Stylish, elegant, tasteful or bland?

[Scot]

A current posting in another blog features another black and white photograph of Cary Grant in a suit of solid colour, not light, not dark; white shirt and apparently solid tie. The author uses this to illustrate the subtelty of style, which, it is claimed, "speaks simply and softly" and is neither loud nor brash. Really? Now Cary Grant was undoubtedly a stylish man, and this was as much to do with his inner qualities as it was to do with his clothes, but this "look" is often offered up as the distilled quintessence of stylish dress. Young men are advised to imitate it, understatement is the ultimate aim and heaven forbid one should ever wear something patterned, let alone two patterns!

This is the London Lounge and the first thing that strikes me about the "bland" philosophy of elegance is that it is decidedly un-English. The English gentleman's business suit will be of a sober colour but will frequently be worn with a shirt that is either striped, checked or of a solid colour (i.e. not white). Furthermore, the necktie will be patterned. Casual or country wear can be verging on outrageous - a green tweed with bold overcheck worn with battered red moleskins and large-scale check shirt and a spotted tie would not be unusual. The effect may sometimes make the eyes smart a little but does it lack style? I should say not. In fact it can bring a smile to the face and make one think inwardly "good for you".

I think its time for something of a rebellion against the formulaic lowest common denominator approach to dress and the resurgance of panache!

[Costi]

http://dresswithstyle.com/2010/03/22/me ... be-bright/

[Scot]

http://dresswithstyle.com/2010/03/22/me ... be-bright/

Quite!

[Costi]

I wonder if subtle and flamboyant are not so much opposites, as different levels at which the balancing act of dress can find equilibrium. Either can go wrong – subtle into bland, flamboyant into gaudy – so none is better than the other in itself. A man of Style has a good feel of when one or the other is appropriate. One’s character, or just the mood may call for one rather than the other. Balancing patterns and colours can be a lot of fun. However, working with simple means to achieve great results should not be undervalued or discarded as simplicity, either!

[theshoesnob]

Great post!! When done well, a dark suit-white shirt-and-dark tie combo can look very elegant and pleasing to the eye, but it reality it's easily replicated and does not take much thought. You notice this at movie premieres and Hollywood parties where it seems like all of the male celebrities called each other up and said, "let's see who can do the black suit/white shirt/black tie look better." It then becomes congested and for me, none of them are stylish. It is the odd ball who comes wearing a touch of color and patterns, who stands out and becomes the 'stylish' one for me.

This is one thing that I have always appreciated about well-dressed British gentleman. They are not afraid to wear bold patterns, bright colors and multiple fabrics. Putting an outfit together that coordinates well with all of these attributes is 'style' to me!

[Costi]

Black tie is a uniform whose simple scheme requires a very fine balance: a poor fit, distracting styling, uninspired colour additions can easily ruin it. A gathering of several tens of men elegantly dressed in black tie is a joy for the eye, but that is almost extinct nowadays. The problem with most Hollywood stars is that they feel an urge to show how creative and "unconventional" they are at any cost. A black tie event is one of those times when a man of Style feels, knows that a simple composition is more effective than an imaginative ensemble full of colours and patterns. You can see how hard exercising such restraint is if you notice how few men are able to resist the temptation of ruining the picture for the sake of "personal expression".
On the other hand, I find it sad to see people doing, for instance, outdoors activities in their free time wearing gray and black clothes, looking like ghosts against the colourful background of green fields and blue skies. The larger the space around us, the greater the distance from other people, the happier our pursuits - the more I like to see (and wear) brighter colours and patterns that don't even stand out much when worn in the right context.

[Scot]

Costi, I think what theshoesnob is describing is not "black tie" in the sense most of us would understand it, but the modish dress of celebrities apparently attempting to imitate funeral directors, i.e. wearing (badly) a black suit, white shirt and long black tie. This is, unfortunately, only a minor variation on the current politicians' uniform of dark suit, white shirt and solid coloured tie; a result, no doubt, of some idiot's advice about how to appear closer to the "people".

So often here we look to film stars and statesmen of the past for sartorial inspiration. But who are the modern icons of stylish male dressing, particularly in the classic British tradition? I can only think of HRH the Prince of Wales.

[carl browne]

Writer Dominick Dunne, Illustrator Richard Merkin, Prince Michael of Kent, Former Speaker of the California Assembly Willie Brown, Actor George Hamilton.

[S. Gillette]

Scot,

a very interesting topic! Thank you for that.

I think whether or not one is better off to wear simple, unpatterned looks or heavily patterned, colorful ones comes down to who, where and how "sartorially enlightened" (I don't quite like that term but here it is really usable) one is. Wearing a sober combination of unpatterned, mid-grey suit, plain white shirt and simple, dark tie raises different problems for the wearer than wearing a mulitcolored tweed suit, boldly checked shirt and paisley wool challis tie. While simple outfits tend to emphasize fit (and fit issues), color and pattern complex outfits force the wearer to train his color sense (and more).

So, ideally, one would start one's dressing career with simple outfits in order to get the basics (cut, quality, cloth) right. Only after these tasks are mastered one would then move on to more complex combinations and introduce patterns and colour to one's outfits. Or, to move the topic away from its usual context a bit: A baked potato, done right, will always taste very good but might get boring after a while. But only when you have learned how to treat your potatoes right can you go a step further and preapre that gratin all your guests love you for. And, as with clothing, you can always go back to the simpler alternative for a change of pace or personal preference!

So, all in all, while I do certainly not agree with those who are claiming that a simple and monochromatic outfit is the most desirable and stylish one of all, I can see what makes a simple outfit particularly useful in certain environments.

[Costi]

So, ideally, one would start one's dressing career with simple outfits in order to get the basics (cut, quality, cloth) right. Only after these tasks are mastered one would then move on to more complex combinations and introduce patterns and colour to one's outfits.

That sounds logical, if perhaps a bit scholastic, but I am not sure it happens (or can happen) like that in life. We try different things, perfect some, abandon others, go through periods, become enthusiastic over one aspect and ignore others, which reveal themselves to us later on. It's an organic process, not an organized, rigorous approach.
When we want to "start our dressing career", we discover we already have one behind and we are not completely free from it: in our minds and in our closets. We never start from scrap.
And can we ever secure the "right" cut, quality, cloth, so we can "move on" after that? We change our ideas about what is right with time. We fall in love with the simplicity of a baked potato one day, then we delight in the most complicated course some other day. It's like learning a foreign language: you cannot start with grammar and then add vocabulary, they go together in reading, writing, speaking. And even if you make a grammar mistake every now and then, or misuse a word, you become fluent and discover new things every day.

[Will]

Clothing is entirely situational.

Subtlety works well for the office. Loud clothes on the other hand are effective in the country. Etc.

[Gruto]

Clothing is bounded by the situation but there is often room for personal choices like a striped shirt and a foulard tie instead of a Cary Grant look. Moreover, specific dressing norms are losing grib in many industries, which is great

[Costi]

Moreover, specific dressing norms are losing grib in many industries, which is great

That gives us a chance to see who can make it on their own, without the aid of rules - it's certainly harder! And let's not make the mistake of thinking that, if people "in many industries" don't condemn, they don't judge.
Liberty is often misunderstood and misused, or abused. It can bring out the best in some, but it can leave others completely disoriented...

If there is anything in existentialism that I completely agree with, it is being authentic, living life genuinely, rather than as one "ought to" (but that is a tough task). I believe there are margins for being subtle or bold both within the limits of what is acceptable as "office dress" (as Scot compares the "Cary Grant" look to the Englishman with a striped shirt and bold tie worn with a dark suit), as well as in country or leisure dress (a gray tweed herringbone coat with patch pockets or, as Scot writes, a green tweed with a large contrasting overcheck). One IS subtle or bold, as a matter of character. HOW to be bold in office dress without looking ridiculous and HOW to be subtle in country dress without looking drab - THAT is a question of style. But it would take a double personality really to be a fundamentally different man Friday from Saturday.

[S. Gillette]

So, ideally, one would start one's dressing career with simple outfits in order to get the basics (cut, quality, cloth) right. Only after these tasks are mastered one would then move on to more complex combinations and introduce patterns and colour to one's outfits.

That sounds logical, if perhaps a bit scholastic, but I am not sure it happens (or can happen) like that in life. We try different things, perfect some, abandon others, go through periods, become enthusiastic over one aspect and ignore others, which reveal themselves to us later on. It's an organic process, not an organized, rigorous approach.
When we want to "start our dressing career", we discover we already have one behind and we are not completely free from it: in our minds and in our closets. We never start from scrap.
And can we ever secure the "right" cut, quality, cloth, so we can "move on" after that? We change our ideas about what is right with time. We fall in love with the simplicity of a baked potato one day, then we delight in the most complicated course some other day. It's like learning a foreign language: you cannot start with grammar and then add vocabulary, they go together in reading, writing, speaking. And even if you make a grammar mistake every now and then, or misuse a word, you become fluent and discover new things every day.

Very nicely put, Costi. Of course you are right about influences affecting the way we approach dressing in general. But the fact that somebody "already knew how to dress" before our imagined pint of turn does not automatically mean that anything from this "base" is of any value for the "dressing career" we are talking about. Also dress, let alone other languages (more commonly accepted as such) are unspeakable (unusable) if you only know the vocabulary. It's the grammar which gives structure to what we say, even if we only know a couple of words. So, I would think that a small quantity of vocabulary combined with a rich, developed grammar is more effective than thousands of words and no idea how to order them. The same could be said about clothing. Less and simpler pieces combined nicely are more like to produce a good look than many extravagant clothes combined badly (whatever that is).
Most of the clothing desasters one is forced to look at every day are made of simple clothes badly fitted or loud clothes badly combined, which proves my point. Of course we agree about your point that in an ideal world, we would all put enough thinking into our daily dressing routine to make both looks work. In fact, most of the LL members should have spent enough time thinking about clothing in general and their wayof dressing in specific to be able to pull off both style. My general statement remains, however: If in doubt or
inexperienced, make it simple but flawless.

[Costi]

If in doubt or inexperienced, make it simple but flawless.

Your advice is excellent! However, in practice simplicity is more often closer to the end of the road (or an advanced outpost), rather than the starting line. It is the result of a process of distillation, or refinement. When you have really mastered simplicity, you probably have been through everything else before