On Fashion

[Alexander III]

So I just wanted to start a thread about the discussion of fashion, if anyone is interested. I figured on a literature site we would have everything from "couldnt care less" to full on enthusiasts.

Personally I am and will always be an aesthetic man - for me what counts and always will count is appearances. Unless the person is an intimate person in my circle, I will judge them 90% on solely appearances. I suppose I am not the only one who does this, so being aesthetically perfect has always been one of my passions along with literature.

I have always found that the way one dresses, is one of the clearest forms of communication about "who they are"

So anyone else an Oscar Wildean dandy like myself or am I a solitary china vase on these forums?

Also, I would think that people who have a passion for literature, art and music or rather any art form; would also be very attentive about their wardrobe. Personally I have a keen sense for beauty and think that any man who has a keen sense of beauty would aspire to make himself into a work of art - as only that which is beautiful is useful.

[MarkBastable]

Also, I would think that people who have a passion for literature, art and music or rather any art form; would also be very attentive about their wardrobe.



Well, I'm afraid you'd be wrong. I'm not merely uninterested in fashion - I despise it. My feeling is that any time spent in the design, manufacture or consumption of fashion items is a tragic waste of human life.

[Alexander III]

Well, I'm afraid you'd be wrong. I'm not merely uninterested in fashion - I despise it. My feeling is that any time spent in the design, manufacture or consumption of fashion items is a tragic waste of human life.

Surely that logic could be extended to art and literature - I mean there are plenty of people who dont understand fine art and thus consider it useless and a waste of human time.

[Emil Miller]

When I hear the word fashion I tend to reach for my revolver as many people I see walking about these days are a cross between Worzel Gummige and Coco the clown.

[Alexander III]

Ok I should have been more specific when I say Fashion I dont mean trends which change every 10 months and are for the masses - I meant style, Like mens style which over the last 100 years has had various tweaks and changes but largely its core remains the same.

When I say fashion I mean style I suppose

Not this!

http://wilberforcezen.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/skinny_jeans.jpg


Rather I mean this

http://welldressed.blogg.se/images/2010/3_75444707.jpg


Or this

http://www.fashionizers.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Oriol-Elcacho-for-Massimo-Dutti-March-2011-MaleModelSceneNet-07.jpg


I also am able to appreciate style from different times - the fashion is different but the core of style is the same

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wutS_GA4seo/TWuh2TtgKYI/AAAAAAAABBk/bfAgv3-zbnc/s400/dandy.jpg

http://www.artsunlight.com/NN/N-L0018/N-L0018-0093-portrait-of-david-lyon.jpg

These are all images of men who have made themselves art. A few useless flowers, in cities of endless grey and usefulness.

[Emil Miller]

Fashion is designed to sell clothes that appeal to the sartorial integrity of the wearer. I say integrity with tongue firmly in cheek with respect to the idiocy shown below but the word has been so abused by the commercialisation of the 'let's all dress like proles from some dystopian fantasy' brigade, that all those individuals wearing shabby looking jeans have actually bought them as clothing marketed as 'Shabby Jeans'. I have only just discovered this and my feeling of sympathy for the downtrodden proles has evolved into one of sorrowful contempt.


http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9907/unlednmj.png


http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/6294/unledfashionshot1.png


http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/1933/unledfashionshot2.png

[Alexander III]

Fashion is designed to sell clothes that appeal to the sartorial integrity of the wearer. I say integrity with tongue firmly in cheek with respect to the idiocy shown below but the word has been so abused by the commercialisation of the 'let's all dress like proles from some dystopian fantasy' brigade, that all those individuals wearing shabby looking jeans have actually bought them as clothing marketed as 'Shabby Jeans'. I have only just discovered this and my feeling of sympathy for the downtrodden proles has evolved into one of sorrowful contempt.


I think you missed my last post. I said that when I said Fashion I meant Style rather than Fashion in the sense as you and mark understood it. I even posted pictures to explain what I meant incase the words were not clear enough.

[Emil Miller]

I think you missed my last post. I said that when I said Fashion I meant Style rather than Fashion in the sense as you and mark understood it. I even posted pictures to explain what I meant incase the words were not clear enough.

I take your point, but how often do you see smartly dressed people as you describe them. Perhaps at Buckingham palace garden parties or similar gatherings or when politicians are posing for photo shots, but as soon as they get home they probably change into jeans, trainers and the ubiquitous baseball cap. In fact I recently saw William Haigh wearing one in an off duty photo. That's not to say that there aren't any men who follow your example, but unless one moves in that milieu, one is stuck with the proles.

[Rores28]

Now embarassed and a little nauseated at the erstwhile fashionista (or fashioniso I suppose) phase of my life I tend to have the same knee-jerk reactions as Mark B. But I've checked myself with the same question you pose about fashion being another facet of art.

I think to some extent the examples you've presented may be seen as such, but fashion in all its permutations is I think dissimilar from other art forms in a few ways.

Fashion tends for one to be very transient as others have mentioned and even in the style's you've highlighted, in that essentially no one would now where those styles unless for some historical reanactment or costume affair. Further no one (barring college students on weekends) would wear togas. We still read Hardy, and Homer though. We also still view and are amazed by paintings and architecture from centuries ago. People visit the Louvre and Greece and Rome in large part to see the history and art from long ago. Virtually no one wears the fashions of those times. I don't think this disqualifies fashion from being art or anything but I think it is a very different animal than most art. Don't have time now but I'll think of some more differences

[Ecurb]

Clothing provides warmth, and it can be beautiful. Michaelangelo's David doesn't look TOO bad without, however.

Like many arts that have a primarily functional purpose (architecture, furniture design, dinnerware), clothes are (I think) a minor art. Art for art's sake -- that's my vote! That's why painting, sculpture, music, poetry, and novels rule!

[OrphanPip]

I pay attention to my wardrobe, but likely with a different intent. It is hard to look like one dresses as if they don't care what they look like at all.

Jean Paul Gauthier currently has an exhibit at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts.

[Alexander III]

I take your point, but how often do you see smartly dressed people as you describe them. Perhaps at Buckingham palace garden parties or similar gatherings or when politicians are posing for photo shots, but as soon as they get home they probably change into jeans, trainers and the ubiquitous baseball cap. In fact I recently saw William Haigh wearing one in an off duty photo. That's not to say that there aren't any men who follow your example, but unless one moves in that milieu, one is stuck with the proles.

I have to disagree with you - at my university a good portion of students are well dressed, I personally have gained the reputation of a "dandy" but there are many other dandies like me at my university and plenty more who attempt to learn and emulate me and the other dandies.

As to fashion being a minor art -

You say we read homer and Dante but no one studies fashion of the past. You are mistaken there, many art and fashion students study historical fashion trends, fashion just like literature is a endless series of influences and "movements" which react to each other and develop upon the history of the art.

As to fashion being utilitarian so it is less of an art - literature was also utilitarian it was composed to create and remember a cultures historic achievements as well as to didactically instruct in terms of morality. Naturally Literature has changed, much like fashion.

As now we read books which weren't written for the sole purpose of instructing us in how to live and epicsiing our culture, and our clothes don't consist of a large bear skin warped around our torso.

I would say that to most fashion seems like a "lame" art, just like to your average man Literature seems irrelevant and useless to him. The later man says Literature has no relevance and it useless to his life, due to ignorance of literature. It is much the same in regards to those who condemn fashion I think. Once again - I say fashion, I mean Style. 99% of all art is crap, what survives is the good. Same with Fashion, sure on a runway you might see a bloke in a garbage bag, but 50 years from know no one will be wearing garbage bags- on the other hand the mens "suit" is a tradition dating back to the Napoleonic wars. Over time it has changed, but minor alterations here and there - like the novel has changed since the late 18th century so has the mens suit.



By dam I feel like germany in world war I - fighting a war on two fronts and no allies in sight :willy_nilly:

[Alexander III]

I pay attention to my wardrobe, but likely with a different intent. It is hard to look like one dresses as if they don't care what they look like at all.

Jean Paul Gauthier currently has an exhibit at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts.

Is that not the essence of the dandy, to be incredibly affected in private, yet the public image is one of nonchalance. Of course this is just as much about elegance and character as it is about the wardrobe.

[Emil Miller]

I have to disagree with you - at my university a good portion of students are well dressed, I personally have gained the reputation of a "dandy" but there are many other dandies like me at my university and plenty more who attempt to learn and emulate me and the other dandies.

I'm glad to hear it as students and sartorial splendour are not generally considered synonymous. However, don't be entranced by the siren voices of those like J P Gaultier or you could end up looking like this little sweetie.

http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/5408/2306949f260.jpg

[OrphanPip]

I don't even understand Gaultier's obsession with male skirts and kilts.

The exhibit got good reviews apparently:

http://www.mbam.qc.ca/jpg/en/index.html

I've been wanting to take a road trip down to Ottawa because there is a Caravaggio exhibit on loan from Italy at the National Art Gallery.

[Ecurb]

Let's face it: most articles of clothing are hardly artistic at all (as are most chairs, beds, dishes, utensils, and houses). Of course there are some buildings, clothes, etc. that are beautiful. As to the notion that this is equivalent to novels (most novels are crap, acc. Alexander), I disagree. Because houses, dishes and clothes are functional, many of them are designed with little effort to make them beautiful or entertaining. Novels have no (or little) purpose other than beauty or entertainment. Some may fail, but the percentage of "artistic" success is surely higher when an attempt is made than when it is not.

[Emil Miller]

As for some men's obsession with wearing skirts and kilts, I worked with a male colleague who used to read cross dressing magazines. He was very small and he told me that he often wore a kilt at weekends. When I suggested that his legs were too short for a kilt, he said " My legs have received admiring glances." To which there was no answer.

[LitNetIsGreat]

As for some men's obsession with wearing skirts and kilts, I worked with a male colleague who used to read cross dressing magazines. He was very small and he told me that he often wore a kilt at weekends. When I suggested that his legs were too short for a kilt, he said " My legs have received admiring glances." To which there was no answer.

:biggrin5: On a general point about Kilts; I hate it when long distance part-Scottish people, i.e. great grandmother on the dad's side, wear kilts to weddings and make a big fuss, bagpipes, girls giggling and all of that, it's just silly and annoying. Granted this is not a daily problem for me, but I've known it before and I find it annoying.

Anyway, to the thread. I have absolutely no time for catwalk fashion. I also usually begrudge spending money on clothes of any type. Of course I can appreciate the style of classic suits and think that that man walking over the bridge looks smart, and I might be persuaded to get something like that, but for me at least it comes down to lack of occasion. In what circumstances would I wear that? Not sitting around the house or going to the shops, or cycling/tennis, or work even, so...

I've bought some nice lightweight general tops from Decathlon recently that I'm proud of, as well as some tennis shirts/shorts, basic range, but that is about all.

Tennis shorts:
http://www.decathlon.co.uk/EN/artengo-100w-men-s-shorts-60016274/

General top, well recommended:
http://www.decathlon.co.uk/EN/deefuz-1000-t-shirt-58790028/#

Clothing is important in one respect though. As was mentioned people do make snap judgments based upon appearance - because usually they are correct - so I suppose I should pay more attention to clothing. I have actually bought a couple of nice shirts for weddings that will also make it look like I am making an effort at work so that is at least a start.

One of the barriers to clothes shopping in general for me, beside the cost, is that I find it such a laborious affair, with unhelpful staff, crowed dressing rooms, clothing on different racks/coat hangers, that I usually just can't face it, so I don't, often. I mean I even bought the wrong shirt and shorts from Decathlon and had to take them back! (It said 3XL on the packet and I thought it meant 3 large, but in fact it meant 1 XXXL shirt - thought it was a bit of a bargain £5.99 for three tops at the time never mind. The shorts were too small, wrong coat-hanger/sticker - see.)

[cl154576]

By dam I feel like germany in world war I - fighting a war on two fronts and no allies in sight :willy_nilly:

I agree that it's important to dress tastefully, but I think one oughtn't put too much effort into it. It isn't hard not to be half-naked or blazing neon.

Out of curiosity – do you think women should wear skirts, then?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Unless the person is an intimate person in my circle, I will judge them 90% on solely appearances.
Are you proud of that? It seems rather shallow.

Still, I tend to judge someone on how they dress, too. When I see a guy all dressed up and fancy (and it not be for work) that person, 9 times out of 10, turns out to be a pompous douchebag.

[Emil Miller]

A valid point Neely. I often spend much of the day in a T-shirt and shorts, although I tend to wear trousers and a shirt when out and about. I never wear a tie, although I have a drawer full of them, except for those occasions when they are de rigueur. When I was younger, and this is key to this thread, I was quite fashion conscious to the extent that I never actually followed fashion. By that I mean that I sought to be different to the herd and dressed according to my own sense of what was appropriate. Young people are naturally impressionable and often try to model themselves on people who are the fashion setters of the day, but my icons were those of a previous era. Therefore, I wore three-piece suits when waistcoats were long out of fashion and even wore detachable shirt collars which could still be purchased from specialist shops. Otherwise, I wore sports jackets with optional waistcoats and plain trousers with suede shoes. My musical hero, apart from the traditional jazz musicians my friends and I would drive around London to see, was Johannes Brahms, and I actually had a suit modelled on one that he was wearing in a photograph.
By the time one reaches forty, there is a tendency to let it all go hang but, even though there is media pressure for the middle aged to carry on behaving as teenagers, they will inevitably be forced to grow up as the grave eventually beckons.

[Ecurb]

In terms of judging non-intimates by their appearance - how else are you supposed to judge? Obviously, once you start talking to a person, you can judge more accurately whether you are likely to be compatible with him or her. Until then -- appearances (inaccurate as they may be) are your only clue. (Of course you need not prefer fancy, elegant clothes. Mutadis Mutandi is certainly free to prefer a simple, unaffected and unpretentious style in his non-acquaintances.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes, we judge by appearance all the time, every single day, with everyone new we meet, whether we know we are doing it or not, I'm pretty sure. It's most probably an evolutionary thing - not particularly conscious but it is there all the same. This is not only the clothes that people wear, but what they look like physically, the features of their face, how they act, the things they say, etc, etc and so on - we pigeon-hole them.

Of course it is dangerous to make snap judgments about people, but I fear that we can't help it - besides as I suggested earlier, I think the vast majority of those snap judgments tend to be correct anyway. Whether that's a sad thing or not I don't know.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

In terms of judging non-intimates by their appearance - how else are you supposed to judge? Obviously, once you start talking to a person, you can judge more accurately whether you are likely to be compatible with him or her. Until then -- appearances (inaccurate as they may be) are your only clue. (Of course you need not prefer fancy, elegant clothes. Mutadis Mutandi is certainly free to prefer a simple, unaffected and unpretentious style in his non-acquaintances.

Why do we need to judge everyone right away?

I judge people by appearances, but I'm not proud of that. I wish I didn't. It is shallow. I was just wondering if Alexander is defending his appearance-based judgements, and/or claiming they're valid.

As to the accuracy of those snap judgements, I've found mine to usually be wrong. Whether that is a product of the person I'm judging or the actual judgement, I don't know.

[Ecurb]

Well, I suppose it depends what we mean by "judge". If you're picking a team for a pick-up basketball game (and don't know the players), taking the 6'5" guy seems sensible, although, of course, if the 5'3" guy is Mugsy Bogues, you've probably made the wrong choice. Of course nobody should judge in the sense of holding someone in contempt for dressing strangely, but surely it's reasonable to come to SOME judgements. If the guy in the car next to you is wearing a police uniform, slow down!

[LitNetIsGreat]

I know you quoted someone else, but I'll just respond quickly with my thoughts if you don't mind as it is an interesting subject I think.


Why do we need to judge everyone right away?

Possibly evolutionary. Fight, flight, friend, foe - instinct etc, I think it is just the way it is. Also we base our judgements on experience as well.


I judge people by appearances, but I'm not proud of that. I wish I didn't. It is shallow.

It's not, it is just the way it is.


I was just wondering if Alexander is defending his appearance-based judgements, and/or claiming they're valid.

...

I'm not speaking for someone else but I know I could defend my own appearance-based judgements as about 99% correct. "Appearance" as what I said it to mean previously, for me.


As to the accuracy of those snap judgements, I've found mine to usually be wrong. Whether that is a product of the person I'm judging or the actual judgement, I don't know.
I'll bet your snap judgements are mostly correct; you just don't realise it.

[Vonny]

I judge by appearances, I've realized. I look at my favorite guy's pictures before I go to sleep, and I dream well. There's another avatar that I try to avoid at night. And one time I clicked his homepage and the real person was as horrible as the avatar. Both of these people's writing perfectly matches their pictures in opposite ways. People's spirits come through plain as day in their appearances.

[stlukesguild]

Like many arts that have a primarily functional purpose (architecture, furniture design, dinnerware), clothes are (I think) a minor art. Art for art's sake -- that's my vote! That's why painting, sculpture, music, poetry, and novels rule!

Interesting that you would cite "Art for Art's Sake"... Art pour l'Art... because the central figures of this philosophy, Walter Pater, Theophile gautier, Stephane Mallarme, J.K. Huysmans, Charles Baudelaire, the PreRaphaelites, William Morris, and the whole "Art's and Crafts" movement... let alone Oscar Wilde, for God's sake, were profoundly interested in appearances... including fashion. Indeed, Art pour l'Art would eventually lead to Formalism and the efforts of the artists at the Bauhaus (among other places). Formalists argued that architecture, furniture design, poster design, car design, fashion design, etc... were just as important as art forms as painting and sculpture. William Morris, among others (Mallarme immediately comes to mind) argued as to the importance of being surrounded by objects and images of "beauty" going so far as to suggest that the ugly yet functional objects of modern industrial mass production was a major source of the malaise of the era.

The dichotomy between so-called "fine art" and "decorative arts" or "functional arts" owes much to German philosophers. Kant was afraid of the seductive nature of beauty... the manner in which the beautiful object or especially the beautiful woman was able to disorient... even overpower rigorous intellect. Art to him lay not in visual splendour, but in the rigorous intellectual form. Adolf Loos, the great Austrian architect, took the concept even further, declaring that "ornament was crime". His target was the most sensuously decadent and ornamental of artists, Gustav Klimt:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6200/6052135592_c82d127202_b.jpg
Gustav Klimt-The Kiss

In some ways, Kant and Loss were successful. For much of Modernism, Klimt was virtually written out of the history books... or reduced to a minor status... along side those other purveyors of decadent pattern and beauty such as Bonnard and Vuillard and that disgusting poster-artist whose name is virtually synonymous with the Art Noveau, Alphonse Mucha. But is the end, beauty and ornament flourished. Klimt is now one of the most expensive artists in auction. His iconic, The Kiss (above) is the single largest selling art image in poster, postcard and books. Mucha's posters are coveted collectors objects and major influences upon everything from rock posters and calenders to fashion...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6197/6052158750_189fa4b4a2_b.jpg
Alphonse Mucha- La Danse

Vuillard and Bonnard are now recognized as major painters of the period... and major influences upon American painting from Fairfield Porter and and Milton Avery through the "Color Field" painters of Abstract Expressionism and onto the "California School"...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6069/6051607295_85cb0425e7_z.jpg
Edouard Vuillard- Woman in Blue with Child

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6207/6052158882_fbee98b0aa_b.jpg
Pierre Bonnard- La Danse

And then, of course, there was Matisse... who in spite of his sumptuous hedonism was so audaciously innovative that even the tied-in-the-wool Modernists couldn't deny his importance... although critics did often bemoan the fact that he couldn't be more like Picasso...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6190/6052158902_28d73a32a7_b.jpg
Henri Matisse- Sitting Rifain

Intriguingly, many non-Western cultures do not have this concept of a dichotomy between "fine arts" and "decorative arts". Calligraphy in China, Japan, or the Islamic world is in no way inferior to painting. A beautiful kimono or the gorgeous abstract patterns on the interior of a mosque are not imagined as any less a work of art than a sculpture or drawing.

Moving on to address Alexander's original post I must say I fully appreciate where you are coming from. I can't say that my time spent in the studio as a working artist or in the classroom as an art teacher are at all conducive to thoughts of being anywhere near the proverbial "Dedicated follower of Fashion":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXaO3zgaf5Q

Let's face it: most articles of clothing are hardly artistic at all

Unfortunately this is now true... but it was not always so. At least not for the classes that could afford to dress well. As an art student I became rather jealous of what some of the older masters had to work with in terms of fashion:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6190/6051660359_dec4feac6b_b.jpg
Sir Peter Paul Rubens- The Garden of Love

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6208/6051660383_deeb71c0ea_b.jpg
Anthony van Dyck- Portrait of Maria Louissa Tassis

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6089/6051660415_76e4dbf16e_b.jpg
J.A.D. Ingres- Portrait of Pauline Eleanore de Galard de Brassac de Bearn, Princesse de Broglie

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6200/6051660499_d9c41401dd_b.jpg
Paolo Veronese- Allegory of Virtue

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6183/6051660519_212e5b3bd7_z.jpg
Kitagawa Utamaro- Ukiyo-e woodblock print: Interior scene with mother child and maid

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6090/6051670809_87166801ef_b.jpg
Francois Boucher- Portrait of the Marquise de Pompadour

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6070/6030772195_48aea5023e_b.jpg
Michelangelo Buonarotti- The Libyan Sybil from the Sistine Ceiling

continued...

I remember thinking... "My God! How could a painter NOT make something brilliant out of such gorgeous colors, patterns, textures, and fabrics... satins, silks and lace...?

And then along came Modernism and the mass-produced fashions:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6087/6027441379_1ebc5e1f9c_b.jpg
Edgar Degas- The Cotton Market

What the hell was one supposed to do with all that black... especially if one were in love with color?

It's no wonder that Degas turned to the artificial fantasy world of the ballet, the theater... and even the brothels with all the brilliant colors of the gas-lights and the gorgeous costumes and settings...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6132/6028042752_448f06069d_b.jpg
Edgar Degas- Ballerinas Backstage

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6072/6028081900_e2332de01e_b.jpg
Edgar Degas- At the Cabaret

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6187/6027992712_31626aeaed_z.jpg
Edgar Degas- Nude Drying Herself after Bathing

As a student in love with drawing and painting people... I was quite frustrated by the blandness of most contemporary fashions. What is one to do with a drab pair of faded jeans and a football jersey? At that time I began to focus upon painting erotic scenes... at least I could employ some brilliant colors in sheets and blankets and wallpaper... or I could focus upon sexual dress:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6082/6052270010_064234851e_z.jpg
-Burlesque Costume

Intriguingly enough, the burlesque has recently made something of a come-back... But considering the majority of the clothes an artist had to work with prior to the 1960s, is it really surprising that art pushed increasingly toward abstraction (and even the elimination of painting from life) when the visual world became so bland?

And is it surprising that the resurgence in figurative art went along with an embrace of the fantasy world of popular culture that occurred in the 1960s: Hollywood, Rock-n-Roll, advertisements, fashion, pin-ups, and even pornography:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6074/6051717537_b02f547784_b.jpg
-R.B. Kitaj- Synchromy with F.B. (Francis Bacon) General of Red Hot Desire

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6079/6051717659_9eac554951_b.jpg
James Rosenquist- F-111

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6198/6052269360_e7fed04052.jpg
Tom Wesselmann- The Great American Nude #38

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6201/6051717875_96c160c3e9.jpg
Andy Warhol- Marilyn

Post-Modern art continues to shake up the "art market" with the embrace of Pop Art themes... art rooted in popular culture... including fashion. Even the Chinese and Japanese have jumped on board:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6064/6052269586_8205598a69.jpg
Feng Zhengjie- Chinese Portrait

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6194/6051734195_0fa02cc7be_z.jpg
Takashi Murakami- Mural

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6192/6052269884_67fc1a2bcd_z.jpg
Will Cotton- Consuming Folly

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6205/6052269984_2708ffc676.jpg
Will Cotton- Candy Curls


Perhaps most fascinating is the increasing "blurring" of the line that separates the so-called "high art" from "low art" or "low brow art". Just as the Impressionists and Cubists embraced a term that was originally intended as an insult, so have the "Low Brow Artists" openly embraced their moniker... and in the process they are in many ways surpassing the "High Arts" merging a certain irony, a Surrealism filtered through American TV (The Munsters, Batman, Hogan's Heroes, and Gilligan's Island) and an embrace of the culture of rock music, horror films, burlesque dancers, TV, the computer, and porno films:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6084/6051718015_8bdf57f2c3_b.jpg
Ron English- At the Moulin Rouge (After Toulouse-Latrec)

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6182/6052311052_02a8a8d060_z.jpg
John John Jesse- Das Alpentraum

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6075/6052311084_24627cf521_z.jpg
ElMac- Song of Songs

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6083/6051718205_5645424d86.jpg
Ray Caesar- Santa Maria

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6089/6051760475_c3e2c98ee3_z.jpg
Ray Caesar- Sleeping by Day

I must wonder, as the visual arts increasingly embrace visual splendor and fantasy... what will the impact be upon fashion?

[MarkBastable]

There's another avatar that I try to avoid at night. And one time I clicked his homepage and the real person was as horrible as the avatar.


I shall be most disappointed if this isn't me.

[Jack of Hearts]

In a constant scramble to quickly obtain and assimilate information, superficial judgments have their place. Wasn't it Marx that said every action is a social action?

He was right, down to the last button (pun very intended).






J



EDIT: Had to check MarkBastable's homepage after that comment. A handsome enough looking fellow but wearing an expression that curdled the milk in this reader's tea.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Interesting as ever, StLukes. I'm curious, could you possible supply a list of the artist names for the paintings? I liked a lot of them, but didn't learn much from the various urls.

[OrphanPip]

Well the Marilyn Monroe one is a Warhol.

[Ecurb]

The distinction between "high-art" and "low-art" is a specious one, according to C.S. Lewis, in his essay "High-Brows and Low-brows" (http://www.lewisiana.nl/cslessays/ See "Selected literary essays, 1969). Since I agree with Lewis (in this regard, at least) I was not trying to suggest that clothing or dinnerware or furniture were "low-brow". Instead, I was suggesting that when the functional value of something supercedes its artistic value, the artistic value often diminishes (as Luke suggested is the case with modern clothing). Since paintings and poetry have no functional value (or very little), this is not the case in these arts (in the modern, machine-tooled West, at least). (I like a beautiful Kimono as well as the next person, though.)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well the Marilyn Monroe one is a Warhol.

Well, I'm glad to say I did know that one. That was the only one, though (aside from StLukes pointed out).

[Emil Miller]

Well the Marilyn Monroe one is a Warhol.

My sentiments entirely.

[Lokasenna]

Is it possible to make a distinction between a sense of fashion and a sense of preference? I don't care in the least what the world says is fashionable, but there are certain garments that I really like. My charcoal-black, knee-length greatcoat, for example, is really functional - warm, protective, big pockets - but I also think it's quite stylish. I've always been partial to tank-tops (or sweater vests, as I believe the Americans call them) as well - functional, comfortable, but also somehow aesthetically pleasing.

Well, maybe it's just me. As for shopping, I do most of mine in charity shops - which is a mixed bag, but you'd be surprised at how often you find something that takes your fancy!

[virginiawang]

My grandma always praises herself for her extraordinary taste in dressing. Times without number, she told me she did not care at all about fashion, which most people strove to go after, as far as dressing was concerned. My grandma is really pretty. Nobody can deny that. Over the years since my adolescence, I enjoy wearing what I love, never thinking a bit about trends of fashion. I love an apparel that makes me pretty. Fashion does not count.

[Emil Miller]

Is it possible to make a distinction between a sense of fashion and a sense of preference? I don't care in the least what the world says is fashionable, but there are certain garments that I really like. My charcoal-black, knee-length greatcoat, for example, is really functional - warm, protective, big pockets - but I also think it's quite stylish. I've always been partial to tank-tops (or sweater vests, as I believe the Americans call them) as well - functional, comfortable, but also somehow aesthetically pleasing.

Well, maybe it's just me. As for shopping, I do most of mine in charity shops - which is a mixed bag, but you'd be surprised at how often you find something that takes your fancy!


Yes but you can't wear a greatcoat with pockets in Summer and that's why I take issue with those so-called fashion gurus' who have decreed that shirts should have no pockets. I would say that it's essential for them to have at least one pocket, preferably two, as many people put their security pass or cash card there for safety. I have recently made the mistake of buying a couple of shirts, only to find that they are pocketless, unless I wear them with a coat of some kind, I am unable to wear them in warm weather. Not long ago, I heard one clothes designer saying that pockets spoil the line of a shirt. Does anyone who isn't stupefyingly effete care one iota about the line of a shirt?

[wessexgirl]

I'll bet your snap judgements are mostly correct; you just don't realise it.

Interesting. I know I probably do it as much as anyone else, but after last weeks riots there was an interesting little piece on the tv about "hoodies". An elderly member of a tv crew was told to stop people and ask them the time. You can guess where this is going can't you? He did so, and got a friendly response from those he asked, no problem. Then send the same elderly (in his sixties) gent to ask the time again, only wearing a hoodie. Responses were negative, with people walking away and blanking him. Now, the only difference was that he was wearing something which has become demonised by most people. He was still an elderly man, not a teenager who some may have been wary of after the events of last week. It's getting a bit silly when a hooded jacket is seen as denoting the wearer to be someone to be scared of.

[virginiawang]

Yes but you can't wear a greatcoat with pockets in Summer and that's why I take issue with those so-called fashion gurus' who have decreed that shirts should have no pockets. I would say that it's essential for them to have at least one pocket, preferably two, as many people put their security pass or cash card there for safety. I have recently made the mistake of buying a couple of shirts, only to find that they are pocketless, unless I wear them with a coat of some kind, I am unable to wear them in warm weather. Not long ago, I heard one clothes designer saying that pockets spoil the line of a shirt. Does anyone who isn't stupefyingly effete care one iota about the line of a shirt?

Pockets do not count. I only care about the moment in which I look into the mirror in a department store for most of the time, when I try on with a new apparel. If I truly like it, it will be mine, no matter it has pockets or not.

[Lokasenna]

Yes but you can't wear a greatcoat with pockets in Summer and that's why I take issue with those so-called fashion gurus' who have decreed that shirts should have no pockets. I would say that it's essential for them to have at least one pocket, preferably two, as many people put their security pass or cash card there for safety. I have recently made the mistake of buying a couple of shirts, only to find that they are pocketless, unless I wear them with a coat of some kind, I am unable to wear them in warm weather. Not long ago, I heard one clothes designer saying that pockets spoil the line of a shirt. Does anyone who isn't stupefyingly effete care one iota about the line of a shirt?

I think it reflects a need for functionality - clothes serve a purpose greater than mere artistry (or at least they should). I can't do without pockets, and I certainly struggle in the summer months to fit wallet/keys/phone/ID/ipod into just trouser pockets. I'd far rather have convenience than elegance...

[LitNetIsGreat]

Interesting. I know I probably do it as much as anyone else, but after last weeks riots there was an interesting little piece on the tv about "hoodies". An elderly member of a tv crew was told to stop people and ask them the time. You can guess where this is going can't you? He did so, and got a friendly response from those he asked, no problem. Then send the same elderly (in his sixties) gent to ask the time again, only wearing a hoodie. Responses were negative, with people walking away and blanking him. Now, the only difference was that he was wearing something which has become demonised by most people. He was still an elderly man, not a teenager who some may have been wary of after the events of last week. It's getting a bit silly when a hooded jacket is seen as denoting the wearer to be someone to be scared of.

That programme rings a bell although I didn't see it. It seems harsh to the innocent individual but it's to be wholly expected.

[Emil Miller]

Pockets do not count. I only care about the moment in which I look into the mirror in a department store for most of the time, when I try on with a new apparel. If I truly like it, it will be mine, no matter it has pockets or not.

No, because most women have a bag of some sort but men, at least those I know, don't carry handbags.

[OrphanPip]

Interesting. I know I probably do it as much as anyone else, but after last weeks riots there was an interesting little piece on the tv about "hoodies". An elderly member of a tv crew was told to stop people and ask them the time. You can guess where this is going can't you? He did so, and got a friendly response from those he asked, no problem. Then send the same elderly (in his sixties) gent to ask the time again, only wearing a hoodie. Responses were negative, with people walking away and blanking him. Now, the only difference was that he was wearing something which has become demonised by most people. He was still an elderly man, not a teenager who some may have been wary of after the events of last week. It's getting a bit silly when a hooded jacket is seen as denoting the wearer to be someone to be scared of.

Hoodies are considered as common as jeans over here, :frown2:. It's like you're all stigmatizing casual jogging gear.

[Alexander III]

@ Lukes - Great post, I am quite a fan of pop surrealism; but in regards to your complaint that with the beginign of industrialisation clothes lost something and become bland - I have to disagree. All portraits pre 1789 were of the aristocracy and rich merchants, it seems obvious that they would be sortarial sistine chapels; but the masses have always been grey and bland. In the 17th century you had the majority of peasants in dirty smocks, in the victorian age the majority of middle class clerks wore the same black suit and nowadays the majority wear the baggy t-shirt and jeans or an ill fitting suit for work. But if one looks at those who have more time and more wealth and more ambition on their hands their sartorial beauty is just as great as that of the 17th century aristocrat - the difference being a change in fashion as we are far less baroque and rococo in our dress. I was at a special event in ascot a couple months ago and saw plenty of outfits which any painter would have been jealous to portrait.

Here are some portraits post mass industrialization where the dress is just as beautiful as one pre 18th century - beauty in style for men post revolution francais become about simple elegance, every article of clothing precisely labored over and everything set to perfection "taking 4 hours to dress" like our friend Onegin, and as soon as one leaves the house it must look like every article of clothing just fell out of the sky onto one by sheer chance. Calculated nonchalance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ludwig_des_Coudres_001.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tissot_Railway_Carriage.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Pearce_Bartlett.jpg

http://mysticmedusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/tumblr_l2tt6tEtCq1qarjnpo1_500.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Harrods_1909.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/John_F_Kennedy_Official_Portrait.jpg

@Ecurb, I maintain that as the man who hates books and is not intellectually stimulated, rejects literature as useless - the man who is ignorant of style and does not care much for looks, will see fashion as useless.

@Mutatis, I think Nelly answered quite good for me, and yes I am proud of my prejudices, because I know what I want and my prejudices help me find what I want more effectively. I judge people based on appearances, because that is how I think the world largely works. I judge men based on appearances, because first impressions tell a lot. I see a man who is not physically impressive, is ungroomed and has little style. He is two things, a non-threat and also ignorable and irrelevant for the most part (In my eyes!).

I see a man who is the opposite of the former and I see him as more of a threat as more of an equal, for he too knows that appearances are what count for everyone who is not an intimate, and that suggests to me he is a worldly person who posses confidence and charm and is thus a threat - weather it be sexual competition, or social, or for a job or networking or for anything.

Of course I am a university student and judge in such a manner only for men in their late teens or 20's - at different ages the rules are different. At an older age it is more about respect. I meet two professors, first is impeccable the other everything is lacking - by instinct the former gains my respect and the latter doesn't. Irrelevant of age it is an alpha male thing, I suppose, a quick fire way to see who you are in competition against and who are the rest who will always be irrelevant. And in the majority of cases the former professor is the most liked and respected and the best professor, the later has the charm of a dead fly and little respect and is a mediocre professor.

A mediocre man, has the appearance of a mediocre man. An exceptional gentleman will always have the appearance of an exceptional gentleman.

Naturally there are many mediocre men who attempt to appear exceptional gentlemen, and these are the most ridiculous of all - what always gives it away is their inability to seem nonchalant and thus they appear affected and effete.

[Miss 87]

i think fashion plays an imprtant role in our daily life. i do not want to say that it is a passport to our personality but it gives a first impression. may be it is true or false.

[MarkBastable]

@Ecurb, I maintain that as the man who hates books and is not intellectually stimulated, rejects literature as useless - the man who is ignorant of style and does not care much for looks, will see fashion as useless.


Well, yeah, possibly. But it might also be true that the man who hates cardomum and does not care for saffron will see a spice-rack as useless. It might be true, but even if it is, it's hardly worth considering.

[Ecurb]

@Ecurb, I maintain that as the man who hates books and is not intellectually stimulated, rejects literature as useless - the man who is ignorant of style and does not care much for looks, will see fashion as useless.

Since I'm the one who said fashion was useful and literature, painting and sculpture useless, I'm not sure why you're aiming this at me. In fact, that was my primary distinction between the arts.



Irrelevant of age it is an alpha male thing, I suppose, a quick fire way to see who you are in competition against and who are the rest who will always be irrelevant.......A mediocre man, has the appearance of a mediocre man. An exceptional gentleman will always have the appearance of an exceptional gentleman.

What nonsense! Mr. Alpha Male (do you require other men to sniff your genitals, Alexander?) runs around thinking he can accurately judge others by their appearance. Then he posts pictures of corseted women, warped into strange shapes by their undergarments, parading down the street. Does anyone other than Alexander actually think those fashions are attractive?

The mediocre man is, of course, a better man than Mr. Alpha Male Alexander. He, at least, doesn't inflate his own ability to accurately judge others, or the extent to which he is "Alpha" instead of Zed.


@Mutatis, I think Nelly answered quite good for me, and yes I am proud of my prejudices, because I know what I want and my prejudices help me find what I want more effectively. I judge people based on appearances, because that is how I think the world largely works. I judge men based on appearances, because first impressions tell a lot. I see a man who is not physically impressive, is ungroomed and has little style. He is two things, a non-threat and also ignorable and irrelevant for the most part (In my eyes!).

Personally, I judge people by their facility with language -- and only "mediocre men" (or worse) use "good" as an adverb. They are non-threats, ignorable (is that a word) and irrelevant in my eyes. (Just kidding, to point out how ridiculous Alexander's post is.)

[Emil Miller]

It is interesting to note that the pictures given are paintings where it is easy to create the perfectly dressed male. In reality, the clothes rarely match up to their artistic presentation. Would you call this person sartorially elegant for example?


http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/9996/tumblrlhjuqmftn61qbkmx9.jpg

[Alexander III]

Well, yeah, possibly. But it might also be true that the man who hates cardomum and does not care for saffron will see a spice-rack as useless. It might be true, but even if it is, it's hardly worth considering.

I am not sure I understand your analogy here. But I am glad you conceded to allow for the possibility of dress being an art.

Since I'm the one who said fashion was useful and literature, painting and sculpture useless, I'm not sure why you're aiming this at me. In fact, that was my primary distinction between the arts.

You are right, I should not have used "useless" in this context. But if we replace "useless" with "irrelevant" In my previous phrase, the point becomes clearer and moves away from this semantic loop.

What nonsense! Mr. Alpha Male (do you require other men to sniff your genitals, Alexander?) runs around thinking he can accurately judge others by their appearance. Then he posts pictures of corseted women, warped into strange shapes by their undergarments, parading down the street. Does anyone other than Alexander actually think those fashions are attractive?

The mediocre man is, of course, a better man than Mr. Alpha Male Alexander. He, at least, doesn't inflate his own ability to accurately judge others, or the extent to which he is "Alpha" instead of Zed.

I do require the sniffing of genitals, but only after proper introductions and formal bows have been made. Otherwise I could never stand to clall my self a gentleman.

But on a serious note, I have nothing against you saying that it is all nonsense. I was mermely dscribing my perception and understanding of such things. This is how I behave and see matters. I am not saying this is necessarily how they are, everyone perceives such things in different ways - but to me this is how they are. I also ought to re-mention that this is all for relative strangers, for people who I deem intimate to me, things are completely different.

I only posted one picture of a women in a corset, and that was by pure coincidence that she was with a group of men. All the pictures I have posted were in regards to men, as that is what I know. When it comes to women's style, I know just enough to not appear ignorant. I think the majority of corseted women pictures were posted by St.Lukes and he was doing it with the intention of displaying the beauty and richness of clothing pre french revolution compared to post.

But since you bring up the corset, I ought to answer. I think corsets in a very simple way make women more attractive. They make the breasts look bigger and the waist look slimmer. I feel safe speaking for most men when I say voluptuous breasts and slim waists are attractive. Of course, you may very well like small breasts and broad bellys on women, which gives sense to why you think the corset makes them look ugly.

I never said I am an alpha male, I merely say that I perceive myself as one. There is a difference. This is because I perceive alpha males to have all my qualities. You may perceive an alpha male to have a different set of qualities, and thus I may not fit into your description of alpha male. So yes, I said I perceive myself to be an alpha male, not that I am one. There is a difference.

Personally, I judge people by their facility with language -- and only "mediocre men" (or worse) use "good" as an adverb. They are non-threats, ignorable (is that a word) and irrelevant in my eyes. (Just kidding, to point out how ridiculous Alexander's post is.)

I do not judge people by their facility with language, because that would be an area which would only be of interest for me with my "intimates" - I have my prejudices when it comes to how and why I judge people, but I do not think that you can honestly deny that you don's have yours.

My mistake I should not have used "good" as an adverb. I should not have made up a word. I will proofread with more attention now. Seeing someones first post, full of grammatical errors always causes me to assume that they are not very proficient in the language too, or that they are lazy.


P.S I have quoted you in dark green, if that color is not suitable to your stylistic palette of colors which you feel comfortable with, I will gladly change it.

[wessexgirl]

Hoodies are considered as common as jeans over here, :frown2:. It's like you're all stigmatizing casual jogging gear.

Yep, that's pretty much how it is, thanks in large part to the media. Hoodies have become associated with teenagers, often stigmatized as "chavs", which isn't a very nice term.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/may/13/fashion.fashionandstyle

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/09/power-of-the-hoodie

As a casual piece of jogging gear, if you are a teen, (or even if you're not in the case of the tv man), you will get judged adversely if you decide to wear one. I don't think "call-me-Dave" is urging people to "hug a hoodie" any more.

[Alexander III]

It is interesting to note that the pictures given are paintings where it is easy to create the perfectly dressed male. In reality, the clothes rarely match up to their artistic presentation. Would you call this person sartorially elegant for example?


http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/9996/tumblrlhjuqmftn61qbkmx9.jpg

-picture is in black and white so it is harder to tell

-But in very few ways is this sartorially elegant.

Here are some pictures with men of real sartorial elegance

http://www.oswaldmosley.com/uploads/page/294e.jpg

http://www.retididedalus.it/Archivi/2008/maggio/PRIMO_PIANO/d'annunzio_01.jpg


While I am here, this is Gabrielle D'Annunzio, on of Italy's finest 20th century writers, who for some reason has very little exposure outside of the country. Very likely because of his extreme political fascism and his style which was fin de siecle decadent, and in english that period never has had much love. But do check him out if you have the time, a wonderful novelist and poet.

http://listverse.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/wilde-recline-sm.jpg



http://www.planetmonk.com/wilde/wildeimages/wildephotos/wilde.jpg

We all new Wilde was bound to show up on this thread.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/06/15/article-1193231-055A820A000005DC-928_468x359.jpg

Apparently Fitzgerald spent more money on his clothes than Zelda...interesting tidbit for anyone who likes these odd facts.


And lastly some Sinatra

http://www.hollywoodcultmovies.com/assets/images/FrankSinatra1.jpg

http://public.bracketeers.com/images/challengers/1300111574FrankSinatra.jpg

http://cdn3.iofferphoto.com/img/item/185/443/752/stunning-frank-sinatra-8x10-glossy-photo-ebe2b.jpg

http://seemynycnow.com/pics/Frank%20Sinatra/Frank+Sinatra.jpg

[Alexander III]

As a casual piece of jogging gear, if you are a teen, (or even if you're not in the case of the tv man), you will get judged adversely if you decide to wear one. I don't think "call-me-Dave" is urging people to "hug a hoodie" any more.

You only get stigmatized if you wear the hood over your head, masking your face. Otherwise no one stigmatizes. Oddly enough people feel uneasy around others who try to hide their identity.

[OrphanPip]

Everyone walks around with their faces covered in the winter though, it's cold here.

And Alex's previous post remind me of the fops and rakes from 17th and 18th century theater, it's bizarrely anachronistic, but amusing.

Edit: This thread reminds me of the current publicity stunt by Abercrombie and Fitch to pay the cast of The Jersey Shore not to wear their clothes on camera. Stupid me, I thought A&F wanted to market to douchebags.

[Ecurb]

I disagree with you about corsets, Alexander. I prefer a more natural, flowing look for women. The stiffness of the corset is generally accompanied by stiff fabrics that were then in style. I won’t supply pictures (too much of a hassle), but I think modern, flowing fabrics (or old fashioned ones like silk) wouldn’t look good with corsets, and look great without them. Of course women with good figures look best in these fabrics. John Dunne evidently agrees:

WHENAS in silks my Julia goes
Then, then (methinks) how sweetly flows
That liquefaction of her clothes.

Next, when I cast mine eyes and see
That brave vibration each way free; 5
Oh how that glittering taketh me!

The “liquefacation” of Julia’s clothes wouldn’t work with a corset.

What annoyed me about your post, Alexander, was the “alpha-male” and the “gentlemen” malarkey. It demonstrates misplaced competitive and class-conscious sensibilities. “Gentlemen”, of course, were men who did not need to deal in “trade”, and one could identify them by their clothing (which the hoi polloi couldn't afford). However, judging people in this manner involves judging people according to their social class, which is offensive to modern, egalitarian sensibilities.

[Ecurb]

One more thing: Isn't judging people by their clothing similar to judging people by the car they drive, or the house they live in? There's no way around the fact that it involves judging people by their wealth and social class.

[wessexgirl]

You only get stigmatized if you wear the hood over your head, masking your face. Otherwise no one stigmatizes. Oddly enough people feel uneasy around others who try to hide their identity.

That's not strictly true. Perhaps people do feel uneasy about those who try to hide their identities, but not everyone wearing hoodies masks their faces, and they still get tarred with the same brush. The tv guy didn't hide his face, a hood won't cover that completely. It's lazy stereotyping.

[Alexander III]

Everyone walks around with their faces covered in the winter though, it's cold here.

And Alex's previous post remind me of the fops and rakes from 17th and 18th century theater, it's bizarrely anachronistic, but amusing.

Edit: This thread reminds me of the current publicity stunt by Abercrombie and Fitch to pay the cast of The Jersey Shore not to wear their clothes on camera. Stupid me, I thought A&F wanted to market to douchebags.

The A&F thing made me laugh because it sounds true.

I suppose since I started this thread, what people will now see when they read my name is this

http://www.blakeneymanor.com/images/carryon/fop.jpg

So,um, yea, well...


One more thing: Isn't judging people by their clothing similar to judging people by the car they drive, or the house they live in? There's no way around the fact that it involves judging people by their wealth and social class.

But - lets assume there are two men. One lives in a council house and one has a villa on the french riviera. Will you seriously tell me that when you meet them you will assume they have the same level of - education, intelligence, ambition, culture, charm, good manners and other such characteristics. Or will you make initial judgments?

It is not judging by wealth or social class - there are plenty of rich people who dress in ridiculous ways eg -

http://0.tqn.com/d/movies/1/0/r/K/X/Will.i.am-photo-rio-premiere2.jpg

and there are plenty who despite small budgets manage to always look elegant and stylish.

Also when I said gentleman before, I meant it in terms of character not class.
I may sound stupid here, but the modern use of "gentleman" is denote a type of personality rather that what social class are person is from?


That's not strictly true. Perhaps people do feel uneasy about those who try to hide their identities, but not everyone wearing hoodies masks their faces, and they still get tarred with the same brush. The tv guy didn't hide his face, a hood won't cover that completely. It's lazy stereotyping.

Ahh, if the tv presenter had his hood down, then there is nothing threatening in that look, especially if you are older than 16 and know how to speak proper english.

[Emil Miller]

-Here are some pictures with men of real sartorial elegance

While I am here, this is Gabrielle D'Annunzio, on of Italy's finest 20th century writers, who for some reason has very little exposure outside of the country. Very likely because of his extreme political fascism and his style which was fin de siecle decadent, and in english that period never has had much love. But do check him out if you have the time, a wonderful novelist and poet.

We all new Wilde was bound to show up on this thread.

Apparently Fitzgerald spent more money on his clothes than Zelda...interesting tidbit for anyone who likes these odd facts.


And lastly some Sinatra

The thing that denotes the pictures of D'Annunzio and Wilde is the element of posturing that photos of the period often display, any casualness is obviously false. The Sinatra photos are promotions for record companies and are similary posed although he was a snappy dresser anyway, principally because he had the slim build to carry it off. Hemingway eventually gave up smart clothes for T-shirt and baseball cap but I believe Fitzgerald remained elegant to the end which, with his ivy league background, was only to be expected.

[Ecurb]

But - lets assume there are two men. One lives in a council house and one has a villa on the french riviera. Will you seriously tell me that when you meet them you will assume they have the same level of - education, intelligence, ambition, culture, charm, good manners and other such characteristics. Or will you make initial judgments?

It might be reasonable to assume that rich people have more extensive educations or more ambition than poor people – but as to intelligence, charm and good manners I would make no such judgments.


Also when I said gentleman before, I meant it in terms of character not class. I may sound stupid here, but the modern use of "gentleman" is denote a type of personality rather that what social class are person is from?

The word “gentleman”, derived as it is from a designation of social class, remains laden with hints of social class. The “type of personality” that it is used to denote is one characterized by the manners, dress, and education of a particular social class. So even the modern use of the word retains more than a little class consciousness and snobbery.

[Alexander III]

It might be reasonable to assume that rich people have more extensive educations or more ambition than poor people – but as to intelligence, charm and good manners I would make no such judgments.



The word “gentleman”, derived as it is from a designation of social class, remains laden with hints of social class. The “type of personality” that it is used to denote is one characterized by the manners, dress, and education of a particular social class. So even the modern use of the word retains more than a little class consciousness and snobbery.


But a good deal of rich people, were not born rich, they got there trough work ethic, ambition and intelligence. A man who is in a council flat on the other-hand, I disagree with you and will say that the majority would never assume him to be intelligent or more intelligent than than the other man. If a man has intelligence and work ethic, mostly work ethic, he will never be left or remain in such a position of shameless begging. Note I say man as in he is 30, not an 18 or 20 year old boy.

As to"gentleman" - if one associates good manner, chivalry, selflessness and a keen sense of honor as "snobby" then yes it does have snobby connotations. Personally I see a snob as something different. For me a true "gentleman" has always been somewhat of a self-made man, not merely a heir.

[Alexander III]

The thing that denotes the pictures of D'Annunzio and Wilde is the element of posturing that photos of the period often display, any casualness is obviously false. The Sinatra photos are promotions for record companies and are similary posed although he was a snappy dresser anyway, principally because he had the slim build to carry it off. Hemingway eventually gave up smart clothes for T-shirt and baseball cap but I believe Fitzgerald remained elegant to the end which, with his ivy league background, was only to be expected.

That is a fair point, but that is also a moot point. let me explain.

When one is having a picture taken or a portrait painted, it is natural and normal to pose. I know I do, and also the majority of people put on some form of pose. Even if your first thought when someone takes a picture is "dont pose, look natural" you never look natural, you always end up looking like you posed to look natural. The only way around this point is if pictures start getting takes by surprise.

So it is a fair point, but it cannot be changed. If you get what I mean.

[Emil Miller]

But - lets assume there are two men. One lives in a council house and one has a villa on the french riviera. Will you seriously tell me that when you meet them you will assume they have the same level of - education, intelligence, ambition, culture, charm, good manners and other such characteristics. Or will you make initial judgments? .

There are many people, as you describe them, living on the riviera, but it doesn't follow that they automatically have charm, culture or good manners.
Sir Philip Green, knighted for services to the clothing industry, is a case in point. Living in Monte Carlo to avoid UK taxes, he is one of the least elegant and most obnoxious individuals imaginable. This is what happened when he was foiled by Stuart Rose in his attempt to take over Marks and Spencers and was waiting to confront Rose outside M&S HQ in Baker Street some years ago.

"I got out of my car. He grabbed me by the lapels and said I was a complete ****. I had gone into Marks & Spencer and was causing him difficulty and if I had been intelligent I could have had a quarter of a billion pounds working for him. And why did I want to work for that company as chief executive?... Did I realize that he was risking a billion pounds of his money and could lose it?"

Even now, Rose is bemused by how Green found him that morning. ''Listen, son," he told Rose. "there is nothing goes on in this town that I don't know about".

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

@Mutatis, I think Nelly answered quite good for me, and yes I am proud of my prejudices, because I know what I want and my prejudices help me find what I want more effectively. I judge people based on appearances, because that is how I think the world largely works. I judge men based on appearances, because first impressions tell a lot. I see a man who is not physically impressive, is ungroomed and has little style. He is two things, a non-threat and also ignorable and irrelevant for the most part (In my eyes!).

I see a man who is the opposite of the former and I see him as more of a threat as more of an equal, for he too knows that appearances are what count for everyone who is not an intimate, and that suggests to me he is a worldly person who posses confidence and charm and is thus a threat - weather it be sexual competition, or social, or for a job or networking or for anything.
I assume, once you actually talk to the person (or do you go so far as to write someone off completely because of their appearance?) you will change those prejudices of need be, no?

And, I can't help but think of seeing people as threats or non-threats is quite odd, at least personally. It's just not how I see people at all.

How would you judge someone in blue jeans, a heavy metal band shirt, and maybe a baseball cap?


Edit: This thread reminds me of the current publicity stunt by Abercrombie and Fitch to pay the cast of The Jersey Shore not to wear their clothes on camera. Stupid me, I thought A&F wanted to market to douchebags.
:lol:

[Emil Miller]

How would you judge someone in blue jeans, a heavy metal band shirt, and maybe a baseball cap? :lol:

I can't speak for Alexander111, but for my part, with amused indulgence.

[Ecurb]

But a good deal of rich people, were not born rich, they got there trough work ethic, ambition and intelligence. A man who is in a council flat on the other-hand, I disagree with you and will say that the majority would never assume him to be intelligent or more intelligent than than the other man. If a man has intelligence and work ethic, mostly work ethic, he will never be left or remain in such a position of shameless begging. Note I say man as in he is 30, not an 18 or 20 year old boy.

As to"gentleman" - if one associates good manner, chivalry, selflessness and a keen sense of honor as "snobby" then yes it does have snobby connotations. Personally I see a snob as something different. For me a true "gentleman" has always been somewhat of a self-made man, not merely a heir.

Your definition of "gentleman" shows how you differ from other educated English speakers, Alex. The man who has made his fortune in trade is no true gentleman! One way in which a gentleman demonstrates his good manners is by refusing to acknowledge that money enhances status. No true gentleman would deem a rich tradesman more gentlemanly than an impoverished baronet.

"A gentleman will not insult me, and no man not a gentleman can insult me."
-- Frederick Douglass

"I hold that gentleman to be the best-dressed whose dress no one observes."
--Anthony Trollope

"If we must have a tyrant, let him at least be a gentleman who has been bred to the business, and let us fall by the axe and not by the butcher's cleaver."
Lord Byron

'Tis well enough for a servant to be bred at an University. But the education is a little too pedantic for a gentleman."
William Congreve


"The only infallible rule we know is, that the man who is always talking about being a gentleman never is one."
Robert Smith Surtees

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I can't speak for Alexander111, but for my part, with amused indulgence.
I'd expect no less from you, Emil. :D

[Helga]

Funny, this thread seems to be a lot about men's fashion. I have to admit that I notice men's clothes more than women's and I get my first impression from clothes and hair. Good hair changes a lot about a person. I like it when people have a certain style but that style can be jeans and a shirt if it looks good and the person looks confident wearing it, it is all about the way you wear your clothes.

Sinatra was always cool but so was James Dean in his white T and jeans. I think many young men and boys look to movie stars just like many girls do and you can see that in things like glasses, like Johnny Deeps so many people here on the ice wear them now.

As for me I think I have a certain style that says a lot about me but I can honestly say that not everybody likes it. But I don't care I love it.
My friends dad used to say when we were young that as he looked out the window he thought he saw his daughter on every corner because she followed the fashion and wore clothes from the 'hip and cool' stores but I bought my stuff from the red cross or similar stores so he could see me a mile away. He liked my style better than his daughters.

[Alexander III]

I assume, once you actually talk to the person (or do you go so far as to write someone off completely because of their appearance?) you will change those prejudices of need be, no?

And, I can't help but think of seeing people as threats or non-threats is quite odd, at least personally. It's just not how I see people at all.

How would you judge someone in blue jeans, a heavy metal band shirt, and maybe a baseball cap?

:lol:

I often do write people completely off, sometimes due to their behavior they prove me wrong, and I re-evaluate, most of the time their behavior is utterly normal and they remain written off. If the same man with utterly normal behavior was handsome and/or well dressed I would have a good opinion of him. It should be noted that I do not choose all this, it is merely the way I am, and I know it is not perfect - but I stick with it.

Thats funny because I would think that not seeing people as threats or non-threats would be weird. For instance, lets assume you go to a club. My first instinct is to find out who are the few men who will be threats to me and will be able to compete at my level for women. Or if it is amongst guys it is the same but nor in regards to getting women but getting popularity. My first instinct is always to identify who is in direct competition with me - and appearances usually get it right.

As to the blue jeans and heavy metal t-shirt. If he is very handsome I forgive him and do not write off. If he is anything less than very handsome I notice him as much as I would notice any other object in the room. A man who dresses like he does not want to be noticed wont be noticed. Also I detest men who dress like they want to be noticed - Finding the perfect mix is the key in my eyes, being noticed but in an esoteric manner.

Re- reading this I think my image is slowly moving from effete fop to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cISYzA36-ZY

Worst bit is, I actually do think somewhat like that at times...


Your definition of "gentleman" shows how you differ from other educated English speakers, Alex. The man who has made his fortune in trade is no true gentleman! One way in which a gentleman demonstrates his good manners is by refusing to acknowledge that money enhances status. No true gentleman would deem a rich tradesman more gentlemanly than an impoverished baronet.

"A gentleman will not insult me, and no man not a gentleman can insult me."
-- Frederick Douglass

"I hold that gentleman to be the best-dressed whose dress no one observes."
--Anthony Trollope

"If we must have a tyrant, let him at least be a gentleman who has been bred to the business, and let us fall by the axe and not by the butcher's cleaver."
Lord Byron

'Tis well enough for a servant to be bred at an University. But the education is a little too pedantic for a gentleman."
William Congreve


"The only infallible rule we know is, that the man who is always talking about being a gentleman never is one."
Robert Smith Surtees

I think Kipling's poem is how I would describe a gentleman, this is the perfect and exact description.

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream–and not make dreams your master,
If you can think–and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ‘em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!”

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings–nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And–which is more–you’ll be a Man, my son!



(replace the final Man with Gentleman !)

[Ecurb]

I'll grant that back in Beau Brumell's day, more than one gentleman was willing to "make one heap of all your winnings / And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss...."

However, I've known a few men who would hardly qualify as gentlemen who were willing to do the same.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I often do write people completely off, sometimes due to their behavior they prove me wrong, and I re-evaluate, most of the time their behavior is utterly normal and they remain written off. If the same man with utterly normal behavior was handsome and/or well dressed I would have a good opinion of him. It should be noted that I do not choose all this, it is merely the way I am, and I know it is not perfect - but I stick with it.

That just seems horrible. Maybe it's because I can't control my physical appearance and have a lot of trouble with it, so people who place so much importance on physical appearance are, frankly, deplorable.

[stlukesguild]

Great post, I am quite a fan of pop surrealism; but in regards to your complaint that with the beginign of industrialisation clothes lost something and become bland - I have to disagree. All portraits pre 1789 were of the aristocracy and rich merchants, it seems obvious that they would be sortarial sistine chapels; but the masses have always been grey and bland. In the 17th century you had the majority of peasants in dirty smocks, in the victorian age the majority of middle class clerks wore the same black suit and nowadays the majority wear the baggy t-shirt and jeans or an ill fitting suit for work. But if one looks at those who have more time and more wealth and more ambition on their hands their sartorial beauty is just as great as that of the 17th century aristocrat - the difference being a change in fashion as we are far less baroque and rococo in our dress. I was at a special event in ascot a couple months ago and saw plenty of outfits which any painter would have been jealous to portrait.

Here are some portraits post mass industrialization where the dress is just as beautiful as one pre 18th century - beauty in style for men post revolution francais become about simple elegance, every article of clothing precisely labored over and everything set to perfection "taking 4 hours to dress" like our friend Onegin, and as soon as one leaves the house it must look like every article of clothing just fell out of the sky onto one by sheer chance. Calculated nonchalance.

The shift toward black... or the lack of color in fashion is something with ties closer to religion than anything else. Color has always suggested sensuality and voluptuousness. Certain colors conveyed certain things and as such were to be avoided under certain circumstances. The Protestant denominations have a long reputation as being iconoclasts... fearful of the image. The Lutheran Church, in which I was raised, was stark to the point of Minimalism... lacking almost any imagery... but they completely embraced music (Bach!) which could be just as sensual.

One need only compare the Protestants to their Catholic peers:

The Dutch:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6065/6056346712_5e9ceb194e_b.jpg
Rembrandt- Portrait of a Lady with an Ostrich Feather

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6072/6056346740_bcb0fdab94_b.jpg
Frans Hals- Portrait of a Man

In both of these instances the sitters are unquestionably well-off... perhaps not aristocrats, but certainly wealthy. The ability... indeed the vanity involved in having one's portrait painted was something reserved for the upper classes.

But How different are the Belgians... not far away:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6184/6055800303_5c4e5c6fe4_b.jpg
Sir Peter Paul Rubens- Portrais of Susanna Fourment, the artist's Sister in Law

This woman, by the way, is no aristocrat, but merely a woman of means no wealthier than the sitters above.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6087/6055838617_386285561b_b.jpg

The contrast is especially obvious in Britain. Under the reign of Charles I we have the elegant Stuart Brothers:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6065/6055838359_6c09a6951b_b.jpg
Anthony van Dyck- Lord John Stuart and his brother, Bernard

To say nothing of HRH himself:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6201/6055800263_4966856264_b.jpg
Anthony van Dyck- Charles I

The Baroque is the period in which the "calculated nonchalance" of which you speak, was first developed as a fashion statement. Van Dyck's portrait of Charles I is often cited as a prime example of this attribute. Charles is the King... one of the most powerful men in Europe... yet he almost seems to be casually dressed in a mere riding smock and breeches. Of course everything is of the finest materials and cuts. The jacket is satin or silk; the boots of the most sensuous calve-skin. He seems almost caught off-guard... nonchalant.. his hand on his hip in a jaunty, seemingly unstudied pose. about having his portrait painted while the servants deal with his horse. Of course everything is carefully studied. No one is taller than the King. Even his horse and the trees themselves bow before HRH.

The reality is that having one's portrait painted was no big deal for the King. Rather like a snapshot is to us. And we might compare the rigid, formal poses taken by our ancestors when the photograph was a big deal...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6189/6055916573_fc844f4018.jpg

One wore one's Sunday best clothing and finest jewelry... and no smiling was allowed... unlike today's family snap-shots where we all pose and preen and make faces or even rude gestures.

Robert Herrick gave a poetic form to the concept of studied nonchalance:

A sweet disorder in the dress
kindles in clothes a wantonness:
a lawn about the shoulders thrown
into a fine distraction:
an erring lace, which here and there
enthralls the crimson stomacher:
a cuff neglectful, and thereby
ribbands to flow confusedly:
a winning wave (deserving note)
in the tempestuous petticoat:
a careless shoe-string, in whose tie
I see a wild civility:
do more bewitch me, than when art
is too precise in every part.

--Robert Herrick (1591-1674)

In one of my Art History courses back in art school, we explored fashion and pose in paintings. Special attention was paid to the contrast between the portrait paintings of early Americans... quite often of Puritan or Quaker background:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6069/6055951891_106a4c833a_b.jpg
John Singleton Copley- Portrait of Paul Revere

John Singleton Copley portrays one of the leading figures in American history and culture, the very well-to-do silversmith, Paul Revere, as a simple skilled craftsman, dressed in well-tailored but austere clothing, rigidly posed, and proudly holding an example of his labor.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6085/6056498700_0af123b8af_z.jpg
Gilbert Stuart- Mrs. Catherine Yates

Gilbert Stuart, the first real master of American painting, portrays Mrs. Catherine Stuart in a similar formally posed manner.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6185/6055951967_cd1ba9f389_b.jpg
Gilbert Stuart- Portrait of William Grant (The Skater)

After having spent some years studying in Britain, Stuart returned to the US. His paintings show the impact of the experience. His Portrait of William Grant is quite audacious. Grant is portrayed in a less-than-formal manner. Indeed, his somewhat cocky, arms folded while skating pose almost has something precarious about it. One might also note that the sense of nonchalance applies to how the paint is applied as well as to the image. Stuart has picked up upon the loose brushwork that was popular in the works of Raeburn and Gainsborough... and is owed to Rubens, Rembrandt, and Titian.

But what a contrast between the American fashions and those of France:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6089/6055853445_a83f8e3b5f_b.jpg
Francois Boucher- La Toilette

Boucher presents an image of an upper-class woman and her maid... but in place of presenting the individual a a model of the Protestant Work Ethic, posed formally in his or her finest (but modest) clothes, showing off his or her honest labors, Boucher presents an informal view of the less-than-modest lady of the house pulling on her stockings (her ability to attract an seduce being her prime attribute). Between her legs lies her cat/pussy/minou. Tyhe room is sumptuously attired... but things are strewn about in apparent disarray

Boucher's portrait of the King's mistress, Madame de Pompadour presents a woman of great beauty... attired as if she were an extravagant and delicious wedding cake:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6090/6051670809_87166801ef_b.jpg
Francois Boucher- Mme de Pompadour

In still another painting by Boucher, the artist portrays Mme de Pompadour as an exquisite Venus:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6083/6057051598_cdc7bf44d1_b.jpg
Francois Boucher- Mme de Pompadour as Venus

Still another royal Mistress is seen even more decadently. Mademoiselle O'Murphy, the Irish lass pimped out by her mother to the highest bidder eventually ended up in the "service" of the King of France:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6182/6055853405_67653fb222_z.jpg

She lies prone upon her pink dress and white uinder-garments. Pearls are strewn at the foot of the sofa upon which she lies. The artist's focus... as opposed to the usual focus upon the sitter's face... is clearly upon her beautiful derrière.

continued...

[stlukesguild]

Fashion... and how it is worn and how the wearer poses can clearly reveal much about the sitter. One need only think of the casual dress of the American president or the English or Japanese prime ministers. The clothing of choice is well-made but simple business attire. Nothing loud or ostentatious. Compare this with the over-the-top attire with the chest full of medals worn by 3rd World Dictators. The US and Japanese leaders don't need to impress others of their power.

Returning to the shift in fashion as a result of industrialization, I'm not suggesting that the masses in prior ages were dressed better than they are now. Obviously, the reason that the wealthy could afford to dress in such opulence as this on a regular basis...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6193/6057374110_e35c2e28c7_b.jpg

... was simply that manual labor... even skilled labor... was so little valued. Industrialization and Democratization have resulted in a sort of "leveling out". The masses gained in their standard of living. I live in a house the size of which only a well-off merchant might have owned 100 years ago or less. Of course my home lacks the splendour of hand-wrought details: carved wooden mantelpiece, elegant moldings, etc... By the same token, the standard of living of all but the most extremely wealthy (Bill Gates, etc...) has declined in some terms. These individuals cannot afford hand-made embroidered clothing and sheets, etc... on a day to day basis. The architectural extravagance once within the grasp of the average aristocrat is now reserved for a very select few... or for corporations.

The average educated professional or successful business person surely has access to a standard of dress far better than owned by the average clerk, accountant, architect, designer, teacher, etc... of the not-so-distant past. But the mass produced clothing of the last 100 years... especially that designed for me... was very much impacted by the Puritanism of Modernism... the rejection of ornament, the sensuality of color, and anything that suggested opulence or extravagance... or even non-conformity. Certainly, an artist like Manet could make much with the dress of the time:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6202/6056892831_7eca6db873_b.jpg
Edouard Manet- Portrait of Zola

Of course Manet was a master of black and gray... enamored of the stark paintings of Velasquez more than anyone else. Jame Whistler was similarly affected by black, white, and gray... perhaps unable to fully throw of his Puritan American roots in spite of his Wildean elegance and decadence:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6189/6056893001_1daaecd29c_z.jpg
James Whistler- Harmony in Pink and Gray (Lady Meux)

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6067/6056893065_e7d8d83947_b.jpg
James Whistler- Arrangement in Black (H.R. Leyland)

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6194/6057440848_f505720f25_b.jpg
James Whistler- Symphony in White

A great many artists employed the contrast of the black male dress against the brilliant colors still allowed to women:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6199/6057440768_0754e92e59_b.jpg
James Tissot- Too Early

To many others... especially those artists enamored of color... the solution was to seek out those instances (such as Degas' ballets and brothels) where color was rampant... or to ignore what was before the eyes and exaggerate or abstract things to the extreme:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6087/6056932025_8dab8d4174_b.jpg
Max Beckmann- Self Portrait

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6086/6057481142_411b80a0b5_z.jpg
Henri Matisse- Woman with Green Eyes

In the case of Matisse's later works, the artist simply staged his models in the sort of exotic, lush, and colorful environments he wished to paint:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6075/6056932139_fe99456554_z.jpg
Henri Matisse- Odalisque

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6208/6057481168_3edc4c7a57_b.jpg
Henri Matisse- The Black Table

Again... by mid-20th century the artist was left with little to work with in terms of variety of shape, color, or texture when it came to men's clothing especially... but also increasingly to women's clothing. There was a definite conformity that came unhinged for a period in the 1960s and early 1970's. Still... most "realist" paintings of the later 20th century lack something in contrast to Rubens, Titian, Veronese, etc... and much of this has to do with the blandness of the fashions:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6075/6057526338_f632961f91.jpg
Doc Hammer- Saint

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6066/6056977725_5bdc47cd9d_b.jpg
Lucian Freud- Man in a Chair (Portrait of H.H. Thyssen-Bornemisza) One of the wealthiest men in Europe... but you surely wouldn't know it.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6064/6056977765_190092d1e8.jpg
Iain Faulkner- Shopping Spree

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6068/6057526484_224ca46f2c_b.jpg
Eric Fischl- Mike

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6081/6057526530_6fc6407450_z.jpg
Bo Bartlett- Alexis

continued...

[stlukesguild]

pictures a little too sexy

[stlukesguild]

Mark Ryden's world of Victorian faerie tales... all gone wrong:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6084/6057147331_fcfe69a327_z.jpg
Mark Ryden- Jessica's Hope

and Ray Caesar's Rococo fantasies meet Hollywood horror films:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6074/6057168943_1b1f0de6a9_z.jpg
Ray Caesar- First of Days

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6186/6057168919_826d89b7ee_z.jpg
Ray Caesar- Madre

One of my favorites is the New Orleans artist, Douglas Bourgeois who merges the various characters of New Orleans with its great Jambalaya stew of various cultures and histories. In many way he reminds me of Max Beckmann or Bob Dylan from Highway 61 Revisited with his almost "surreal" mic of high and low, past and present, black and white, etc...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6207/6057716468_5fb0933ea4_z.jpg
Douglas Bourgeois- Lil' Kim and Ed

In Lil' Kim and Ed, Bourgeois imagines the scantily-clad rapper sharing a bottle with Edgar Allen Poe in a setting that is a cross between a decaying shack in backwoods Louisiana and a setting for an Annunciation by Fra Angelico.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6192/6057716422_41a9fa8aa3_z.jpg
Douglas Bourgeois- The Enigma Orchestra

In the Enigma Orchestra the artist imagines a black American blues/jazz/rock singer (flanked by old blues guitarists) as a Hindu saint clad in her beautiful silk robes... yet at the same time, this icon clearly refers to the Catholic icons of the Virgin surrounded with roses and thorns.

Again... I wonder how fashion might continue to change in response to art... and vis-versa as the two have been forever intertwined.

[BienvenuJDC]

Stlukes,

If a picture is worth a thousand words...you've become QUITE wordy.

[stlukesguild]

Ecurb- Personally, I judge people by their facility with language -- and only "mediocre men" (or worse) use "good" as an adverb.

I think modern, flowing fabrics (or old fashioned ones like silk) wouldn’t look good with corsets, and look great without them. Of course women with good figures look best in these fabrics. John Dunne evidently agrees:

WHENAS in silks my Julia goes
Then, then (methinks) how sweetly flows
That liquefaction of her clothes.

Next, when I cast mine eyes and see
That brave vibration each way free; 5
Oh how that glittering taketh me!

The “liquefacation” of Julia’s clothes wouldn’t work with a corset.

Something about "glass houses" comes to mind, here. John Donne is spelled with an "O" not a "U"... and John Donne is not the poet of this poem. It was written by Robert Herrick.

An example of the clothes of this era would look something like this:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6208/6051660383_deeb71c0ea_b.jpg

Or this:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6188/6057366797_774d65a272_b.jpg

The "liquifaction" referred to the sensuous flowing and undulating of the great swaths of satin and silks which such dresses were made from.

[stlukesguild]

However, judging people in this manner involves judging people according to their social class, which is offensive to modern, egalitarian sensibilities.

It is quite possible that Alexander hates Egalitarianism as much as I do. It is surely the bane of art.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You don't think people deserve equal rights?

Thanks for tagging the the images, btw. Much appreciated.

[Buh4Bee]

What does the way a man dress tell a person about himself. What about how he presents himself? Do the clothe match the man?

As a side note, appearance consists of more that sweaters and jackets, but consistent features like a watch, shoes, jewelry and even, cologne. And most importantly hair is the greatest indicator of a man's fashion sense. The clothes can be minor indicators when compared to the consistent features. You can take a good looking guy with no brains and dress him up, but then what? Does this guy have more going on?

But really is it about the clothes or the man himself?
I spoke to a senator the other week and I did not know he was a senator, but I could tell he was a powerful man by the questions he asked and the way he stood. He was taking apart a metal shelf in his garage in jeans. You can tell a well bred man by talking to him. But when you put the senator in the suit, he is transformed.

It is very difficult to be an imposing figure, this is why a gentleman must be aware of his stature. My gynecologist is also senator and he was always dressed well. However, he was a kindly man and knew how to keep me calm even in my full glory of pregnancy. He saw it all, but the point is he was able to main his level of intelligence and breeding, while doing his job with ordinary folks.

[Buh4Bee]

I think that fashion is a superficial convention and in some ways has a very weak connection to the struggle and reality of the history and current stature of equal rights. I also say, who the hell cares what people think, it's the law in the States. But that's just my opinion.

[stlukesguild]

You don't think people deserve equal rights?

Egalitarianism is not the belief that everyone is deserving of equal rights (which I question considering the morons whose votes hold equal weight with everyone else). Egalitarianism advocates removing the inequalities that exist between individuals. This includes racial profiling and slanting admissions tests for Universities and employment opportunities. It has resulted in the inane laws concerning education in which habitually disruptive students as well as physically and developmentally handicapped students are all thrown into a single classroom where all will be treated equally because none will be taught according to his or her unique needs. Equality does not mean that all are born equally intelligent, equally motivated, equally athletic, equally good looking, equally healthy, equally wealthy... it means everyone should be afforded the same rights (and responsibilities... with which those rights go hand-in-hand) and opportunities under the law. Even that is not fully realistic. If I am born the son of a billionaire I have certain opportunities others will never have. By the same token, if I am born with the IQ of 65 my opportunities are somewhat lessened. To think otherwise is fantasy. To imagine this can be changed by force or coercion... or some other means is equally a fantasy.

[billl]

What does that have to do with not judging people by their social class? There's tons of specific ideas for egalitarianism, and if it threw one off the point, or you think Mutatis used it wrong, that's understandable.

I think what you are actually backing Alexander up on, though, is the idea that judging people by their social class is a fine thing. The point wasn't that all fashion designers should be considered equally talented or anything like that.



EDIT: Finally tracked it down, Ecurb was the one who was quoted in post #78.

[stlukesguild]

I think that fashion is a superficial convention and in some ways has a very weak connection to the struggle and reality of the history and current stature of equal rights. I also say, who the hell cares what people think, it's the law in the States. But that's just my opinion.

We are all visual beings. We find some things visually attractive and others not. We are visually attracted to mates. Art and architecture and design are just as important to a great many as literature or music are to others. Indeed, one's visual surrounding or environment have a profound impact upon the individual... something William Blake recognized when he asked

And did those feet in ancient time.
Walk upon England's mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!

And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?

William Morris equally suggested that being surrounded by items and settings that one considered "beautiful" had a positive impact upon the individual, while the reverse had a definite negative impact.

Psychological studies have proven as much. Students in poor urban districts who must attend school in run-down building with broken desks, ripped textbooks, graffiti, etc... are far less motivated than when given the option of attending clean, orderly, well-kept school buildings. They understand the unspoken reality... that they are not valued... that they can be thrown aside... that is conveyed by the visual environment they are placed within.

One doesn't judge others solely upon appearances... but it is an important element. Anyone who says appearance are irrelevant is either blind... or lying. Most of us couldn't imagine a couple 350 pound actors in a hot and heavy Hollywood love scene. I often though that brilliant as they were as singers, Joan Sutherland and Luciano Pavarotti would have been comic in a scene like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQC0O3j8Ttk

Denis Dutton, a professor of aesthetic and aesthetic anthropology has made some interesting studies about the very value of the visual arts:

http://www.denisdutton.com/aesthetics_&_evolutionary_psychology.htm

Recently... an interest in cross-cultural, universal features of art has been revived with growing developments in evolutionary psychology, which seeks to understand the psychological and cultural life of human beings in terms of their genetic inheritance as an evolved species. All animal species have evolved to increase fitness for survival and reproduction. Every physical aspect of the human organism is open to the influences of evolution, and all will be in respects explained by it...

Evolutionary psychology extends the findings of Darwinian theory to the working of the human psyche. In particular, it treats our mental capacities, inclinations, and desires as adaptations developed in the last two million years-since the Pleistocene era. These features of the mind were fully developed in their modern form by about 10,000 years ago, the beginning of the Holocene, the period that saw the introduction of agriculture and cities, and the development of writing and metal tools. Since then, the human brain has not significantly changed in its genetic character.

Rather than regarding the mind at birth as a content-free, blank slate on which are inscribed the skills and values of the culture of an individual, evolutionary psychology posits the existence of innate interests, capacities, and tastes, laid down through processes of natural and sexual selection. Evolutionary psychology replaces the blank slate as a metaphor for mind with the Swiss army knife: the mind is a set of tools and capacities specifically adapted to important tasks and interests... Some of these features are uniform across the human species; others are statistically related to sex; for instance, females are more inclined towards an interest in child nurturing and have a greater ability to remember details in visual experience, while males are more physically aggressive, and better able to determine directionality and engage in “map reading.”

Two features of art immediately link it with these psychological factors. First, art-forms are found everywhere cross-culturally. There exists no known human culture that does not display some form of expressive making that European cultures would identify as artistic. This does not mean that all cultures have all artforms: the Japanese tea ceremony, widely regarded as an art, does not have any close analogue in the West; the Sepik River people of New Guinea are passionate carvers, and stand in sharp contrast with their fellow New Guineans from that Highlands, who direct their energies into body decoration and the production of fighting shields, but who carve very little. The Dinka of East Africa have almost no visual art, but have a highly developed poetry, along with a connoisseur’s fascination with the forms, colours, and patterns of the natural markings on the cattle they depend on for their livelihoods. That these and other cultures have practices and products that we would recognize as artistic begs for an account from evolutionary psychology. The very universality of art strongly suggests that it is connected with ancient psychological adaptations.

The second feature that marks art as a focus of psychological interest is that it provides people with pleasure and emotions, often of an intense kind. It is a postulate of evolutionary psychology that pleasures, pains, and emotion-including experiences of attraction, revulsion, awe, fear, love, respect, loathing-have adaptive relevance. The pleasure of eating sweet and fatty foods is a Pleistocene adaptation for nutrition and survival as much as the pleasure of sex is an adaptation for procreation: ancestors who enjoyed eating and sex were in fact more likely to have descendants and to pass those traits on to them. Conversely with revulsion. One of the most dangerously poisonous substances for potential human consumption would be bacteria-laden rotting meat; it is not an evolutionary accident that rotting meat is one of the most repellent of all smells to human beings. The range of items in experience for which there may be some kind of Pleistocene inheritance includes our emotional dispositions towards other human beings, their comportment, expressions, and behaviour; our responses to the environment, including animals and plants, the dark of night, and to natural landscapes; our interest in creating and listening to narratives with identifiable themes, including imaginative dangers and the overcoming of romantic obstacles; our enjoyment of problem-solving; our liking for communal activity; and our appreciation of displays of skill and virtuosity.

One of the most important considerations in the survival of any organism is habitat selection. Until the development of cities 10,000 years ago, human life was mostly nomadic. Finding desirable conditions for survival, particularly with an eye towards potential food and predators, would have selectively affected the human response to landscape—the capacity of landscape types to evoke positive emotions, rejection, inquisitiveness, and a desire to explore, or a general sense of comfort...

If survival in life is a matter of dealing with an often inhospitable physical universe, and dealing with members of our own species, both friendly and unfriendly, there would be a general benefit to be derived from imaginatively exercising the mind in order to prepare it for its next challenge. Puzzle-solving of all kinds, thinking through imagined alternative strategies to meet difficulties — these are at the heart of what the arts allow us to do. In fictional narratives, we meet a far greater variety of obstacles, along with potential solutions, than we ever could in a single life. As Stephen Pinker has argued, “Life has even more moves than chess. People are always, to some extent, in conflict, and their moves and countermoves multiply out to an unimaginably vast set of interactions”. Story-telling, on this model, is a way of running multiple, relatively cost-free experiments with life in order to see, in the imagination, where courses of action may lead. Although narrative can deal with the challenges of the natural world, its usual home is, as Aristotle also understood, in the realm of human relations. “Parents, offspring, and siblings, because of their partial genetic overlap, have both common and competing interests, and any deed that one party directs toward another may be selfless, selfish, or a mixture of the two”. Add to this the complications of dealing with lovers, spouses, friends, and strangers, and you have the basic material for most of the history of literature, from the Epic of Gilgamesh right up to drugstore bodice-rippers.

While the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection has proved to be one of the most versatile and powerful explanatory ideas in all of science, there is another, lesser-known, side of Darwinism: sexual selection. The most famous example of sexual selection is the peacock’s tail. This huge display, far from enhancing survival in the wild, makes peacocks more prone to predation. The tails are heavy, requiring much energy to grow and to drag around. This seems to be nature’s point: simply being able to manage with a tail like that functions as an advertisement to peahens: “Look at what a strong, healthy, fit peacock I am.” For discriminating peahens, the tail is a fitness indicator, and they will choose to mate with peacocks who display the grandest tails

Fundamental to sexual selection in the animal kingdom is female choice, as the typical routine for most species has males displaying strength, cleverness, and general genetic fitness in order to invite female participation in producing the next generation. With the human animal, there is a greater mutuality of choice. Geoffrey Miller holds not only that sexual selection is the source of the traits we tend to find the most endearingly human-qualities of character, talent, and demeanour — but that artistic creativity and enjoyment came into being in the Pleistocene in the process of women and men choosing sexual partners. The notion that we can alter ourselves through sexual selection is well accepted: there are striking examples of human sexual selection at work even in recent, historic times. The Wodaabe of Nigeria and Niger are beloved by travel photographers because of their geere wol festivals, where young men make themselves up, in ways that look feminine to Europeans, and dance vigorously to display endurance and health. Women then choose their favourites, preferring the tallest men with the biggest eyes, whitest teeth, and straightest noses. Over generations, the Wodaabe have grown taller than neighbouring tribes, with whiter teeth, straighter noses, etc. If it is possible to observe this kind of change in a few centuries, it is clearly possible to remake or refine Homo sapiens in tens of thousands of generations. As with natural selection, just slight choice bias over long time periods could radically reform aspects of humanity, giving us species features of personality and character that we have in effect created for ourselves. Our ancestors exercised their tastes for “warm, witty, creative, intelligent, generous companions’as mates, and this shows itself both in the constitution of our present tastes and traits, and in our tendency to create and appreciate art.

It is sexual selection, therefore, that is plausibly responsible for the astonishingly large human brain, an organ whose peculiar capacities wildly exceed survival needs on the African savannahs. The human brain makes possible a mind that is uniquely good at a long list of features that are found in all cultures but are difficult to explain in terms of survival benefits: “humor, story-telling, gossip, art, music, self-consciousness, ornate language, imaginative ideologies, religion, morality” (Miller 2000). From the standpoint of sexual selection, the mind is best seen as a gaudy, over-powered home entertainment system, evolved to help our stone-age ancestors to attract, amuse, and bed each other.

As a telling example of the human self-created overabundance of mental capacity, consider vocabulary. Nonhuman primates have up to twenty distinct calls. The average human knows perhaps 60,000 words, learned at an average of ten to twenty a day up to age 18. As 98 per cent of daily speech uses only about 4,000 words, and no more than a couple of thousand words at most would have sufficed in the Pleistocene, the excess vocabulary is well explained by sexual selection theory as a fitness and general intelligence indicator. Miller points out that the correlate between body symmetry — a well-known fitness indicator — and intelligence is only about 20 per cent. Vocabulary size, on the other hand, is more strongly correlated to intelligence, which is why it is still used both in scientific testing and more generally by people automatically to gauge how clever a person is. Such an indicator is especially telling in courtship contexts. Indeed, extravagant, poetic use of language — including a large vocabulary and syntactic virtuosity — is associated worldwide with love, being a kind of cognitive foreplay. But it is also, he points out, something that can “give a panoramic view of someone’s personality, plans, hopes, fears, and ideals.” It would therefore have been an essential item in the inventory of mate selection criteria.

The human tendency to create amusements, to elaborate and decorate everywhere in life, is therefore a result of mate choices, accounting for the evolution of dancing, body decoration, clothing, jewellery, hair styling, architecture, furniture, gardens, artefact design, images from cave paintings to calendars, creative uses of language, popular entertainments from religious pageants to TV soaps, and music of all kinds. Artistic expression in general, like vocabulary creation and verbal display, has its origins according to sexual selection in its utility as a fitness indicator: “Applied to human art, this suggests that beauty equals difficulty and high cost. We find attractive those things that could have been produced only by people with attractive, high-fitness qualities such as health, energy, endurance, hand-eye coordination, fine motor control, intelligence, creativity, access to rare materials, the ability to learn difficult skills, and lots of free time” . This view accords with a persistent intuition about art that can be traced from the Greeks to Nietzsche and Freud: art is somehow connected, at base, to sex. The mistake in traditional art theorizing has been to imagine that there must be some coded or sublimated sexual content in art. But it is not the content per se that sexual: it is the display element of producing and admiring artists and their art in the first place that has grounded art in sexuality since the beginnings of the human race.

To the extent that art-making was a fitness indicator in the Pleistocene, it would have to be something that low-fitness artists would find hard to duplicate... Consider virtuosity: if music is a series of sounds in a formal relation, why should it make any difference to us that the sounds of a Paganini caprice are also difficult to realize on a violin? From the standpoint of sexual selection theory, this is no issue: virtuosity, craftsmanship, and the skilful overcoming of difficulties are intrinsic to art as display.

And difficulty isn’t all: art also involves costliness. As much as this might contradict the modernist devaluing of skill and cost as central to the concept of art, it is in line with persistent popular reactions to art, showing up in the liking of skilful realistic painting, musical virtuosity, and expensive architectural details. This may not justify the philistinism of asking how much a famous museum painting is worth, but it does explain it.

[stlukesguild]

What does that have to do with not judging people by their social class? There's tons of specific ideas for egalitarianism, and if it threw one off the point, or you think Mutatis used it wrong, that's understandable.

I think what you are actually backing Alexander up on, though, is the idea that judging people by their social class is a fine thing.

Social class has nothing do do with the notion that aesthetics have value... that as visual beings we make judgments based upon appearances... even if these later prove to be wrong. I can't speak for Alexander, but I would myself embrace something closer to Castiglione's notion of the "courtier". At the height of the Renaissance... when the aristocracy was afforded unquestioned power... Castiglione suggested that being a "gentleman"... a "nobleman"... someone with "class" was not simply something that one was born with or without. It wasn't something inherited. It was something one earned. For the artist or poet it was something attained as the result of his or her artistic achievements. For the aristocrats, this was something one earned through supporting the church, helping the poor and needy, and supporting the achievements of others through patronage. This, clearly demanded that one be educated... and develop a sense of taste.

Obviously, this was but an ideal... and the ideal was often far from reality... but it is a concept of having earned respect as the result of merit... meritocracy as opposed to a concept of imagined entitlement.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You don't think people deserve equal rights?

Egalitarianism is not the belief that everyone is deserving of equal rights (which I question considering the morons whose votes hold equal weight with everyone else). Egalitarianism advocates removing the inequalities that exist between individuals. This includes racial profiling and slanting admissions tests for Universities and employment opportunities. It has resulted in the inane laws concerning education in which habitually disruptive students as well as physically and developmentally handicapped students are all thrown into a single classroom where all will be treated equally because none will be taught according to his or her unique needs. Equality does not mean that all are born equally intelligent, equally motivated, equally athletic, equally good looking, equally healthy, equally wealthy... it means everyone should be afforded the same rights (and responsibilities... with which those rights go hand-in-hand) and opportunities under the law. Even that is not fully realistic. If I am born the son of a billionaire I have certain opportunities others will never have. By the same token, if I am born with the IQ of 65 my opportunities are somewhat lessened. To think otherwise is fantasy. To imagine this can be changed by force or coercion... or some other means is equally a fantasy.
First, my use of egalitarianism was faulty, since I had to look the word up, saw the definition, and asked the question.

I have to quibble a little here, though. Just to clarify, you don't think disabled students should be put in the same classes as "normal" students? First, I assume you only mean mentally disabled (I sencerely hope this is what you meant, even though you say "physically . . . handicapped students"), no? I'm just wondering what your ideal classroom would be. Do you want all students of the same level only in a class? Dumb kids there, smart kids there, the middle there? When I student taught, I had a couple students who were autistic and sometimes interrupted the class, but they were smart and could do the material. Did they not have a right to be in that class with everyone else? In high school, I had a Spanish class with a severely mentally disabled student who would also sometimes interrupt class, but the teacher would still ask him questions, and sometimes he knew the answers and sometimes he didn't (like any student). When he acted up, he was ignored and we went on with the class, and it wasn't a big deal. Should he be sequestered with all the other mentally retarded students?

What does that have to do with not judging people by their social class? There's tons of specific ideas for egalitarianism, and if it threw one off the point, or you think Mutatis used it wrong, that's understandable.

I think what you are actually backing Alexander up on, though, is the idea that judging people by their social class is a fine thing.

Social class has nothing do do with the notion that aesthetics have value... that as visual beings we make judgments based upon appearances... even if these later prove to be wrong. I can't speak for Alexander, but I would myself embrace something closer to Castiglione's notion of the "courtier". At the height of the Renaissance... when the aristocracy was afforded unquestioned power... Castiglione suggested that being a "gentleman"... a "nobleman"... someone with "class" was not simply something that one was born with or without. It wasn't something inherited. It was something one earned. For the artist or poet it was something attained as the result of his or her artistic achievements. For the aristocrats, this was something one earned through supporting the church, helping the poor and needy, and supporting the achievements of others through patronage. This, clearly demanded that one be educated... and develop a sense of taste.

Obviously, this was but an ideal... and the ideal was often far from reality... but it is a concept of having earned respect as the result of merit... meritocracy as opposed to a concept of imagined entitlement.
I understand looking at a person and judging their aesthetic beauty. I can very well look at a well-dressed, beautiful woman and appreciate it, just as I can identify a fat, poorly dressed slob. Still, I don't look at the pretty woman and think, "Oh, I bet she's smart and nice," or vice versa with the ugly woman. Judgements like that are inane.

[OrphanPip]

There's an awful lot of sidestepping what Ecurb's point was. They were saying that clothing choice is inevitably linked to social class, because of the cost of clothing. If you want to dress in well made and well designed clothes you need a fair bit of wealth. Alex says that people of lower classes can still dress nice, but I think that's a bit naive. In my neighbourhood, many people can not afford anything other than illfitting t-shirts and jeans, and often not in the colours they may want. They wear what they have.

Moreover, Stlukes is misrepresenting what egalitarianism means somewhat. For example, those that hold people should be given equal opportunity as is deserving based on their abilities no matter what their gender or race, are proposing a form of egalitarianism. When we suspend the notion of legal and social equality, what we end up with is the inevitable trouble of deciding what makes people better than others. Of course people with low IQ will have limited opportunities, but how do we have the right to decide what opportunities are appropriate for them, why do we get to say they don't have the right to at least try to achieve as much as those of normal IQ.

A good deal of social and economic success is due to circumstances rather than any real inherent value of the individual. I think people who go on about social position be a reflection of character strength are merely participating in an exercise of self-aggrandizement and playing with what is nothing more than the happy fantasy of "those who deserve good things get good things."

[LitNetIsGreat]

I understand looking at a person and judging their aesthetic beauty. I can very well look at a well-dressed, beautiful woman and appreciate it, just as I can identify a fat, poorly dressed slob. Still, I don't look at the pretty woman and think, "Oh, I bet she's smart and nice," or vice versa with the ugly woman. Judgements like that are inane.
For me it is not about making shallow judgments like that, it goes much deeper. I’m talking about taking the whole of a persons personality into account very quickly, subconsciously, forming an accurate snapshot of their lives and personalities based upon that initial contact or observation. We all do all the time and we are good at it. Even if our sensibilities are affronted by being pigeon-holed in such a way, as we all like to think we are special unique individuals who can’t be categorised so easily, nevertheless I think our initial observations are more accurate than some people would like to believe.

As I said earlier this snapshot is not just based on clothes (though that’s a part of it) it's about how a person holds themselves in those clothes. How a person speaks and behaves, their manner, accent, tone, baring, confidence, etc, etc – the whole picture. For example as someone above mentioned of the senator in jeans was still clearly a senator in baring, or in the commonly held belief that a success or failure at interview is decided within the first ten seconds.

No, I’m not personally talking about making shallow observations based on skin deep looks, but about forming the whole of a person’s character very quickly. It’s something we do all the time and are very good at I'm sure.

[MarkBastable]

For me it is not about making shallow judgments like that, it goes much deeper. I’m talking about taking the whole of a persons personality into account very quickly, subconsciously, forming an accurate snapshot of their lives and personalities based upon that initial contact or observation. We all do all the time and we are good at it. Even if our sensibilities are affronted by being pigeon-holed in such a way, as we all like to think we are special unique individuals who can’t be categorised so easily, nevertheless I think our initial observations are more accurate than some people would like to believe.

As I said earlier this snapshot is not just based on clothes (though that’s a part of it) it's about how a person holds themselves in those clothes. How a person speaks and behaves, their manner, accent, tone, baring, confidence, etc, etc – the whole picture. For example as someone above mentioned of the senator in jeans was still clearly a senator in baring, or in the commonly held belief that a success or failure at interview is decided within the first ten seconds.

No, I’m not personally talking about making shallow observations based on skin deep looks, but about forming the whole of a person’s character very quickly. It’s something we do all the time and are very good at I'm sure.

I tend to make rapid assessments of people's entire character based solely on their spelling.

[stlukesguild]

First, my use of egalitarianism was faulty, since I had to look the word up, saw the definition, and asked the question.
I have to quibble a little here, though. Just to clarify, you don't think disabled students should be put in the same classes as "normal" students? First, I assume you only mean mentally disabled (I sencerely hope this is what you meant, even though you say "physically . . . handicapped students"), no? I'm just wondering what your ideal classroom would be.

It isn't a question of what is ideal for the teacher. It is a question of what is best for the student. The notion of placing students of every and all abilities in the same classroom is based upon a faulty assumption that coddling the student's self-esteem is more important than actually teaching him of her. We now have a generation of more who have the biggest ego with nothing to back it up.

When I was a grade student, not all that long ago, the schools still employed tracking. They placed students into classes according to ability. By doing so the brighter students could be pushed forward to the best of their abilities without losing the slower students who would become frustrated and just give up.

When a student is placed in a special needs class, he or she has the advantage of a teacher who has an intimate knowledge of each students' abilities as the result of the IEPs (Individualized Education Plans) and the specific training in dealing with, motivating, and teaching those students.

When you take a general classroom and add one visually impaired student (and by this I mean legally blind) one hearing impaired student (legally deaf), two or three or more habitually disruptive students who may or may not as of yet been identified as have severe emotional/behavioral issues, 5 or 6 developmentally handicapped students who may read 5 o6 grades behind their age group and need any number of other accommodations, and then throw in two extremely bright students in a class that as a whole numbers anywhere from 30-40 students, what do you imagine the result will be? The teacher is forced to focus upon the mean... the middle or average student....

The notion that all students learn at the same rate and mature at the same age is also based upon the concern about the student's imagined fragile psyche more than it is about what is best for the individual. This is why we have social promotion in which a student who cannot do the work in 4th grade is promoted to 5th in the belief that the emotional scars resulting from being held back will be worse than those caused when he or she is completely lost by the time he or she gets to 8th grade.

Do you want all students of the same level only in a class? Dumb kids there, smart kids there, the middle there? When I student taught, I had a couple students who were autistic and sometimes interrupted the class, but they were smart and could do the material. Did they not have a right to be in that class with everyone else?

The questions that must be asked is what is best for the students? If the autistic student is able to handle the work and not cause a constant disruption, then certainly he or she should be placed at the appropriate grade level. If he or she is a constant disruption, then you have the issue of one student or a few students essentially detracting from the education of others. In theory, this is not legal. Most student handbooks state that no student has the right to interfere with the learning of another. In reality, dumping all the students together into a single classroom saves money... and looks good... we're treating everyone equally.

The reality is that everyone is not equal. When the student completes school and enters the work place, the employer doesn't care about his or her fragile psyche. The employer cares about whether he or she can do the job... about his or her ability to work with others, etc... Treating all students fairly does not necessarily mean treating them as if they were all the same. using a behavioral issue as an example, I may have a student who is continually using profanity and engaging in hostile and even physical confrontations. I will try to set behavioral goals for this student that are attainable. I may have to ignore any number of small infractions that I would immediately address coming from a normally well-behaved student because I recognize that not all children are the same.

This has nothing to do with making life easy for the teacher or privileging the "smart" child over the "slow". This has everything to do with treating the students as individuals and addressing their unique needs in a manner that is best for them.

[Buh4Bee]

St. Luke's is quite correct. The classes are too big and the needs are too intense, so you end doing crowd control instead of being able to teach. I'm not for tracking, and there are buzz words like differentiation. It's just too hard, so you do the best you can. Teachers provide an appropriate or reasonable eduction, but not a superior education. Unfortunately, when you have these huge ranges, you can meet all the individual needs or differentiate. The bright kids are quickly forgotten. But this is just a side note.
People were discussing the idea that good fashion is linked to class. You need money to look good.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I tend to make rapid assessments of people's entire character based solely on their spelling.

I'm sure you do and I'm sure that some people make rapid assessments of your character based upon that assessment.

(As if I can be expected to write anything productive in the morning, but I'm sure people knew what I meant...)

[MarkBastable]

I'm sure you do and I'm sure that some people make rapid assessments of your character based upon that assessment.


So you think it's fair to judge people by the way they judge people?

[Ecurb]

So you think it's fair to judge people by the way they judge people?

It's fair to judge people however you want to judge people. What is unfair is to think that because someone is a poor speller he beats his wife, or can't speak Spanish, or has no sense of humor. The same, of course, goes for how a person dresses. If one's primary interest in other people is in how they look, it's entirely reasonable to be interested in pretty people, and uninterested in ugly ones (fashion included in the assessment).

Of course -- especially when it comes to romantic interest -- how someone looks is a factor. But surely it's not the only factor, or even the most important factor. On the other hand, if you are a conservative person who believes in behaving in a culturally appropriate manner at all times (in other words, if you are a bore), a person who fails to dress appropriately might not live up to your standards. On the other hand, if you are a rebel who despises conformity, people who always dress appropriately might bore you. In other words, it's reasonable to make certain judgments about people based on how they dress -- but not others.

[LitNetIsGreat]

So you think it's fair to judge people by the way they judge people?

I think that people make accurate snap judgments based upon initial contact/observation as I detailed previously. I also said/suggested that all people do this consciously or subconsciously. If you think I am wrong about that then say so.

[MarkBastable]

I think that people make accurate snap judgments based upon initial contact/observation as I detailed previously. I also said/suggested that all people do this consciously or subconsciously. If you think I am wrong about that then say so.

I think that people make judgements on the basis of the things that they themselves find important. Whether or not they are accurate within those terms doesn't mean much, because the terms themselves are subjective. So if Alexander judges a person on, say, their clothes, he's actually making a series of judgemental assumptions, the first of which is that the person being judged ought to be as interested in clothes as Alexander is.

There's also a problem of association, in which the feedback loop of evidence becomes confused. If Brian Bean adopts an attitude of 'amused indulgence' towards a person in a baseball cap, he's assuming something about all wearers of baseball caps which might be supported by the evidence in Clapham, but which would be completely erroneous in Charlotte. Still, the associations of the baseball cap are apparently so strong that they over-ride context for him.

I think that the process of making such judgements is so prone to inaccuracy that it's practically useless. If I were to suggest that anyone who seems not to know the difference between 'bearing' and 'baring' is, in my snap judgement, illiterate, shallow and devoid of the kind of curiosity that might prompt him to ask himself what the words he's typing actually mean, I think it would be fair to accuse me of being unreasonable, lazy and supercilious. (And I suspect that the mistake was an uncharacteristic one, so the judgement made would be unfair.) I don't see why the same response shouldn't be levelled at someone who makes the kind of judgements you're proposing.

[Emil Miller]

There's also a problem of association, in which the feedback loop of evidence becomes confused. If Brian Bean adopts an attitude of 'amused indulgence' towards a person in a baseball cap, he's assuming something about all wearers of baseball caps which might be supported by the evidence in Clapham, but which would be completely erroneous in Charlotte. Still, the associations of the baseball cap are apparently so strong that they over-ride context for him.

It is amusing that you are not entirely immune to making snap judgments yourself judging by the last sentence, especially as the baseball cap was given as an optional extra: see quote below. It was in fact the heavy metal band shirt that elicited the comment as I find such apparel rather juvenile, in much the same way that I find disputatious posts that are made solely for their own sake.

How would you judge someone in blue jeans, a heavy metal band shirt, and maybe a baseball cap?

[LitNetIsGreat]

I think that people make judgements on the basis of the things that they themselves find important. Whether or not they are accurate within those terms doesn't mean much, because the terms themselves are subjective. So if Alexander judges a person on, say, their clothes, he's actually making a series of judgemental assumptions, the first of which is that the person being judged ought to be as interested in clothes as Alexander is.

There's also a problem of association, in which the feedback loop of evidence becomes confused. If Brian Bean adopts an attitude of 'amused indulgence' towards a person in a baseball cap, he's assuming something about all wearers of baseball caps which might be supported by the evidence in Clapham, but which would be completely erroneous in Charlotte. Still, the associations of the baseball cap are apparently so strong that they over-ride context for him.

I think that the process of making such judgements is so prone to inaccuracy that it's practically useless. If I were to suggest that anyone who seems not to know the difference between 'bearing' and 'baring' is, in my snap judgement, illiterate, shallow and devoid of the kind of curiosity that might prompt him to ask himself what the words he's typing actually mean, I think it would be fair to accuse me of being unreasonable, lazy and supercilious. (And I suspect that the mistake was an uncharacteristic one, so the judgement made would be unfair.) I don't see why the same response shouldn't be levelled at someone who makes the kind of judgements you're proposing.

The kind of judgments I’m proposing are the kind of judgments that I am pretty sure we all make, all the time, every single day. This is not necessarily seeing the world through our own eyes, our own prejudices, likes and dislikes, (though it may be that) but through something that is an evolutionary spin-off of the flight/fight process our brains are hardwired to make. I’m not a scientist or claiming to be, but this is my impression, my observation of how we judge others.

As I say, I’m not one to rely or to particularly seek out scientific evidence, as usually I am quite happy to rely upon my own empirical observations of the world, right or wrong, but even a quick Google search seems to back-up what I was saying until my absent-minded spelling was insulted in an immature manner.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S15/62/69K40/index.xml?section=topstories


We may be taught not to judge a book by its cover, but when we see a new face, our brains decide whether a person is attractive and trustworthy within a tenth of a second, according to recent Princeton research.

Princeton University psychologist Alex Todorov has found that people respond intuitively to faces so rapidly that our reasoning minds may not have time to influence the reaction -- and that our intuitions about attraction and trust are among those we form the fastest.

"The link between facial features and character may be tenuous at best, but that doesn't stop our minds from sizing other people up at a glance," said Todorov, an assistant professor of psychology. "We decide very quickly whether a person possesses many of the traits we feel are important, such as likeability and competence, even though we have not exchanged a single word with them. It appears that we are hard-wired to draw these inferences in a fast, unreflective way."
http://www.physorg.com/news83432205.html


"We're told not to judge a book by its cover, but we do this spontaneously," explained Adams. "In fact, it's quite an effort to undo the inferences that we make."

Sometimes, in fact, those inferences are dead-on. In the 1990s, psychologists Robert Rosenthal and Nalini Ambady -- who Adams later worked with at Harvard University --conducted a study in which college students were asked to evaluate a professor's teaching ability. The students' ratings were based solely on watching a muted 10-second clip of that professor in front of a class. Remarkably, these instant ratings substantially matched those given after an entire semester.

In other cases, however, such quick decisions may be misleading. This is especially true, Adams said, when the evaluation is cross-cultural. Nonverbal cues differ from culture to culture, he explained. This is less true of basic emotions such as fear and surprise, he added, and more true of complex emotions like sarcasm and humility.
http://www.positivearticles.com/Article/Snap-Judgments-About-the-People-We-Meet---Are-They-Accurate/49865


First impressions – it’s so easy to get them wrong.

When we meet somebody new, we size that person up in just a few seconds.

A few seconds, that’s all it takes to decide whether or not we like somebody, whether we trust them, whether or not we want to get to know them better. We make snap judgments about others all the time based on our first impressions of them. And other people are constantly making snap judgments about us too.

Once we make these snap judgments about other people, we rarely change our minds later.

We rarely change our minds after a first impression because humans are hard-wired to make snap judgments.

Our brains seem to have a built-in mechanism for deciding rather quickly which people we should trust, and which people we should avoid.

If a person seems a bit different to us, we may become suspicious or even hostile. If he doesn’t look us in the eye, or if he says something the slightest bit odd, we may instantly and forever decide that this is a person we want nothing to do with.

So, are we always right in our first impressions of other people? Not necessarily. Sometimes we do change our minds about others, but it’s rare. For us to change our minds about people after we have met them, we have to believe that they have somehow changed. We rarely think to ourselves that our initial impression of somebody was wrong.

Of course as it seems with such things there are no doubt similar articles to the contrary to be found. However, as it is I absolutely stand by what I said earlier that snap judgments are usually accurate. It is not a question of right or wrong, or undervaluing the complexity of human beings, it is simply how I think it is.

[billl]

Neely, it's interesting that fashion isn't a major feature of the discussion in those sections pulled from the science-type articles. This sort of matches my impression, which is that, on a city bus, for example, there is little to be gained by looking at a person's clothing--however, their facial expressions and behavior might tell a lot.

[Ecurb]

Of course as it seems with such things there are no doubt similar articles to the contrary to be found. However, as it is I absolutely stand by what I said earlier that snap judgments are usually accurate. It is not a question of right or wrong, or undervaluing the complexity of human beings, it is simply how I think it is.

I didn't read the links, but the quotes your provided do NOT confirm that snap judgments are usually "accurate". The Harvard students make a snap judgment about a teacher's abilities based on a ten second clip, and then make the same judgment after a full semester. Does this suggest that the snap judgment is "accurate", or that the students' prejudices taint their rating of the teacher after the full semester? It could be either one.

The final quote you gave confirms this:
So, are we always right in our first impressions of other people? Not necessarily. Sometimes we do change our minds about others, but it’s rare. For us to change our minds about people after we have met them, we have to believe that they have somehow changed. We rarely think to ourselves that our initial impression of somebody was wrong.

All that the studies show is that we make snap judgments, and then stand by our initial snap judgments -- not that the snap judgments are accurate..

[OrphanPip]

Popular misconceptions can have huge influences on how people judge and perceive others.

There was another study, I think it was at Harvard as well, it took students and showed them cartoon polygonal people walking, and asked them to judge the sexual orientation of the cartoon on the basis of their gait. The study found that people are very likely to draw conclusions about people's sexual orientation from body language. They then took the same students and showed them real people walking on treadmills, and they found that despite people's faith in their ability to identify sexual orientation by gait, their success at doing so was about as good as tossing a coin.

People in general think they are very good at knowing what other people are about, but they also aren't usually very good at it.

[Vonny]

Stlukes,

If a picture is worth a thousand words...you've become QUITE wordy.


Matthew 12:36

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

[Emil Miller]

Matthew 12:36

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

In which case Stlukes is going to need a hell of a lot of pictures.

Just kidding Stlukes.

[Vonny]

In which case Stlukes is going to need a hell of a lot of pictures.

Just kidding Stlukes.



Oh I didn't intend that for Stlukes. He explained that he's not a saint. There's another reason he's call Stlukes.

[Varenne Rodin]

Snap judgments don't do much for me. I suppose there are a lot of cases in which someone dressed like a homeless man is a homeless man, or a nasty prostitute looking girl is indeed a prostitute. I've known many people, however, who were very well dressed and gave every appearance of being normal, only to later reveal horrible personality flaws and even bad hygiene. I discovered one person in particular with entire cakes hidden under his bed. When I asked him why he hid cakes under there, he beat himself with his fists right in front of me. Ha. Snap judgments.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

First, my use of egalitarianism was faulty, since I had to look the word up, saw the definition, and asked the question.
I have to quibble a little here, though. Just to clarify, you don't think disabled students should be put in the same classes as "normal" students? First, I assume you only mean mentally disabled (I sencerely hope this is what you meant, even though you say "physically . . . handicapped students"), no? I'm just wondering what your ideal classroom would be.

It isn't a question of what is ideal for the teacher. It is a question of what is best for the student. The notion of placing students of every and all abilities in the same classroom is based upon a faulty assumption that coddling the student's self-esteem is more important than actually teaching him of her. We now have a generation of more who have the biggest ego with nothing to back it up.

When I was a grade student, not all that long ago, the schools still employed tracking. They placed students into classes according to ability. By doing so the brighter students could be pushed forward to the best of their abilities without losing the slower students who would become frustrated and just give up.

When a student is placed in a special needs class, he or she has the advantage of a teacher who has an intimate knowledge of each students' abilities as the result of the IEPs (Individualized Education Plans) and the specific training in dealing with, motivating, and teaching those students.

When you take a general classroom and add one visually impaired student (and by this I mean legally blind) one hearing impaired student (legally deaf), two or three or more habitually disruptive students who may or may not as of yet been identified as have severe emotional/behavioral issues, 5 or 6 developmentally handicapped students who may read 5 o6 grades behind their age group and need any number of other accommodations, and then throw in two extremely bright students in a class that as a whole numbers anywhere from 30-40 students, what do you imagine the result will be? The teacher is forced to focus upon the mean... the middle or average student....

The notion that all students learn at the same rate and mature at the same age is also based upon the concern about the student's imagined fragile psyche more than it is about what is best for the individual. This is why we have social promotion in which a student who cannot do the work in 4th grade is promoted to 5th in the belief that the emotional scars resulting from being held back will be worse than those caused when he or she is completely lost by the time he or she gets to 8th grade.

Do you want all students of the same level only in a class? Dumb kids there, smart kids there, the middle there? When I student taught, I had a couple students who were autistic and sometimes interrupted the class, but they were smart and could do the material. Did they not have a right to be in that class with everyone else?

The questions that must be asked is what is best for the students? If the autistic student is able to handle the work and not cause a constant disruption, then certainly he or she should be placed at the appropriate grade level. If he or she is a constant disruption, then you have the issue of one student or a few students essentially detracting from the education of others. In theory, this is not legal. Most student handbooks state that no student has the right to interfere with the learning of another. In reality, dumping all the students together into a single classroom saves money... and looks good... we're treating everyone equally.

The reality is that everyone is not equal. When the student completes school and enters the work place, the employer doesn't care about his or her fragile psyche. The employer cares about whether he or she can do the job... about his or her ability to work with others, etc... Treating all students fairly does not necessarily mean treating them as if they were all the same. using a behavioral issue as an example, I may have a student who is continually using profanity and engaging in hostile and even physical confrontations. I will try to set behavioral goals for this student that are attainable. I may have to ignore any number of small infractions that I would immediately address coming from a normally well-behaved student because I recognize that not all children are the same.

This has nothing to do with making life easy for the teacher or privileging the "smart" child over the "slow". This has everything to do with treating the students as individuals and addressing their unique needs in a manner that is best for them.
Thanks for clarification, because that makes a lot more sense. Still, I think there should be a mix of both--some classes where students are separated into their respective groups so they can receive an education that is best suited to them, but I also think there should be some classes where all students are mixed together (with more of the former), because students should have to work with people not on the same intelligence level as them, because they won't always be able to; most often they won't, so it's still valuable for them to get that amalgamation.

So you think it's fair to judge people by the way they judge people?
Some may say it's unfair to judge people at all.

I think that people make judgements on the basis of the things that they themselves find important. Whether or not they are accurate within those terms doesn't mean much, because the terms themselves are subjective. So if Alexander judges a person on, say, their clothes, he's actually making a series of judgemental assumptions, the first of which is that the person being judged ought to be as interested in clothes as Alexander is.

There's also a problem of association, in which the feedback loop of evidence becomes confused. If Brian Bean adopts an attitude of 'amused indulgence' towards a person in a baseball cap, he's assuming something about all wearers of baseball caps which might be supported by the evidence in Clapham, but which would be completely erroneous in Charlotte. Still, the associations of the baseball cap are apparently so strong that they over-ride context for him.

I think that the process of making such judgements is so prone to inaccuracy that it's practically useless. If I were to suggest that anyone who seems not to know the difference between 'bearing' and 'baring' is, in my snap judgement, illiterate, shallow and devoid of the kind of curiosity that might prompt him to ask himself what the words he's typing actually mean, I think it would be fair to accuse me of being unreasonable, lazy and supercilious. (And I suspect that the mistake was an uncharacteristic one, so the judgement made would be unfair.) I don't see why the same response shouldn't be levelled at someone who makes the kind of judgements you're proposing.
:hurray:

[stlukesguild]

I understand looking at a person and judging their aesthetic beauty. I can very well look at a well-dressed, beautiful woman and appreciate it, just as I can identify a fat, poorly dressed slob. Still, I don't look at the pretty woman and think, "Oh, I bet she's smart and nice," or vice versa with the ugly woman. Judgements like that are inane.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that because someone looks beautiful they are thus probably smart or nice or well-mannered, etc... Indeed, I suspect sometimes there are prejudices that run in the opposite direction. There are more than a few who will assume that a very good looking woman must be a bit**, not too bright, a slut, etc... If she is successful in her career, many will assume she must have slept her way to the top.

Whether you wish to admit it or not we all make judgments based upon appearances. This is not to suggest that this is right or wrong... nor to suggest that once one gets to know an individual these preconceived notions will not change.

Again, we almost never see an older couple or an overweight couple in some steamy romance. The hero is rarely ugly or overweight or poorly dressed... although the villain can be either ugly or dashingly handsome. We can suggest that these are but Hollywood stereotypes hoisted upon us, but that abdicates all responsibility. Hollywood churns out that which the audience wants to see and they expect a beautiful heroine, a handsome hero, etc...

[Ecurb]

Some may say it's unfair to judge people at all.

:

Well, then we couldn't love one woman better than all others, or have a "best" friend, or vote for Barack Obama for President instead of Rick Perry. Obviously, our judgments are never perfect, so any judgments we may make will be at least slightly unfair. However, that's no reason not to make judgments. We have to judge using those limited abilities we possess.

[stlukesguild]

I discovered one person in particular with entire cakes hidden under his bed. When I asked him why he hid cakes under there, he beat himself with his fists right in front of me. Ha. Snap judgments.

But are you not now making snap judgments about flagellants with a cake fetish?:biggrin5:

[Varenne Rodin]

I discovered one person in particular with entire cakes hidden under his bed. When I asked him why he hid cakes under there, he beat himself with his fists right in front of me. Ha. Snap judgments.

But are you not now making snap judgments about flagellants with a cake fetish?:biggrin5:

Haha. You have me there, stluke. I did instantly change my mind about him having his life in order. Some of the cakes were in varying states of decay. I don't care if it is mean of me, I will never enter that house again. :D

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I understand looking at a person and judging their aesthetic beauty. I can very well look at a well-dressed, beautiful woman and appreciate it, just as I can identify a fat, poorly dressed slob. Still, I don't look at the pretty woman and think, "Oh, I bet she's smart and nice," or vice versa with the ugly woman. Judgements like that are inane.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that because someone looks beautiful they are thus probably smart or nice or well-mannered, etc...
Alexander is.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I didn't read the links, but the quotes your provided do NOT confirm that snap judgments are usually "accurate".
No you are correct. The links suggest that human beings are hardwired to make quick subconscious decisions about people, but they don’t confirm properly one way or the other whether they are accurate or not (though I think they are). However, this is still a blow for people who think that they are saints and above making snap decisions, as if evolution has somehow missed them out...

[stlukesguild]

Thanks for clarification, because that makes a lot more sense. Still, I think there should be a mix of both--some classes where students are separated into their respective groups so they can receive an education that is best suited to them, but I also think there should be some classes where all students are mixed together (with more of the former), because students should have to work with people not on the same intelligence level as them, because they won't always be able to; most often they won't, so it's still valuable for them to get that amalgamation.

Unfortunately, this seems to happen the most with the "specials" teachers (art, music, gym, etc...). The 6th grade class arrives at my door followed a few minutes later by 8 or 9 students with various learning disabilities, two hearing disabled, one visually impaired, 4 SBH (severe behavioral handicap), one truly brilliant ("gifted") student. Whereas the regular classroom teachers often work hand-in-hand with the special-ed teachers during periods of inclusion (they might bring their students into a regular ed science project during which time they are team-teaching... or the special-ed teacher is readily available if an issue arises), we have the least contact and experience dealing with such... and as we are providing the planning period to both the regular-ed and special-ed teacher, we don't have the option to call on them should the need arise. This is the situation in every class. The regular-ed teacher spends half of the day with his or her core class (regular ed students only) and half working in tandem with the special-ed team during which time they also have special-ed students. We take the special-ed with every regular-ed class we have with the exception of pre-k, kindergarten, and possibly 1st grade at which time students are yet coded as "special needs". In the upper classes (4th-8th) this can mean 35 regular ed students plus 8 or 9 special ed students. We may be assigned students with various special needs (LD, MMRD, hearing impaired, visually impaired, etc...) in a single class. This is against state law... but federal law which stipulates that all children are entitled to a public education trumps the state law in such instances in which the school district has not provided for enough teachers to properly teach the students in separate classrooms. Add to this a lack of materials and resources, the difficulty of often working on a cart (without a room... traveling room to room), and the need to prepare lessons for students ranging in age from 4 to 15 (pre-k through 8th grade)... often needing to make huge mental leaps in teaching style as the 8th grade follows kindergarten... and you will get the bare notion of what a teacher in an urban district deals with... and I have not even touched upon the problems students bring in terms of abuse, neglect, drugs, parents, gangs, etc...

[stlukesguild]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that because someone looks beautiful they are thus probably smart or nice or well-mannered, etc...

Alexander is.

Is he? Again, I can't speak for him. I will say that we all do this to a certain extent... infer aspects about the person according to appearances. If I were leaving my job in the inner city late in the evening and four young black men all wearing the same color were hanging about nearby I might make some assumption as to their gang affiliation and as to my own safety. If any of us were to apply for a job wearing dirty work clothes the human resources individual will certainly make assumption as to how serious we take this opportunity and how professional we are. I have little doubt that the bank tellers and clerks at the restaurants I frequent for lunch make certain assumption when I come strait from my studio in paint-spattered work pants and a t-shirt.

I remember my first weeks in art school. A great many of the students arrived wearing typically "artful" fashions... whether as "punks", hippies, facial piercings, or in the obligatory black. As students in high-school, they elected to dress in a certain way so as to stand-out clearly as outsiders... as artists. Within a short while, however, all such fashions were abandoned in art school because everyone there was an artist or aspiring artist and there was no one to impress... certainly not with one's fashion. There was also the reality that such fashions... especially if they involved a certain degree of money... did not fit well with the reality of art making which involves oil paints, turpentine, working with power tools, acid baths, plaster, welding etc... When we would visit the art departments of neighboring colleges or universities, however, their students were still in the obligatory "art dress" as they needed to stand out from students in other fields of study.

In another context, I read earlier about how the poor don't have much in terms of fashion options... and yet from my experience working with students in the inner city, this is far from true. Fashion is a huge deal. Students strive to wear designer shoes, shirts, and pants of the latest trends and will often engage in making fun of another's lack of fashion... or even making fun of the teachers' lack of fashion because we don't dress like them. A principal informed us that fashion was a huge deal to the poor for the very reason that they are attempting to assert that they are somebody of importance. It is the reason for the over-the-top fashions worn in the urban dance clubs... and the extremes of "Sunday Dress" worn to church.

What I am suggesting is that we make inferences about a person as a result of their fashion choices for the very reason that people have historically made fashion choices as a means of communicating something about themselves to others.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that because someone looks beautiful they are thus probably smart or nice or well-mannered, etc...

Alexander is.

Is he?

Well, I guess it depends on how you interpret this post. But it seems pretty clear to me that, yes, he is.


@Mutatis, I think Nelly answered quite good for me, and yes I am proud of my prejudices, because I know what I want and my prejudices help me find what I want more effectively. I judge people based on appearances, because that is how I think the world largely works. I judge men based on appearances, because first impressions tell a lot. I see a man who is not physically impressive, is ungroomed and has little style. He is two things, a non-threat and also ignorable and irrelevant for the most part (In my eyes!).

I see a man who is the opposite of the former and I see him as more of a threat as more of an equal, for he too knows that appearances are what count for everyone who is not an intimate, and that suggests to me he is a worldly person who posses confidence and charm and is thus a threat - weather it be sexual competition, or social, or for a job or networking or for anything.

[Emil Miller]

I have always found that the way one dresses, is one of the clearest forms of communication about "who they are"

This statement from the original post brings us back to its main point i.e. Fashion. I would say that, judging from these pictures, it is pretty much self-evident.

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/5994/unledaq.png


http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/9582/unledagain.png

[Paulclem]

I dress in a variety of kits - I have no fashion sense - never did. I basically dress i a series of kits appropriate to what I'm doing. Work, gardening, going uptown or out, round the house, on the bike. I have clothes that fit into each kit, and there's not a lot of interchangeability.

In Winter when I don't cycle to work, I often wear a long coat that my wife bought me. I get a very different reaction from people when I wear it. I've stood at the bus stop in that coat, and the bus pulls up right in front of me, even though there are others in a short queue. It's different if I'm in my cycling/ sport kit. I don't get a second look. I'm treated differently in shops and offices in the said coat. I can sense different attitudes. Unsurprising really - but it does demonstrate to me that people do react on face value, and they could easily be wrong - as they are with me. (I'm not an exec, I'm a mere Manager /Tutor)

[Emil Miller]

I dress in a variety of kits - I have no fashion sense - never did. I basically dress i a series of kits appropriate to what I'm doing. Work, gardening, going uptown or out, round the house, on the bike. I have clothes that fit into each kit, and there's not a lot of interchangeability.

In Winter when I don't cycle to work, I often wear a long coat that my wife bought me. I get a very different reaction from people when I wear it. I've stood at the bus stop in that coat, and the bus pulls up right in front of me, even though there are others in a short queue. It's different if I'm in my cycling/ sport kit. I don't get a second look. I'm treated differently in shops and offices in the said coat. I can sense different attitudes. Unsurprising really - but it does demonstrate to me that people do react on face value, and they could easily be wrong - as they are with me. (I'm not an exec, I'm a mere Manager /Tutor)

I think it's fairly obvious that when gardening or doing household chores, we don't wear the the same style clothing as we do when socialising. Here is a picture taken when I used to do a lot more country walks than I do now. The clothing is appropriate for the rigours of the English countryside in Winter but I wouldn't wear it when dining out for example.

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/4694/scan0002xb.jpg

[Paulclem]

I think it's fairly obvious that when gardening or doing household chores, we don't wear the the same style clothing as we do when socialising. Here is a picture taken when I used to do a lot more country walks than I do now. The clothing is appropriate for the rigours of the English countryside in Winter but I wouldn't wear it when dining out for example.

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/4694/scan0002xb.jpg

Don't you like my kit theory? :biggrin5:

[Emil Miller]

Don't you like my kit theory? :biggrin5:

Well I think we all wear different things for different occasions, I don't really see why you feel that it's something unusual. I mean, you wouldn't normally wear your cycling kit while waiting for a bus or going to the cinema for example.

[Paulclem]

Well I think we all wear different things for different occasions, I don't really see why you feel that it's something unusual. I mean, you wouldn't normally wear your cycling kit while waiting for a bus or going to the cinema for example.

But I have!!

No, I know what you mean, but it's more a mindset. It's now very easy for me so that I don't have to think about it. The worst thing is choosing stuff to go out in. I really haven't a clue. I just want to look smart enough to blend in. It's the whole "do I wear jeans now that I'm 47" type thing. Having said that I didn't know what to wear when I was young. I just copied my mates.

In fact I now have another theory. I think people follow fashion because they too want someone to tell them what to wear. Perhaps I'm not the only one with no clue.

[Emil Miller]

But I have!!

No, I know what you mean, but it's more a mindset. It's now very easy for me so that I don't have to think about it. The worst thing is choosing stuff to go out in. I really haven't a clue. I just want to look smart enough to blend in. It's the whole "do I wear jeans now that I'm 47" type thing. Having said that I didn't know what to wear when I was young. I just copied my mates.

In fact I now have another theory. I think people follow fashion because they too want someone to tell them what to wear. Perhaps I'm not the only one with no clue.

I don't bother too much about what to wear when I go out but I do insist on clothes that fit and match. I haven't worn a suit in years and don't intend to but fortunately there is quite a lot of clothing outside of the suit range that, if judiciously chosen, is presentable for most occasions.

I think you are probably right about people wearing what they are told is fashionable simply to avoid deciding for themselves. The problem with that, though, is that fashions don't necessarily suit everyone.

[Alexander III]

I think St.luke's posts were great and well articulated.

And Mutatis, let me try and further expand. Firstly a distinction needs to be made between dress and appearance. Clothes are part of the appearance, an integral part but only a part. Appearance is clothes, grooming, mannerism, poise, grace, gait, confidence, elegance ect.

And while many here believe that you cant judge by appearances, I believe you can. Somethings obviously cant be judged by appearances e.g intelligence - but a lot of things can. For instance let us take a hypothetical armani suit. Put it on a walstreet yuppie and he looks dam fine. Put it on your average taxi driver, and he looks funny. This is because the man must always make the clothes, rather than the other way round. The walstreet man knows how to wear the suit, the taxi driver most likely doesnt. Appearnce is as much about what you wear as it is what you think of yourself. And in what environment your were raised, and what you are.

As Emile and Paul have justly pointed out Fashion is useful in that is tells people what to wear so they can fit in. This is the first thing appearance teaches about a person. There are people who follow trends to appear normal and fit in, and there are people who create trends. A man of strong appearance is not one who emulates others but one who has others emulate him. He is most likely to be more confident and have leadership qualities - as if he isn't confident and not a leader that same look would bee far to affected and ridiculous on him.

Also the way I was raised and my friends were - Appearance is very important. All our parents from when we are young instill in our heads that it is not what you are that counts for world, but what you appear to be, appearances are a huge part of you. Appearance is how you can tell if someone is well bred and from a good family. Appearance is how to judge people. If someone takes care of themselves and works hard to cultivate a good appearance it shows that that person is not a slob, he has a certain level of discipline to maintain said appearance, he feels confident and he does not have the mentality of "I don't care what everyone else thinks" because he knows that everyman is not an island. (Feeling like a boss for slipping in the little literary reference there)

So yes you can tell a lot about a person from their appearance. Maybe I care so much about it because I was raised in an environment where appearance has a lot of value, where one needs to stand out from the rest and appear better, were everyone knows that you will be judged by your appearance. My parents and those of many in my environment are not the raise our kids sugarcoated type. They are more the, teach them the harshness of the real world so when they go out they will thrive, it is better they get put down by us than by the real world.

People judge you by your apperances. Good looking people have it easier in life - yes it is unfair but it is true.

Various psychological experiments have been done, and the results are that unconciusly upon first impression the better looking a person is the better we assume them to be - we assume them to be more popular, more intelligent, more good-natured - the uglier a person is the more we assume them to be stupid, unsociable, and wicked. It is refereed to as the "Halo effect" - everyone does it, weather we like it or not.

I repeated this experiment in my high school for a psych project and my results were the same.

Here is a nice Summary

http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/What_is_Beautiful_is_Good_Stereotype_and_the_Halo_ Effect

I repeated the "Dion, Berscheid & Walster (1972)-What is Beautiful is Good" experiment.

Of course it is your right to not believe the dozens of psychological studies which support the halo effect and what is beautiful is good theory. Like it is perfectly your right to not believe in evolution, or classical and operant conditioning or even that the Andromeda galaxy is roughly 2.5 million light years away from earth.

I am not sure why everyone is railing so hard against the idea that we judge people based on appearances - it seems so perfectly natural and also just in many ways for me.

[Paulclem]

I am not sure why everyone is railing so hard against the idea that we judge people based on appearances - it seems so perfectly natural and also just in many ways for me.

I don't know why people would rail against the idea of judging by appearances. I think it is what many people do. It is rather a simplistic and potentially very ineffective way of evaluating people.

Anyone who wants to create a certain impression - if they have the gear and intelligence - can do so. How hard is it to buy an expensive suit and wear it? How hard is it to dress down? That's how con men work isn't it? On that kind of deceptive level it may well take some knowledge and even a bit of acting - but I know that if I wear my high vis cycling jacket as I walk through town, people will not regard me as a manager. If I wear my nice coat - they may well.

[billl]

Who is railing against the idea that we judge people by their appearances, anyhow? And, if anyone is, are they railing against the idea that it happens, or that the more superficial (e.g. fashion trends) appearances are a praise-worthy basis for judging people? Why not by the bearing and gait, etc., no matter the clothing? Of course, people have discussed this aspect (senator in jeans, for example), but the "pro-snobbish" stance keeps cloaking itself in "what we wear tells people something about ourselves" garments, and I don't think anyone is railing against that idea. But is high fashion necessarily telling us anything beyond the person's infatuation with high fashion?

[Lokasenna]

Why not by the bearing and gait, etc., no matter the clothing?

Ah, but isn't that something that goes with clothing to make up the appearance? Surely that is a factor, along with the clothing, that affects how we make an initial judgement?

Sure, I judge people based on appearance. We all do. The important thing is acknowledging that it is an initial impression, and is thus subject to change when more information is known. I've often found this leads to a radical change of opinion - people I initially viewed with suspicion have turned out to be really nice guys, and some people I've initially approved of have turned out to be complete tossers.

[billl]

Ah, but isn't that something that goes with clothing to make up the appearance? Surely that is a factor, along with the clothing, that affects how we make an initial judgement?


I'm not suggesting that the Wall Street person and the cab driver would be naked, of course--but why would we say the Wall Street guy looking assured in an Armani suit is superior to the cab driver looking assured in his jeans and whatever--maybe with the hood of a hoodie resting behind his shoulders?

Who would be more trustworthy (with your wallet, with your children, with your life)? Who would make the better joke without thinking, who would be of most use in an emergency? Etc.

I, for one, have not been indoctrinated into believing that the Armani suit (worn-well) is a by-nature indicator of superior qualities. Same goes for having a job on Wall Street. Such a person is no more likely to be admirable or competent or useful than a cab driver.

[Emil Miller]

I, for one, have not been indoctrinated into believing that the Armani suit (worn-well) is a by-nature indicator of superior qualities. Same goes for having a job on Wall Street. Such a person is no more likely to be admirable or competent or useful than a cab driver.

Given the state of the US economy, the taxi driver might well be more competent and certainly more useful, but as we all know, taxi drivers usually have the answer to the World's problems whereas, in conversational terms, the Armani-suited Wall streeter is likely to have a more interesting and informed line of conversation.

[Lokasenna]

I, for one, have not been indoctrinated into believing that the Armani suit (worn-well) is a by-nature indicator of superior qualities. Same goes for having a job on Wall Street. Such a person is no more likely to be admirable or competent or useful than a cab driver.

Conversely though, one must not take it to the other extreme - to never trust someone in an Armani suit! That in itself would be a form of judgement.

Nevertheless, I take your point. But even so, if I had to surrender up wallet or life to the care of someone (I'm not particularly fussed about children), and I had no other information to go on, then I would probably make my judgement based on appearance, for lack of any other knowledge. That might be a mistake, but the alternative would be that I follow the logic of trusting someone who looks the least respectable.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

All our parents from when we are young instill in our heads that it is not what you are that counts for world, but what you appear to be, appearances are a huge part of you.
You had me until you said that. Though, I guess your mindset is the fault of your parents and not your own. This mindset seems, basically, a defense of every good-looking person who is an idiot, but manages to get by on looks and charm. Politicians, lawyers, charlatans, cheats. Hey, it doesn't matter that they're a-holes, but man, they sure clean up nice!

[billl]

Conversely though, one must not take it to the other extreme - to never trust someone in an Armani suit! That in itself would be a form of judgement.

Yeah, I agree with that.


Nevertheless, I take your point. But even so, if I had to surrender up wallet or life to the care of someone (I'm not particularly fussed about children), and I had no other information to go on, then I would probably make my judgement based on appearance, for lack of any other knowledge. That might be a mistake, but the alternative would be that I follow the logic of trusting someone who looks the least respectable.

But would the wearer of high-fashion beat out someone who dressed like you, for example? I realize this question assumes you are not the type to flip through GQ and emulate the models in those ads, etc., sort of a gamble in an online forum--but do you see my point? The argument that gets lost when people start saying "Well, of course we make judgments based on appearances," is the argument about whether or not devotees of high-fashion are to be shown preference over others on account of the clothing. Not restricting ourselves to the cleanliness, or the bearing, but sort of using the clothes as a tie-breaker (or worse).

[MarkBastable]

Originally Posted by Alexander III
All our parents from when we are young instill in our heads that it is not what you are that counts for world, but what you appear to be....


What? I mean, what?

[Emil Miller]

There is a missing factor in Alexander 111's equation and that is the thorny question of accent. This might not apply in US terms but is significant in the UK even though the BBC has sought to insert as many regional accents as possible into its programmes in pursuit of equality; listening to the BBC, I often wonder if the slogan Liberté, égalité, fraternité,is wasted on the French. However, let's presuppose that our Armani suited example arrives at a business conference in Berlin or Paris, where the common language for the meeting has been established as English, and he starts talking in a Birmingham accent. It doesn't matter how well dressed he may be, he will not impress by virtue of his lack of intelligibility.

[Vonny]

When I look at someone and see an angel or Adam or a person like Jesus - if I see those qualities, I'm never wrong. It's rare to see those qualities, but I've discovered that I'm never wrong.

[Lokasenna]

But would the wearer of high-fashion beat out someone who dressed like you, for example? I realize this question assumes you are not the type to flip through GQ and emulate the models in those ads, etc., sort of a gamble in an online forum--but do you see my point? The argument that gets lost when people start saying "Well, of course we make judgments based on appearances," is the argument about whether or not devotees of high-fashion are to be shown preference over others on account of the clothing. Not restricting ourselves to the cleanliness, or the bearing, but sort of using the clothes as a tie-breaker (or worse).

Ah, that kind of brings us back to the original argument of what is considered fashion. It's true that I'm not the sort of person who reads GQ; I've always had more of an Oxfam/Grunge feel that's based entirely on comfort. I would probably trust someone similarly dressed over someone in a high-calibre suit, but I'd probably trust the suit-wearer over, say, someone in a boiler-suit, assuming I had no other information to go on.

Ultimately, it's subjective. Perhaps there is an innate element of tribalism to it all - a case of people like 'us' rather than like 'them'.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

There is a missing factor in Alexander 111's equation and that is the thorny question of accent. This might not apply in US terms but is significant in the UK even though the BBC has sought to insert as many regional accents as possible into its programmes in pursuit of equality; listening to the BBC, I often wonder if the slogan Liberté, égalité, fraternité,is wasted on the French. However, let's presuppose that our Armani suited example arrives at a business conference in Berlin or Paris, where the common language for the meeting has been established as English, and he starts talking in a Birmingham accent. It doesn't matter how well dressed he may be, he will not impress by virtue of his lack of intelligibility.
Well, there are definitely prejudicial feelings here in the USA when it comes to accent. I live in the Mid-West, the middle of the nation where there is really no accent feature that delineates a region. There are, however, Southern accents (seen by those without to sometimes signify lesser intelligence, or a conservative background), Northern region accents (think Canadian, and they have the same prejudice against them as Southern accents), California ("valley girl") accents, and a whole slew of accents in the New England area, all with their own connotations.

[OrphanPip]

Lord knows we love to talk down 'bout the Newfies in the ROC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqLuIXwsLDw

[Paulclem]

Lord knows we love to talk down 'bout the Newfies in the ROC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqLuIXwsLDw

I've always thought the Northern Ireland accent was difficult without the ear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unGtpBP83as

But the Glaswegian accent is harder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kHWDraHADA

I haven't lived in Yorkshire since 1989, but I've retained my accent. It has meant that I occaisionally get translated for the natives.

It certainly does place a person in the UK, it provides an indication towards former ideas of class and is still taken quite seriously - paticularly by people from the South.

[LitNetIsGreat]

There is a missing factor in Alexander 111's equation and that is the thorny question of accent. This might not apply in US terms but is significant in the UK even though the BBC has sought to insert as many regional accents as possible into its programmes in pursuit of equality; listening to the BBC, I often wonder if the slogan Liberté, égalité, fraternité,is wasted on the French. However, let's presuppose that our Armani suited example arrives at a business conference in Berlin or Paris, where the common language for the meeting has been established as English, and he starts talking in a Birmingham accent. It doesn't matter how well dressed he may be, he will not impress by virtue of his lack of intelligibility.

Yes I mentioned accent previously in a different context though.
----------------------------------------------------------
It is interesting to note that some people say they have often been wrong about a person based upon their first impressions. I have been thinking about this and I can honestly say that this has never happened to me - my first impressions about people seem to be always right. Of course if you see someone in the street and get no more information/contact with them then you never know, but of the people I have met further, such as work colleagues, friends of friends, neighbours for example, this further knowledge has only ever franked my initial impression.

I got in a taxi the other day and immediately felt a little uneasy with the driver, just a little. There was something about him that I didn't quite like. Within two minutes he started spouting off the most racist remarks of which I won't go into but it was pretty bad. I was uneasy because I had got the kids in the back with me but he wasn't swearing and the stuff he was saying was thankfully going over the kids head, so I didn't make a scene - it was a short journey anyway.

Of course I make no overriding judgements about this person. I am not God! His actions and words were wrong and very misguided, but there could have been factors why this man was racist in his thinking. It could be poor education, parental influence, just common in the circles he lives and works in, he might read The Sun, etc, etc, he might not be a bad person and it is not my position to sit in judgement nor do I do so, however within seconds I was a little wary of him and this snap impression would appear to have been supported as usual. For me a person's character always comes through very quickly and I can't remember ever being wrong about it.

[wessexgirl]

There is a missing factor in Alexander 111's equation and that is the thorny question of accent. This might not apply in US terms but is significant in the UK even though the BBC has sought to insert as many regional accents as possible into its programmes in pursuit of equality; listening to the BBC, I often wonder if the slogan Liberté, égalité, fraternité,is wasted on the French. However, let's presuppose that our Armani suited example arrives at a business conference in Berlin or Paris, where the common language for the meeting has been established as English, and he starts talking in a Birmingham accent. It doesn't matter how well dressed he may be, he will not impress by virtue of his lack of intelligibility.

Careful there mister! As a proud Brummie, I take exception to that remark. I have never had difficulty making myself understood. I think what's being cloaked in all these "assumptions" of good clothing and accents is pure and simple snobbery. And as for Alexander's comment on being brought up by parents to believe that appearance is everything, I am with Mark B here, what? I mean what? As a philosophy to live by, it's about as deep as a puddle. On a literature forum, perhaps we should remember the adage of "never judge a book by its cover".

[stlukesguild]

On a literature forum, perhaps we should remember the adage of "never judge a book by its cover".

And have you never judged a book by it's cover... never? I certainly have. I can't say how many times I've been seduced into picking up a book and leafing through it just as a result of the cover. Quite often it turned out to be a piece of crap... but sometimes not.

We are visual beings. Our vision is one of our most cherished senses. I especially recognize this as an artist. Am I to assume that visual art... based solely upon that which I see... is somehow shallow in comparison to other art forms based upon... sounds... words...?

Obviously we all make initial judgments about people, places and things based upon our senses: sight, sound, smell, taste, touch. These opinions may change in time... but I would assume that a large reason that one might wish to be concerned about fashion... about how one appears... is that we do recognize that others... possible future employers, friends, lovers... are making initial judgments about us all the time... whether we like it or not. We can make an attempt to make a positive appearance... or not. I don't see it as a question of social status. All social classes... all professions... have their standards and ideals of dress.

[TheFifthElement]

I would probably trust someone similarly dressed over someone in a high-calibre suit, but I'd probably trust the suit-wearer over, say, someone in a boiler-suit, assuming I had no other information to go on.


Really? Why?

[Jack of Hearts]

I, for one, have not been indoctrinated into believing that the Armani suit (worn-well) is a by-nature indicator of superior qualities. Same goes for having a job on Wall Street. Such a person is no more likely to be admirable or competent or useful than a cab driver.

This reader whole-heartedly agrees with the basic premise of your response. And he raises you. Having seen the echelons of academia and medicine, this reader has come to the conclusion that there's more confused persons than sorted ones in fancy clothes or fancy titles or fancy diplomas.

How do you find people who possess 'superior qualities'? Personal excellence is tangible, this reader believes- he's felt in others, at times, rarely. These people are like oasis in the desert, surely you can relate to the experience. Where do you find them, other than in the throes of chance?

Two examples off of the top of this reader's head; one of these people he met was a philosophy professor, and the other was some French guy who managed an Olive Garden chain restaurant (who said he only came out of retirement to do so that he might escape his wife at home).

And of course the whole point in meeting these people would be learning/emulation.





J

[Emil Miller]

Careful there mister! As a proud Brummie, I take exception to that remark. I have never had difficulty making myself understood. I think what's being cloaked in all these "assumptions" of good clothing and accents is pure and simple snobbery. And as for Alexander's comment on being brought up by parents to believe that appearance is everything, I am with Mark B here, what? I mean what? As a philosophy to live by, it's about as deep as a puddle. On a literature forum, perhaps we should remember the adage of "never judge a book by its cover".

This is why I describe the question of accent as thorny. The moment someone's accent is mentioned, the response is quite often taken personally without reference to the context in which the comment was made.
Accent applies the world over but in some countries the differences are particularly noticeable. In the example I have given, English, which has become the world's lingua franca by default, would usually be chosen in an international setting where the participants were conversant with it. They would in all probability have learned to speak the language as it is spoken in educated circles in the South Eastern counties of England.
Therefore, someone who's accent veered markedly from that region, would not be as easily understood by people who had no experience of it.

[Lokasenna]

Really? Why?

Because, lacking any other information, if I'm put in a situation of needing to selelct one person to trust, I'll probably go for the person whose personal appearance looks, to my subjective opinion, the most respectable. Given that any alternative decision would mean that I would have to put faith in someone who to be seems less respectable - and surely that is illogical?

Of course, as I have suggested, respectability is subjective. To my way of thinking, a suit suggests positive qualities, while a boiler-suit does not. Others might disagree, and that is their prerogative.

[wessexgirl]

Because, lacking any other information, if I'm put in a situation of needing to selelct one person to trust, I'll probably go for the person whose personal appearance looks, to my subjective opinion, the most respectable. Given that any alternative decision would mean that I would have to put faith in someone who to be seems less respectable - and surely that is illogical?

Of course, as I have suggested, respectability is subjective. To my way of thinking, a suit suggests positive qualities, while a boiler-suit does not. Others might disagree, and that is their prerogative.

I know who I'd choose to fix my plumbing etc. So a boiler suit (overalls) denotes "negative" associations? I'm pretty sure that the plumber/electrician/decorator etc would instil more trust in me to do the job I want than the "boss" in the smart suit, who may look very nice, but would possibly not have a clue on the actual job in hand.

And yes St Lukes, I probably have like you been drawn in by a lovely cover of a book. It doesn't mean that that book has more worth than one in a good, plain cover. So first impressions aren't always to be trusted. I too have some experience and education in visual arts, (not as a professional artist like yourself), but I do appreciate visuals. However, that's not the same thing as using spurrious reasons to cloak pure and simple snobbery in something grander.

Emil, how many Brummie's do you know? Why choose the lazy stereotype of our accents to bolster your own prejudices, as that's what it boils down to? Of course I'm not from the "educated" south so I'll just drag my knuckles from the floor, and in my slack-jawed yokel way I'll endeavour to go and work out how the kettle works. The "thick" Brummie caricature rears its head again :frown2:. That's how daft some of these postings are coming across.

[MarkBastable]

Brian Bean wrote: the BBC has sought to insert as many regional accents as possible into its programmes

Isn't that a good thing...?


Brian Bean wrote: ...in pursuit of equality

Or in order to fairly represent the broad constituency that pays for the Corporation.

[Lokasenna]

I know who I'd choose to fix my plumbing etc. So a boiler suit (overalls) denotes "negative" associations? I'm pretty sure that the plumber/electrician/decorator etc would instil more trust in me to do the job I want than the "boss" in the smart suit, who may look very nice, but would possibly not have a clue on the actual job in hand.


Ah yes, that's very true - I was responding more to Billl's hypothetical, and more nebulous, scenario where I would have to choose a random person to trust with wallet/children/life.

That said, if my plumbing needed fixing, I would summon a plumber. While he might be wearing a boiler-suit or dinner jacket (I don't really care in that situation), I would want to know he was from a reputable business. I wouldn't pick a random chap in a boiler-suit out in the street and ask him to fix the plumbing without knowing anything about him.

On the subject of accents, I'm far more ambivalent. A large part of my family speak with thick Scouse accents, and most of them are eminently decent, respectable, hard-working, honourable people. There was, however, an article on the BBC a few months ago saying that a Scouse accent is one of the worst stumbling blocks to career advancement because it comes it such a large degree of negative prejudice.

[TheFifthElement]

Because, lacking any other information, if I'm put in a situation of needing to selelct one person to trust, I'll probably go for the person whose personal appearance looks, to my subjective opinion, the most respectable. Given that any alternative decision would mean that I would have to put faith in someone who to be seems less respectable - and surely that is illogical?

Of course, as I have suggested, respectability is subjective. To my way of thinking, a suit suggests positive qualities, while a boiler-suit does not. Others might disagree, and that is their prerogative.
Oh, I understand that and it's not a personal attack, I'm genuinely curious about how we (including myself) come to develop these kinds of snap judgements. What I was more interested in was why wearing a boiler suit brings with it negative connatations e.g. as in your example this would inherently make someone 'less respectable'? I'm curious if this is a fairly universal perception or whether such a perception is based on experience or learned or inherited prejudice. So does a bad experience with someone wearing a boiler suit instantly impact on your or my perceptions of others wearing a boiler suit, or does it go deeper than that and is it a broader social issue? Is it the case that wearing a boiler suit brings with it the assumption of lesser intelligence which = lesser 'success' and does this go hand in hand with the idea that the poorer and/or less intelligent you are the closer you are to criminality and therefore more likely to opportunistically steal/casually law break? Again, not a personal attack on you Loka, more that your statement prompted a Fifth question cascade :D It kind of feeds into some other issues that interest me, which is probably a subject for a separate discussion. And it also raises some interesting questions over how people measure 'success'. And whether successfulness = trustworthiness. Do we still value moneymaking as the key measure of success and should we?

[Emil Miller]

Emil, how many Brummie's do you know? Why choose the lazy stereotype of our accents to bolster your own prejudices, as that's what it boils down to? Of course I'm not from the "educated" south so I'll just drag my knuckles from the floor, and in my slack-jawed yokel way I'll endeavour to go and work out how the kettle works. The "thick" Brummie caricature rears its head again :frown2:. That's how daft some of these postings are coming across.

I recently listened to some of the people in Birmingham who were being interviewed by the BBC re the recent rioting and, while I acknowledge that not everyone in that city speaks with such a broad accent, there was one man whom I struggled to understand. It doesn't mean that he was devoid of intelligence any more than someone in London being similarly interviewed would have been but I don't imagine that people listening in Birmingham would have great difficulty in understanding most indiginous London accents.
I mentioned eduction in relation to the South East to differentiate between the many inarticulate people from that region and those who are not.



Brian Bean wrote: the BBC has sought to insert as many regional accents as possible into its programmes

Isn't that a good thing...?.


Well it depends how one looks at it. I don't care about varied accents and, even if I did, it would make no difference anyway, but the BBC has been trying to eradicate the well-modulated and enunciated speech pattern of southern middle-class English in the name of a spurious equality. I say spurious because it has every right to remain part of English language as any other speech pattern.

[/QUOTE] Brian Bean wrote: ...in pursuit of equality

Or in order to fairly represent the broad constituency that pays for the Corporation.[/QUOTE]

See comment above.

[MarkBastable]

....the BBC has been trying to eradicate the well-modulated and enunciated speech pattern of southern middle-class English in the name of a spurious equality. I say spurious because it has every right to remain part of English language as any other speech pattern.


As much right, but no more. I'd say it's still over-represented in the BBC, if one were to compare the proportion of presenters who use it with the proportion of the population who use it.

[Emil Miller]

As much right, but no more. I'd say it's still over-represented in the BBC, if one were to compare the proportion of presenters who use it with the proportion of the population who use it.

It's very likely that many in the population who don't use it prefer it to the alternative because well spoken English is preferable to that which is badly or indifferently spoken. That also applies to other languages and is the reason why presenters the world over are chosen for their ability to enunciate and produce a clear and pleasant tone rather than someone who is unable or unwilling to do so.

[TheFifthElement]

Well it depends how one looks at it. I don't care about varied accents and, even if I did, it would make no difference anyway, but the BBC has been trying to eradicate the well-modulated and enunciated speech pattern of southern middle-class English in the name of a spurious equality. I say spurious because it has every right to remain part of English language as any other speech pattern.



Where I live the 'well modulated and enunciated speech pattern of southern middle class english' is a regional accent in the same way that Scouse or Brummie or West Country would be. It is the accent of a particular region (and class) of Britain which is not my own, and is as easy or difficult to understand as the well modulated Welsh middle class accent or any other, though I confess I find a nice Welsh or Geordie accent much easier on the ear. Not so clipped and brassy.

Damn the BBC and their over representation of one particular accent. About time 100% of the reporters spoke in a good Lancashire accent. It'd be much easier for me and my neighbours to understand.

[Emil Miller]

Where I live the 'well modulated and enunciated speech pattern of southern middle class english' is a regional accent in the same way that Scouse or Brummie or West Country would be. It is the accent of a particular region (and class) of Britain which is not my own, and is as easy or difficult to understand as the well modulated Welsh middle class accent or any other, though I confess I find a nice Welsh or Geordie accent much easier on the ear. Not so clipped and brassy.

Damn the BBC and their over representation of one particular accent. About time 100% of the reporters spoke in a good Lancashire accent. It'd be much easier for me and my neighbours to understand.

I have no trouble understanding a Lancashire accent but I don't think it's as pleasant as that of the south east because, as you say, it's a regional bias that applies. It's not only the BBC that up until recently has a had presenters who were almost exclusively speaking what is called standard English, the independent broadcasters have also favoured it. Similarly, in France , which like the UK has a multiplicity of regional accents, Parisian French is the standard and in Germany Hochdeutsch is the German equivalent.

[MarkBastable]

It's very likely that many in the population who don't use it prefer it to the alternative because well spoken English is preferable to that which is badly or indifferently spoken.

"It's very likely..."?

[Emil Miller]

"It's very likely..."?

Yes. I don't see large numbers of people writing to the BBC or other media outlets complaining that they shouldn't be using 'standard English' because it's not the way that they speak.

[MarkBastable]

Yes. I don't see large numbers of people writing to the BBC or other media outlets complaining that they shouldn't be using 'standard English' because it's not the way that they speak.

Then again, I don't see large numbers of people writing to the BBC complaining that "the BBC has sought to insert as many regional accents as possible into its programmes in pursuit of equality." So "it's very likely that many in the population" are in favour of the idea.

[Vonny]

I always wish I could hear all the different accents on the forum. I can tell when I read different people that they have different accents, but I don't know what they sound like. I tried to find a Welsh accent on youtube, but the one I found was Southern Welsh, which apparently is much different from Northern Welsh. It's interesting that a tiny country would have so many different accents.

In the Western U.S. we're said to have no accent at all, so I'm the same as Mutatis in the Midwest, even though we're 1,500 miles apart. It's dull for us.

[Paulclem]

I always wish I could hear all the different accents on the forum. I can tell when I read different people that they have different accents, but I don't know what they sound like. I tried to find a Welsh accent on youtube, but the one I found was Southern Welsh, which apparently is much different from Northern Welsh. It's interesting that a tiny country would have so many different accents.

In the Western U.S. we're said to have no accent at all, so I'm the same as Mutatis in the Midwest, even though we're 1,500 miles apart. It's dull for us.

As well as accents, there are regional words that are different. We always go on about how many terms there are for bread that make sandwiches - stotties, batches, breadcakes, teacakes, butties ... there are quite a few in the UK.

[Emil Miller]

Then again, I don't see large numbers of people writing to the BBC complaining that "the BBC has sought to insert as many regional accents as possible into its programmes in pursuit of equality." So "it's very likely that many in the population" are in favour of the idea.

There well may be, just as there are those who are not.

[TheFifthElement]

. It's not only the BBC that up until recently has a had presenters who were almost exclusively speaking what is called standard English, the independent broadcasters have also favoured it.
I think the issue is less about accent than enunciation. I agree, it's self-defeatist to employ newsreaders/television reporters who don't speak clearly - their job is to present information in a manner in which the majority of the viewing public can understand. But accent is a different issue. Take last night's BBC news. You had Huw Edwards reading the news - he speaks very clearly and (in my opinion) nicely and is easy to understand, but he does have a perceptible, albeit light, Welsh accent. Then you had Robert Peston who speaks with a 'southern' (for want of a better way to put it, I can't place it exactly regionally) English accent but iterates in such a bizarre way that you lose the thread of what's he's saying. It's like listening to a scratchy record. His accent isn't the issue, but the way he enunciates his words is.


As well as accents, there are regional words that are different. We always go on about how many terms there are for bread that make sandwiches - stotties, batches, breadcakes, teacakes, butties ... there are quite a few in the UK.
You missed off muffin, barmcake, roll and bap and where I live no one in their right mind would make a sandwich using a teacake, unless you like fruited bread with your cheese and ham. Then again, it might be nice actually :D

[OrphanPip]

I always wish I could hear all the different accents on the forum. I can tell when I read different people that they have different accents, but I don't know what they sound like. I tried to find a Welsh accent on youtube, but the one I found was Southern Welsh, which apparently is much different from Northern Welsh. It's interesting that a tiny country would have so many different accents.

In the Western U.S. we're said to have no accent at all, so I'm the same as Mutatis in the Midwest, even though we're 1,500 miles apart. It's dull for us.

There is a thread for sharing audio recordings buried somewhere. Although, I have a hint of a central Canadian accent, most wouldn't detect it unless I said something ridiculous like "I'm chasing a mouse about the house." Where the Canadian raising will hammer you over the head.

[MarkBastable]

Me, I sound like Stephen Fry talking to a cab driver.

[JuniperWoolf]

I talk ridiculously slow like an Alberta hick.

We should dig out that accent thread (or make a new one if we can't find it). I'll possibly do so once I've slept.

[OrphanPip]

I talk ridiculously slow like an Alberta hick.

We should dig out that accent thread (or make a new one if we can't find it). I'll possibly do so once I've slept.

I have an uncle who is Acadian from down East, I only catch 1 in 3 words. Ridiculously slow is probably a good trait lol.

[Emil Miller]

I think the issue is less about accent than enunciation. I agree, it's self-defeatist to employ newsreaders/television reporters who don't speak clearly - their job is to present information in a manner in which the majority of the viewing public can understand. But accent is a different issue. Take last night's BBC news. You had Huw Edwards reading the news - he speaks very clearly and (in my opinion) nicely and is easy to understand, but he does have a perceptible, albeit light, Welsh accent. Then you had Robert Peston who speaks with a 'southern' (for want of a better way to put it, I can't place it exactly regionally) English accent but iterates in such a bizarre way that you lose the thread of what's he's saying. It's like listening to a scratchy record. His accent isn't the issue, but the way he enunciates his words is.

Huw Edwards is a very good newscaster with a slight Welsh accent but I would say that the Welsh element is practically eliminated by his standard English. Robert Peston has come in for some criticism for broadcasts which shows why it is wrong to parachute someone who is not trained in presentation into a front line broadcasting post.
For English spoken in a way that is exactly what's required so that every listener is able to understand what is being broadcast I would recommend the Radio 4 programme File on 4 where Michael Robinson investigates a given subject, without the usual BBC political subtext, concerning the activities of various professions in the UK. Investigative and unbiased it is nothing short of brilliant broadcasting.
Another exceptionally fine speaker is David Mellor who, whatever his past indiscretions, has a perfectly balanced presentation which he probably acquired in his days as a QC. He presents a programme on Classic FM, as his knowledge of classical music is extensive and, without talking down to what is obviously a different audience to BBC's music programme Radio 3, he creates just the right atmosphere for the listener, with crystal clear diction and a sympathetic delivery. He also shares a platform with Ken Livingstone on a Radio London talk show where the difference between his manner of speech and the nasal whine of Livingstone highlights exactly why aiming for the vox pop in broadcasting is counter productive.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Also the way I was raised and my friends were - Appearance is very important. All our parents from when we are young instill in our heads that it is not what you are that counts for world, but what you appear to be. . .
I'm still waiting for an explanation of that statement.

[Alexander III]

I'm still waiting for an explanation of that statement.

When I said "all our parents" I meant my parents and those of my friends and the parents of all the children who were brought up in the same type of family and environment as mine.

To me it seems pretty self evident than in the business and political world it is not about how smart or hardworking or great you are - it is about how smart and hardworking and great you appear to be. This has always seemed pretty self-evident to me, but maybe is it just one of those unspoken things which everyone in the loop knows about.

I dont need to look very far to give you a perfect example. George W Bush Junior. He was voted into power twice...Appearance is what gets you places more than any other thing in this world.

[Alexander III]

And in defense of Emil, the BBC is not only watched by englishmen, it has a large international following. And for any non-native englishman, or a person for who english is not their first language - the so called "posh" accent is by far the easisiet to understand. All words are well enunciated and spoken clearly, the majority of other accents are much harder to understand. Though on a purely aesthetic level the scottish accent is my favorite. It is delightful on the ears, like a nice warm Inn with a large fireplace in the middle of winter.

So I guess the BBC should try an represent everyone, though not at the cost of lowering the level of their quality. If you struggle to hear the news, the presenter is failing.

[Varenne Rodin]

I always wish I could hear all the different accents on the forum. I can tell when I read different people that they have different accents, but I don't know what they sound like. I tried to find a Welsh accent on youtube, but the one I found was Southern Welsh, which apparently is much different from Northern Welsh. It's interesting that a tiny country would have so many different accents.

In the Western U.S. we're said to have no accent at all, so I'm the same as Mutatis in the Midwest, even though we're 1,500 miles apart. It's dull for us.

The U.S. has lots of accents we might not think about typically. New York accents, upstate, Brooklyn, Queens, all very different. Long Island, Jersey, New England, Maine. Minnesota and some people in Chicago and Canada have similar accents. Boston people have a sort of devolved New York accent. Tennessee, Georgia, Texas, and Louisiana all have "Southern" accents, but they are quite distinguishable from one another. California still has a heavy lot of Valley Girl speak, and tons of surfer accents around San Diego, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz. Western regional, even without much emphasis on an accent, is much different from a North Carolina educated non-accented dialect.

I think the main differences are that we rarely give specific names to our accents, and our accents tend to slur and ignore parts of the English language, whereas many Brits seem to enunciate perfectly. I stand out amongst my peers for speaking more clearly than any of them.

[Vonny]

Varenne, Oh yes I know we have many accents in the U.S., but they are far away from me. And in California you have a melting pot of immigrants, so you have that diversity. I know a couple of people with German accents. My father's primary language was Spanish, but he spoke English with hardly a trace of accent and he didn't look Spanish, so it wasn't evident that he was Spanish, but he always called me Chiquita.

Part of the reason I've not been exposed to differences is that I'm shy, so I don't talk to people even when I travel through Alberta, and I don't hear the Alberta hick sound. It's taken a lot of courage for me even to write on this forum.

I notice on the forum many different words. Paul has many, such as "carer." We say "caregiver." And we say math, not maths. And then the many different spellings. We spell "ardor", and the British spell "ardour". Neely has a very distinctive "sound" as well - I'm not sure if it's an accent or writing style.

I listened to Huw Edwards on youtube, and wow, that's an accent. I like it a lot!! I've heard British accents before but that one is different and cool. Really nice, compared to the Glenn Beck's who put me into "fight or flight."

I love Frank McCourt's Irish Brogue. I have his audio book.

I guess I'm very simple, (I'm sure Luke would be the first to say so) but until recently I never really thought about the world out there. I knew it was out there, but it was abstract.

You know, Alexander, I believe you have allies who are not being forthcoming, for whatever reason. I know there's one who has the perfect "build" (I don't know how to spell that word "fiz-eek") for a tux, and he knows it. He wears one every chance he gets. (no thought is given to pockets for his junk, convenience, being warm or "grunge," or any of that.) And he's more striking than the women.

[Varenne Rodin]

I would love to move to some place with lovely accents, Vonny. Wouldn't that be so wonderful? Moreover, I understand wanting to avoid people. Growing up, I imagined my fellow Americans were very nice and personable. I just don't get that vibe anymore. Not from anyone. Now it all seems like guarded hostility. I'm hoping tensions will ease again someday.

[Vonny]

I would love to move to some place with lovely accents, Vonny. Wouldn't that be so wonderful? Moreover, I understand wanting to avoid people. Growing up, I imagined my fellow Americans were very nice and personable. I just don't get that vibe anymore. Not from anyone. Now it all seems like guarded hostility. I'm hoping tensions will ease again someday.

Oh well, we can't have it all. I sure know what you mean about the guarded hostility - you said that right. But I don't have much hope for us, I think we're going to crash.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Neely has a very distinctive "sound" as well - I'm not sure if it's an accent or writing style.

Hi, yes it is probably my inability with grammar and so on, though it could be accent as well I suppose? :biggrin5: One thing for example. In Yorkshire people have the tendency to use "I were" instead of "I was" in conversation, such as "I were going to the shops...", or even "I were going t' shops" and things like that as Michael Mcintyre points out> :biggrin5:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzAD2GLfaNU


I love Frank McCourt's Irish Brogue. I have his audio book.

I love the Irish accent as well, especially the southern, it's probably my favourite.

[MarkBastable]

"I were going to the shops...", or even "I were going t' shops" and things like that as Michael Mcintyre points out> :biggrin5:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzAD2GLfaNU



Okay - pedant alert. This kind of thing brings out the obsessive in me.

I read somewhere recently that the Yorkshire thing around t'shops or t'Internet isn't a dialect version of 'the' but of its Low German equivalent that survives in Dutch as 'het'. Which, when you think about how it must have been derived, makes sense.

That's pretty pedantic of me, isn't it? But there's more.

If that etymology is correct then, actually, the apostrophe shoudn't come after the t - signifying an elided he of the, but before it, signifying an elided he of het.

So it would be 't shops and 't Internet.

Yes, I know. My life is a panorama of emptiness.

[Varenne Rodin]

Okay - pedant alert. This kind of thing brings out the obsessive in me.

I read somewhere recently that the Yorkshire thing around t'shops or t'Internet isn't a dialect version of 'the' but of its Low German equivalent that survives in Dutch as 'het'. Which, when you think about how it must have been derived, makes sense.

That's pretty pedantic of me, isn't it? But there's more.

If that etymology is correct then, actually, the apostrophe shoudn't come after the t - signifying an elided he of the, but before it, signifying an elided he of het.

So it would be 't shops and 't Internet.

Yes, I know. My life is a panorama of emptiness.

When you said "read somewhere," did you mean in a book?

[MarkBastable]

When you said "read somewhere," did you mean in a book?

It was in The Times, actually. I'm prepared to be corrected on the etymology - I just liked the logic.

[Varenne Rodin]

You'll not be corrected by me. I like the logic too, and your lateral thinking. It does inspire interest in further research of the etymology, however, so thank you for giving me something to do, Mark.

[prendrelemick]

I listened to Huw Edwards on youtube, and wow, that's an accent. I like it a lot!! I've heard British accents before but that one is different and cool. Really nice, compared to the Glenn Beck's who put me into "fight or flight."

.


Huw is Welsh and proud. It's funny, when he is reporting a Welsh story, his voice gets a sing-song lilt and his accent thickens.

[prendrelemick]

Huw Edwards is a very good newscaster with a slight Welsh accent but I would say that the Welsh element is practically eliminated by his standard English. Robert Peston has come in for some criticism for broadcasts which shows why it is wrong to parachute someone who is not trained in presentation into a front line broadcasting post.
For English spoken in a way that is exactly what's required so that every listener is able to understand what is being broadcast I would recommend the Radio 4 programme File on 4 where Michael Robinson investigates a given subject, without the usual BBC political subtext, concerning the activities of various professions in the UK. Investigative and unbiased it is nothing short of brilliant broadcasting.
Another exceptionally fine speaker is David Mellor who, whatever his past indiscretions, has a perfectly balanced presentation which he probably acquired in his days as a QC. He presents a programme on Classic FM, as his knowledge of classical music is extensive and, without talking down to what is obviously a different audience to BBC's music programme Radio 3, he creates just the right atmosphere for the listener, with crystal clear diction and a sympathetic delivery. He also shares a platform with Ken Livingstone on a Radio London talk show where the difference between his manner of speech and the nasal whine of Livingstone highlights exactly why aiming for the vox pop in broadcasting is counter productive.


That's interesting, because to these Northern ears David Mellor's voice sounds slightly effete and a bit oily - smarmy I would say. (which I don't think he is.) However, it is distinctive, which is better than the completely bland, accentless fare we used to hear on the bbc.

Robert Peston is entertainingly bad. He doesn't understand timing and inflection at all.

[Emil Miller]

That's interesting, because to these Northern ears David Mellor's voice sounds slightly effete and a bit oily - smarmy I would say. (which I don't think he is.) However, it is distinctive, which is better than the completely bland, accentless fare we used to hear on the bbc.

Robert Peston is entertainingly bad. He doesn't understand timing and inflection at all.

Ah yes, the good old North South divide, what would we do without it?
One of my former colleagues told me that his father had a saying: " You can always tell a Yorkshireman but you can't tell him much." It was no truer then than it is now but the image of some ineradicable difference persists. Interestingly, the same attitude applies in Germany but it's the northerners who are supposed to be superior.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Okay - pedant alert. This kind of thing brings out the obsessive in me.

I read somewhere recently that the Yorkshire thing around t'shops or t'Internet isn't a dialect version of 'the' but of its Low German equivalent that survives in Dutch as 'het'. Which, when you think about how it must have been derived, makes sense.

That's pretty pedantic of me, isn't it? But there's more.

If that etymology is correct then, actually, the apostrophe shoudn't come after the t - signifying an elided he of the, but before it, signifying an elided he of het.

So it would be 't shops and 't Internet.

Yes, I know. My life is a panorama of emptiness.

I don't know about that. It's one theory I suppose, it's interesting. Other forms of omission are also common though so I don't know how that would hold up against this theory?

Quite often the t' (or 't?) is not pronounced at all, so you might hear someone just say "Good, Bad and Ugly" or "Good, Bad and the Ugly" which is what I would probably say in general conversation, without really thinking about it, as you don't with accents until you are made to think what you are really saying. Touching the t' so much would be much more broad Yorkshire though it's quite often heard. You wouldn't say "The good, the Bad, the Ugly" unless you'd been to a private school!

Oh, you missed an "l" out of "shouldn't". One would have though you'd know how to spell "shouldn't". :prrr::biggrin5:

[TheFifthElement]

For English spoken in a way that is exactly what's required so that every listener is able to understand what is being broadcast I would recommend the Radio 4 programme File on 4 where Michael Robinson investigates a given subject, without the usual BBC political subtext, concerning the activities of various professions in the UK. Investigative and unbiased it is nothing short of brilliant broadcasting.
Another exceptionally fine speaker is David Mellor who, whatever his past indiscretions, has a perfectly balanced presentation which he probably acquired in his days as a QC.
I'll check out Michael Robinson. David Mellor has a creepy voice, I don't like it at all. Agree wholeheartedly about Livingstone - it's like listening to air being squeezed out of a balloon.



I listened to Huw Edwards on youtube, and wow, that's an accent. I like it a lot!! I've heard British accents before but that one is different and cool. Really nice, compared to the Glenn Beck's who put me into "fight or flight."
Yep, Huw does have a lovely voice :D

If we were to ban 'regional' accents from the BBC we would miss out on some truly lovely speakers. My personal fave accents...

Ross Noble - Geordie -can't beat that toblerone rolo combo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EYYNbdW5U

Simon Armitage - proper Huddersfield accent. I find him very reassuring. He's done an ace programme on The Odyssey and recently on the Pendle witch trials: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXVZseBCfiM

Peter Kay - local funny boy with Parkie, true blooded Yorkshireman:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH5vSHiAOAE

Johnny Vegas - Mancunian:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prEXdN0fBZo

Another Welshman - Rob Brydon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE5UktH4iYY

and not forgetting the lovely Scottish accent - Robbie Coltrane:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8uXdThjmNU

[prendrelemick]

I don't know about that. It's one theory I suppose, it's interesting. Other forms of omission are also common though so I don't know how that would hold up against this theory?

Quite often the t' (or 't?) is not pronounced at all, so you might hear someone just say "Good, Bad and Ugly" or "Good, Bad and the Ugly" which is what I would probably say in general conversation, without really thinking about it, as you don't with accents until you are made to think what you are really saying. Touching the t' so much would be much more broad Yorkshire though it's quite often heard. You wouldn't say "The good, the Bad, the Ugly" unless you'd been to a private school!

Oh, you missed an "l" out of "shouldn't". One would have though you'd know how to spell "shouldn't". :prrr::biggrin5:


That's right the 't' is almost always silent *, but a gap is left where it should be. A Dutch lady who lived in Yorkshire for 40 years, told me that yorkshire people were the laziest speakers in the world. I say we are the subtleist, what we can't be bothered to pronounce, we imply.

* unless it is followed by a vowel then it is merged , "Good, Bad an' Thugly."

[LitNetIsGreat]

That's right the 't' is almost always silent *, but a gap is left where it should be. A Dutch lady who lived in Yorkshire for 40 years, told me that yorkshire people were the laziest speakers in the world. I say we are the subtleist, what we can't be bothered to pronounce, we imply.

* unless it is followed by a vowel then it is merged , "Good, Bad an' Thugly."

Yes I think so, I think it's just laziness or that we are just too busy to sit around wasting words. For example, I have have just asked Mrs N if she wanted to watch Cats. She said "what?" in an amazed voice. I replied "no, no not Cats, Cats, I mean Eight out of Ten Cats"....obviously.:biggrin5:

[stlukesguild]

We have very little accent here... unless you catch us slipping into a bit of the lilt and slang influenced by the large "city billy" (transplanted West Virginians... long story...:frown2:) or urban Black population (which still has strong Southern roots). They used to send broadcasters here and a few other places to learn how to speak without an accent. The idea was that a broadcaster with a Texas or New York or Southern accent would be viewed skeptically by those not from that part of the country, so something "neutral" was sought. In spite of this, I will presume that we would be perceived as having an accent by most Brits.

*******

Returning to the issue of fashion, my own interest in the subject, as I have already noted extensively, owes much to my artistic interests and my passion for color, pattern, variety of texture, etc... which is largely ignored to a great extent in contemporary Western fashion that stresses conformity and practicality. I have recently been looking at Indian and Middle-Eastern fashions and was especially struck by the absolute stunning revelry in color to be found in the wedding dresses... as opposed to our traditional white:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6201/6077767403_152fdebfdd_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6076/6078307500_0a4fb865a4_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6090/6078307546_0370ba309f_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6186/6077767523_5a308276bd_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6086/6077767575_3277d45c0e_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6084/6077767639_7572416567_b.jpg

Considering the sheer visual splendour of such dress, it's not surprising that Western artists developed a fascination with Eastern culture right around the time of Industrialization, and the increasing conformity of Western fashion, which continued well into the 20th century in the guise of artists such as Matisse:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6089/6077825177_b76cc61d69_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6087/6078365570_8a4f10b8d4_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6083/6078365670_2f14c27ddd.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6068/6078365720_f273b35b5c_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6077/6078365736_77c78773f1.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6080/6078365848_f9c72edaee_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6085/6078365866_53b587c373_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6196/6078365880_f8cdc94385_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6181/6078365906_b6b94f4fd0_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6193/6077825501_c389a19222_b.jpg

Of course one argue against the fantasy inherent in such art... but then again, a great deal of art deals in fantasy and the fantastic whether its A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Arabian Nights, the tales of Poe or Gautier or Calvino, or Rimsky-Korsakov's Sheherezade, Mussorgsky's Night on Bald Mountain... or virtually the whole of opera.

[prendrelemick]

There is this huge warehouse/shop in Bradford that sells Asian dresses and silks and accessories. The feast of colour inside, the over the top opulence is a real cultural shock. You leave the high street with its Western conformity and walk a quarter of a mile past old warehouses and former mills to find it. My daughter says its like stepping into Christmas. They don't seem to do subtle or pastel, its all full on. Its setting among the "dark satanic mills"of Bradford adds to the spectacle. We natives spend the first half hour in there with our eyes shining and our mouths hanging open.

[Emil Miller]

This highlights a major difference between the clothing of different cultures. Whilst there have been examples of extravagant colours in Western apparel in the past, the example in recent times has been one of restraint.
Of course, where Eastern countries were colonised by the West, the clothing of the colonialists was often adopted by the native population but tradition kept their former dress sense alive. On a personal level I find much of the clothing worn by women from the sub-continent to be grotesquely garish.

[Vonny]

Thank you FifthElement for those links! Well, I realized that I watch foreign films and I do hear other languages and accents. Sometimes I will watch a movie in French just to hear the French. The thing with movies is, I feel that they aren't real, somehow. Lately I've realized that, "Ooh, these are real. There are real people who talk this way." And I've come to feel almost like, "You know, I'd like to have one for a pet," in the same way that I like to hear my cat purr.

[stlukesguild]

On a personal level I find much of the clothing worn by women from the sub-continent to be grotesquely garish.

This must be an example of the stereotypical English penchant for for gray, brown, and mud. As the painter, Howard Hodgkin, one of England's few real colorists has noted, "in England, a feeling exists that the use of colour... suggests a fundamental lack of seriousness..." In further discussions, Hodgkin went on to note that their was something of an Anglo-Saxon puritanism with regard to bright colors: bright colors can't be taken seriously because they are "decorative". As such, the British have always preferred Picasso to Matisse and Rembrandt to Rubens. While the French were exploring the vast array of chromatic possibilities in Impressionism, the British continued to explore mud:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6192/6080259268_1136ec52d6_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6184/6079722923_ec32f9feca.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6088/6079722851_d72339a302_b.jpg

While Matisse, Kandinsky, and Klee were pushing the boundaries of abstraction and employing a palette of exquisite brilliance... the British were still exploring mud:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6196/6080259396_7d6169b6fc_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6195/6079722961_5bcf05196a_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6188/6079742931_ca17319a53_z.jpg

Even into the present, in spite of Pop Art, the British preference is for grays, browns, blacks... mud... over brilliant color:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6200/6080259580_9bde02ec92_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6071/6080259544_c7d841f990_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6207/6079723081_64953374df.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6207/6079742961_f139d30e1a.jpg

The Middle-Ages had their horror vacuii (fear of emptiness). What is with the English fear of color?

(Although, in Brian's case it could simply be a preference for Chinese art and culture over Indian.:biggrin5:)

[Emil Miller]

I'll check out Michael Robinson.

If you scroll down to The Next Banking Nightmare, you will be able to hear Michael Robinson after the usual unnecessary BBC trails for other programmes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006th08/episodes/player?page=2




On a personal level I find much of the clothing worn by women from the sub-continent to be grotesquely garish.

This must be an example of the stereotypical English penchant for for gray, brown, and mud. As the painter, Howard Hodgkin, one of England's few real colorists has noted, "in England, a feeling exists that the use of colour... suggests a fundamental lack of seriousness..." In further discussions, Hodgkin went on to note that their was something of an Anglo-Saxon puritanism with regard to bright colors: bright colors can't be taken seriously because they are "decorative". As such, the British have always preferred Picasso to Matisse and Rembrandt to Rubens. While the French were exploring the vast array of chromatic possibilities in Impressionism, the British continued to explore mud:

While Matisse, Kandinsky, and Klee were pushing the boundaries of abstraction and employing a palette of exquisite brilliance... the British were still exploring mud:

The Middle-Ages had their horror vacuii (fear of emptiness). What is with the English fear of color?

(Although, in Brian's case it could simply be a preference for Chinese art and culture over Indian.:biggrin5:)

I think it's probably a fear of showing off by drawing attention to ones self which might be taken for insecurity. By disdaining excessively bright colours we are attempting to give an impression of restraint. It may well have it's origins in the Reformation but I don't see many of the indigenous population prepared to relinquish it. The Chinese are also pretty garish in their choice of traditional dress where bright red predominates. I haven't made a particular study of Chinese art and culture although I have given some time to that of Japan which, in accordance with the Japanese character, is much more subtle than the Chinese.
I notice that you managed to fit a Stanley Spencer in your examples.

[stlukesguild]

Yet right across the channel:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6196/6078365880_f8cdc94385_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6067/6080319466_53e1e212c2.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6210/6079783427_f7f4549c55_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6073/6079783481_aa259a8b4c_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6190/6080319692_dec55e5dd4_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6195/6079783663_73ddd94809_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6063/6080319854_6da0a62767_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6082/6080319938_5bd200fbb1_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6182/6079783921_248b1a7a5f.jpg

In spite of America's puritanism, even they don't harbor such a fear of color:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6204/6080376582_101b6cc08f_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6193/6079840333_eb1ce488e1_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6199/6079840387_7c8a8f263a_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6201/6080376742_98c232065c.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6203/6079840683_71b826d588.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6189/6079840713_d2b73c0116_b.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6080/6079840739_14b59240b3_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6203/6079840757_177cfc4ac5.jpg

:biggrin5:

[Emil Miller]

Yet right across the channel: :biggrin5:

Fauvists are really the exception that underline the rule.

[stlukesguild]

Well... you also have Delacroix, Ingres, the Impressionists, Bonnard, Vuillard, Gauguin, van Gogh, Matisse, the French Expressionists (Van Dongen, Rouault, etc...), Redon, etc...

[Emil Miller]

Well... you also have Delacroix, Ingres, the Impressionists, Bonnard, Vuillard, Gauguin, van Gogh, Matisse, the French Expressionists (Van Dongen, Rouault, etc...), Redon, etc...

Agreed, but Rouault, Van Dongen and Matisse were Fauves while Redon was a symbolist painter and apart from Gauguin and van Gogh, the others mentioned were relatively restrained in their use of colour. I will agree that British artists are generally less colourful than their continental counterparts but it seems to be part of the English character: Walter Sickert is a case in point.

[stlukesguild]

I will agree that British artists are generally less colourful than their continental counterparts but it seems to be part of the English character: Walter Sickert is a case in point.

It might have made for a lovely art history thesis. My honors thesis in art school explored the contrast between the German and Italian approach to the female nude. From early on, there is a German obsession with the dangerous woman... the femme fatale... where all the Italian nudes are Venus or the Virgin.:skep:

[LitNetIsGreat]

I will agree that British artists are generally less colourful than their continental counterparts but it seems to be part of the English character: Walter Sickert is a case in point.

It might have made for a lovely art history thesis. My honors thesis in art school explored the contrast between the German and Italian approach to the female nude. From early on, there is a German obsession with the dangerous woman... the femme fatale... where all the Italian nudes are Venus or the Virgin.:skep:

Oh that's interesting. I wonder what the approach to female nudes are from other countries? Now that would make a damn good thread. :nod:

[G L Wilson]

Agreed, but Rouault, Van Dongen and Matisse were Fauves while Redon was a symbolist painter and apart from Gauguin and van Gogh, the others mentioned were relatively restrained in their use of colour. I will agree that British artists are generally less colourful than their continental counterparts but it seems to be part of the English character: Walter Sickert is a case in point.

I like Turner myself.

[Emil Miller]

I like Turner myself.

Turner is a good example of dull or muted colouring. There are a good many of his paintings in the Tate Britain in London and they are usually very sombre canvases. The Fighting Temeraire is one of the few that has some colourful facets but the subject matter is slightly depressing.

[Vonny]

I've figured out about myself that I have a greater interest in literature and music than I do art. I appreciate some art, but I don't have an insatiable need for it. I'd rather look at real images - I only want to look at what I love - and 4 or 5 pictures are enough for me. It's amazing what my imagination can do with just a few.


I really like you![/B] I feel terrible ignoring these, like the one I got yesterday. The reason I ignore them is that I don't think in terms of friends at all until I've known someone for a year or so. I'm sort of abnormally avoidant, so the problem is [I]me not you. (There is only one friendship request I've received that I didn't want to accept, and that was the "perfected" person who told me he didn't care about my brother just prior to sending me a friendship request.) To everyone else, thank you for wanting to be my friend! Also, I've never received one single creepy private message on this forum, so this is a really good place. And I have to give credit to the monstrous person that he hasn't sent me a friendship request or private message. I have to admire that he doesn't pretend to be something other than what he is.]

[Scheherazade]

I've figured out about myself that I have a greater interest in literature and music than I do art. You do not consider literature and music "art"?

[G L Wilson]

Turner is a good example of dull or muted colouring. There are a good many of his paintings in the Tate Britain in London and they are usually very sombre canvases. The Fighting Temeraire is one of the few that has some colourful facets but the subject matter is slightly depressing.

What is wrong with sobriety? Art is not all about colour.

[Emil Miller]

What is wrong with sobriety? Art is not all about colour.

Stlukes posted in this thread about the lack of bright colouring in British painting and I tend to agree with him, but both he and I would be the first to acknowledge that there is a great deal more in painting than the colours used.

[stlukesguild]

I've figured out about myself that I have a greater interest in literature and music than I do art. I appreciate some art, but I don't have an insatiable need for it. I'd rather look at real images - I only want to look at what I love - and 4 or 5 pictures are enough for me. It's amazing what my imagination can do with just a few.

This is not unusual. One of my closest friends in college was a wonderful artist and loved music... but was dyslexic to the point that reading was virtual torture for her.

I would suggest, however, that you not make any assumptions about art until you are able to experience examples of exemplary art in person. While I loved art from the time I was a child... beginning with childrens illustrated books by Richard Scarry, Maurice Sendak, and Dr. Seuss... and continuing through illustrations in classics such as Alice in Wonderland and the Arabian Nights on through comic books... my first experience in a major art museum was an epiphany. This hasn't changed. Not long ago I had the chance to see Gericault's Raft of the Medusa.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6205/6084070818_fa45c762a2_b.jpg

I had long known this painting and its place in art history... but never been overly enamored of it. Walking through the Met one day I saw what I thought was a large reproduction of the painting as part of an exhibition exploring English and French landscape paintings. Aware of the immense size of the raft of the Medusa I fully assumed that what I saw from some rooms away was but a large photographic reproduction. Not long after, I turned a corner an happened upon the painting which most certainly was not a reproduction. I was absolutely stunned. I must have spent nearly an entire hour before this single canvas. I cannot help but imagine the theatrical impact of such art in the days before film.

I have to give credit to the monstrous person that he hasn't sent me a friendship request or private message. I have to admire that he doesn't pretend to be something other than what he is.

:eek::eek2::confused5::eek6:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I've figured out about myself that I have a greater interest in literature and music than I do art. I appreciate some art, but I don't have an insatiable need for it. I'd rather look at real images - I only want to look at what I love - and 4 or 5 pictures are enough for me. It's amazing what my imagination can do with just a few.


I really like you![/B] I feel terrible ignoring these, like the one I got yesterday. The reason I ignore them is that I don't think in terms of friends at all until I've known someone for a year or so. I'm sort of abnormally avoidant, so the problem is [I]me not you. (There is only one friendship request I've received that I didn't want to accept, and that was the "perfected" person who told me he didn't care about my brother just prior to sending me a friendship request.) To everyone else, thank you for wanting to be my friend! Also, I've never received one single creepy private message on this forum, so this is a really good place. And I have to give credit to the monstrous person that he hasn't sent me a friendship request or private message. I have to admire that he doesn't pretend to be something other than what he is.]
Being friends on a forum isn't really the same as a real-life friend ... at least, not to me.

[Varenne Rodin]

For me, it depends. About 50% of my "real life" friends are people I first met in person. The other 50% I got to know online before transitioning to in person friendships. I've been really lucky insofar as I have happened onto an outstanding bunch of people on the internet. One is a film editor who works for the Sundance film festival, one is an American comedic actress from a once popular sitcom, one is the chief scientist for one of the largest operating laboratories in the U.S., another is a Nobel prize recipient, another won the best actor award at Canada's premier film festival a few years back, and I know the DJ who was the MC at Madonna's wedding.

You never know who you might be talking to, and that goes for decent, amazingly talented types as well as creepy pervert maniacs. The most meaningful friendships of my life started on message boards. Much more meaningful than friendships with high school drunkards who I never had anything in common with beyond geography. Just sayin'. :)

[prendrelemick]

I will agree that British artists are generally less colourful than their continental counterparts but it seems to be part of the English character: Walter Sickert is a case in point.

It might have made for a lovely art history thesis. My honors thesis in art school explored the contrast between the German and Italian approach to the female nude. From early on, there is a German obsession with the dangerous woman... the femme fatale... where all the Italian nudes are Venus or the Virgin.:skep:

Actually, its the weather.

[Emil Miller]

Actually, its the weather.

:lol: You're absolutely right.

[stlukesguild]

It might have made for a lovely art history thesis. My honors thesis in art school explored the contrast between the German and Italian approach to the female nude. From early on, there is a German obsession with the dangerous woman... the femme fatale... where all the Italian nudes are Venus or the Virgin.

prendrelemick- Actually, its the weather.

Emil Miller- You're absolutely right.

I initially supposed as much myself. I theorized that the warm, Mediterranean climate led to a greater exposure to the unclad human body and a greater sense of comfort with the opposite sense. Certainly, this seems to have made sense when looking at the cultures of Greece, Rome, Persia, India, Italy and France. But then there were the anomalies of the Islamic Middle-East and Spain. I suspect that religion also played a role.

If we look at Islamic Spain we find a Mediterranean culture that reveled in color, sensuality, and the beauty of women. This exists in their art and their literature. If we look at later Spain after the Reconquista we find almost a complete absence of the nude in art until the 20th century and we find the Inquisition cracking down upon the few known examples of nude paintings (Goya's Naked Maja and Velasquez' Rockeby Venus) as well as the display of sensuality or eroticism in literature... such as that of San Juan de la Cruz' poetry.

One's initial impulse might be to blame Catholicism... but this doesn't match up with the facts. Italian art and literature and music is unabashedly sensual and embraces the erotic. One need only contrast Michelangelo to El Greco (who was repulsed by the Italian master's open display of sexuality), Titian to Velasquez, Veronese to Goya. While Italy is the heart of Catholicism and the seat of the Catholic Church, Their embrace of the faith has never been Puritanical... as it has been with the Spanish converts.

The Netherlands proved especially enlightening when considered after the division into Protestant Holland and Catholic Belgium. The belgians produced art such as this:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6068/6085965068_5b73220782_b.jpg
Peter Paul Rubens

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6063/6085417545_f648397256_z.jpg
Anthony van Dyck

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6207/6085417597_58f7c1e2e2.jpg
Ceasar van Everdingen

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6181/6085417635_f84696f826_b.jpg
Jacob Jordaens

as opposed to the the Dutch:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6199/6085965268_9a34facc97_z.jpg
Rembrandt

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6198/6085965292_01458c81bb.jpg
Frans Hals

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6188/6085417699_b62f208d9d_z.jpg
Vermeer

The Germans, on the other hand, in spite of being the center of Protestantism in Europe, produced a good deal of art that was blatantly erotic in intent... but quite different from the Italian. There is always something lewd... and dangerous about the German nudes...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6069/6085445353_8227e77dc8_b.jpg
Lucas Cranach

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6183/6085445431_bd1f86f74d_z.jpg
Hans Baldung Grien

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6080/6085992668_69511c092b_b.jpg
Hans Baldung Grien

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6082/6085992754_d596033aa9_z.jpg
Hans Baldung Grien

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6181/6085992782_de7c03902e_z.jpg
Lucas Cranach

continued...

[stlukesguild]

This tradition carried over into the 20th century:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6074/6086032000_803b12ddf2_b.jpg
Gustav Klimt

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6196/6085484833_2d1d472b73.jpg
Alfred Kubin

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6082/6086032118_53f5eeb9fb_b.jpg
Julius Klinger

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6196/6086032164_3c15166f38.jpg
Oscar Kokoschka

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6204/6086032270_e633e07b4f_b.jpg
Franz von Stuck

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6066/6085485155_80e9f81740_z.jpg
Egon Schiele

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6210/6085456257_1cd55e7070_z.jpg
Christian Schadd

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6072/6086003534_596f4f2045.jpg
E.L. Kirchner

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6084/6086003726_19a8966b53_b.jpg
Emil Nolde

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6069/6086003798_99d61d74ec_b.jpg
George Grosz

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6185/6086003824_910fe5f2dd.jpg
Otto Dix

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6184/6086003918_11767e6926_b.jpg
Max Beckmann

Not to forget the Lulu plays of Frank Wedekind or the operas Elektra and Salome by Richard Strauss:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NI02Rj5xhFM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJiFHv70WPo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op1VoQXXARs&feature=related

There are historical realities that help explain the popularity of the image of the femme fatale or dangerous woman in late 19th and 20th century art. Science had come to recognize the link between syphilis and other sexually transmitted diseases and sex. Women were beginning to assert their rights in the political sphere which many men feared. Freud's writings had a major impact. And the huge loss of the male population as a result of WWI led many women... especially in Germany... to the necessity of prostitution as a means of survival. There was even a fashion or fetish for prostitutes to dress as war widows which led to the so-called "merry widow":

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6071/6086090042_4e56aa7ea4_z.jpg

None of this explains the predominance of femme fatales in Germany and Austria.

[Alexander III]

That is all very interesting.

Let me spout out a theory.

We Italians, are for the most part akin to Tolkiens Hobbits. We love to live, we drink and eat and shag in abundance. There is a zeitgeist of promiscuity amongst Italian men. The Italian man, is an inserting one. On one hand, for him his mother is a saint, she is like the Madonna. An italian has a very powerful relationship with his mother, his perception of her is something very unique. On the other hand, he sees the majority of italian women as hens to be conquered, the women are just as flirty and promiscuous as the men, and the men recognize that. So for an Italian, the perfect embodiment of a woman, is that notion of his mother as a type of virgin saint. And when he wants a wife, he wants to find a woman who is almost saintlike, his ideal for love is that which he periceieves of his mother. It is all very freudian and twisted, but it is what it is.

I know a lot less about germany. But maybe the zeitgeist in germany, has always been more patriarchal. Less importance is placed upon the role of women. So while the italian sees the majority of women to be flirty little hens to be plucked, maybe the german zeitgeist sees the majority of women as little puritan saints. So like the Italian he wants the exception to the norm. He doesn't want the dull puritan of the masses he wants the femme fatal, the woman of excitement and shattering of taboo.

It's just a personal idea.

[Emil Miller]

That is all very interesting.

Let me spout out a theory.

We Italians, are for the most part akin to Tolkiens Hobbits. We love to live, we drink and eat and shag in abundance. There is a zeitgeist of promiscuity amongst Italian men. The Italian man, is an inserting one. On one hand, for him his mother is a saint, she is like the Madonna. An italian has a very powerful relationship with his mother, his perception of her is something very unique. On the other hand, he sees the majority of italian women as hens to be conquered, the women are just as flirty and promiscuous as the men, and the men recognize that. So for an Italian, the perfect embodiment of a woman, is that notion of his mother as a type of virgin saint. And when he wants a wife, he wants to find a woman who is almost saintlike, his ideal for love is that which he periceieves of his mother. It is all very freudian and twisted, but it is what it is.

I know a lot less about germany. But maybe the zeitgeist in germany, has always been more patriarchal. Less importance is placed upon the role of women. So while the italian sees the majority of women to be flirty little hens to be plucked, maybe the german zeitgeist sees the majority of women as little puritan saints. So like the Italian he wants the exception to the norm. He doesn't want the dull puritan of the masses he wants the femme fatal, the woman of excitement and shattering of taboo.

It's just a personal idea.

It's quite interesting and I have to agree about Italian men and their pursuit of women. I was once in Venice and my friend and I were watching a group of young men lounging around a shop window where a buxom young lady was arranging clothing on some models. Each of the men took it in turn to approach the window and make some sign of appreciation while the others whistled and laughed. Of course, the girl was leading them on and they were practically preening themselves. We couldn't help laughing and my friend said: 'That's Italians for you, they're all peacocks at heart.'
Now it so happens that I had a German girlfriend who was also quite attractive and who worked as a window dresser in a well known Munich clothing store but I didn't see anyone trying to attract her attention on the occasion when I passed the store while she was working.

I don't know if the difference can be attributed to a matriarchal /patriarchal dichotomy, but the weather may also be a contributory factor.

[Alexander III]

It's quite interesting and I have to agree about Italian men and their pursuit of women. I was once in Venice and my friend and I were watching a group of young men lounging around a shop window where a buxom young lady was arranging clothing on some models. Each of the men took it in turn to approach the window and make some sign of appreciation while the others whistled and laughed. Of course, the girl was leading them on and they were practically preening themselves. We couldn't help laughing and my friend said: 'That's Italians for you, they're all peacocks at heart.'
Now it so happens that I had a German girlfriend who was also quite attractive and who worked as a window dresser in a well known Munich clothing store but I didn't see anyone trying to attract her attention on the occasion when I passed the store while she was working.

I don't know if the difference can be attributed to a matriarchal /patriarchal dichotomy, but the weather may also be a contributory factor.

"That's Italians for you, they're all peacocks at heart."

Yes hahah that is very true. We are peacocks at heart. As to why, I am not sure, but it is true. People often get angry at many of these national stereotypes - but a stereotype doesn't emerge from fancy, it emerges from basic truths and I think many of the national european stereotypes are pretty spot on.

Like the germans being an overly-rational and pragmatic people. Tolstoy even continually refers to the stereotype, and I found it funny that 200 years on it is still true.

The french also have a peacock nature but it is different, to the Italian one. The french want to be irresistible to men and women, they desire infatuation. The italians, on the other hand want the satisfaction of the conquest, and not an internal satisfaction, the satisfaction comes from "bragging rights amongst friends". For the french their satisfaction is more internal.

I quite like observing all these national nuances.

[LitNetIsGreat]

"That's Italians for you, they're all peacocks at heart."

Yes hahah that is very true. We are peacocks at heart. As to why, I am not sure, but it is true. People often get angry at many of these national stereotypes - but a stereotype doesn't emerge from fancy, it emerges from basic truths and I think many of the national european stereotypes are pretty spot on.

Like the germans being an overly-rational and pragmatic people. Tolstoy even continually refers to the stereotype, and I found it funny that 200 years on it is still true.

The french also have a peacock nature but it is different, to the Italian one. The french want to be irresistible to men and women, they desire infatuation. The italians, on the other hand want the satisfaction of the conquest, and not an internal satisfaction, the satisfaction comes from "bragging rights amongst friends". For the french their satisfaction is more internal.

I quite like observing all these national nuances.

Yes quite true and I got to.."We Italians, are..." when I said "ha, ha, that explains a few things about Alexander"...fashion, women, wine, song, hot loving and all of that! :ladysman::nod:

[Emil Miller]

Yes quite true and I got to.."We Italians, are..." when I said "ha, ha, that explains a few things about Alexander"...fashion, women, wine, song, hot loving and all of that! :ladysman::nod:

Yes that was an eye-opener for me too. It only goes to show that it's impossible to know who we are talking to over the Internet unless they have given a detailed and truthful description of themselves first.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It does explain a lot, indeed.

[Alexander III]

Yes quite true and I got to.."We Italians, are..." when I said "ha, ha, that explains a few things about Alexander"...fashion, women, wine, song, hot loving and all of that! :ladysman::nod:

hehe yes, though unfortunately its more wine than women right now

:ack2::rolleyes5:

[LitNetIsGreat]

hehe yes, though unfortunately its more wine than women right now

:ack2::rolleyes5:

Oh, there's nothing wrong with that. Join the club.


Yes that was an eye-opener for me too. It only goes to show that it's impossible to know who we are talking to over the Internet unless they have given a detailed and truthful description of themselves first.

Yes it is difficult sometimes, though most people shine through after a bit and you can place them. It is much harder when you don't know where people are from though, I find, not that they should have to declare anything, just that it is harder to get a fuller picture without that info.

In a way this backs up what Alex was saying about stereotypes, as some of the stuff Alex was saying earlier easily fits into what you would expect someone of Italian origin to say over, say, a typical Brit. Not that I am judging by stereotype mind, just before anybody jumps on my back, but it makes some difference all the same. You can't ignore cultural influence.

[billl]

In a way this backs up what Alex was saying about stereotypes, as some of the stuff Alex was saying earlier easily fits into what you would expect someone of Italian origin to say over, say, a typical Brit. Not that I am judging by stereotype mind, just before anybody jumps on my back, but it makes some difference all the same. You can't ignore cultural influence.

Yeah, I initially had a lot of trouble with the idea of a dandy walking into a party or bar, then immediately checking the room for other dandies, silently calculating which ones might be the greatest sexual threat, based on their attire and poise--and THEN perhaps turning attention to the women (and what they might in fact be responding to). I later had some fun with the image, actually, occasionally half-heartedly dreaming up a comedy skit about young men baring their designer suspenders, etc. on a $19.95 mail-order DVD entitled "Boys Gone Wilde", but the Italian angle finally helps to bring some reality to what might have been originally intended and alluded to.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yeah, I initially had a lot of trouble with the idea of a dandy walking into a party or bar, then immediately checking the room for other dandies, silently calculating which ones might be the greatest sexual threat, based on their attire and poise--and THEN perhaps turning attention to the women (and what they might in fact be responding to). I later had some fun with the image, actually, occasionally half-heartedly dreaming up a comedy skit about young men baring their designer suspenders, etc. on a $19.95 mail-order DVD entitled "Boys Gone Wilde", but the Italian angle finally helps to bring some reality to what might have been originally intended and alluded to.

Exactly, it all makes sense.

[OrphanPip]

In a way this backs up what Alex was saying about stereotypes, as some of the stuff Alex was saying earlier easily fits into what you would expect someone of Italian origin to say over, say, a typical Brit. Not that I am judging by stereotype mind, just before anybody jumps on my back, but it makes some difference all the same. You can't ignore cultural influence.

Sometimes it doesn't really help though. Like what exactly does me being Canadian tell about my identity? That I'm polite and boring? I may be boring, but I'm not particularly polite, lol.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Sometimes it doesn't really help though. Like what exactly does me being Canadian tell about my identity? That I'm polite and boring? I may be boring, but I'm not particularly polite, lol.

Well I'm not saying that you can boil millions of people down to one neat stereotype of course, but often there is some ground for truth in them. I mean fashion to an Italian? You might just as well be a Brit who is obsessed by the weather.

[stlukesguild]

Well I'm not saying that you can boil millions of people down to one neat stereotype of course, but often there is some ground for truth in them. I mean fashion to an Italian? You might just as well be a Brit who is obsessed by the weather.

Why would the British be obsessed with the weather? Does it actually ever really change?

[G L Wilson]

Well I'm not saying that you can boil millions of people down to one neat stereotype of course, but often there is some ground for truth in them. I mean fashion to an Italian? You might just as well be a Brit who is obsessed by the weather.

Why would the British be obsessed with the weather? Does it actually ever really change?

The only thing that the British are obsessed with is class.

[JuniperWoolf]

I know I'm late and pretty much missed the part of the thread that was actually discussing fashion, but I've always considered fashion an artform, and it suprises me that some people don't. There's nothing more beautiful than a human that's well put together.

My thing is wearing clothes that combine modern alternative/punk fashions with victorian styles, like corsets, flowers and filmy dresses combined suggestively-placed rips, spikes and suffocating binding:
http://i426.photobucket.com/albums/pp349/cellar_door17/199181_136613976411174_100001877181899_238809_5438 388_n.jpg

http://i426.photobucket.com/albums/pp349/cellar_door17/206656_136613983077840_100001877181899_238810_7920 974_n.jpg

http://i426.photobucket.com/albums/pp349/cellar_door17/169087_118337994905439_100001877181899_134948_3297 371_n.jpg

I think it's because I'm a big fan of juxtaposition. The "sweet meets angry" look appeals to me. Another good look to aim for is to accomplish something with the overall appearance of a pissed off schoolgirl, like this:

http://i426.photobucket.com/albums/pp349/cellar_door17/197213_136613416411230_100001877181899_238806_4354 781_n.jpg

http://i426.photobucket.com/albums/pp349/cellar_door17/179234_121108527961719_100001877181899_150639_8128 564_n.jpg

You have to put on the attitude that goes with it, though.

And of course if we're talking about juxtaposition, you can't beat steampunk:

http://www.geeksaresexy.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/1.jpg

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l1nt9jeAGF1qbf5yuo1_400.jpg

Burlesque meets mechanization.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

My people, my fashion:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/4/14/1239747316488/Rock-fans-at-Tuska-heavy--001.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vfp89jydKHY/RnJ_wUrhq4I/AAAAAAAAABI/L8GqiY36uGQ/s400/headbangers2.jpg

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/images/pics/Metal1.jpg

http://www.bestofneworleans.com/imager/mike-williams-outlaw-order-draws-a-crowd-of-hardcore-metal-fans/b/original/1327275/782f/cover_story-5.jpg

http://www.sweetslyrics.com/images/img_gal/8388_lamb-of-god%20(1).jpg

http://www.mercylounge.com/_img/_flyers/debfb5fa6d_o.jpg

http://www.lachmeister.de/lustige_bilder/images/lustiges-bild-junge-heavy-metal-fans.jpg

[JuniperWoolf]

Haha, that looks familiar, metal and punk fashions are pretty close to one another. Here are two actual pictures of my dumb friends. Two, count 'em, two mohawks:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=579&pictureid=4271

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=579&pictureid=4790
(in the second one behind Max and his brother you can see my friend Steve sporting a Children of Bodem tee-shirt and a very Canadian toque, as well as myself beside him adorned with some very alt-fashion fishnet and hyper-red hair)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Children of Bodom is a cool band. They sucked when I saw them live, though.

[Paulclem]

The only thing that the British are obsessed with is class.

No weather is first. It's one of those preamble topics that strangers will test the water with you. Your response indicates your willingness to talk. Then - if it's a bloke - it might be beer, women, the goverment. If it's a woman - then local problems like bins and dogs. It might then lead on to class.

Of course the chat might go straight into football - soccer. That depends upon your class though...

[Emil Miller]

No weather is first. It's one of those preamble topics that strangers will test the water with you. Your response indicates your willingness to talk. Then - if it's a bloke - it might be beer, women, the goverment. If it's a woman - then local problems like bins and dogs. It might then lead on to class.

Of course the chat might go straight into football - soccer. That depends upon your class though...

Yes it's definitely the weather, there is a good deal of class resentment bubbling below the surface in England, I say England because I don't know from personal contact with the rest of the UK, but it seldom manifests itself in conversation. I think one has to live here to know why the weather is such a topic while foreigners seem to take it in their stride. When friends who live abroad telephone me, I find myself automatically asking what the weather is like over there.

[Alexander III]

Sometimes it doesn't really help though. Like what exactly does me being Canadian tell about my identity? That I'm polite and boring? I may be boring, but I'm not particularly polite, lol.

Well, we can tell that you are more likely to be paranoid schizophrenic than a megalomaniac. :Angel_anim:


Yeah, I initially had a lot of trouble with the idea of a dandy walking into a party or bar, then immediately checking the room for other dandies, silently calculating which ones might be the greatest sexual threat, based on their attire and poise--and THEN perhaps turning attention to the women (and what they might in fact be responding to). I later had some fun with the image, actually, occasionally half-heartedly dreaming up a comedy skit about young men baring their designer suspenders, etc. on a $19.95 mail-order DVD entitled "Boys Gone Wilde", but the Italian angle finally helps to bring some reality to what might have been originally intended and alluded to.

Haha, I never thought of it like that, but yes it is funny that I check out the guys before the girls.And pssshhh suspenders are so 1980's.

But in all seriousness, I suppose it is because in my mind the girls are passive while the guys are the active ones. It is much like with peacocks. All the hens form into line. A peacock male, chooses a hen, dances and struts his feathers in front of her, and she gives him a yes or a no. So the women are passive, I don't have to fear that they will choose another man, my only fear is that an another man will out show me, and thus they will give him a yes before they give it to me. Not sure if this makes sense.


Yes it's definitely the weather, there is a good deal of class resentment bubbling below the surface in England, I say England because I don't know from personal contact with the rest of the UK, but it seldom manifests itself in conversation. I think one has to live here to know why the weather is such a topic while foreigners seem to take it in their stride. When friends who live abroad telephone me, I find myself automatically asking what the weather is like over there.

Yes I agree, it's the weather. Whenever I say where I have lived before I moved to the uk, most often the first question is "What was the weather like there".

And naturally there are subdued class tensions in the UK, but they are the same or less as the ones in Italy and America. In the west, there is class tension especially with the economic storm we have been in for a while -

For instance what happened with the uk riots, turned into an excuse for many people to vent their racism and class tensions publicly, and not fear reproach. It was just one of those moments were there was a collective nostalgia in britain for the less liberal past which would have never let such a thing occur.

Is it not funny that 40 and 20 years ago, liberalism, and going against all that was conservative, was the young rebel thing to do. And now going to the right and being conservative appear to be the young rebel thing to do. Makes me think that politics is everyone trying to fix all their parents mistakes, while forgetting those of their grandparents.

[G L Wilson]

Fashion is just gay men playing dressups with flat-chested girls.

[Emil Miller]

Why would the British be obsessed with the weather? Does it actually ever really change?

Another major topic in the UK, apart from the weather itself, is why are the British so obsessed with the weather? Various theories have been put forward but there doesn't appear to be any overarching reason. My own belief is that it's often at the forefront of peoples' minds because its generally depressing. It's virtually impossible to enjoy a sunny holiday in the UK because there is widespread cloud cover for much of the year and this is why people tend to flock abroad when they get the chance. The cloud does break up from time to time but it's seldom for extended periods. The American writer Bill Bryson, who has chosen to live in the UK, said that when he first came to England he felt that he was living in a Tupperware box as he hardly ever saw a blue sky. I have a theory that the British sailed away to found an empire simply to get away from the place.
Large land masses like the USA or Europe have a variety of weather patterns but a small island in a northerly latitude is pretty much stuck with what it's got unless some freak weather, such as occurred in 1976, allows its people to bask in months of unbroken sunshine.

[stlukesguild]

Fashion is just gay men playing dressups with flat-chested girls.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6071/6086090042_4e56aa7ea4_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6181/6088667949_6fca76f2db_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6071/6089212948_6e6378c5c4_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6203/6089248386_871da27a5d.jpg

:confused5::confused5::confused5:

Oscar Wilde and Voltaire were masters of the one-liner... but they were almost never wrong. Your contribution to the genre is that you are almost never right.
:biggrin5:

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=stlukesguild;1067974 Oscar Wilde and Voltaire were masters of the one-liner... but they were almost never wrong. Your contribution to the genre is that you are almost never right.
:biggrin5:[/QUOTE]

I'm seriously contemplating a thread called What's to be done about G L Wilson?

[MarkBastable]

I'm seriously contemplating a thread called What's to be done about G L Wilson?

That will be either the shortest or the longest thread on the Forum, depending how unflinching the first post is.

[Paulclem]

Yes it's definitely the weather, there is a good deal of class resentment bubbling below the surface in England, I say England because I don't know from personal contact with the rest of the UK, but it seldom manifests itself in conversation. I think one has to live here to know why the weather is such a topic while foreigners seem to take it in their stride. When friends who live abroad telephone me, I find myself automatically asking what the weather is like over there.

The weather is forefront in my mind each morning because I'm never quite sure what to wear. You're right about the cloud cover, but the temp variations in winter can be quite large. So I get into a jumper/ no jumper dialogue and usually have to go outside because the weather forecast is so general as to be virtually useless. It never mentions the wind either - unless it's strong enough to blow over a truck.

There - I've gone all stereotypical and lived up to my UK psyche. Duh.

I wonder what it'll be like tomorrow...

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That will be either the shortest or the longest thread on the Forum, depending how unflinching the first post is.

Also depends on how fast Scher decides to ruin everyone's fun.

[Emil Miller]

Also depends on how fast Scher decides to ruin everyone's fun.

Well it might be fun reading the responses but G L Wilson's posts have gone way beyond a joke. When, apropos of nothing, he posts in the Looks vs Intelligence thread this:

When you are tired of the kids, you can always go to Disneyland.

Which is only one of many other one line non contributions he has made, I can't help thinking that it's time something was done about it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

His shtick has just gotten old and tired, and he's running out of material.

[billl]

When it is confined to a thread called "Is God Really The Sheep?" or something, everything's fine. But when the drive for attention leads to other threads getting stunk up with non-sequiturs and endless rat-ta-tat defenses of failed attempts at profundity, a lot of interesting discussion gets sabotaged. Too often, there's someone else who's interested in discussing Disneyland regardless of what the discussion has been, so just ignoring doesn't work, and there might be a final page or two devoted to Disney anecdotes before everyone gives up.

[Emil Miller]

When it is confined to a thread called "Is God Really The Sheep?" or something, everything's fine. But when the drive for attention leads to other threads getting stunk up with non-sequiturs and endless rat-ta-tat defenses of failed attempts at profundity, a lot of interesting discussion gets sabotaged. Too often, there's someone else who's interested in discussing Disneyland regardless of what the discussion has been, so just ignoring doesn't work, and there might be a final page or two devoted to Disney anecdotes before everyone gives up.

Yes that's true but this, taken from a thread called God and All that GLW set up in the Philosophical Literature forum, would seem to show the reason behind the problem:

mazHur, I am thinking of converting to Islam - it would be safer. I am not serious, I am just depressed: nothing I do seems to be right. I create chaos wherever I go, and all I want to do is to talk intelligently to another human being. I am so alone and nothing I do helps. Years of solitude have made me unfit for human company, I suspect.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

AH! He's tricked us into talking about him again! We really need to quit taking his bait.

[billl]

If there were a way that the 10-30% of interesting/relevant posts could be culled from the rest... If there could be some sort of vetting... If there could be some sitting back and reflecting on the potential post in light of the topic, and after considering whether or not the idea in that potential post actually has some substance to it, and whether or not it has been expressed in a way that it can be understood and has a fair chance of being addressed accurately, before posting. Then I think there'd be less "chaotic" disruption of other people's attempts to communicate.

[billl]

AH! He's tricked us into talking about him again! We really need to quit taking his bait.

Avoiding the bait is what I've been doing for ages now. But I'll back up anyone who wants to suggest that having us avoid the bait as individuals is not sufficient to prevent a discussion from getting (unintentionally) derailed by one or two other people who fall for it, and thus facilitate the spiraling-off into thread-dominating garbage about whatever.

[Varenne Rodin]

If there were a way that the 10-30% of interesting/relevant posts could be culled from the rest... If there could be some sort of vetting... If there could be some sitting back and reflecting on the potential post in light of the topic, and after considering whether or not the idea in that potential post actually has some substance to it, and whether or not it has been expressed in a way that it can be understood and has a fair chance of being addressed accurately, before posting. Then I think there'd be less "chaotic" disruption of other people's attempts to communicate.

I disagree with this. I think the dull and/or absurd comments give fuel to the witty ones, and highlight higher intellectuals by contrast. If everything were quality controlled, we would all just sit around agreeing with and congratulating each other. That would be boring. If a comment or conversation derails a thread, new comments can easily bring it back if the interest is there. Most threads will have a life cycle that ends.

There's also nothing wrong with starting new threads about old topics. There are new members joining all the time. New information circulated, old information can be given new vitality. Social networks that are overly policed end up losing traffic. Look at AOL. So if someone abrasive gets you down, just chill 'til the next episode, as the saying goes. :D

[Alexander III]

AH! He's tricked us into talking about him again! We really need to quit taking his bait.

Glad im not the only one who has realized the irony of the last ten posts :wink5:

[billl]

If there were a way that the 10-30% of interesting/relevant posts could be culled from the rest... If there could be some sort of vetting... If there could be some sitting back and reflecting on the potential post in light of the topic, and after considering whether or not the idea in that potential post actually has some substance to it, and whether or not it has been expressed in a way that it can be understood and has a fair chance of being addressed accurately, before posting. Then I think there'd be less "chaotic" disruption of other people's attempts to communicate.


I disagree with this. I think the dull and/or absurd comments give fuel to the witty ones, and highlight higher intellectuals by contrast. If everything were quality controlled, we would all just sit around agreeing with and congratulating each other. That would be boring. If a comment or conversation derails a thread, new comments can easily bring it back if the interest is there. Most threads will have a life cycle that ends.

There's also nothing wrong with starting new threads about old topics. There are new members joining all the time. New information circulated, old information can be given new vitality. Social networks that are overly policed end up losing traffic. Look at AOL. So if someone abrasive gets you down, just chill 'til the next episode, as the saying goes. :D


I'm glad you responded here, because I can now see how a focus on my first two sentences might mislead someone. I was trying to gently suggest (and you'll see the notion kick in with the third sentence) that posters should "police" themselves a little more, if they have a problem with "creating chaos wherever they go", and if they really want "to talk intelligently to another human being."

[Varenne Rodin]

I'm glad you responded here, because I can now see how a focus on my first two sentences might mislead someone. I was trying to gently suggest (and you'll see the notion kick in with the third sentence) that posters should "police" themselves a little more, if they have a problem with "creating chaos wherever they go", and if they really want "to talk intelligently to another human being."

Ah. I see your point, billl. Sorry for not getting it the first time around. The desire for people to utilize self control is wholly justified.

[Emil Miller]

I disagree with this. I think the dull and/or absurd comments give fuel to the witty ones, and highlight higher intellectuals by contrast. If everything were quality controlled, we would all just sit around agreeing with and congratulating each other. That would be boring. If a comment or conversation derails a thread, new comments can easily bring it back if the interest is there. Most threads will have a life cycle that ends.

There's also nothing wrong with starting new threads about old topics. There are new members joining all the time. New information circulated, old information can be given new vitality. Social networks that are overly policed end up losing traffic. Look at AOL. So if someone abrasive gets you down, just chill 'til the next episode, as the saying goes. :D

Back in the dim distant past when I suggested to the moderators that a Serious Discussions sub forum to the General Chat forum would circumvent the often trite input it received, I was very pleased that the suggestion was accepted. Obviously, given the disparity of people using LitNet, there would be some threads that were less serious than others but it doesn't matter because generally, the posts are fairly sensible and there should be an allowance for lightweight subjects and a bit of banter so that we don't take ourselves too seriously. There is, however, a difference between levity and out and out silliness that has nothing to do with the subject under discussion.
It's not enough to say take no notice of trolling when it disrupts other peoples' right to discuss in a reasonable manner whatever is up for discussion, particularly when it is a regular and ongoing thing.