Trend in dressing like a crazy person

[Quigley Brown]

What movie about the future had people wearing two ties? Now it's going to drive me crazy.

Regards,

Senator Jack

Oh come on. It's Marty McFly in the future in 'Back To The Future.' I'm way ahead of my time, arent I?

 

[John in Covina]

, only about 10 or 12 times larger. Enormous tee- shirts and short or long pants of equal proportions. They are getting wealthy selling sloppy, ripped, faded old garbage that one would expect to find in a dump, to people that have been convinced that they look cool wearing it! A bizarre paradox in that people will pay big bucks to look like a penniless bum.

Here in California, the trend over the last 20 years is: what the gang members wear, then gets worn by the rappers, gets seen on MTV and then the whole country has teens trying to emulate the look. Qversized clothing, and what's with having your pants halfway down to your knees so everyone sees your boxer shorts. These crimnals don't have style they only live in excess, too big clothes too much jewelry. I was never so disappointed as when I realized the teens wanted to emulate the Crips and the Bloods.

It is disgusting.

 

[Senator Jack]

Cool and within the constructs of what goes where

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Gosh,.....

Quigley,

I think your double tie statment could become
a fasion trend!

SC

....I hope not!

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

I agree

Here in California, the trend over the last 20 years is: what the gang members wear, then gets worn by the rappers, gets seen on MTV and then the whole country has teens trying to emulate the look. Qversized clothing, and what's with having your pants halfway down to your knees so everyone sees your boxer shorts. These crimnals don't have style they only live in excess, too big clothes too much jewelry. I was never so disappointed as when I realized the teens wanted to emulate the Crips and the Bloods.

It is disgusting.

All the trends in fashion seem to have their origin in the entertainment industry. First, Hollywood, and now television. Many people are led to believe that they too will be as "successful" as the celebrities they watch on TV, if they wear the same style of clothing. Also, it is much easier to just wear whatever,...as opposed to making an effort to look well dressed. And so, I also think the population is becoming just plain lazy. 61 percent of Americans are now overweight,rather than make an effort to lose the extra pounds, they simply camouflage with BIG clothes.

 

[Mr. Rover]

Well, many of the styles here are influenced by the entertainment industry as well, albeit entertainment from 50+ years ago.

ray

 

[BellyTank]

Reminds me of Me circa 1978...

B
T

 

[Harry Lime]

Completely agree with the lady.

So mainstream america cannot have a trend? or a look ? Even if the 'look' is stupid or silly, its much the same thing as any other social group having a look. Just because it doesnt work, in your opinion, doesnt mean that he agrees.


Issues to do with self identity and how you reflect it in dress, are fairly difficult to call. What if that guy or kid, doesnt seem himself as mainstream at all? He sees himself as a trendy hipster who is stretching the boundaries of what 'mainstream' tolerates.

Much like people who dress in vintage do...or people who wear biker garb...or any other subgroup.

d

There seems to be a double standard going on in this thread (and in many similar ones.) The "I was staring at someone because they dressed in a way that I think is lousy and I don't get it" often followed with the "why do I get stares when I dress the way I do because I look great and others need to emulate me." If you like the way you dress, fine. If you don't like the way others dress, fine, deal, ignore it. The truly stylish grab bits and pieces from all eras, mix them elegantly and in interesting ways, wear them and keep it to themselves. Judging others on their clothing is really a sign of insecurity - many wear what they wear because they don't want to be exactly like you or anyone else. That's cool.

I like when young people express themselves and wear interesting clothing, including hats they like in the way they like. Much more interesting than young men acting and thinking like old men, in my opinion. (No, I'm disparaging vintage clothing - just the act of wearing it head-to-toe like the only acceptable and worthy uniform for everyone.)

Harry Lime

 

[Senator Jack]

I guess no one is really understanding the point I'm trying to make, though I've iterated it some five times already. There's a line between style, whatever that style is, good or bad, whether it's acceptable or not, to you , to me, to anyone that has an opinion, and out and out nuttiness. It may be an incredibly fine line, but if there's no line here, then there should be no line between sanity and madness. Would you be able to go to the opera wearing a suit made of beer cans? Would it not attract the attention of the authorities. Clearly, if someone is a performer, an artist, then a suit made of beer cans would probably be acceptable,but to sit in a restaurant in a suit made of beer cans, ordering your fusilli as though you weren't wearing a suit made of beer cans could certainly be thought of as a sign of madness.

Maybe the kid was a situationist. Maybe he was a dadaist. I don't know for sure, but I would say that's highly doubtful. I've been around a bit my friends, and my eyes are red with the things I've seen, but in the last six months I've been exponentially seeing things that are making me question the sanity of the public.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[lenj]

Cans

I have been to the opera many times in recent years and there are more people in near beer-can attire than not; they seemed fine with it, so they would probably say I am out of step.

lenj

 

[Hemingway Jones]

There is nothing wrong with critiquing a certain mode of dress and placing a value judgement as a topic of conversation. I know that is considered taboo; to place any sort of value judgement on anything anymore. But, that is part of what we do here on the Lounge, and if we didn't, we would loose a large piece of what we talk about.

No one is relegating these people to secondary-citizenship status or social ostracision. We are merely saying we disapprove of a style of dress, and well out of their earshot, I imagine. It is a subject to kick around and to enjoy each other's informed opinion of how a certain style of today contradicts some of the standards of style we are all accostumed to.

I am merely saying that I wouldn't dress that way and if I had kids I wouldn't dress them that way. Some things look silly, and being miss-matched and dissheveled in a formal setting or a public setting is silly. Some things are self-evident.

BTW, in the photo that was posted the gentleman matches. It is an attempt at style that doesn't work for me, but at least he matches. Hey, I wouldn't wear a necktie as a belt either, but Fred Astair got away with it.

I think it would be interesting if we discussed the meaning of "style." Is it truly a "style" to dress this way? As I understand the word, a style is a very particular manner of design with an element of sophistication and elegance. Does this hodge-podge fit the definition of the word, not what we wish the word would mean?

 

[Senator Jack]

Posted by Hemingway Jones:

Does this hodge-podge fit the definition of the word

Hodge-podge! Thank you HJ. That's exactly what I mean. Hip hop style may be baggy shorts with boxers sticking out, but it's not a hodge-podge. It's got its own look and when people who like that style get it right, they look stylish. I'm not going to take that away from anyone even if I don't like the style. You know when people have it, you know when they don't. You know when they're just, well, hodge-podge.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[John in Covina]

Fashion is supposed to be a statement, not a question.

A friend of mine said that when the receptionist came in wearing an outfit that simply didn't "go" together well.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

From June 1998 to June 2005, I lived full-time in Santiago, Chile. When I first arrived, it was like "style heaven". All kids wore uniforms to school, complete with striped neckties (worn by both boys and girls). Practically every man in the city -- from the captains of industry to the youngest office boys, known there as "juniors" -- wore six-button double-breasted suits. Fedoras were not uncommon. Athletic shoes (sneakers) were worn ONLY for athletic activities. Short pants were almost never worn on the street, even on the hottest summer days. Khakis -- not jeans -- were de rigueur for the weekends. Men's and women's outfits were tasteful and well-coordinated. In many ways, Santiago's people resembled those of any big U.S. city in the 1950s.

After two years, I was bored to death with it.

I missed seeing variety in dress. I wanted something different, even if it was in questionable taste.

 

[nightandthecity]

I think we need to try and define ?¢‚Ǩ?ìwell dressed?¢‚Ǩ? and see if we can take it beyond simple subjective opinion.

I would suggest that the being well dressed implies first and foremost that clothes are well made from good quality materials and that they are fit for their intended function. A raincoat, for example, should as a minimal requirement keep out the rain, and a good quality raincoat should keep out anything mother nature throws at it, allow the body to breathe, keep the wearer warm, be comfortable to wear, have necessary provision for the safe storage of personal items, and be built to last.

It follows, of course, that the total outfit should also be suited for the intended purpose. Sorry, but wearing the finest white linen suit in the world during a blizzard is being badly dressed. This is where teenagers and young adults usually trip up, they will insist on wearing their favourite item regardless of place and time. I still remember struggling through a particularly hot summer in my first Irvin jacket?¢‚Ǩ¬¶..

Finally - and this is where it starts getting subjective - I think that the items in an outfit should be aesthetically well matched in terms of proportions, colours etc. But finding agreement on what is ?¢‚Ǩ?ìwell matched?¢‚Ǩ? can be problematic. I personally subscribe to an aesthetic of subtle restraint which avoids bright colours, glaring contrasts etc. - for example, I wouldn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t mix greens/browns with blues/blacks, and I rarely wear reds and yellows. I was appalled to see in a recent thread a recommendation to be ?¢‚Ǩ?ìdaring?¢‚Ǩ? and wear brown shoes with a blue suit! But then, I have inherited a British tradition which descends from Beau Brummel and his contemporaries and which many would see as drab?¢‚Ǩ¬¶.so yes, now we are in the area of the subjective, lets get back to the concrete?¢‚Ǩ¬¶.

Several things follow from all this. First, wearing what our culture at present considers ?¢‚Ǩ?ìsmart?¢‚Ǩ? clothes is not in itself anything to do with being well dressed. Most be-suited businessmen I see walking the streets break nearly every one of my rules?¢‚Ǩ¬¶whereas (to borrow Jack?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s references) the average biker is very well dressed. Indeed, I have long suspected that the popularity of jeans and a t-shirt reflects the fact that this is one of the few ways almost anyone can dress well and cheaply (though most ruin it by adding trainers, an abomination in footwear that should have no place outside the running field, not to mention those ridiculous pre-distressed jeans?¢‚Ǩ¬¶..)

Secondly, owning good clothes does not guarantee you will be well dressed. That?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s down to what you actually do with those clothes.

Finally - lets get all this in proportion. I am fairly obsessive about clothes but I would regard it as one of the - ahem - shallower of my many interests. Indeed, sometimes it bothers me that I spend all this money on clothes that could go on books, records, furniture, travel etc. At times some of these threads come close to suggesting there is some sort of moral value in being well dressed. Tell that to Al Capone and Ghandi. Some of the finest people I know can?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t even manage to match their socks. Many of the best dressed people I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ve known were criminals.

 

[Paisley]

What I generally notice is people that to my eyes, dress as though they were still in their junior high school gym class uniforms, only about 10 or 12 times larger. Enormous tee- shirts and short or long pants of equal proportions. It's almost a sports look,........or, err,..... a sports wannabe look? Maybe people who are very obviously non- athletic, think that they look athletic while wearing athletic clothing??

Yes, I've noticed that a lot of men my age (I'm 37) look like giant five-year-olds. It's as if everything they ever knew about getting dressed, they learned in kindergarten.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

I was appalled to see in a recent thread a recommendation to be ?¢‚Ǩ?ìdaring?¢‚Ǩ? and wear brown shoes with a blue suit! But then, I have inherited a British tradition which descends from Beau Brummel and his contemporaries and which many would see as drab?¢‚Ǩ¬¶.

I agree with everything you have written except the line I quoted. I think that brown shoes with a blue suit is absolutely smashing, albeit a bit flashy. I know that it is firmly rooted in the Italian tradition.

In any case, blue suits are problematic because, in some quarters, it is taboo to wear black shoes with a blue suit, and you are stating that brown is verboten. So, that pretty much leaves cordovan.

Anyway, this is a digression. 'Sorry about that.

 

[Senator Jack]

Yes, the old blue suit/brown shoes question. A tough one. I see it in a film and it looks right. I see it on the street and it looks wrong, especially if one doesn't have the perfect topcoat or hat to match.

As for blue suit/black shoes being verboten, I've never heard that one before. Anyone care to shed some light on that argument?

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

[3PieceSuitGuy]

The thing with fashion is...

that it is just that - fashion. There will always be those that push the envelope for better or worse. At his inauguration Kennedy didn't wear a hat and almost overnight men took that as permission to stop wearing hats. They are still around thank god and becoming more and more accepted again with holes in the ozone layer etc. Gable and his cohorts stopped wearing a-shirts and so did a lot of men. For their times they pushed the envelope and a lot of people followed.

Look where Madonna started - looking like a ragamuffin and now she is photographed wearing tweed. There are people that will be followed for their style and I guess that the hip hop guys are the same. They push the envelope and their fans copy. Personally I wouldn't be seen dressed like that but people have the right to do it and they will do it. Look at someone like P Diddy who wears the baggy stuff but then when he puts on a suit he knows how to wear it.

Have a look at the high fashion designers and some of the stuff they show on the runway, you wouldn't wear it in a fit, but it shows off their "art" and what they can do with some cloth and imagination.

Whether you love it or hate it fashion will always evolve. I get what you are saying though Senator - a tie outside the jacket is just wrong. I agree with you and I wish that people took more time and effort with how they looked. But then on the flipside maybe they do take the same time and effort, they just have a different look that they want to acheive. Some of us just don't like the end result. I guess they say different strokes.....

I personally will wear a suit and tie whenever I can, and when I have some spare cash I am going to build my hat collection. Rest assured my tie will be where it should be.

Cheers

Peter

 

[Harry Lime]

The old "Kennedy killed hats" myth.

It's become a pretty firmly held notion that Kennedy killed hats (it's been discussed before) by not wearing one at his inauguration. There seems to be evidence that this really isn't true.

1) A hat worn at a formal event like that would have been a top hat or homburg, not a fedora.

2) I've read (and own) quite a few "Hat Life" magazines and yearbooks. The hat industry, numbers wise, decline actually goes back a lot farther. Hat sales started declining in something like 1918 and did so every year, I believe, until recently. This industry mag was pretty much devoted to stopping the slide and constantly offered ideas (these mags are a hoot in retrospect.)

3) The real reason for the slide seemed to be the changing tastes of young people (things don't change much, do they?) The Jazz Age started the decline, not wearing a hat or wearing a cap became more youthful. The industry constantly fought this perception. More and more young people who resisted continued to resist as they aged and the gradual erosion started.

4) A lot of men, still pretty young, resisted changing into another uniform, the workplace uniform, when they came home from the war. Sure, many did, but the seeds were sewn. Rock n roll, a continually more rebellious attitude, the hat was seen in a lot of ways as a symbol of something to be avoided. Again, the industry failed to reverse the trends.

I think the Kennedy myth exists because it's a convenient bookend to a period in history rather than a true fact. Rock and Roll, hair styles, continuing social rebellion, etc had pretty much sealed the death of the hat in the youth market by the time Kennedy was elected. The way the President dressed wouldn't have influenced kids much anyway (and hat quality and styles had slipped pretty significantly.) Kennedy was such a dynamic presence that his term serves as a watershed bookmark for "The Death of..." or "The Birth of..." many things culturally.

Looking at the facts the hat industry in a way killed itself by not figuring out how to reverse it's trends, trends which had pointed the way to failure for years. Conversely, the industry is doing better again today because the hat has become fashionable with youth again. That's a great thing for the hat industry. Doubtful it will ever become a worker uniform piece again but hats do seem to be less a symbol of being "out of it."

May have drifted a bit off thread, ummm...crazy people sure wear some crazy hats some times, don't they?

Harry Lime