ineffiencies (economically), unstable governments (we do have it occasionally though)... And other trademarks of latin american countries. By poor I didn't mean that the country itself is poor: without a doubt the Americas is the reachest part of the world, with Eurasia, Africa and Australasia far from its natural wealth. The Americas, as it was said when discovered, are the nearest from heaven that you can get on Earth. But the goods and wealth of the countries are wasted or not used (properly or at all) by the people in them, particularly in latin american countries. Brazil is in fact the reachest country in the world in terms of natural goods, followed by Argentina. Yet the wealth of a country, or better said its economic performance, is best measured by economic indicators which are adjusted to the conditions of the country, such as GDP per capita, HDI, balance of payments, income distribution... In all of which Brazil (and generally latin american countries) perform pretty bad... Becuase they manage economies ('they' including not only these, but also China, India, Russia, Islamic countries and generally developing countries except Africa, which are another type altogether) in order to achieve economic growth, and not economic development.storeynicholas wrote:In certain respects, Brazil, which is really the only one I can talk about with any confidence, is more primitive than Spain (or other western European countries) much much less than you would think. Many roads are appalling and the defence system is probably weak but there is adequate free health care (well, paid for out of low local taxes), state compulsory education etc. and there are not bandits on everey corner. Most things can be had here - for a price. However, Brazil is most certainly not poor - it is one of the nations richest in natural resources - of all kinds from China clay to bauxite, to gold, precious and semi-precious stones, oil, wood and so on.there may be mismanagement of its economy for all that I know - but still it has a strengthening currency which is beating down and keeping down both the UK£ and the US$ and I have every belief that Brazil will soon be biting the nations which see themselves as at the van of progress right in their well-clad backsides!! Imagine - toothmarks in your tweeds!!
NJS
But let's avoid an economic discussion, and focus on our topic. Does anyone else have an example of a politician influencing people's life (dressing) style? I have another one, of lifestyle: since the monarchy was reinstalled in Spain, Mallorca has been its favourite place of destination in the summer, bringing many (wealthy) Spaniards following them and making it a favourite for Germans (and Germanics in general).
-
storeynicholas
Guille, you are just about as polemical and truculent as I am. I need to look at some figure-work before I return to this fray; although I agree that we must not lose sight of the main thread - or we shall probably be invited to devise another forum, in another latin tongue; one in which, reflecting their general avoidance of foreign languages (apart from French, as stated in the Italian Forum) we poor Angles and Saxons, sadly, do not excel.........
NJS
NJS
NJS -
Let me preface this by stating that the documented (i.e. perceived) impact from the art/celebrity community (stage, screen, sport, etc) would win this tug of war. Even the LL chose GC over the DoW to grace the frontispiece.
To better serve this topic, I believe there should be a distinction made between the elected vs inherited (or even overthrown) seats of “power.”
Is it stating the obvious that if you fall into Camp 1, elected, that a well worn strategy is to morph into everyman? If a percentage of the masses still label good clothes as church clothes, your Sunday Best, it is no shocker that the personal attire deployed should be one of a conservative nature. Flash, as it were, will probably only find its way into the political arena once a Beckham/Jordan type graduates from one arena to the next.
Camp 2, inherited, clearly wins if one glances thru the portfolio of historical fashion. Therefore, hope still reigns eternal, and may find a new champion in the young Princes of (insert least offensive country). Clearly one is more prone to explore/evolve their sartorial choices if the downside is limited to a poor photo op and not the often touch and go support of the local union/precinct/party.
Camp 3, overthrown, of course is limited in scope for elegance in military garb - albeit of note – rarely moves into the mainstream.
We lose Camp 2 once one brings policy into the fray, for they rarely enact it. Camps 1 and 3 have historically shown the ability to dictate elegance, or the pursuit thereof, via oppression (religion, taxation). Herein lies the greatest influence of an elegant life by government, which in many countries should be co-mingled with Big Business. Progress has taken away lovely country roads, most day games in sport, Mom &Pop shops (or their finer form: atelier) and countless other examples. Warning labels dominate and the pace has never hurried so much. We now applaud everything so therefore nothing. My sense is that many a countries founding fathers would lead another revolt should they be allowed to view the current state of things.
JAS
Let me preface this by stating that the documented (i.e. perceived) impact from the art/celebrity community (stage, screen, sport, etc) would win this tug of war. Even the LL chose GC over the DoW to grace the frontispiece.
To better serve this topic, I believe there should be a distinction made between the elected vs inherited (or even overthrown) seats of “power.”
Is it stating the obvious that if you fall into Camp 1, elected, that a well worn strategy is to morph into everyman? If a percentage of the masses still label good clothes as church clothes, your Sunday Best, it is no shocker that the personal attire deployed should be one of a conservative nature. Flash, as it were, will probably only find its way into the political arena once a Beckham/Jordan type graduates from one arena to the next.
Camp 2, inherited, clearly wins if one glances thru the portfolio of historical fashion. Therefore, hope still reigns eternal, and may find a new champion in the young Princes of (insert least offensive country). Clearly one is more prone to explore/evolve their sartorial choices if the downside is limited to a poor photo op and not the often touch and go support of the local union/precinct/party.
Camp 3, overthrown, of course is limited in scope for elegance in military garb - albeit of note – rarely moves into the mainstream.
We lose Camp 2 once one brings policy into the fray, for they rarely enact it. Camps 1 and 3 have historically shown the ability to dictate elegance, or the pursuit thereof, via oppression (religion, taxation). Herein lies the greatest influence of an elegant life by government, which in many countries should be co-mingled with Big Business. Progress has taken away lovely country roads, most day games in sport, Mom &Pop shops (or their finer form: atelier) and countless other examples. Warning labels dominate and the pace has never hurried so much. We now applaud everything so therefore nothing. My sense is that many a countries founding fathers would lead another revolt should they be allowed to view the current state of things.
JAS
-
storeynicholas
JAS - I couldn't agree more and well put, if I may say so. You raise what would the founding fathers say - I think that it is even closer to home than that - my grandfathers died in 1963 and 1972 and they would not recognize the land of their birth - from its buildings and roads to its manners (ahem!) values and dress: "Do we indeed desire the dead /Should still be with us at our side?/ Is there no baseness we would hide?/ No inner vileness that we dread?" - possibly things were in a similar way when Tennyson wrote that but I believe that we would have a lot more explaining to do than our forebears.
NJS
NJS
-
HappyStroller
- Posts: 442
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:29 pm
- Contact:
Let us require all members of houses of legislation all over the World wear frock coats, cutaways or tailcoats when the houses are in session, so that only elegant words worthy of tasty and civilised thought issue from their oral orifices.
Throughout history many fashions were launched in moments of political and military fervour, like the short jackets “a la zouave” worn by ladies over their dresses after the victory of the Zouaves at Sevastopol,
or the entire suits “a la zouave” in the fashion of children (something long forgotten these days, the fashions for children!),
or the Malakoff dress named as such in a derisory manner as the lady wearing the steel cage and the layers upon layers of cloth making up the “crinoline” was considered as inexpugnable as the famous Russian redoubt.
But not all fashion changes were embraced with enthusiasm – the French aristocracy completely changed costumes and way of life after the Revolution, abandoning the colourful silks court dress and assuming the dark, sober woolen clothes of “citizens”.
Each country had its own changes in fashion and dress due to political events – in Romania, for instance, the 19th century marked the transition from oriental dress (long robes, cashmere girdles, the long and loose overcoat edged with fur, the huge round sable fur caps)
to western european dress (frock coat, top hat etc.). Later on various fashions for both men and women were launched following victories of the recently assembled national army (styles of caps, hats, overcoats etc.).
or the entire suits “a la zouave” in the fashion of children (something long forgotten these days, the fashions for children!),
or the Malakoff dress named as such in a derisory manner as the lady wearing the steel cage and the layers upon layers of cloth making up the “crinoline” was considered as inexpugnable as the famous Russian redoubt.
But not all fashion changes were embraced with enthusiasm – the French aristocracy completely changed costumes and way of life after the Revolution, abandoning the colourful silks court dress and assuming the dark, sober woolen clothes of “citizens”.
Each country had its own changes in fashion and dress due to political events – in Romania, for instance, the 19th century marked the transition from oriental dress (long robes, cashmere girdles, the long and loose overcoat edged with fur, the huge round sable fur caps)
to western european dress (frock coat, top hat etc.). Later on various fashions for both men and women were launched following victories of the recently assembled national army (styles of caps, hats, overcoats etc.).
Thank you for your generous appreciation, NJS.
"Le chapeau Griwitza", as dr. Silvan Ionescu informs in an article which is part of an excellent book about fashion and urban society in modern Romania, was the creation of Aneta Engels, a Romanian hat maker, in celebration of the victory of the young Romanian army over the Ottomans in the homonymous battle. The fashion spread quickly in all major European capitals in 1877, as a sign of support of those fighting against the Turkish empire's expansion. This stylish black astrakhan cap with an asymmetrical shape and a turkey feather, inspired from the uniform of the Romanian Dorobanti, quickly conquered the heads of ladies of the high society from Paris, Berlin, London, Petersburg and, of course, its country of origin.
A national military event gave birth to a local fashion that, thanks to its European political resonance and its elegance, became widespread and took the value of a political symbol. As the chronicles of the time note, it was even displayed be elegant ladies in Constantinopolis - presumably by the Levantine society in westernized Pera.
"Le chapeau Griwitza", as dr. Silvan Ionescu informs in an article which is part of an excellent book about fashion and urban society in modern Romania, was the creation of Aneta Engels, a Romanian hat maker, in celebration of the victory of the young Romanian army over the Ottomans in the homonymous battle. The fashion spread quickly in all major European capitals in 1877, as a sign of support of those fighting against the Turkish empire's expansion. This stylish black astrakhan cap with an asymmetrical shape and a turkey feather, inspired from the uniform of the Romanian Dorobanti, quickly conquered the heads of ladies of the high society from Paris, Berlin, London, Petersburg and, of course, its country of origin.
A national military event gave birth to a local fashion that, thanks to its European political resonance and its elegance, became widespread and took the value of a political symbol. As the chronicles of the time note, it was even displayed be elegant ladies in Constantinopolis - presumably by the Levantine society in westernized Pera.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests