Take pleasure in your dress

[alden]

I have removed this post written by Montauk from its thread and am posting it here because it is excellent and sums up neatly a good deal of our common ethic in the LL:


It seems to me that Flusser, by spending so much time in this interview discussing such relatively esoteric sartorial points as collar shape, missed a rare opportunity to address the state of men's dress more fundamentally before a large and general audience. The primary issue, after all, is not that men don't wear higher-quality or better-chosen tailored clothing, but that they don't wear tailored clothing at all if they can help it. Whatever his (and our) finely-tuned and highly-held notions of dressing well, the fact is that it's all well over the heads of the Average Joe, who would perhaps like to look better but who probably requires a more philosophically robust rationale for "dressing up" than that doing so will slim his face or fatten his paycheck.

I believe that that rationale can still be found where it's always been--in a sense of pleasure rather than knowledge (or "information" as Flusser rather apologetically terms it). Having absorbed the fundamentals of sartorial grammar while still schoolboys, men in the 1930s looked great because they unabashedly had FUN with the tailored clothes which they wore elegantly and appropriately in social contexts far beyond business or work. Fashion was something they followed with a conneuseur's eye rather than a consumer's anxiety. I suspect that the aspirational "dress for success" school of sartorial instruction has, ironically, done more to dampen popular enthusiasm for tailored clothing than to expand or refine it, robbing it of the "cool" it possessed before the term was coined. As all the great dressers have known, traditional men's clothing is worn best--and most effectively--with a healthy dollop of unpretentious bonhommie rather than starchy prescription or corporate ambition. Power, if one is bothered with such a thing, is after all conferred by ease.

A gentleman in the true sense, of course, is NOT concerned with power, or prestige; he genuinely loves his clothes for their own sake, wearing them with care and confidence and without ostentation or shame. That kind of unapologetic authenticity is the real stuff of masculinity; it's never lost its power to impress, but even more importantly, it's every bit as much fun as it ever was. Remind men of that much and they'll teach themselves the details.

[uppercase]

Excellent! So true.

[shredder]

I feel that a key notion here is FUN. The antithesis is to take it too seriously, and to take clothes too seriously, unless one makes them, is like taking oneself too seriously, which in my book is a very ungentlemanly thing to do.

[Gruto]

I do agree that fun and humour is very important to the art of dressing well. Seriousness may overpower the vital element of ease. On the hand, fun dressing that works is the privilege of the experienced dresser. Most newcomers (for instance me) need to learn about rules and details, even though some of them are misleading, before going to Level Fun. Fun dressing without any knowledge of rules and details may very easily become circus dressing, without the "fun" dresser himself knows it. I've seen many examples of that. Good old Marx called it the Don Quijote effect.

[shredder]

Invariably, it is more fun to break rules when one is aware that one is breaking them. So, yes, Gruto, I think you presented a valid premise.

[Costi]

Montauk, allow me to congratulate you for having so succesfully put into few well chosen words some fundamentals of dress. Elegance is a state of grace of the soul and of the mind. If the soul is anxious and the mind concerned, it will show in the dresser’s choices. If one strives to mask this imbalance or create a disguise, that will also show in one’s dress. Most dressers we ALL admire were / are open-minded, generous, high-spirited men whose dress simply reflects WHO they are. Then there are those whose contrived dress reflects WHAT they do or want to be. There is a big difference…

[storeynicholas]

Invariably, it is more fun to break rules when one is aware that one is breaking them. So, yes, Gruto, I think you presented a valid premise.

Indeed - and it is arguable that it is no fun at all; besides the fact that breaking rules out of ignorance leaves no leaway for fun as the original parameters are unknown.
NJS

[uppercase]

If one strives to mask this imbalance or create a disguise, that will also show in one’s dress. Most dressers we ALL admire were / are open-minded, generous, high-spirited men whose dress simply reflects WHO they are. Then there are those whose contrived dress reflects WHAT they do or want to be. There is a big difference…

Very nicely put, Costi!

[shredder]

Invariably, it is more fun to break rules when one is aware that one is breaking them. So, yes, Gruto, I think you presented a valid premise.

Indeed - and it is arguable that it is no fun at all; besides the fact that breaking rules out of ignorance leaves no leaway for fun as the original parameters are unknown.
NJS

Indeed, it is a difference in kind rather than degree. I made Aristotle turn in his grave, but you put the old geezer at ease again!!

[Maxomoto]

Many true words. I also always had the impression, that most the "how to dress" books tend to move the sartorial illiterate readers in the wrong direction and away from a confident, own style.

There was a post a few weeks ago on "dressing to old for someones age" - and I think there are a lot of parallels with Montauks statement.

You need to have fun dressing. It shouldn't be a burden - something that needs to be done following cookbook-style-recipes found in books and on AAAF to achieve a goal like "looking sharp" or "be successful at work". (Nevertheless one needs information since most of us are not provided with it from our parents/peers).

Most of the time I see people that look like somebody put them into their suits/clothes and they just don't feel "at home". They feel insecure and therefore look insecure. Or they try to hard - thinking that creates style or "sprezzatura" - and look even worse.

Without a love for attire, for the garments, for dressing - one will never look really good (even if coached by Mr. Flusser). It is said it takes 10.000 hours to "master" something. This implies it needs a lot of suits, shirts, shoes - a lot of time wearing them with pride and interest - a lot of time in front of a mirror and experimenting with combinations until a natural style develops. Extreme "jumps" or shortcuts in this process won't work. Love and passion need time to develop. Most things become fun after one is proficient in the basics and starts to experiment. It's the same with sports, or cooking, or the arts, Why should it be different with "dressing the man"?

Regards,


Max

[ajoman]

I thoroughly agree.

It has only been 3 years that I have had any interest at all in dress, so I remember feeling somewhat like an imposter and uncomfortable in suiting and shirts, and I'm sure I looked that way as well. It was only through interest and dedication that I was able to experiment enough, learn the rules of dress, and actually develop an aesthetic that I feel comfortable in and believe looks good.

It is rare in our culture for individuals to choose to invest time and considerable resources into suiting. I personally feel that it is an art form to dress well, to combine colors and forms into something beautiful, and like so many artists it takes an understanding of the rules to know how to work within and outside of them to create good art, which is a process I am sure will be ongoing.

[SV]

ajoman,

I'm pleased to hear about your experience on starting to wear suits. I have yet to arrive there but I think I will go trough similar sentiments. I am anxious to get started.

SV