Tradition

[Costi]

I was idly surfing the web yesterday evening in search of inspiration for a summer shoe. While browsing Ludwig Reiter’s site (the Viennese shoemaker) I stumbled upon a title that struck me as very inspired:

“Tradition is keeping the fire burning, not praising the ashes”

It reminded me of some recent posts in which sensible LL members wrote about their fear of ridicule or of standing out in their environment should they dress elegantly, although they confess to admiring elegant dress. Of course exaggeration and flamboyant dandysm are ridiculous – but elegance has nothing to do with either of these. Of course certain styles of the 20’s and 30’s cannot be carbon copied into the present world. However, the principles of elegant dress and its basic elements – the suit, the well cut trousers, the properly fitting jacket, the well chosen tie, the appropriate shoes etc. – are by and large the same today as they were almost a century ago, or else there would be no more artisans and shops proposing them. It is just the habit of applying them in everyday life by most people that has dwindled.
To quote a less known artist and philosopher that I very much admire – “Art is a bow before eternal beauty, not a flattery to the ugliness that may be briefly in power”. I think elegance could also be defined in similar terms. If this is the case and we are all enthusiastic about etutee’s wonderful posts, Michael Alden’s cloth club etc., why this reticence to live by one’s beliefs and be in harmony with the others while maintaining one’s individuality, rather than stifling one’s aesthetic aspirations and tastes for the sake of conformity? Yes, Beau Brummel did say that if people turn their heads to look at you then you’re not dressed well, but he did not wear rags to go unnoticed. Especially with the young generation (in which I would like to include myself, but I’m afraid I have more than one foot out of it) there is a certain concern of losing popularity should one display a sense of style that is different: perhaps you’re not in the right company if friends make you feel embarrassed for your choice of dress. Friendships are based on elective afinities and on the long term we’re better off with a few good friends than a miriad of “clubbing” acquintances.
The Cloth Club and LL Limited Editions are good examples of active ways to “keep the fire burning”. But in order for it all to be true and genuine, we need to LIVE elegance as an everyday reality, hopefully contaminate some of those around us, rather than admire nostalgically the “golden era” and say to ourselves the world is not the same anymore. Tradition is to me not the stubborn preservation of meaningless habits and items; that I would call staleness. Tradition is to me the perpetuation of what is valuable, meaningful and perennial from the past, that which has been distilled through many years of trial and error and validated by experience as good or beautiful. Tradition is is not a stuffy chest full of moldy paraphernalia, it is a gigantic sieve that keeps sifting that which becomes unuseful or meaningless, while new material is constantly being poored in from above and, if proven good, adds to what has been retained through the years. It is a matter of being above or below the sieve...

[storeynicholas]

I agree that tradition, custom, ceremony should all be templates and not fetters and so I agree with what Costi says; although I believe that it applies to those who actually think and care about these things. The problem is that many in modern society will throw anything tagged 'traditional' onto the pyre (sometimes with considerable glee) and scatter the ashes to the wind - especially when they can see a quick buck in it. I also tend to agree with RWS, in a different thread that, if we are dressed, as with think, appropriately, for the time and occasion, but end up being ridiculed by the company, maybe the fault is ours - either for getting our dress so wrong or, maybe, because of the company we keep - because, whatever else may be said about the company we keep, we would be better off avoiding those who ridicule others for their dress or for an unintentional faux pas. In a sense, there is a battle raging between those who (put shortly) like nice things and those who don't: those who don't frequently have some axe to grind; some chip on the shoulder and I, for one don't see the sense in allowing them to make us all throw the baby out with the bath water: if they want to destroy tradition, let them in equal step, suggest a reasoned and reasonable better alternative: the wholesale destruction of things, from: general personal values, codes of dress, codes of behaviour, to the destruction of our architectural heritage (again to make a quick buck out of newly-released building sites) is, to me, totally unacceptable and, over-blown though it might be, in the context, I can't help thinking of Macaulay's famous lines:
"And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods."
The wanton, wholesale, laying to waste of tradition, ceremony and custom, under the direction of chippy men like the man recently celebrated, in an excellent book, as 'Gordon is a Moron', I find despicable and the increasing trend to give in, equally unacceptable.
Another quote, which I think assists us in defining the issue, comes from W B Yeats's magnificent poem "A Prayer For My Daughter":
"And may her bridegroom bring her to a house,
Where all's accustomed, ceremonious;
For arrogance and hatred are the wares
Peddled on the thoroughfares."
But where there is not room for family meals (substituted by 'telly dinners' on trays in separate rooms), there is not room for custom and ceremony - and there's the rub. The difference between the battle now and the battle for ancient Rome, is that, now, the barbarians were born within the gate.
NJS

[koolhistorian]

I fully agree with Costi on the fact that we cannot "praise the ashes", but I think that the main problem with our permanent questions is given by the society in which we live, not in the past models. Let me elaborate a little bit on that!
1. "The golden age" of the 30 (as it appears for the vast majority of this forum members) was a very different society from ours (as the pre WWI was different from the 30). One of the main characters of our modern, first world society (and yes, I include Romania in that) is that there is a massive dispersion of wealth in the society, which was not the case in the 30, when manual labor, including skilled artisan labour had a very different price that it has now - I remember that my grandparents generation, and they were not aristocracy, just middle class, were using only bespoke - shirts, hats, suits, shoes, gloves, etc.
There was also a huge difference between revenues of white collars and blue collars - which meant that "proper dressing" was going along with "proper education" - i.e. there was a huge gap (in status and social symbols) between the educated and the non-educated. If you were a non-manual worker, you were supposed to dress properly, to behave properly, etc. As an example in the Romanian Royal Army an officer was forbidden to carry anything else in his hands aside his gloves. Now if you look carefully no officer is wearing gloves, including in ceremonial duties.
The contemporary society, which has its own advantages, including the Internet, is a more "people's society" than the 30, as the 30 were more than the "Belle epoque", and the "tradition" was "traditional" in the 30 (see the difference between elder and younger gents in AA/Esky illustrations) - e.g. the takeover of the dinner jacket over the white tie attire as formal dinner wear was done in the 30. What I am concerned about is the "aesthetics of the ugly", the over-interpretation of the casualness in floppiness. I remember once (not very long time ago) when some of my male colleagues were looking very "specially" at a pair of properly polished shoes that I was wearing, seeing that as vanity more than a normal behavior. And I would not add how they look when I am wearing a hat, or a 3 piece suit. But they come for directions when they have a formal event to attend . But also I get thumbs up from ladies when I sport a bow-tie (even from unknown ones). So there is a thin line between "traditional elegance" and "look at that fool". If you do that naturally it will suit you, if you look like you are wearing a casket you will look like a fool!
P.S. I was debating the purchase of a pair of spectators with my better half and she said to me;"I simply adore them, it will suit you very well, but you will look totally out of line with them on the street." QED

[Costi]

If a new fashion were launched today to wear who knows what dreadful modern reinterpretation of spectators, everyone would happily wear them. That's the paradox for me! "Looking out of line" is a matter of statistics, rather than a matter of appropriateness. You WOULD look odd if you decided to wear field boots with your summer suits in the city, as that would be inadequate by all standards (although I am sure some fashion designer would find it "cool" enough to include the look in his next collection).
I find it is your duty to persuade your better half that yours is a right cause

[storeynicholas]

There are dreadful modern interpretations of spectator shoes or co-respondent shoes and their manufacturers tell me that they sell so fast that they "fly out of the door" - they are dreadful mainly in that they substitute white leather for nubuck. But there we are.
NJS

[koolhistorian]

Well, RL done it ! I just saw a pair of co-respondents, made by EG for RL (if my memory is good) leather and suede (a nice olive-khaki colour). So that is done. But, if we look carefully next year to D. Beckham , we may see military boots with a DJ.

[Gruto]

“Tradition is keeping the fire burning, not praising the ashes”.

James Laver, the dress historian, writes about "fossilization", which occurs people dress for a certain office, not according to their social backdrop. For instance, a waiter or a judge may wear a specific dress dictated by the job. That's fossilization. James Laver has a very Freudian and Marxist approach, but I like the point that if somebody other than yourself - your wife, for instance - dictates your clothes, your dress starts to fossilize.

[storeynicholas]

Well: "If it ain't bust, don't fix it". By which, I mean, for example, that uniforms of office enable us to identify people - why change that? What's the point? We don't have to be, or even to admire, fashion designers, up to, well, what? - encouraging people to make seasonal adjustments to their dress to enable them to make a profit. Besides, office holders' uniforms are beyond the usual meaning of ordinary, traditional dress and often comprise robes of office. So far as David Beckham is concerned, he should probably concentrate on getting something on his toes which would enable him to score crucial penalties! As for the rest, so far as most people are concerned, he may wear whatever his wife chooses for him.
NJS

[koolhistorian]

Subsequently to our conversation I was browsing the Fedora Lounge forum and, with a certain non-amical eye, commenting on the outfit of those ladies and gentlemen. Frankly, I see that group as a "cult of the ashes". Between the rather rotund copies of Indiana Jones (I feel politically correct in speaking about them, as I am not very fit) or some, otherwise lovely, copies of Betty Boop cartoon character, the vast majority of those people are looking like they are going to a "Bal Masque" rather than living with that outfit.
Tradition is good as it goes with your society, but when you look like a fool the whole concept of elegance is blown out. Personally I am not a fan of G. Brummel, as I see him as a sartorial assassin, having eliminated color from the european outfit, but when everyone is looking at you as you were descending from a circus wagon, even if you are dressed impeccably in that outfit you loose the whole concept of elegance. Clothes are social, and, even we like it or not, we live in the society.
Let me give you an example that was debated a lot in this forum - the morning dress. For better or for worst, the morning dress was the "civilian" uniform of the "golden era". Very practical for people in the Government or Diplomatic service, as it is easier to have an uniform that to rely on people's personal taste. Even still in service in some countries - Spanish or Japanese court, as a formal day wear - wearing a morning dress at a formal function outside weddings in Britain will make look "special". The fine cut, the drape, or what ever will be overpowered by the awkwardness of your entire outfit. The same goes for the white tie attire, and try to wear that with knee-length trousers if you are not a knight of the Garter at St. James Court. Traditionally it will be a correct outfit for the Opera, practically you will be regarded as a clown. More of that a guy (cannot call him a gentleman) wearing a DJ paired with jeans and Converses will look less awkward than you.
We have to accept that we live in a society that goes ahead, and try to preserve the spirit, not the appearance. For me is more important that a gentleman knows how to enter a restaurant when he is escorting a lady, or he has proper use of the table ware, than he is wearing a DJ or even a tie in that said restaurant.

[Gruto]

I see two pitfalls, when we talk about elegance. Too much correctness, too much following the rules of the context or "fashion", makes your appearence boring. Too much insisting on a personal style, quirks, and your personal view on "the proper dress" or tradition tends to make you look like an eccentric.

[storeynicholas]

I think that

[storeynicholas]

I think that you have hit the nail on the head, Gruto, it is difficult to describe the essence of elegance. X might look fine in his DJ and Y might look 'a right lemon' in his. It's back to that song for me: "The way you wear your hat,/ The way you sip your tea..." Maybe it involves a combination of the clothes of a maker who has the magic touch in his eye, in his hands, (but starting somewhere in his soul) and the wearer who has a different magic touch: to know what is right for an occasion and actually to appear to enjoy living in the clothes selected - that is to say, someone who puts the activity first - whether it's shooting or yachting, or playing blackjack, or attending a meeting or even visiting someone in a hospital.
NJS

[RWS]

. . . the essence of elegance. . . . [may lie in a] wearer who has a . . . magic touch: to know what is right for an occasion and actually to appear to enjoy living in the clothes selected . . . .

I hope that my esteemed fellow Lounger will forgive my so editing his words as to state where I think the heart of the matter lies. (Of course, were those clothes, no matter how comfortably they sat upon a man, outlandishly quirky . . . .)

[storeynicholas]

RWS - Yes, I don't think that we disagree; it has to be a fundamental premise that nothing is going to be quirky - maybe the point today might be made in relation to spats (which are being actively marketed by a company which supplies for Royal Ascot). My view is that the days of spats have gone and to wear them now is quirky. However, long canvas field gaiters still have a reasonable purpose (over shooting stockings), and discreet galosh-topped button boots (or shoes) would still go down very well with a morning coat. However I think that it would be difficult to make a list of obsolete or obsolescent items, for the reason that Costi has given, - fashion houses have a habit of resurrecting old styles and giving them a new lease of life - in the sense that they cease to be ridiculous when everyone is taken in!
NJS

[Swark]

my father once explained the proper meaning behind the word tradition being a minister tradition is something he understands, he explained to me that tradition is the carrying on and renewal of of old things tradition is a means by which we prevent old customs and institutions from stagnating. and taking that into consideration i see no reason why it should be difficult to dress elegantly because elegant dress has changed with the times the changes are not be radical but subtle such as in the styles of shirts and ties men wear now some shirts would have looked ridiculous in the 20's but they fit in just fine today.