The Erosion of Rules

[Gruto]

Rules are leaving the sartorial world. As Mr. Boyer wrote in an issue of the Rake, the bespoke suit has been freed from conventions. More than any time before, we may now paint the sartorial picture the way we feel right. We are beyond discussions of tie dimple or no tie dimple, trousers break or no break, showing cuff linen or not showing cuff linen. At best, insisting on following rules is charming nostalgia. At worst, it is “a comedy, a melodrama lost in the past,” as Giorgio Armani said about Savile Row a couple of years ago.

Don’t get me wrong, rules are alive, and everybody who loves sartorial garments should know them but they have become mere suggestions. We are not obligated to follow them. We are left with not so specific principles and ideals: balance, harmony, contrast, chicness, unity, impact et cetera, or to put it briefly: beauty.

[alden]

We are left with not so specific principles and ideals: balance, harmony, contrast, chicness, unity, impact et cetera, or to put it briefly: beauty.

In many ways it is a wonderful time for clothes in the sense that we can wear what we please. The limiting factor is our own sensibility, vision, taste and Style.

That being said, I am not sure the objective (at least in my own case) is beauty. I am going to have to settle for Style.

Cheers

Michael

[Scot]

Gruto, what you say may have a grain of truth but your original sources are far from compelling as evidence for your thesis.

[Costi]

God is dead, you say. It certainly sounds true in the sartorial world.
A brief entry in one of Proust's famous "carnets" notes down that the distinguished manners of aristocrats like Count Albert de Mun, French politician and member of the Academy, are also a form of slavery: he cannot refer to Wilhelm II of Germany other than as "Emperor Wilhelm" - a correct formula, though not quite an exact expression of a Frenchman's feelings. "He carries with him a knowledge of the world, you can feel the erudite in him, he does not have the divine freedom of the genius."
Rules were replaced by voluntary conformism, which is often a stronger enemy than the old commandments carved in stone. Freedom is something nobody can concede to us, we must conquer it, BE free.
The Man of Style IS the God of the universe that he creates as he feels free to play with the rules or generate new ones. He is the sartorial Übermensch.
Rules are short-lived. Style is forever.

[carl browne]

At worst, it is “a comedy, a melodrama lost in the past,” as Giorgio Armani said about Savile Row a couple of years ago.

This from a man who GLUES his suits together and charges higher prices for them. Better melodrama lost in the past than grand theft perpetrated in the present.

Gentlemen, I hope you'll forgive the rant.

C

[storeynicholas]

The Chief Goon (Armani) and the lesser goons who follow his lead, should make up their minds as to whether it is comedy or melodrama, as they are clean different things. 'It' in the context of The Times article from which the excerpt comes, actually being Savile Row tailoring, rather than 'rules' (and I thought that this place was designed to defend the Savile Row traditions). I, for one, am heartily sick and tired of reading about freeing people from rules. There are certain conventions and they may even be contractual rules; having only a social sanction. But it is real enough: just try walking into the common areas of a decent London club (for which you pay to be a member) in denim and even the senior the staff will, by agreement between the members, have the right to ask you to leave and they will; civilly enough. But they will. If you refuse to leave, the secretary or a committee member will ask you to leave. If you still refuse, you will be told that you are endangering your membership. If you continue to refuse, after that, they will probably use reasonable force to expell you (ie drag you into the street) and you will be declined as a member. Once upon a time, there was even a practice of debagging intruders. Fact. But if you are freed from convention by not joining such an establishment (or, maybe, have no chance of joining one) or spend your time on the beach: go ahead and dress as you damned well pleasey! As I have said, many times, often I am wearing far less than would be necessary to have lunch at a club, because I choose to be free to do so but, if I went for lunch at a London club, I would comply with the conventions. Fact. I think that some members here, especially some who are not Londoners, simply fail to understand what I am saying but, until you do understand it, please stop bleating on about 'being free to break the rules' and how exhilerated it makes you feel because, believe me, there are far more interesting ways in which to find exhileration.

Carl -this what I call a rant - and for it I beg no one's pardon.

PS I should add that there has never been a 'rule' about showing shirt cuff, just different, general practices. Also I should add that I am sure that the thrust of GBB's article is that, in these days, when many people pitch up to the theatre and restaurants in tee-shirts, it isn't difficult to do better than that and there is freedom to do so.

[Costi]

Dear Nicholas, you do get hot under the collar sometimes, even though you rarely wear one, as you say
You seem to be talking about decency and good sense and I think nobody here would argue with THAT - certainly not me!
Breaking rules for the mere sake of it or just to annoy or be a subject of discussion is pitiful. Transcending rules for a higher order of ideas is something else. Moreover, some rules become obsolete: I believe nobody will throw you out of a club for not wearing tails or dinner suit for dinner. What if you went in wearing a Glenn check suit - in or out?
Finally, I think you talk about breaking social conventions through blatantly inadequate dress, while I understand the subject to be dressing WELL without being a slave to strict rules and, of course, without turning into a public scandal for it: that's the art of it, isn't it?

[carl browne]

NJS

I've decided to start writing sonnets, but want to break free of all of those annoying conventions. Who says a sonnet must be in iambic pentameter? And fourteen lines . . . why not twenty? And those stodgy old quatrains and couplets. My sonnets won't rhyme at all! Syntax! Grammer! Who needs them? Freedom, that's the thing. Just think how much better Shakespeare would have been had he not been under the thumb of that ghastly and autocratic Elizabeth! Open your mind! Those who slavishly follow the rules are doomed to be mediocrities like Shakespeare, Milton, and Pope!

C

[storeynicholas]

Dear Nicholas, you do get hot under the collar sometimes, even though you rarely wear one, as you say
You seem to be talking about decency and good sense and I think nobody here would argue with THAT - certainly not me!
Breaking rules for the mere sake of it or just to annoy or be a subject of discussion is pitiful. Transcending rules for a higher order of ideas is something else. Moreover, some rules become obsolete: I believe nobody will throw you out of a club for not wearing tails or dinner suit for dinner. What if you went in wearing a Glenn check suit - in or out?
Finally, I think you talk about breaking social conventions through blatantly inadequate dress, while I understand the subject to be dressing WELL without being a slave to strict rules and, of course, without turning into a public scandal for it: that's the art of it, isn't it?

I need a dip in the sea I haven't been disagreeing with you. Of course, wearing DJs and morning coats isn't required for clubbing. A country suit or a blue naval reefer/blazer/polo jacket mid-week would probably prompt some ribbing but they'd let you in. There are very few little bastions of formality left (certain places and events: the Caledonian Ball, of which the present Lord Dupplin is an organizer - his predecessor introduced Ed VII to the DJ - proscribes DJs) and these places and events are likely to remain and they do operate contractual rules. Apart from that, we are free to do as we please. But then we are as free as we choose to be as we do not have to go to places and events that have a dress code.

But the mere mention of Armani's name is enough to clear my arteries. But none of this is terribly important as against tsunamis.

[storeynicholas]

NJS

I've decided to start writing sonnets, but want to break free of all of those annoying conventions. Who says a sonnet must be in iambic pentameter? And fourteen lines . . . why not twenty? And those stodgy old quatrains and couplets. My sonnets won't rhyme at all! Syntax! Grammer! Who needs them? Freedom, that's the thing. Just think how much better Shakespeare would have been had he not been under the thumb of that ghastly and autocratic Elizabeth! Open your mind! Those who slavishly follow the rules are doomed to be mediocrities like Shakespeare, Milton, and Pope!

C

Carl - Exactly - I think that society was more cohesive when people dressed better and observed conventions. Moreover, they didn't have to agonize over what to wear because it was settled and the distinguishing features were in the cut and the cloth and the making. Nowdays, on the London underground, you are more likely to end up sitting next to a yobbo with a spider tattoo across half his face and a nose, eyebrow and lip perforated with some serious hardware, than a city gent in a suit. This is where abandoning 'rules' leads and I think that it's sad.

[Gruto]

NJS,

Legal rules are a good invention. I prefer to live in country where law and order are enforced (by a democracy). Dressing rules and dress codes are not so good. However, I do respect that certain situations like visiting a club or celebrating new years's eve or meeting business partners to a large extent dictate how you dress. I like historic rules, conventions or habits connected to the wearing of suit-tie-shirt, but I don't think you should follow them mechanically. They ought be looked upon as ideas or suggestions only, even for Londoners. Beauty or style is the goal, not rulebound dressing.

[storeynicholas]

NJS,

Legal rules are a good invention. I prefer to live in country where law and order are enforced (by a democracy). Dressing rules and dress codes are not so good. However, I do respect that certain situations like visiting a club or celebrating new years's eve or meeting business partners to a large extent dictate how you dress. I like historic rules, conventions or habits connected to the wearing of suit-tie-shirt, but I don't think you should follow them mechanically. They ought be looked upon as ideas or suggestions only, even for Londoners. Beauty or style is the goal, not rulebound dressing.

You seem to have a clear conclusion but I do not really understand your definition of 'rules' or your reasoning to get to your conclusion. Maybe by 'rules' you mean 'norms' because there is no 'rule' about shirt cuffs just norms and the norm in North America seems to be to show about half an inch and in the UK, maybe the same, maybe none at all but these are not 'rules' in any sense in which I understand the term. I know that I have also referred to 'rules' when I really meant 'norms'.

[Gruto]

You seem to have a clear conclusion but I do not really understand your definition of 'rules' or your reasoning to get to your conclusion. Maybe by 'rules' you mean 'norms' because there is no 'rule' about shirt cuffs just norms and the norm in North America seems to be to show about half an inch and in the UK, maybe the same, maybe none at all but these are not 'rules' in any sense in which I understand the term. I know that I have also referred to 'rules' when I really meant 'norms'.

It might be better to call dressing rules dressing norms or dressing conventions, but it really doesn't change a thing. You cannot create style or beauty by dressing according to norms, or to put it differently: Being a correctly dressed man according to norms doesn't make you an elegant man.

[storeynicholas]

Handsome is as handsome does and if you try too hard you might end up looking like a stage turn or a fusspot. This is the danger. I think that the British, in particular, are very suspicious of men who are too carefully dressed, according to norms or not; especially when it is all topped off with some eye-catching special feature. But, maybe you could give us a pictorial hint of what you mean; an example of someone pulling it off, according to your ideas.
NJS

[Gruto]

maybe you could give us a pictorial hint of what you mean; an example of someone pulling it off, according to your ideas.