Things to consider: vintage style and your style

[Fletch]

Browsing some old threads over at the Ask Andy and 10,000 Other Guys About Clothes Forum, I came upon a thought-provoking statement of principles about style (or fashion) in a discussion about the 3-roll-2 jacket.

Now I know they tolerate a rather more bare-knuckle tone over at Ask Andy than they do here at FL, and this particular thread had already seen its share of set-tos. So perhaps the poster wasn't in his most broadminded mood. But I sense he was pointing a veiled finger at FL - in any case, he had less than kind words for those who don't move with the times.

He seems to suggest - and maybe there's something to it - that true taste style lie outside one's own preferences, and may even overrule them. That dressing well is about being relevant, being connected to others, and - to some degree anyway - fitting in. And that it may actually show the best taste to change with the times just for the sake of the times.

How about you, fellow Loungers? Are you "dogmatic" - "scientific" - in your tastes, or do you approach them as "art"? Do you ape film stills or, worse, illustrations without a thought for originality? What would you say to someone who told you so?

Have you thought about what it means for you, as an intelligent human being, to take your style cues from a culture you can't really be part of - in fact, one that has all but ceased to function?

What do you think of "Of course not" as an answer to the question "Do people dress today as they did in Year X?" How about to "May people dress today as in Year X?"

Have you thought about what it means to be "well-dressed for today"? Do you even want to?

What, finally, is this guy saying? Why might he be saying it?

Hopefully some or all of this may jog your curiosity. I'd welcome anyone's opinions, or counter-opinions.

Dressing well is an art, not a science. Science presumes that there is one true, correct answer. Art does not. Science is to a great degree static - the journey mostly ends once we've solved for 'x', once we've discovered the answer, once we've come up with the formula that makes sense. Art is not static - it evolves.

We all know great art when we see it, and we all know trash or 'art' when we see it. We all also can tell the differences between similarly great works of art, even if we don't agree with the premise behind it - can one really say a Renoir is 'better' or 'worse' than Dali? So of course we can tell when someone is better/worse dressed, and being able to distinguish between variations of 'well-dressed' does not mean we lose the ability to discriminate between 'well-dressed' and 'not well-dressed'.

The problem with a great deal of this (and other) 'fashion/style' forums is that people become fixated with what they've taken to be (or made) dogma, and dressing up like some 50s movie star they've nominated as their 'style paragon'.

Even stranger, they attempt to copy looks off illustrations made in the 30s/40s/50s. Did Prince Edward VIII copy his 'looks' off cartoons and line drawings of people in the 1900s or 1890s? Of course not. Does Rubinacci copy a jacket's cut exactly off a 60s catalogue? Of course he doesn't. Does the Savile Row of today look exactly like the Savile Row of 1950? Of course not.

Dogma implies unchanging, inflexible. Art isn't - style isn't. If you want to dress in every way like someone considered well-dressed from the 50s or 60s, more power to you. But you're not well-dressed for today. You're well dressed for the 50s or 60s. There is a difference between 'new' and 'worse'. And to sepia-tone a 'golden age' of men's dress as hold it up as some form of 'lost ideal' is just sheer ridiculous - so there weren't any shabbily dressed people in that halcyon age?

My 0.02.

 

[Shangas]

Fashion is fleeting. It comes, it goes, and those who follow it play a game of clothing and accessory leapfrog every two years. Style is wearing what you want to wear and not giving a damn either way about what others say. One could argue that fashion is fearful, style is fearless.

 

[Hamilton_Honey]

It seems to me difficult to accurately gauge what the original post (beginning with "Dressing well is an art, not a science." ) may or may not be saying to a degree because I am looking at it out of context of the original discussion.

That said, my impression is that the poster is limiting his criticism to folks who seem to approach "dressing vintage" as an exercise in plagiarism.

I do agree with the statement that dressing well is an art, but I also believe there is some science involved - there are any number of "x" factors each person must solve to achieve proper fit, etc. for themselves, for example. Also, art is by it's very nature subjective, so how careful must I be in the critique of what another finds attractive...

I do not entirely agree with the statement made about cultural relevance overriding one's personal expression or preference. Indeed, we live in a culture in today's world, almost globally, which is more flexible than ever in it's boundaries of what is "acceptable" and "stylish" than any at other point in history - for that I am personally grateful.

I would also state that if the argument is for "dressing well as an art", why is one man's Renoir more or less relevant in that context than the other man's Picasso?

 

[Tiller]

Fashion is fleeting. It comes, it goes, and those who follow it play a game of clothing and accessory leapfrog every two years. Style is wearing what you want to wear and not giving a damn either way about what others say. One could argue that fashion is fearful, style is fearless.

Not to mention that Andy's forum is the Mecca of the "trad" subculture, and they ekk in fear at anyone who doesn't dress like a young George H.W. Bush in his college days. So pardon me if I don't laugh as they skretch about how dogmatic the vintage community is.

 

[avedwards]

I think the person who posted the article is narrow-minded. I agree that dressing is an art, though scientific principles (like which colours will match and which will clash) can be applied to an extent.

However, the person is implying that the whole vintage/retro community is badly dressed by today's standards. The person doesn't take note of the fact that old styles sometimes come back into fashion. Take double breasted suits: an old style but once again slowly coming into fashion.

Does Rubinacci copy a jacket's cut exactly off a 60s catalogue?

The person fails to notice that today's suits are a cross between 60s and 70s fashion (narrow lapels and slanted pockets respectively). So evidently designers partially base their designs on past styles.

Therefore, the person's argument that those who dress according to a certain actor or illustrations is badly dressed today is nonsense.

I think it can be said that some who dress in a vintage manor can be argued to dress badly. If they combine colours/patterns badly or wear things which do not suit them, then they are indeed badly dressed. But someone who wears a well-fitting vintage suit with complimenting shirt, tie, shoes and other accessories is undoubtedly well dressed both in the past and today. After all, suits are still worn today, so why would someone in a slightly more classically styled one be badly dressed?

As for the present, I can admit that some styles will also qualify as well-dressed. For example the before mentioned skinny-lapelled suits can be made to look good if worn with complimenting accessories. But modern styles can also qualify as badly dressed; for example drooping trousers worn too low exposing underwear with a baggy hoody. That's not to say all casual modern styles look bad. Jeans which fit and a nice shirt does look good and is commonly seen on well-dressed people.

Therefore, if my post makes any sense, we can conclude that the person criticising vintage styles has a poor argument and that "well-dressed" can apply to any clothing era and depends on how the individual wears the clothes and looks in them.

 

[Shangas]

Dogma implies unchanging, inflexible. Art isn't - style isn't. If you want to dress in every way like someone considered well-dressed from the 50s or 60s, more power to you. But you're not well-dressed for today. You're well dressed for the 50s or 60s. There is a difference between 'new' and 'worse'. And to sepia-tone a 'golden age' of men's dress as hold it up as some form of 'lost ideal' is just sheer ridiculous - so there weren't any shabbily dressed people in that halcyon age?

I honestly do not agree with this a single bit. Who's to say that just because you wear clothes which were more common in a different era, you're not well-dressed at all? That makes no sense at all. They may not be as COMMON today as they were say, 50 or 60 years ago, but I daresay if I walked down the street and met a man wearing a three-piece suit, a tie and a hat, I would consider him well-dressed, despite the fact that almost nobody's dressed like that in the past 20 years at least.

What is considered 'well-dressed' cannot be measured against what is fashionable at the time. Well-dressed is a perception or an image we wish to project of being neat and presentable, not keeping up with current fashion-trends.

 

[Cobden]

I think one of the forgotten problems is that fashionable clothes only suit those who have the fashionable body type/shape - which the vast majority of us don't have. Whilst more noticable with women's clothes and body shape fashion (slender yet "boyish" figures being fashionable in the 1920's, but not in the 1980's - hence a women with a slender yet boyish figure will look better in 20's fashionable clothes then in those that were fashionable in the 1980's), it exist too with men, where the current fashion seems to be for taller lankier men - which I am not, and thus modern fashion doesn't physically suit me. I have short legs and a long body, hence I find high waisted wide legged trousers with turnups of the 1930's style more flattering - the wider but not too wide lapels and shoulder padding both mask what are in all honesty my bloody weird, rather feminine, natural shoulders and braces and a waistcoat counteract my natural tendency to slouch forward like Groucho Marx. If I were to to wear "trendy" daywear, such as the womens jeans, polo shirt, cardigan and converses (seems to be the fashion here at the moment, at any rate) I'd look a plonker. Even modern suits, which are rather 1950's or 60's in cut, don't suit me - low waisted pleatless trousers make my little leggies look even littler, and skinny lapels make me look fat (which, whilst not exactly svelte, I am miles away from the appearance of one who has eaten all the pies).

It's also for reasons of what suits me and what doesn't that I tend not to follow what is perhaps the most recognisable aspect of 1930's apparell: I do not wear a fedora everyday. They don't really suit me (though I grant you, if it's cold I will wear one). In fact, the only hats that really suit me are pith helmets - which is hardly appropriate for Sussex, even in the height of summer! I also prefer spreadier collars then spearpoints for similar reasons - they just suit my neck better (spearpoints tend to give me a Clive Anderson-ish "I have no neck" look) - though collar pins through spearpoints tend to suit me too.

Of course, this is just aspects of what suits me physically. There is also what suits my personality, and what I just happen to like and dislike (which for me, I freely admit, is exceedingly illogical).

 

[Fletch]

Not to mention that Andy's forum is the Mecca of the "trad" subculture, and they ekk in fear at anyone who doesn't dress like a young George H.W. Bush in his college days. So pardon me if I don't laugh as they skretch about how dogmatic the vintage community is.

The poster at Andy's (on page 4 or 5 of the thread, IIRC) actually seemed to be rebutting some of the trads on that forum, who "solve for x" in their clothing and then let it go at that.

The 3R2 jacket is a good example. Andyans regularly get into earnest debate about the relative Correctness of a high roll 3B, low roll 3B, or the 3-roll-only-2 ("3RO2"?) with the cut-back underlapel, so it pulls if you button the top and makes you look like a dufus. Those not arguing a specific style as most Correct are, apparently, a minority over there.

In that light, it seems our opinionmaker may be saying, "Wear what suits you - as long as it's relevant." I still question that taste has to do with relevance. We have to be appropriate - for the occasion, the weather, the surroundings - but we don't necessarily have to be relevant to some greater context - which may not have anything to do with us personally, and which is, most likely, a subtle kind of fashion, not style.

Because I like irritating you, and myself, let's consider a more extreme position yet, from a women's clothes advice blog, SoStyled.com:

...everything...has an expiration date. There's no Style without Fashion; and Fashion moves on. Regularly. "Good Style" is passing. It doesn't matter if you're 20 or 60.

This kind of thing always makes me think of a good careerist, someone who's internalized the ethos of her industry. Maybe of all industry.

 

[skyvue]

All I know is, I get more compliments on my appearance since I started wearing vintage suits and sport coats on a virtually daily basis than I ever did before. I've had people stop me on the street to tell me how sharp I look (and I am most definitely not the savviest of dressers -- there are many on this board who know far more than I do about vintage wear and have much more impressive wardrobes than I do).

Just yesterday, while strolling an antiques market here in Oklahoma City (where I'm spending the holidays), a good ol' boy in work boots, a trucker cap, faded jeans, and a western shirt approached me and said, "I've sure been enjoying your get-up. My wife and I both have really enjoyed the way you're dressed."

I was wearing a sport coat, trousers, and tie, all from the Fifties (I think), and contemporary wingtip shoes and an Akubra Fedora model hat.

I wasn't at all offended by his use of "get-up" but I did want to make sure he knew I wasn't wearing what might be considered a costume.

"Thanks very much," I said. "That's very kind of you. I dress this way every day."

"Well, you look really sharp," he said. "We've really enjoyed it."

So I don't know -- I suppose I'd pleased if that AskAndy poster were to tell me I passed muster despite wearing vintage clothing, but I also took great pleasure from an unexpected compliment offered by a gentleman who, I'm guessing, rarely has occasion to dress up, who appreciated my ensemble as a sort of blast from the past.

 

[Feraud]

It's apples and oranges.
I don't mind if someone doesn't share my aesthetic but pitting one against the other is no argument. Fashion and Style are two very different creatures. Or I should clarify that last comment as different creatures from the same family tree.

 

[Tiller]

"ekk and skretch"...such neologisms.

With enough work it will be used by everyone mark my words .

BEHOLD! The future of style! Look at the glamor, the bravery, and the artistic unscientific style that all open minded fashion geniuses strive for! As always the geniuses of Stone and Parker who have brought us such hits as South Park have now taken the fashion scene by storm! Rejecting all of those scientific (and undoubtedly evil) vintage fear mongers criticism, Stone and Parker have pushed into the artistic realm that only cross dressers have dared to cross before. Behold the manliness that only exist by the ultra rejection of it, and embrace of the feminine! The complete embrace of change and rejection of any dogmatic bonds, of tradition! Truly they have invented a new fashion that will soon be taken up by young men (and the fashion sensitive youth challenged) around the western world.

But as far as you knuckle dragging, dogmatic, "vintage" fans who hold onto your silly beliefs the future brave new world will allow hats as long as they are powder blue and are combined with a synthetic powder blue fur coat.

All who refuse to accept these great artistic changes are dogmatic fools who are not to be trusted! Ignore them! Ridicule them! :rage: :rage: :rage:

 

[Senator Jack]

You still haven't figured out those guys at AA are squares?

 

[Fletch]

Sure they are. But even a square has the right angle some of the time. lol HARDEEHARHAR

 

[HarpPlayerGene]

Interestin'....

It's a case of absolutes/extremes in the SF post. Although I personally do not have any ill will toward someone who is "dogmatic" about only wearing period accurate vintage clothing all the time in every detail, I wouldn't be comfortable doing it. Furthermore, there are very, very few who fit that description so the argument by the SF poster is a little flimsy in it's derision of vintage wearers.

For me, it's a mixed bag and that makes me happy, comfortable and confident in my clothing (both contemporary and vintage), and it seems to go over well with those who know/see/meet me. I'm just a damn sucker for all kinds of threads and shoes, boots, hats, et al. I like the '40s suit/fedora look and have some occasions to sport that. I like the western look (think more Redford than Roy Rogers). I like loud aloha shirts in the summer. I like leather jackets of varying styles and ages. I like that clean, casual Columbia and Patagonia look whether actually hiking or just hanging out. I wear jeans most of the time and that takes the edge off wearing a seventy year old fedora and waistcoat over rolled up sleeves on an English poplin dress shirt.

There are very few who look good to me in completely up-to-the-minute fashion ensembles. Too trendy usually and poor quality compared to the manufacture from decades ago. Similarly, it is the rare individual who can be taken totally seriously when in head-to-toe '30s or '40s clothing all the time. It can easily appear as a costume.

With all that said, if someone told me I was doing the wrong thing by owning and wearing so many '30s -'50s hats, jackets, shoes, etc., I'd say, "Yeah, OK", and I'd keep doing things just the way I have been.

 

[Lauren]

How about you, fellow Loungers? Are you "dogmatic" - "scientific" - in your tastes, or do you approach them as "art"? Do you ape film stills or, worse, illustrations without a thought for originality? What would you say to someone who told you so?

I am not really sure what I am. If I'm going for a period look, I try to be as authentic as possible, but I still take into consideration proportion, color, and what line would be flattering to me. There's no point in wearing something that was the rage simply because it was- without thought as to how it would translate to my particular type and body composition. So I guess there is a bit of science in it- though I can't necessarily always tell if a look is for me until I see it hang on me in a full length mirror- with proper hair and makeup. I try to be pretty honest with my faults- even if they're just self-perceived- but I do know what does NOT suit me, and I'm honest with myself about it. There are as many looks back then as there are now and the more you learn the more you can pick and choose what is and isn't suited to you in a particular era. Reading etiquette and dress manuals from back then certainly helps- and lots of ladies made faux pas back then as well- see this post and this post on my blog from the book Designing Women from 1938.


Have you thought about what it means for you, as an intelligent human being, to take your style cues from a culture you can't really be part of - in fact, one that has all but ceased to function?
With vintage being as popular as it is now, I can choose to adapt vintage pieces to my modern wardrobe with less thought than I did in the past. I do think it's important for me to be able to converse and interact with people I come across in every day life- regardless of their dress preference- so I do tone it down in everyday dress. Plus, for me, it doesn't make sense to spend hours primping. I honestly don't enjoy doing it, so it's no skin off of my back if I'm in modern clothes one day and vintage inspired the next, and mix and match it the day after that- but all with minimal hair and makeup unless I'm going to a vintage event or have a day planned to dress that way.

What do you think of "Of course not" as an answer to the question "Do people dress today as they did in Year X?" How about to "May people dress today as in Year X?"
There are very few people who pull off an authentic vintage look in modern times. There are many more vintage inspired or dressing to a similar aesthetic, but head to toe authentic vintage isn't quite as common. If you put aside aesthetics and look at facts- it is actually arguable that people are following similar ideas in dress- there are different ways to dress in context to where you're going, with whom, and what sort of society you wish to belong to. Women still spend hours on makeup and hair, and love shopping. There are people who still look awful and don't understand what to wear to what and why, just like there were back in the golden era- but our perception of them has been ingrained in materials that have survived- good pictures of people all dressed up, movies, magazines- but if you look at people from less wealthy backgrounds and even at yearbooks, you'll find not everyone dressed well, classy, stylish, or as best suited their figure- just like now.

Have you thought about what it means to be "well-dressed for today"? Do you even want to?
I think being well dressed today takes into consideration the same artistic principles as then- but following modern standards of dress. Before there was What Not To Wear there was Edith Head- who gave makeover tips to women on Television occasionally. Fashion is the same monster no matter what era you prefer.

What, finally, is this guy saying? Why might he be saying it?
I think he's trying to say that being well dressed is in relation to the era we find ourselves in. Just as many here can't appreciate a modern well-dressed person (which, in my opinion, can be considered completely seperately from a fashionable person), many modern people cannot understand someone well dressed from preceding eras. Modern culture shapes our impression, and trains our artistic eye. A good example of what I mean can be visibly seen in period costume movies. Until very recently histoical accuracy was put aside for what the modern eye comprehends as historical fashion- regardless of it's authenticity. In the 1940s, Victorian film actresses often had massive "Victory" rolls, in the 1950s they had bullet bras, in the 1960s they had zippers up the back, in the 1970s their hair was feathered, in the 1980s they had massive ugly ruffles, in the 1990s all decoration was left off for sleek lines, and in the 00's you'll see modern makeup with period styles. In the present time you might think the costumes are VERY authentic, but look back on it in ten years and then see what you think. Look at The Aviator and Atonement, and see what I mean for modern film.

I guess that's long winded, but there's my two cents.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Have you thought about what it means for you, as an intelligent human being, to take your style cues from a culture you can't really be part of - in fact, one that has all but ceased to function?

Personally, I prefer to think of it as "following the traditional ways of my people."

 

[23SkidooWithYou]

He seems to suggest - and maybe there's something to it - that true taste style lie outside one's own preferences, and may even overrule them. That dressing well is about being relevant, being connected to others, and - to some degree anyway - fitting in. And that it may actually show the best taste to change with the times just for the sake of the times.

I believe the exact opposite. True taste is NEVER beyond ones personal preference. The genuinely stylish people of this world require fashion trends to bend to them, not the other way around. So, while they may pick or choose a current element of style, they never let it wear them completely.

I also feel a bit sorry for anyone who feels that it's the clothes on your back that make you "relevant" and allow people to "connect" with you. You "fit in" by how you treat your fellow man, not by if he likes your dress or shoes.

I feel vintage lovers, especially those who wish to wear it completely and authentically, have it harder than those following modern "style". There are no current magazines, TV shows, department stores, sales flyers, billboards or movie stars of today showing anyone how to live the styles of yesteryear. All we have are those movie stills and memories of how it was. To me, education, even when it deals with fashion, is an evolution. I might be guilty of aping a certain look from a movie still, but believe me...it's temporary. As I discover and learn about style past, I'll also discover what I feel looks good on me and what I feel comfortable wearing. I'll adapt what I like and pitch what doesn't work...same as if I were seeking modern dress attire.

In a nutshell...if designers mutate and regurgitate crop tops and acid wash jeans and the entire universe decides this is THE hottest look of the moment...you still won't see my hide in them! lol

 

[Fletch]

Personally, I prefer to think of it as "following the traditional ways of my people."

Now just you wait one cotton pickin' minute there girlie. Folkways are a fine thing to have. But any cultural anthropologist knows from the time they're yea high that folkways are defined a priori, ipso facto, ab initio and six ways from Sunday as pre-industrial - and ideally, outside the capitalist system of exchange.

What that means, for us poor birds stuck in the snows of the 21st century pecking for stray morsels of the 20th, is that at least as far as our material desires are concerned, we ain't got no folkways worthy of the name.

Don't try weaseling out by calling what you love "art," either. They're a step ahead of you there, too. (Remember the old rule: it's only art if you can't take a leak in it. I'm not sure where this leaves, say, analog records or classic film, but I'll deal with that another time.)

I feel vintage lovers, especially those who wish to wear it completely and authentically, have it harder than those following modern "style". There are no current magazines, TV shows, department stores, sales flyers, billboards or movie stars of today showing anyone how to live the styles of yesteryear. [...] I might be guilty of aping a certain look from a movie still, but believe me...it's temporary. As I discover and learn about style past, I'll also discover what I feel looks good on me and what I feel comfortable wearing. I'll adapt what I like and pitch what doesn't work...

It is harder. One of the reasons it's harder is that we're all dumb enough bunnies to have gotten ourselves trapped, if you will, in between significances.

As I said, what we love is an industrial product abandoned by industry, made to meet a market that no longer is one, incorporating handwork techniques more and more abandoned by craftspeople - and to add the final insult, it isn't even worth a damn as art or history. And if you ain't art, you ain't commerce, and you ain't even history - to quote a novelty song of 1934, "you're nothin' but a nothin' - you're not a thing at all."

Consider the worst case, folks - that we're all just trashpickers. Grubby, ignorant collectors, rooting thru the slagheap of civilization. Little infantilized ids yowling for what has been taken from us to be put back. Adult children of consumerism, sad or jealous or obsessive or hungry for something we can't even name. I suppose if we were better socialized, we'd be alcoholics or sexaholics or workaholics. [huh] Thank dog we're not.

 

[PrettySquareGal]

We're all just grubby collectors rooting thru the slagheap of civilization - little infantilized ids yowling for what has been taken from us to be put back. Adult children of consumerism, sad or jealous or obsessive or hungry for something we can't even name. I suppose if we were better socialized, we'd be alcoholics or sexaholics or workaholics.

[huh]

This sounds like a future commercial from Big Pharma offering a pill to solve this new and horrific disorder, Nostalgic Adult Children of Consumerism.

 

[Lauren]

Consider the worst case, folks - that we're all just trashpickers.

Darn! I thought no one caught me! lol Never happier than when up the the elbows in people's old junk. It's NOT glamorous, but it's fun. Thrill of the hunt.
Well, mass media is catching up with us. Vintage is hot now- and coincides with the "green" movement. But don't worry- it will move on to the next greatest thing soon and we'll all just be dorks again. lol