Double vs. Single Breasted

[alden]

My wardrobe is evenly split between DB and SB suits. I always preferred to wear the DB for work but in my era, occupation and geography there were no prejudices against them (except from men who could not wear them well.)

In most of Europe the DB is still well thought of and judging from what I see on Savile Row and amongst Italian tailors, the DB is still selling extremely well.



-The tailors of Anderson & Sheppard

I think it is hard to draw conclusions about dress from any one occupation or from any one environment. But one is smart to know what attire works best professionally and adapt oneself accordingly or change professions and environment.

As regards affectation, it is like an actor whose words do not ring true. It’s unmistakable to the point of hurting one’s eyes and ears. An affected man will be affected no matter what clothes he wears. For, like style, its contrary state, affectation has little to do with clothes. It is a disease that afflicts some men and is evident in all they do, all they hope to be and, ultimately, who they are.

One of the greatest modern affectations is the belief that all men must be the same. We may be created equal, but after that, all bet’s are off. Let the pressure to play to the lowest common denominator, a not too clever disguise for envy, roll like a bead of water off your DB's back.

Cheers

Michael Alden

[Costi]

Let the pressure to play to the lowest common denominator, a not too clever disguise for envy, roll like a bead of water off your DB's back.

Ha! Pure prose poetry

[alden]

I always avoided DB in the past. At 5'7", I thought DB would make me look short(er) and blocky. I now think if it is well-proportioned, properly fitted and something you want to wear, there is no reason to avoid DB.

Martin,

A man's height has no influence on the look of a DB "if it is well-proportioned, properly fitted and something you want to wear" as examples of Windsor and Toto amply demonstrate.

A man's girth will have a bit more influence on the look however and men who keep in good shape will show the DB to its advantage. Our modern trend towards institutionalized obesity probably has more to do with any fall from grace of the DB than any stylistic quirk.

If you are in good shape and keep slim, wear the DB a little closer to the body than the SB, wear it well, and you will cut a figure to be admired.

Cheers

Michael Alden

[Gruto]

I think it all comes down to the importance of context: should the fact that you don't find any DBs around you prevent you from wearing one yourself? I would say no. If you feel it brings style, dress in a DB. On the other hand, style always unfolds in a context. You are part of an environment. The meaning and impact of your style is to some extent defined by a contextual game with more players than yourself. That is fact too, and if you don't recognize that you will walk the path of Don Quijote de La Mancha ...

[alden]

I think it all comes down to the importance of context: should the fact that you don't find any DBs around you prevent you from wearing one yourself? I would say no. If you feel it brings style, dress in a DB. On the other hand, style always unfolds in a context. You are part of an environment. The meaning and impact of your style is to some extent defined by a contextual game with more players than yourself. That is fact too, and if you don't recognize that you will walk the path of Don Quijote de La Mancha ...

Gruto,

I admit to have no experience with the kinds of “contexts” you describe since men where I live still find style beneficial. If I were to imagine a professional environment where men spend so much time worrying about the clothes other men wear rather than the mission at hand, it would be a place to avoid.

Don Quijote was driven by ideals. Style is a more practical thing. The attraction and magnetism of style has a direct physical effect that is notably positive. It is not ether, but deep vibration full of potent themes and messages that have seductive impact. The force is like a tool to alter other’s perceptions. One finds “others” in the context saying “yes” when they might as well say “no.”

The very nature of masculine competition will lead others to seek to tap into the force. In this way the bearer of these happy style tidings comes across more as one to be admired and copied than an affected outcast combating windmills. At least, that has been my experience.

Cheers

Michael Alden

[Gruto]

I admit to have no experience with the kinds of “contexts” you describe since men where I live still find style beneficial. If I were to imagine an environment where men spend so much time worrying about the clothes other men wear rather than the mission at hand, it would be a place to avoid.

The force is like a tool to alter other’s perceptions. One finds “others” in the context saying “yes” when they might as well say “no.”

Great style makes it possible to a certain extent to play the game your own way. Great style organizes perceptions. But, you are still depending on the audience. No great style without an audience. Imagine an actor without an audience. He will not be the same. In other words, great style is relational. You create great style together with your audience.

[alden]

However, great style is a performance, not a continuous mode. You are not on the stage all the time.

Style cannot be great if it is only a performance. It is a state of being intrinsic to a person's personality. Only a very few talented thespians could pull such a performance off. Maybe David Niven, off camera, was a toad. Somehow I doubt it.

Attempts at performing style can easily veer towards affectation.



In the Europe where I live DB suits are often seen so I have no experience with a context that is put off by them.

Martin described a work environment initially hostile to elegant dress. This may be one kind of "context", conditioned by the tastes of others, you describe. But Martin was able to mold the context and change perceptions. I am not surprised.

[Costi]

"The critic has to educate the public; the artist has to educate the critic" - Oscar Wilde

Who do you choose to be - the artist, the critic, the public? The answer comes from the same Mr. Wilde:

"Be yourself! Everyone else is already taken"

Style may be regarded as a form of art, but not a temporal art, a performance. If you wish, it's a lifetime long show of authenticity. But it's more than that, it is atemporal, or else how would we be still admiring today all these people long dead?

The audience is not immutable - its perceptions cand indeed be modified. It also responds differently to a bad or good actor. The good actor lives out his part on the stage, believes in it; the bad actor is the poser, the ham, what the French call "cabotin". Believe in yourself and the audience will believe, too. Gruto, I think your view comes from a perspective of not believing in oneself enough, of overestimating context, the others. Dialogue with the world should initiate from us, not from the world.

PS: you still don't love Don Quijote and think he's a lunatic. You still see him as ridiculous. Go beyond and you'll magically find yourself instantly transported to the other side, which is the sublime.
http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... =45&t=9903
However, I agree with Michael, we needn't be knights-errant to just be who we are, therefore have Style.

[Gruto]

"Be yourself! Everyone else is already taken"

Of course you should try to be yourself. I'm not talking about simulating a style. But, "yourself" is partly constructed when meeting the world. We exist in a relation to other people.

Style may be regarded as a form of art, but not a temporal art, a performance. If you wish, it's a lifetime long show of authenticity. But it's more than that, it is atemporal, or else how would we be still admiring today all these people long dead?

Style cannot be atemporal. The soul, if that thing exists, is atemporal. The reason we admire these people long dead is because of transhistorical power, which should not be confused with complete timelessness or atemporality. Over time, the perception of Cary Grant, Windsor & Co. will change.

Gruto, I think your view comes from a perspective of not believing in oneself enough, of overestimating context, the others. Dialogue with the world should initiate from us, not from the world.

I agree you should believe in yourself. But, it doesn't mean that you cannot let the world in. In fact, I believe you must listen to the sound of the world, unless you would like to end as a lunatic.

PS: you still don't love Don Quijote and think he's a lunatic. You still see him as ridiculous. Go beyond and you'll magically find yourself instantly transported to the other side, which is the sublime.
http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... =45&t=9903
However, I agree with Michael, we needn't be knights-errant to just be who we are, therefore have Style.

I love Don Quijote. That is why I keep referring to him. If I saw him as a lunatic only I wouldn't do that

PS I will wear a DB on Monday at work as 1 out of 10 in the whole city of Copenhagen

[Costi]

It dawned on me while I was taking a shower in preparation for going out to an afternoon concert: what you say is similar to minding how you sing or whistle while under the shower - what will the neighbours think of your singing? What if they don't like your tune?
Or perhaps you don't sing under the shower - what's the use, without an audience?
My mission now is to find out whether Chopin was thinking of an audience when he wrote his music. I'll tell you what I discovered!

[Gruto]

My mission now is to find out whether Chopin was thinking of an audience when he wrote his music. I'll tell you what I discovered!

An artist is working in relation to a field of voices, traditions, positions. You may call that field an audience. I tell you, so was Chopin doing

[Costi]

I have a suspicion those voices were in his head rather than outside, but I'll test out this assumption At any rate, he certainly did not invent the waltz, the sonata or the concert - it's about HOW he made music, that is what his (and anyone's) Style consists of. When listening to one of his nocturnes I feel transported in his inner world. His music has a confessional quality. In that sense, perhaps God was his audience, if any, but not you and me.

[Gruto]

I have a suspicion those voices were in his head rather than outside, but I'll test out this assumption At any rate, he certainly did not invent the waltz, the sonata or the concert - it's about HOW he made music, that is what his (and anyone's) Style consists of. When listening to one of his nocturnes I feel transported in his inner world. His music has a confessional quality. In that sense, perhaps God was his audience, if any, but not you and me.

Even HOW is influenced by a field of voices, approaches and positions. All acts, thoughts and inpirations are grounded in a social reality - it shouldn't be a big surprise All production comes from a person and cannot happen without his internal force, but comes into existence as a social phenomenon, even the genius work of our great composers. Just ask Wittgenstein and Heidegger

[Costi]

Do you believe it is the book that needs a reader, the painting that needs a viewer, the music that needs a listener? I think it's the other way round, we - the readers, the viewers, the listeners - need the books, the paintings and the music. If they were created with me in mind, they wouldn't be telling me anything new. If they seeked to please my ego, they would not challenge or enrich me. I feel privileged to listen to Chopin's music, as if I were confided a most intimate secret, and it would never cross my mind to consider myself the rightful addressee.

All acts, thoughts and inpirations are grounded in a social reality - it shouldn't be a big surprise

"Grounded" is a relevant choice of word and is nicely illustrated by your choice of smily. The perspective you propose is lying flat on the belly - that is certainly not where inspiration comes from. "The only reason angels fly is because they take themselves lightly" (G. K. Chesterton) - too much burden of Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein and Heidegger will "ground" one's inspiration and make it believe it's a hen, rather than an albatross.
Style is "aired", not "grounded". It is a personal emission, like a radio broadcast that others may receive (thus the "social" aspect), but it doesn't originate in them, it's not their own static noise, it is a distinct voice. Fashion is socially grounded; dress, too - but Style works from the inside out and not the other way round. It employs socially-grounded means, yes - clothes, words, ideas, objects - but it does not consist in them any more than music is contained in the instrument. Anything can be a musical instrument in the hands of the man who can make music, yet nothing contains the music that he makes. However, not everyone can make music (which doesn't stop them from trying...)

[Gruto]

Style is "aired", not "grounded".

We should try to fly as much as possible to bring style. Style comes from flying or dancing. I agree totally. One step in that direction is facing the gravity of the social field. Not doing that, will bring us one step closer Pinocchio ...

"I've got no strings
To hold me down
To make me fret, or make me frown
I had strings
But now I'm free
There are no strings on me

Hi-ho the me-ri-o
That's the only way to go
I want the world to know
Nothing ever worries me"