The Alpha-Flaneur

[Gruto]

Au contraire, dear Gruto - things ARE simple. For those who want to see the simple truth - it is always naked and it has great style with no need whatsoever for clothes. Relativism has no power to dissolve the truth: as soon as you stop stirring, it coagulates and rises back to the surface, like oil above water.
You are talking about hypnotic fascination - that of criminals, unbalanced personalities etc. But that is not style, although I admit its victims may misperceive it as such. A deeper look is enough to reveal the weak foundation of this illusion of style: masters of deceit.
But beyond that - I see no discourse connecting style and moral standing here. Where did the idea come from?
Of course bold clothes are not opposed to style - that's the idea here, that it depends on how they are used. Some, however, CAN prove unusable...

For a romantic, everything of quality must be simple and good

But, the terrible truth may be that being good or "Alpha" and then having style aren't related. Take the Duke of Windsor and Agnelli as examples. From what we know, they were deeply flawed characters, yet it is very difficult to deny them style. At least the Cloth Club salutes them

“You know, Tembu," said Mira suddenly, after a pause, "that if, in planting a coffee tree, you bend the taproot, that tree will start, after a little time, to put out a multitude of small delicate roots near the surface. That tree will never thrive, nor bear fruit, but it will flower more richly than the others.

- from Karen Blixen's Seven Gothic Tales

[Costi]

I am not very sure Windsor had Style. Michael sums it up very well here:

Let’s also leave Windsor aside for a moment and think about the greatest dressers and dandies in history. They are a population of mysterious, creative and, almost exclusively, artists.

Windsor was the King of the richest country of his time, loved clothes, had good taste, was bold (or foolish) enough to follow his instincts, had unlimited resources, the best tailors in the world, and was vaulted to celebrity by a USA raging with anglophiles.

viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9824#p52534

He knew how to dress, though... (because he followed instincts, inner reality)

As for Agnelli - and many others - he was not dry on the inside, or just a blooming tree that bears no fruit. But in an orchard full of ripe fruit, some are bound to rot and some dry twigs are inevitable. But this is not a desert landscape. Flaw is part of beauty. Good does not mean flawless at all.
These men of style are juicy instead. Tarnishable silver (though pure), rather than glittery gold.

[Rowly]

I agree Windsor was a very interesting dresser and I admire much of his taste. I wonder though, given his character as it has been documented, do we really see evidence of his taste...or what he ended up with--his output? It wouldn't surprise me if he had endless outfits made up just to try them, dumping what he didn't want...he certainly wouldn't have been limited to swatches to have to look at.
Had he taken an interest in Street Photography would his output be as admired as that of Cartier-Bresson, given that he would have had access to the best equipment available--could shoot 200 rolls of film per day, should he wish, and have his films hand processed and printed by the best hand printers in the world?

[Costi]

Rowley, had this been the case, probably pictures like this would not be around:



Thank God it's B&W

No, he was natural, I suppose...

[Costi]

Topic moved to its rightful place.

[Rowly]

There's no answer to that! I think it's time I had my eyes tested !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearly_Kings_and_Queens

[Arky]

Arky, we should refuse to live in a world where we feel the need to apologize for being romantic, or where some form of idealism is cynically disregarded as "unrealistic" or dismissed as "unscientific": of course it is, that's why we feel it is true

Thank you, I was moved by your comment. I regret nothing!! My remark was a goofy nod to politesse. I feel quite at home here, though, and will stretch and relax.

Therefore yes, wavelengths... I like the image, it can be a matter of fluctuating frequency. And, of course, we morph from one to another. Then every now and then we materialize (the particle) - or, rather, we particularize. Perhaps the Beta, who only reaches as far as his arms and sees as far as the tip of his nose, embodies the FM: ripples. The Alpha may be the MW, with a wider area of reception and broadcasting, moving in wider spaced waves of more stable amplitude: currents. The Omega could be the LM, who receives his inspiration from such great inner depths (or faraway peaks) that interference starts to become a problem as far as broadcasting is concerned. He may not be able to particularize too well in a given moment in time, but being capable of that wavelength is what really counts.

Great image. I like this better than trotting out the hoary Windsor/Agnelli hagiographies. Some kind of techno-futurist schema for thinking about clothes, very tonic and modern, in the same spirit as how minimalist music captures the feeling of the 20th century.

But I understand the impulse to look back and I don't mean to disparage it too much.
There is a Chinese phrase which says 温故知新 - studying the past to understand the present. And that is very important too.

We do want to reach sartorial nirvana, but not necessarily stay in it forever - occasional visits is the best we can hope for

How apropos. I was thinking about the Sōtō Zen school, which feels deluded pursuit of nirvana is not so hot, but emphasizes direct experience in the here-and-now. Moments of direct insight are like a parting of the clouds and reveal unknown truth ("enlightenment" -- walking down the street and seeing someone who is so elegantly dressed yet appears not to care a whit about clothing). There is a "special transmission outside the scriptures" (Apparel Arts) and a distaste for attachment to false idols ("If you meet the Buddha in the road, kill him," -- i.e., Kill Your Idols: see Duke of Wagnelli above). So yes, this image of the occasional, impromptu visit but not wanting to stay in the perfectly-draping, pattern-matched ether for too long, lest it despoil our Earthly selves is very rich indeed.

I'm starting to imagine some kind of Beat Generation scenario where Costi and I drive a convertible through the desert, eating prosciutto sandwiches and writing sartorial koans on a scroll. Is there a Cloth Club-licensed beret I can purchase?

Here is another metaphor for you:

Omega is like Wodehouse: interiorized and arch, for private enjoyment.
Alpha is like Marx Brothers: a strong internal coherence and sense of humor, turned outward, at home in the world.
Beta is like Three Stooges: what you see is what you get!

By the way, this may be the time to discuss the ever-present but dangerous Gamma-Flaneur. Being in his presence too long causes cancer... your thoughts?

Thank God it's B&W

I think it's time I had my eyes tested !

Good thing we have forensic technology.
To me the most shocking part is the dye job he chose to adopt in later life... Vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas indeed

[Costi]

There's no answer to that! I think it's time I had my eyes tested !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearly_Kings_and_Queens

[Costi]

Arky, we should refuse to live in a world where we feel the need to apologize for being romantic, or where some form of idealism is cynically disregarded as "unrealistic" or dismissed as "unscientific": of course it is, that's why we feel it is true

Thank you, I was moved by your comment. I regret nothing!! My remark was a goofy nod to politesse. I feel quite at home here, though, and will stretch and relax.

Arky, I reformulate: we should refuse to live in a world where we feel the need to apologize for ANYTHING

Great image. I like this better than trotting out the hoary Windsor/Agnelli hagiographies.

The Holy Fire, not the ashes! – this is the real heritage.

Some kind of techno-futurist schema for thinking about clothes, very tonic and modern, in the same spirit as how minimalist music captures the feeling of the 20th century.

But I understand the impulse to look back and I don't mean to disparage it too much.
There is a Chinese phrase which says 温故知新 - studying the past to understand the present. And that is very important too.

If you put them together like that, they can work. No need to reinvent the wheel. Recognizing successful forms and giving them new life is not the same as anachronistic pastiche.

We do want to reach sartorial nirvana, but not necessarily stay in it forever - occasional visits is the best we can hope for

How apropos. I was thinking about the Sōtō Zen school, which feels deluded pursuit of nirvana is not so hot, but emphasizes direct experience in the here-and-now. Moments of direct insight are like a parting of the clouds and reveal unknown truth ("enlightenment" -- walking down the street and seeing someone who is so elegantly dressed yet appears not to care a whit about clothing). There is a "special transmission outside the scriptures" (Apparel Arts) and a distaste for attachment to false idols ("If you meet the Buddha in the road, kill him," -- i.e., Kill Your Idols: see Duke of Wagnelli above). So yes, this image of the occasional, impromptu visit but not wanting to stay in the perfectly-draping, pattern-matched ether for too long, lest it despoil our Earthly selves is very rich indeed.

Nothing to add…
(though “nothing to add” is an addition in itself…)

Here is another metaphor for you:

Omega is like Wodehouse: interiorized and arch, for private enjoyment.
Alpha is like Marx Brothers: a strong internal coherence and sense of humor, turned outward, at home in the world.
Beta is like Three Stooges: what you see is what you get!

Hehe

By the way, this may be the time to discuss the ever-present but dangerous Gamma-Flaneur. Being in his presence too long causes cancer... your thoughts?

That’s the difference between radiation and irradiation…
Put on your lead armour!

Thank God it's B&W

I think it's time I had my eyes tested !

Good thing we have forensic technology.
To me the most shocking part is the dye job he chose to adopt in later life...

Doesn’t he look like a butterfly just out of the gray flannel chrysalid?...
It makes you wonder what’s in that cigarette he’s smoo00OOO()()()OO0oking…

Vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas indeed

I'm starting to imagine some kind of Beat Generation scenario where Costi and I drive a convertible through the desert, eating prosciutto sandwiches and writing sartorial koans on a scroll. Is there a Cloth Club-licensed beret I can purchase?

All kinds of headwear, Dean, just make your pick:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9220&hilit=alden+cap

Sal

[hectorm]

Doesn’t he look like a butterfly just out of the gray flannel chrysalid?...

I don´t know why you are so tough on Windsor. For example: the paisley motif on his cravat is a true model of good taste and restrain.

[Costi]

Hectorm, blame it on Photoshop

[Rowly]

Yes, I agree it's natural. But, I wonder is it coming from natural exuberance or from a natural need for attention often associated with those who were deprived of love and attention as children? A tree that is not blooming, yet covers himself with colourful fruit?

[Costi]

Rowly, but do you suppose HE needed to do anything to get attention? He was the center of it - in private and in public. If anything, I should think he would have wanted to escape it every now and then...
Feeding on abysmal psychology here... do you remember this exchange of ours? http://www.thiaoouba.com/seeau.htm
I have two examples at hand that are fresh in my mind. Proust was very much loved as a child and had very close ties with his mother and grandmother. Yet his answers to the (in)famous questionnaire (http://www.chick.net/proust/question.html) point to an intense desire to be loved and spoiled. Violonist Ida Hendel also states in interviews I have seen recently that she had very close ties with her parents and sister, she was very loved as a child, too. Yet she wears the most dazzling colours immaginable.
Why do we love tweeds so much? Texture, drape, weight... that's all secondary. They bring colour to our dress. Don't they make us more cheerful? Not talking about gray herringbones here...
Colour is instinctual. Folk costumes are always cheerfully coloured. All the white marble statues and edifices of Greek and Roman antiquity, which we admire for their elegance, were once brightly coloured in a manner we might call garish today.
The gray suit is a creation of the intellect, of convention. It is refined (or can be), but not instinctual.
Balancing these two is one of the central principles of the art of dressing, as we understand it today.
As for Windsor... he was a Cancer. Maybe it was full moon that day?

[Rowly]

[Proust's underlining]
What is your favorite color?

Beauty lies not in colors but in thier harmony

I totally agree with what you say about the joys of tweeds, colours etc. I also totally admire the exuberance displayed by Windsor in everything I have seen of him. I just wondered might there be another side to him. I hadn't seen this particular picture before, and thought it looked a bit sad. I accept that he would not need to court attention, but there are many who continually grasp at things they don't need, driven by some insatiable instinct that defies logic. There are plenty of Citizen Kanes searching for their Rosebud.

This is not a criticism of Windsor...just an avenue to consider in the general debate. I suppose at any given time, even though the end result might be the same in our dress, our motivation might come from any transitory part of the continuum between Alpha and Beta attitudes. This, I think, is what makes human nature so interesting.

It's also interesting how our attitudes change over time, as very well demonstrated in the questionaire!

[Costi]

I suppose at any given time, even though the end result might be the same in our dress, our motivation might come from any transitory part of the continuum between Alpha and Beta attitudes. This, I think, is what makes human nature so interesting.

I agree, Rowley. With regard to this and instead of Proust's reply to the question above (certainly true!), I would say it is a matter of nuances, of hues, not of colours. There are shades of any colour that I love, as well as others that don't speak to me. Michael's search for "THE blue" in his recent clothmaking endeavours, for example, is proof of that.