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.
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.
Well the Marilyn Monroe one is a Warhol.
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
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.)
Well, I'm glad to say I did know that one. That was the only one, though (aside from StLukes pointed out).Originally Posted by OrphanPip
My sentiments entirely.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
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!
"I should only believe in a God that would know how to dance. And when I saw my devil, I found him serious, thorough, profound, solemn: he was the spirit of gravity- through him all things fall. Not by wrath, but by laughter, do we slay. Come, let us slay the spirit of gravity!" - Nietzsche
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.
Last edited by virginiawang; 08-18-2011 at 07:36 AM.
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?
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
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.
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.
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...
"I should only believe in a God that would know how to dance. And when I saw my devil, I found him serious, thorough, profound, solemn: he was the spirit of gravity- through him all things fall. Not by wrath, but by laughter, do we slay. Come, let us slay the spirit of gravity!" - Nietzsche
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.
No, because most women have a bag of some sort but men, at least those I know, don't carry handbags.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
Hoodies are considered as common as jeans over here,. It's like you're all stigmatizing casual jogging gear.
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
@ 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.
@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.
Last edited by Alexander III; 08-18-2011 at 10:10 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
