Craft, art and the pursuit of style

[Luca]

if you have (style) , it doesn't matter what you wear; if you don't have it also doesn't matter what you wear...

And so we have come full round, on a forum where the discussion of different wool milling techniques and the number of folds in a tie scales exegetic heights to conclude that... clothes are not an element of style.

[Costi]

"Intrusion" most welcome

Haha, Wilde had it right (again) So how can we "have it"? I don't think style is denied to anyone by mean gods. We simply don't choose it, we don't trust ourselves (which doesn't mean at all that we don't appear confident in our choice!...).

The fop is not a fool, but he is afraid of being taken for one. That's why he can't escape it.
The fool couldn't care less.

"L'habit ne fait pas le moine" - French expresses better this idea, because we see how habit comes from the Latin habitus (way of being - "habit" in English), which is derived from habere (to have). Everything we have is acquired. And everything we are, we can't have. Finally, what we have does not make who we are.

[Frederic Leighton]

But in this contraction of the world of possibilities to the acceptance of what we are, we find a qualitative difference: this is real, not wishful.

What would you give as a simple definition or example (imagine you are explaining it to a child) of “style”?

Style? an entertaining stop along the journey of understanding who I am. Or the left-overs from the acceptance of who I am.

[Costi]

But of course, Luca - I hope you are not reading this for the first time on this forum: "clothes are not an element of style". This has been stated, argued and clarified countless times - most convincingly by Michael Alden.
But clothes can be fascinating in themselves, and they are the material, the medium of dressing. This, in turn, can help give context and expression to style. Not necessary, but welcome. That is why I argue that mastering the craft (of dressing) is worthwhile and, inasmuch as it is pursued in itself (and not as a road to style), it may actually help bring it forward: keeping the current flowing through the coil produces magnetism, as I wrote before. Oscar Wilde was a great dresser!

[Costi]

Style? an entertaining stop along the journey of understanding who I am. Or the left-overs from the acceptance of who I am.

Certainly not a destination (yet not there from day one of our lives, other than potentially) and perhaps not even a stop. A side effect. An afterglow.

[hectorm]

....the tools of analysis can't help us put our finger on style.

This sounds more like a premise based on a self defeating definition of what style is than a conclusion of failure arrived at after having tried those tools on the manifestations that we suspect might emanate from something more elusive called style.

[Costi]

... the manifestations that we suspect might emanate from something more elusive called style.

The phenomenology of style, as we practice it successfully here, ends up describing dress - which can be analysed, taught and learned as a craft, its means (clothes, etc.) can be procured. We can put our finger on clothes and on dress. That is precisely what I am suggesting to do. Forget about style, which cannot be "had" directly. But keep in mind that style is about being. Clothes are about having. The bridge over this abyss belongs to doing: that is the craft, dressing. It can sort out the imbalance between being and having: foppery, brutishness, etc. This clears the way for the manifestation of style (but does not necessarily always bring it about...).

[couch]

I hesitate to put a toe in this water, since I'm about to travel and can't follow up, but an observation from a distinguished poet of my acquaintance may add another analogy to those already put forward. À propos whether the writing of poetry can be taught: "You can't teach the vision. What you can teach is technique for realizing the vision."

[vancehn]

"You can't teach the vision. What you can teach is technique for realizing the vision."

Hear, hear !

[hectorm]

I think much of this discussion is what the deconstructivists would call “word tricks” (but without their implied denigration, on my part) – a lexical misunderstanding rather than an ontological difference.

Calmly re-reading this thread I would have to agree with you.
But I think we have to move on to another plane. Let´s admit talking in metaphors for appealing to our less rational more intuitive side, and for the moment accept the premises about Style to push the discussion further and see where it leads.

[culverwood]

This thread is a load of nonsense. Pretty nonsense but nonsense nevertheless.

[Frederic Leighton]

This thread is a load of nonsense. Pretty nonsense but nonsense nevertheless.

Is that a hypothesis or a thesis? I understand; I have the same feeling every time I look from the window of my bedroom to find half of London, the East half, in front of my eyes.

[davidhuh]

This thread is a load of nonsense. Pretty nonsense but nonsense nevertheless.

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses

Cheers, David

[Costi]

What would you give as a simple definition or example (imagine you are explaining it to a child) of “style”?

Perhaps here is the crux of the matter: style has no objective existence. We experience the presence of certain people as filled with style. Pretty clothes and charming manners certainly do not constitute style. Clothes are not enough and often not even necessary for this experience. Ditto for moral virtues, education or faith. There is no failsafe recipe for style. The main ingredient is between and beyond these elements. Just the way sound is not music (even if produced with the intention to make music), but we may subjectively experience it as music under certain conditions.
The experience of style boils down, in my view, to the congruence between what one is and what one appears to be (=has and displays). We often write about "pulling it off" to wear this jacket or that ensemble: one man seems to able to "fill the clothes", while another is perceived to fail (with the same clothes). Such perception is not analytical and we don't need an hour of thinking to decide whether someone has style or not - it is a direct experience and we decide this in seconds. We most likely don't even formulate it as such in our minds, we just live it. Arguments are often a posteriori.
Again, this is not the definition of style - just what it seems to involve. The last thing I look for is to be dogmatic about it But we have been discussing terminology for years here (particularly with respect to style) and we can't start over from zero every time.

I regret that I may not be able to express myself more clearly, as well as the fact that some may not be willing to make the effort to grasp the sense of what I am describing beyond the face value of words. I am pointing to the moon and I get back criticism on my finger.

Interestingly, although I am advocating a practical approach in this topic - mastering the tangible, analyzable and communicable craft of dressing - rather than aiming for an elusive quality (which is, ultimately, somebody else's subjective experience of us), most contributions focus on that elusive thing which I am suggesting to forget about.

[alden]

“A Maasai warrior is a fine sight. Those young men have, to the utmost extent, that particular form of intelligence which we call chic; daring and wildly fantastical as they seem, they are still unswervingly true to their own nature, and to an immanent ideal. Their style is not an assumed manner, nor an imitation of a foreign perfection; it has grown from the inside, and is an expression of the race and its history, and their weapons and finery are as much a part of their being as are a stag’s antlers.”

Isak Dinesen

My 93 year old acting teacher read this to the class last week as a description of fine acting, that is, truthful acting.

It is also a perfect definition of style.

Cheers