The perennial question of aesthetic decadence

[Luca]

Much as I enjoy classic menswear, I am grateful that I live at a time when I do not have to wear a three-piece suit, a tie and a hat every single day of my life to be considered respectable. Especially in summer or when I have to rise for work at 5:30, in the Northern winter, having gone to bed after midnight.

But I am dismayed by the use most men make of that freedom. It is not so much the lack of decorum I mind, outside of the many occasions when some would surely help, but the lack of imagination, of caring. I would much rather see someone parade down my high street creatively dressed as a punk than as most dads tumble out of their homes at the weekend.

And I don’t understand why things are so. People dedicate at least as much effort and money to decorating their homes as they ever did. In my lifetime the attention paid to the quality of food and drink has increased exponentially, outside of the few countries where it was already exceptional. Most middle class men drive cars that would have signalled significant privilege, when I was a child. It isn’t as if, generally, we are becoming a society of ascetic Spartans.

Why do so many equate ‘practicality’ and ‘informality’ with inchoate mediocrity only when it comes to clothing? Thoughts?

[Scot]

This is a really interesting question Luca, and something I have often thought about myself. There is certainly the issue of how one chooses to spend a limited disposable income. However, beyond that I think some men suffer from a kind of sartorial dyslexia. It is not even an attachment to informality. One of my colleagues wears a suit, shirt and tie every day. It is obvious he puts some thought into the shirt/tie combo, but rarely does he get it quite right. He buys RTW suits (frequently), probably from Marks & Spencer, and then makes them look even worse than they are by stuffing his pockets. In the end its just a "uniform" to him; practicality is clearly a consideration but I do wonder if he ever takes a step back and sees, beyond the elements of his dress, that he looks like a bag of coal tied up in the middle!

[Frederic Leighton]

Both modern western science and ancient ayurveda, at centuries of distance, have come to the same conclusion - the brain processes a fixed amount of information every second. Both believe that this number is in the region of 600. Six-hundred stimuli per second. The vast majority of these stimuli are filtered out by the brain, like when delighted by the food we are tasting we stop hearing the ticking of the wristwatch. When a significant amount of the remaining amount of information (few dozen thought-processes per second) is directed towards the same object, we experience focus of the mind.

In other words, if we think more about something, we will be thinking less about something else. Might this be related to the subject you propose to investigate, Luca?

[Luca]

One of my colleagues wears a suit, shirt and tie every day. It is obvious he puts some thought into the shirt/tie combo, but rarely does he get it quite right. He buys RTW suits (frequently), probably from Marks & Spencer, and then makes them look even worse than they are by stuffing his pockets. In the end its just a "uniform" to him; practicality is clearly a consideration but I do wonder if he ever takes a step back and sees, beyond the elements of his dress, that he looks like a bag of coal tied up in the middle!

I like the imagery of "a bag of coal tied up in the middle"

The man you mention respects the notion of 'correct' business dress and, based on what you say, attempts to do it well -- though he fails. I respect that; there is a consciousness that, while a secondary aspect, clothign isn't random. I'm quite sure it was for people like him that 'rules' of appropriatness were devised; liek all good rules it makes their life easier.

the brain processes a fixed amount of information every second ... When a significant amount of the remaining amount of information ... is directed towards the same object, we experience focus of the mind.

That seems reasonable. Again, I guess that if one does not want to devote their finite cerebral resources to clothes they can just follow some simple heuristics to avoid abject failure. But they don't

[rodes]

Luca, You raise some very interesting arguments that are keen to the moment in which we live. Men are spending more than ever (at least as much as ever) on cars, entertainment, food and drink, homes and a host of other pursuits. This spending includes both money and time. Yet the interest in aesthetic manners of dress seems to be at an all time low. This is quite unfortunate and beyond reasonable understanding. Not only does attention to ones outward presentation go a long way toward securing a happy life it is actually cheaper and easier to attain than those other pursuits. I am with you. Let us hope things change.

[hectorm]

...the interest in aesthetic manners of dress seems to be at an all time low.

Dear Rodes,
Not quite IMO.
I would say that the early 80´s was the all time low -at least for the eastern US. We have seen a significant rebound in sartorial interest since then.
Nowadays you no longer see track suits or running shoes worn at shopping centers, restaurants, etc. Bookstores all have a section about grooming, fashion, rules of what not to wear, etc. There are countless designers shops opening all over the place, each with a different -very different- niche in mind (FUBU, bicycle chic, prison garb, (slim) Suit Supply, gothic, retro, Gentleman´s Gazette, etc.)
We might not like the results that exercising one´s freedom has on the aesthetics of dress, but I don´t think that lack of interest has to do with it.

[gegarrenton]

Nowadays you no longer see track suits or running shoes worn at shopping centers, restaurants, etc.

I'd have to disagree here.

[Luca]

I think that, statistically, the percentage of people who walk around town wearing sweats / gym clothes / simplified workwear / cheap hiking clothes etc. (went massive in the 1990s-2000s and has not really budged. In that I agree with gegarrenton. If all the polyester fleeces, graphic T-shirts, cargo trousers/shorts, artificial fabric shoes, Yoga kits and denim-with-a-twist garments disappeared magically, 2/3 of our population would be naked.

Where I would side with hectorm is that there are (still minor) signs of renewed interest in elegant / traditional/ even retro male dress even among the young which is promising.

[gegarrenton]

Where I would side with hectorm is that there are (still minor) signs of renewed interest in elegant / traditional/ even retro male dress even among the young which is promising.

Yes, I quite agree with that as well.

[culverwood]

On the car front one could argue that the trend has been away from slow and luxurious cars to "ultimate driving machines" a trend towards the sporty. In house design the modern open plan look is again less formal than the sitting room, drawing room and dining room (the kitchen then being the territory of wives or servants). Instant meals and the success of Starbucks, MacDonalds and Subway etc are the other end of the food revolution.

So I do not suppose there is any more decadence in clothing than elsewhere in our lives.

[Luca]

There is certainly an element of subjectivity but, much as I like retro cars and furnishings, I don’t think there is substantially less effort put into achieving elegance in today’s interiors or in cars, compared to the 1930s or 1950s. Fashions and technology have changed but there is still, in most endeavours, a sense of trying to “look good” beyond mere utility. Not so much in clothing.

The point in my OP isn’t “why don’t people dress as in the 1930s?” (even though, a t times, I do…) but rather why do people who lavish great care on how their car or house or teeth or food or garden look don’t seem to care how their clothes look.

[mrleiter]

I believe that answer to that lies in the question itself. Due to the rather small community of well dressed gentlemen (let's put the subjective view of what is well and what is not aside), recognising a well dressed gentleman is also reserved for a rather small group of men. Hence investing in good clothing is not on the radar because of two very simple reasons: (i) it's rather high barrier of entry and more importantly (ii) the limited crowd that those person's egos urge to impress with it.

*I should add an example: let's assume (for the sake of the argument) I have an unlimited budget and that a sportscar costs as much as 15 bespoke suits. My preference solely rests on the recognisability of the goods. The choice is clear, then.

[hectorm]

why do people who lavish great care on how their car or house or teeth or food or garden look don’t seem to care how their clothes look?

Mmmh...
People who lavish great care on how their car or house, etc... look, also care how their clothes look.
Moreover, not only those people care. Almost everybody cares how his or her clothes look.
Every player in the garment industry has some sort of design and marketing organization behind. The premise is that people care about looks. Even those apparent slobs -who don´t seem to care because their results are aesthetically a failure- care. Even most of those frugal, bohemian or contrarian people who say that they are not interested in the superficiality of how their clothes look, are.
If there is decadence in dressing is not due to the lack of interest in looks.

[uppercase]

Teeth...?

[alden]

UC

We have quite a few Dentists on the LL.