The Essence of Chic, Part II- a definition

[alden]

The Essence of Chic, Part II

In “The Essence of Chic, Part I”, we identified qualities common to the chic thanks to a couple from the past. In this second installment we will drill down to find a more concrete definition of the elusive quality so many admire and would love to capture in their lifestyle and dress.

Chic is verve embodied in an elegant form spontaneously, and seasoned with a touch of panache and an ounce of audacity. To help you recall the formula, you can think of a chic method of transportation used primarily in Italy: VESPA.

The key words when applied to chic will look something like this:

Verve: rapture, animation, spirit, energy, enthusiasm.

Elegance: subtle, intelligent, fine, natural.

Spontaneity: a blooming, rooted invariably in the present, immediate, capricious, without longing for a future, not studied, without a plan or agenda.

Panache: witty, capable of self effacing humor, joyful, inviting, engaging, seducing, infectious, noble, generous.

Audacity: positive, carefree, creative, discreetly challenging, without fear, not a sneer, not ironic or sarcastic.

What comes through at this point is the sense of chic as being an essentially positive force. And this positive energy without a focus or destination is transmitted in a word English speakers inherited from the French, verve. It’s the thing that animated you when you first were thunderstruck and in love. Remember?

But this excitement and energy has some kind of form and it is neither exaggerated nor timid, it has an elegant front that is appealing. There may be a kind of eccentric chic but chic is not eccentric, it is embedded in the present.

Chic’s fleeting, spontaneous presence has no interest in the eternal but blooms and perishes in the second of time that just elapsed and vanished. Was it well lived?

Panache is the outward looking face of chic, the pure distillation of joy.

Audacity saved neither Danton nor la France, but if expressed in a positive way it is an essential ingredient of chic. The courageous side of chic can be found here, the side that challenges like wind enveloped in a sail, fixed to a mast. It’s a positive force that moves us forward without propulsion.

I hope this discussion has moved us an inch closer to understanding the phenomenon of chic. In the next segment we will look at and compare things that are chic against things that aren’t. Stay tuned for Part III.

Jaunty cheers!

M Alden

(A few of you who have read this article have said that the VESPA formula reads like an LL manifesto. I suspect that the desire to create a positive platform for the discussion of elegance and chic have made its way into the DNA of The London Lounge; but it is the very chic attitudes and manners of the members that keep it that way. For that, I thank you all.)

[uppercase]

Very nice, though I am afraid that the very word 'chic' has not crossed the lips of anyone in the US in years and years.

I have a feeling that the manly men of bespoke, who are mainly stauch Anglophiles, do not relate to this word.

It is a quintessentially French word and so, quite suspect, even....effeminate!!

While I am all for chic in principle, and generally willing to give most ideas a spin once around the block, I doubt that many others will be mounting their Vespas in a rush to be "chic".

Don't get me wrong, while horses and Harleys may be de riquer in some bespoke circles, I fully support anyone calling me chic, if its meant as a compliment that is, but not in the US; it sounds so much better in France, in French.

You may have thrown a wrench in the works, actually, introducing this concept of 'chic', as I am still trying to get a grip on basic color coordination and had almost memorized how to spell the word 'sprezzatura' without going to the dictionary everytime. But now this!!

Can we see a picture of chic?

[alden]

Very nice, though I am afraid that the very word 'chic' has not crossed the lips of anyone in the US in years and years.

Uppercase, there is a tangible, physical, three dimensional reality outside the confines of the fifty US states.

Its not surprising to me that the word chic has not been uttered in America in the last forty years, because no sightings of the phenomenon have been made in that elapsed and decidedly frozen period of time.

While I am all for chic in principle, and generally willing to give most ideas a spin once around the block, I doubt that many others will be mounting their Vespas in a rush to be "chic".

VESPA is a metaphor. It summarizes the qualities we admire in men, what attributes we aspire to and what images we distinguish as elegant or chic. Notwithstanding this clarification, I readily agree with you that few have ever or will ever mount this Vespas’s saddle.

It is a quintessentially French word and so, quite suspect, even....effeminate!!

Ha ha. It’s a pity one couldn’t utter this cliche to the Victor McLaglen- like Gabin face to face. Would have been fun to see! That reminds me to include the great McLaglen in the list of the chic.

Cheers

M Alden









What could be more chic than a roll in the hay with Marlene?

[masterfred]

Its not surprising to me that the word chic has not been uttered in America in the last forty years, because no sightings of the phenomenon have been made in that elapsed and decidedly frozen period of time.

While a decided point of view is often a good thing, perhaps it would be best not to make such statements without extensive first-hand experience. I certainly think that "chic" doesn't make much of an appearance in Europe anymore - even in Paris, its spiritual home.

I agree with Uppercase that "chic" is often a word applied to women of sophistication in America - few though they may be.

[Costi]

In my mind there is a clear distinction between “feminine” and “effeminate”. A man may have “feminine” traits – a good intuition or a good eye for colours – without being at all effeminate.
Perhaps chic, while losing terrain in the last few decades, found refuge more often in women than in men, which left the impression of it being a “feminine” attribute and consequently a man sporting it would be “effeminate”. But this is a double confusion, because chic is genderless.
Of course, the application of “chic” to men and women is different, but the principles are the same and I think they have been synthesized with remarkable clarity and power of suggestion above.
Taking a good look at what defines “chic”, I think it is much more masculine than feminine: it is solar, contagious, quick-spirited, frank. It is not delicate, shy or coquette.

[uppercase]

These are really fabulous photos!

I had suspected 'chic' does not figure much in sartorial conversations anymore nor is it an attribute to which many aspire, and is really a bridge too far for most.

Which is really a pity. Perhaps we should try 'chissimo'! Closer to machismo ala Belmondo. Now who wouldn't want to be chissimo! Though changing the word will not make the chic man miraculously reappear.

Chic, as commonly understood, is dead. There are no chic men anymore. There are no flaneurs. There are no boulevardiers. There is no cafe society. Elegant dressing in one's leisure time no longer exists. Even among us diehards.

Now I would like to prove my point as follows:

The single most chic clothing accessory, IMO, which confers instant chissimo is the ascot.

Now if you agree with this view, who among us would venture in public this weekend wearing an ascot? I suspect no more than a handful.

Why not prove me wrong....Why not contribute to the rebirth of chic on your streets and wear an ascot this weekend?!

If not you, who?

And if you have done it, please report back and even better, post a photo of yourself.

[Costi]

Uppercase, you will see many photos of ascots being worn on the LL. And they are not of dead people. I would feel naked if I went out without one, whenever I am not wearing a tie (except on hot summer days, of course).
Chic is not dead. Chic is latent. Like magic ink, it just needs a small flame of a pretext to show its splendor. It's the INSPIRATION for being chic that we miss!

[dopey]

This is as good a place as any to report that, contrary to what I have written here in days past, I have gotten over my discomfort with casual neckwear. I have been wearing neckerchiefs and ascots on weekends for al month or two as a trial, with no ill effects.

[alden]

I had suspected 'chic' does not figure much in sartorial conversations anymore nor is it an attribute to which many aspire, and is really a bridge too far for most.

UC, one of your tailors in Naples uses the term every third word out of his mouth, the popinjay.

Chic, as commonly understood, is dead.

And these writings are an attempt to define what is not commonly understood (as ever on the LL.)

Chic exists, it is a particular form of elegance. It has nothing, but nothing to do with cafe society, flaneurs, boulevardiers, non work dress etc. There is a certain personality, one who knows how to create a presence about themselves that is different, special and attractive. This is chic.

To Masterfred's point, and I have written many times that living and traveling constantly between London, Paris and Italy, the three major centers of masculine elegance of the past, I might expect to see a dozen well dressed men in any given year who would be possessors of chic. Chic is in decline in Europe as well.

But, I have seen chic in the way of two New Yorkers who are members of this club, so the embers are still warm on the other side of the pond.

It is interesting to know that in certain regions of the world, chic refers to woman’s clothes. If I ever do a full etymological study of the word, I will bear that in mind. But my aim is to describe a phenomenon that applies to both sexes and (hold onto your chairs now) can even apply to things if they have a special charm, that je ne sais quoi.

Oh now don’t tell me that is dead too!

More to follow when we talk about what is chic and what is not..to follow.

Cheers

M Alden

PS And I do agree with UC on one thing, wear your ascots! Its like the Amex card, don't leave home without it.

[alden]

This is as good a place as any to report that, contrary to what I have written here in days past, I have gotten over my discomfort with casual neckwear. I have been wearing neckerchiefs and ascots on weekends for al month or two as a trial, with no ill effects.

Hurray! And just think how many sore throats you are going to avoid

Great news Dopey

Cheers

[alden]

It's the INSPIRATION for being chic that we miss!

I would say that the inspiration comes from within. But there are external sources of inspiration and I am young enough, just barely, to remember what they are..

Cheers

M Alden

[shredder]

I found it interesting that there is no mention of perfection in Michael's post above.

Today I read some blurb about the Duke of Cornwall being named the best dressed man in the world by, I think, Esquire, describing him as "always perfectly turned out." That might be the case, but I would not describe him as chic.

I think perfection somehow has a very mechanical ring, and chic has nothing mechanical about it. Perfection reminds me of many women in New York who are coiffed without a hair out of place, immaculately manicured, impeccably dressed and fashionably accessorised. Perfect in every way... and utterly sexless. And not chic either.

Back to intangibles again...

[yialabis]

Now if you agree with this view, who among us would venture in public this weekend wearing an ascot? I suspect no more than a handful.

I never leave the house without an ascot or a silk scarf on during the weekend ...

Vassilis

[Costi]

It's the INSPIRATION for being chic that we miss!

I would say that the inspiration comes from within. But there are external sources of inspiration and I am young enough, just barely, to remember what they are..

Cheers

M Alden

Hehe! I don't worry much for you in this respect
Fish need water to swim. Often the environment (places and other people) offers little support to the inner inspiration. We may speak of elegance at the level of the individual, but also at the aggregated level of society. The laws are different, I think, and in the latter case it is a matter of crytical mass. If it is insufficient, the individual may feel uninspired to keep the flag up. With this crytical mas, individuals without much of a personal view on elegance live, behave and dress much better anyway because of (or thanks to) social mimetism.
Take a healthy trout used to swimming all day against the current in the limpid waters of a mountain brook and put it in the muddy water of a stale pond full of carps and frogs. Will he be the same? His instincts are there, but he will end up lurking in the mud like the carps.
We are not fish, but it does take a strong inner source of inspiration to live out our ideals of elegance every day.

[alden]

Costi

As usual, a piece of writing with valuable insight. Let me explain my thoughts in another way.

A few years ago I purchased a large plot of land in the country outside of a growing city in the States. The land had nice views, city lights etc but was quite a bit outside of town. Not only this, but all kinds of track housing projects and a sewage plant were potentially going to be built around the land. When I penned the deal the broker, who thought I was stark raving mad, asked why I would buy land when I knew that all kinds of rubbish was maybe going to be built near it. My response was to say that I was buying the land “because” of the “rubbish” and not in spite of it for the simple reason that the land would become more valuable due to the contrast. I told him that I didn't mind if the track houses and sewage plant would be built because the land's beauty would stand out as compared to the surroundings and its value would multiply. My hunch paid off as the city in question grew to become one of the top six in the US and the land no one wanted in the country, became the oasis I had hoped for and one a heck of a lot closer to the center of town that had grown to encircle it.

I absolutely and fundamentally believe in contrast. Value comes from contrast and vanishes in the similar and uniform. This is true in every aspect of life, from business, to seduction, to relationships of all kinds.

I would say that over the years my dress has improved accessibility to people we call “players”, the treatment I am afforded where I go, the commercial relationships I have been able to form to the point that the attendant costs of building a rather large bespoke wardrobe, has paid for itself many times over.

The power of contrast is what fascinates me about phenomenon like elegance and difficult to define (if not indefinable) concepts like “chic”, “je ne sais quoi” or modes of behavior like “gallantry.” (I can hear the screaming that gallantry is dead already! But it isn’t, far from it. Stay tuned.)

Most English dictionaries define chic as stylish or smart. Chic can be those things but that definition is a salty drop in an ocean of meaning.

Take a healthy trout used to swimming all day against the current in the limpid waters of a mountain brook and put it in the muddy water of a stale pond full of carps and frogs. Will he be the same? His instincts are there, but he will end up lurking in the mud like the carps.

Your fish metaphor is an instructive one, but with the help of one of my favorites, Malcolm Muggeridge, let me spin it in another way:

“Only the dead fish swims with the stream.”
-Malcolm Muggeridge

Cheers

M Alden