Colours and elegance

[Gruto]

I've seen several depictions of colour schemes, but very little schmoozing on how to pull colours off elegantly. My own theory about that is that fit and cut are masculine disciplines, while colours and colour coordination appear a bit effeminate.

Well, my question: how do you approach colour (coordination) when dressing?

[Guest]

that's very personal, i don't think it can be taught how to choose nice colors, everyone has different taste, my personal favorites are purples and blues. but truth is most colors are nice, except fluorescent tones.

[Guest]

supposedly, Oscar Wilde wore green neck ties with dark velvet jackets. don't know how green it was.

[NES]

There is nothing effeminate about colours and colour coordination.
You seem to imply that colour is something that you can't master technically because it's based on sensibility and sensibility is a feminine or effeminate thing.

But, it is quite the contrary:

Men have sensibility too.

There is a lot in color to master technically - color can be a very scientific and rigorous thing.

The more you know technically and scientifically about color the more you will develop your sensibility to colors and color coordination.

Color is not about your favorite colour or colours but about color harmony. A colour harmony is always a relatively simple colour scheme. That means very simple for the beginner and a bit more complex for the more advanced colourist. Great colourists create complexity within simplicity. You can learn a lot by looking at great colourist painters like Delacroix.

When dressing, you are dressing yourself. Your face does have a very simple colour scheme - your skin, your hair, your eyes. You must study that very simple colour scheme. Know yourself.

Your shirt and tie will complement that very simple colour scheme adding a bit of interest and complexity. The rest can be just deduced from that relatively simple colour scheme of shirt-tie-face, not adding real complexity to it, but maybe just creating an interesting background.

[storeynicholas]

I absolutely agree - most of the great painters have been men and, taking Reynolds or Picasso, as examples they'd have given out a thick ear at a charge of effeminacy. All that about colour recognition being strictly feminine or effeminate is nonsense put about by the ignorant to mask their short-comings.
NJS

[NES]

Thank you NJS.

This seams to be a crucial area that generates a lot of fear.

Great colourists like Reynolds, Delacroix or Ticiano are very sensual painters. Colour is related to sensuality, not effeminacy. Like with all sensuality, a bit of knowledge can help a lot.

[storeynicholas]

Thank you NJS.

This seams to be a crucial area that generates a lot of fear.

Great colourists like Reynolds, Delacroix or Ticiano are very sensual painters. Colour is related to sensuality, not effeminacy. Like with all sensuality, a bit of knowledge can help a lot.

Rodin too, in his sculptures, has the same sensibility. Any knowledge, wisdom or sensibility must be worth having. It takes considerable artistry and skill to fire a gun accurately; to score a goal at football or a try at rugby; get in a winning punch at boxing - it's not just muscle and anger or the over-built oafs would always get there first - but they plainly don't. As for choosing a tie or being able to tie it - to go and spectate one of these activities - they don't even get that far. The ability to choose and knot a tie might become a problem only if that is all that one can do - but, even then, one is a step ahead of the fat oafs.
NJS.

[marcelo]

Johann Wolfgang Goethe, in like manner, thought and wrote a lot on the perception of colours, colours schemes, etc. His theory of colour was quite influential, for instance, on the British painter J. M. W. Turner. I also agree that the art of coordinating colours in a simple, elegant way is one of the most important aspects of one’s sartorial connoisseurship. Yet, while we can rely on photos and films from thirties and forties as a rich source of information on how paragons of male elegance dealt with cut, fit, and patterns, for obvious reasons the same cannot be said with respect the way they dealt with colours schemes.

[alden]

I do agree with both NJS and NES regarding the use of colors. It seems to me, however, that Gruto is asking a different question and making another point.

When colors are coordinated in a way that shows a good deal of intent, or there is an aggressive degree of matching in what women will call “outfits”, the result can appear prissy, studied, precious and feminine on a man.

The use of color, like all aspects of dress, must be pulled off with nonchalance, easiness sprezzatura, desinvolture etc as well as with skill.

The secret of the elegant image is a sleight of hand: the appearance that the remarkable colors were literally thrown together while rushing out of the house without a second’s thought. The good deal of thought that went into “the painting” must not be seen.

Cheers

Michael Alden

[Gruto]

Thank you all, very interesting comments. Sorry, for the unclear question. I wasn't trying to say that applying colours is only or should be a female activity. I was just speculating, why we see so few opinions on colour (coordination) compared to fit and cut.

Talking about the master painters, I think they can support my observation. Take Picasso and Matisse. To me Picasso is a very powerful painter, while Matisse excels in softness. That is, Picasso is a genius of shape and geometry, not so much colours. Take the Guernica as a prime example. The opposite holds true for Matisse. He is at ease with colours and his world of colours has strong female connotations and appeal to women more than men.

BTW, I believe Thomas Fink observes something similar somewhere in The Man's book.

[NES]

When colors are coordinated in a way that shows a good deal of intent, or there is an aggressive degree of matching in what women will call “outfits”, the result can appear prissy, studied, precious and feminine on a man.

I agree with Alden.

But would like to comment.

I believe that - academic, "feminine", colour coordination - was what Brummel rejected. In doing so he rose dressing to art. We live in Brummel’s time and there is no turning back for us. But women have, in part, picked up what he had thrown away – we can clearly see the connection between “women’s outfits” and pre-brummelian dress. We are somehow confined in a brummelian world and we must explore its limits. I think this can be especially true for colours, because in the colour domain Brummel’s gesture was so dramatic. What we must not do is lower Brummel’s standards, but who wants that?

Gruto, I see what you mean. But I have to disagree with you in your Picasso/Matisse example. I feel Picasso is a much better painter and colourist than Matisse. And it is not Matisse’s fault. If you want an example, in painting, of the qualities Michael Alden refers to and we all seek – nonchalance, easiness – it is Picasso or Delacroix.

You see, it is Picasso who is at ease with colours, so much so he doesn’t have to point it out.

[shredder]

Gruto, I think this thread demonstrates 2 things.

One is that the subject of colour is important and is certainly on testosterone filled agenda as on yours. (Picasso famously ordered A&S to make up corduroy trousers whose 4 panels were in 4 different colours.) It is, as you point out, rare to come across discussions amongst men on colours.

The other is that it is a very difficult subject to discuss. It is one thing to discuss colour theory but another to discuss it in a specific application that involves a heavy dose of abstract notions like elegance and taste. This may explain why one might not see the subject discussed as often.

I also find that it becomes more difficult to discuss colour and texture as the object and the context of the object becomes smaller. I find it less challenging to discuss these elements in architecture and environmental design than in apparel and accessories such as jewellery. Perhaps that is partly because the context for the former usually remains relatively static, save for season and weather, but the latter's context is a moving target in numerous ways.

Also, colour is a very broad and complex subject given not only the spectrum but also the infinite possible combinations. As Michael demonstrated in a recent thread, there are browns and there are browns, never mind other colours. Therefore, it is inherently difficult to distill it down to a handful of postulates or hypotheses without risking getting stuck in some suburban chromatic cul-de-sac of sorts where it appears that, especially amongst the fairer sex, there is already a handful of hard and fast rules with respect to colours.

Well, that was long and unproductive, wasn't it?

[radicaldog]

My $0.02: I roughly agree with the original poster. Colour matching is certainly femine, and to be avoided like the plague. Colour coordination is a bit of a grey area, to be explored with care. As a rule of thumb, I only try to avoid contrasts that are strident (i.e. unnatural: colour combinations that are not found in natural landscapes), or that attract too much attention. To state the obvious, that explains why a sky blue shirt goes with most colours.

[radicaldog]

P.S. Just reading the thread now (sorry).

NES:

We live in Brummel’s time and there is no turning back for us. But women have, in part, picked up what he had thrown away – we can clearly see the connection between “women’s outfits” and pre-brummelian dress. We are somehow confined in a brummelian world and we must explore its limits.

Well put -- I couldn't agree more. And I'm grateful to Brummel. Sometimes women say that men's dress is boring, that it doesn't leave room for one's individuality, or for strong expressions of styling ideas etc. But in saying that they are like those who do not understand the style of an elegant officer in a bespoke uniform: 99.9% compliant with army regulations, yet so discreetly unique.

[NES]

In fact, my initial answer was based on the absolute distinction between colour coordination and colour matching.

That said, the first rule of colour coordination should be: don't match anything.

The exceptions would be: a) the pieces of a suit; b) socks (with each other).

The other rules wouldn't be really rules but strategies.