A self-portrait

[Alexander III]

A divan facing a balcony with open doors, in an apartment atop Kensington. The warm sun and spring afternoon resting gently over Hyde Park. A boy lounging. Legs crossed and extend over the length of the divan, one elbow pressed on a green silk pillow and the other dangling, motionless in the air. A cigarette between the upper tips of two fingers; almost slipping and falling - but it never slips and it never falls; it remains between the two fingers in the same way the sun remains in the sky.

His face is an object like the colored pillows or the trinkets on the coffee table. Occasionally the lineaments alter and flow in new forms, but his face remains just another object in the room. An azure blazer precisely cut to his slim figure, fitted white pantaloons and a stripped cotton chemise. Tousled and wavy hair, black with strands of white under the sunlight. An effortless room. A movement of the arm, a puff of the cigarette; the heart of ember burning down the white paper with a satisfied sound. As the flowers on the balcony continue to grow.

The mirror in front of the divan, peering into his eyes. The idleness of an object.

[Alexander III]

Any thoughts ? I hate to comment on my own thread just to bump, it but I do

[Buh4Bee]

It is always a wonder to me what people will read or not read on the writing threads.

I was able to gather that this is a painting or as the title indicates a self-portrait. I find that reading it is like looking at a painting in the sense that the description of the scene is clean and easy to imagine. It is nothing more or deeper than a scene without any action. There is no literary analysis, just the description of a very pleasant setting with an elegant young man smoking. One can imagine looking at this painting in a museum; looking thoughtfully for a few minutes and then moving to the next picture.

I really like the superficial nature of the piece. It sort of leaves one confused and wanting to search for a deeper meaning, but nothing is there.

[Alexander III]

Thanks Jersea for your take on it

[Bluehound]

I am not sure that it is so superficial, though the character may be vain and obsessed with outer beauty.
I get the feeling of someone who desires attention so much that they will pose even when there is no one to see them doing it, the "divan facing a balcony with open doors" cries look at me. I want to know more about this peacock boy .

[Buh4Bee]

I am very impressed with your interpretation. Most likely you are exactly spot on, as I am not.

[Bluehound]

I am sure we are both right , we just read it differently :)

[Buh4Bee]

I thought about this piece on two different levels- the painting level and then the writing level. I never took my analysis to the writing level very deeply. I was so blown away by what I had missed. Once I saw what you pointed out ( the posing), it was completely glaring at me. I actually was embarrassed. So no, we are both not right, but I appreciate the sentiment.

[WolfLarsen]

This is damn good writing! Usually, I don't go for this style of writing. But this Alexander three guy can really write! It's beautiful! He makes all the details flow. I mean the details flow like water. Most people can't do that. When they throw in that many details it just becomes a big tangled mass. The writing has a good rhythm. It just works!

Congratulations Alexander three!

[Pensive]

Love the whole description!

[MorpheusSandman]

I actually love this; more prose poetry than prose or poetry alone. It rather reminds me of WCW's famous "No ideas but in things". The words force us to envision the objects in all their pure ontology, allowing us to react to them, but not allowing us to tie our reaction to the text itself. It simply is, and if we read into it's purely because of our own associations with these things. It's bookended with incomplete sentences that render all the verbs into participles, so even the words that would indicate action are only descriptive. The irony about it simply being is that the "is" version of "be" is precisely the element elided that would make most of these incomplete sentences complete. It's not until "it never slips and it never falls" that we finally get an actual verb, and even here the verb is bound up in an absence of action rather than an active one. It's interesting that the most activity belongs to plants that grow and a mirror that peers. So there's definitely a curious rendering of an individual who is without being, in a sense, whom is only an incomplete description. Perhaps it's meant to underline who we actually define ourselves through others? What's lacking is a "you" to bounce the "I" off of? Then again, I could be completely wrong.

Nonetheless, I certainly appreciate the detail of the descriptions. Perhaps it is a bit narcissistic, but, then again, I don't take that as a negative. Rembrandt had to be a bit of a narcissist to paint himself so many times, and Donne has been accused of worse. I also like the delicate play of activity and inactivity, in change and permanence; homeostasis and transistasis as some might call it.

[Alexander III]

I actually love this; more prose poetry than prose or poetry alone. It rather reminds me of WCW's famous "No ideas but in things". The words force us to envision the objects in all their pure ontology, allowing us to react to them, but not allowing us to tie our reaction to the text itself. It simply is, and if we read into it's purely because of our own associations with these things. It's bookended with incomplete sentences that render all the verbs into participles, so even the words that would indicate action are only descriptive. The irony about it simply being is that the "is" version of "be" is precisely the element elided that would make most of these incomplete sentences complete. It's not until "it never slips and it never falls" that we finally get an actual verb, and even here the verb is bound up in an absence of action rather than an active one. It's interesting that the most activity belongs to plants that grow and a mirror that peers. So there's definitely a curious rendering of an individual who is without being, in a sense, whom is only an incomplete description. Perhaps it's meant to underline who we actually define ourselves through others? What's lacking is a "you" to bounce the "I" off of? Then again, I could be completely wrong.

Nonetheless, I certainly appreciate the detail of the descriptions. Perhaps it is a bit narcissistic, but, then again, I don't take that as a negative. Rembrandt had to be a bit of a narcissist to paint himself so many times, and Donne has been accused of worse. I also like the delicate play of activity and inactivity, in change and permanence; homeostasis and transistasis as some might call it.


Wow Morpheus, I am sorry I just saw your comment but wow. Reminds me of what Wilde said - the critic response is just as much art as the art itself. I think your response is just as beautiful piece of art if not more than my prose poem.

[Emil Miller]

Of course it's absolutely divine dear boy but what on earth is it supposed to be about?

Noel Coward circa 1965.

[hillwalker]

Of course it's absolutely divine dear boy but what on earth is it supposed to be about?

Noel Coward circa 1965.

More like 1925. An elegant portrait of some chinless wonder - though the pantaloons and chemise suggest a young child (Lord Fauntleroy springs to mind). However, nurse would never allow him to smoke so I'm also a little confused as to the full context.

H

[Alexander III]

Of course it's absolutely divine dear boy but what on earth is it supposed to be about?

Noel Coward circa 1965.

I this Noel Coward?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Coward_with-cigarette-holder.jpg

I aprove !



More like 1925. An elegant portrait of some chinless wonder - though the pantaloons and chemise suggest a young child (Lord Fauntleroy springs to mind). However, nurse would never allow him to smoke so I'm also a little confused as to the full context.

H

Pantaloons is just the formal word for pants - normaly used to indicate that they are tailor made, to perfectly follow the thigh and calf line.

And Chemise is just French for shirt. I have never liked the english word Shirt, it lacks all sense of elegance and beauty. And Camicia (Italian) while a elegant and beautiful word is too rythmicaly awkward compared to Chemise.

Hope that clears up any confusion - also it's all in the tittle, this is merley a self-portrait.

[hillwalker]

You do indeed sound like a dashing young blade.

If you went into any gentleman's outfitter's in the UK today (even in London's Bond Street) and asked for a chemise and pantaloons they would probably laugh in your face before redirecting you to the nearest Fancy Dress shop.

This form of dress and those particular terms for shirt and pants went out of fashion long before Noel Coward's time, unfortunately. Nowadays they tend to be favoured by the opposite gender looking to dress up prior to a little Victorian-style romantic role play.
Hence our confusion...

H

[Emil Miller]

More like 1925. An elegant portrait of some chinless wonder - though the pantaloons and chemise suggest a young child (Lord Fauntleroy springs to mind). However, nurse would never allow him to smoke so I'm also a little confused as to the full context.

H

In the normal course of events, it would have been 1925 but the remark was made to Lionel Bart who at the time was living with Noely boy and was pestering him for some advice on some corny musical Bart had dreamed up.
Similarly, when Daniel Massey was chosen to play Noel in the film 'Star', he sent him a copy of the script and asked what he thought of it.
Noely wrote back saing: 'Too many dear boys, dear boy.'


I this Noel Coward?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/Coward_with-cigarette-holder.jpg

I aprove !

Pantaloons is just the formal word for pants - normaly used to indicate that they are tailor made, to perfectly follow the thigh and calf line.

And Chemise is just French for shirt. I have never liked the english word Shirt, it lacks all sense of elegance and beauty. And Camicia (Italian) while a elegant and beautiful word is too rythmicaly awkward compared to Chemise.

Hope that clears up any confusion - also it's all in the tittle, this is merley a self-portrait.

Judging by these opening lines from The Picture of Dorian Gray, I don't think Oscar would have been amused.

From the corner of the divan of Persian saddle-bags on which he was lying, smoking, as was his custom, innumerable cigarettes, Lord Henry Wotton could just catch the gleam of the honey-sweet and honey-coloured blossoms of a laburnum, whose tremulous branches seemed hardly able to bear the burden of a beauty .....

[Alexander III]

You do indeed sound like a dashing young blade.

If you went into any gentleman's outfitter's in the UK today (even in London's Bond Street) and asked for a chemise and pantaloons they would probably laugh in your face before redirecting you to the nearest Fancy Dress shop.

Pantaloons is the proper term. I ocassioanly have bespoke clothes made by a tailor in Savile row - and it was from my tailor that I learnt the word pantaloons. If a Savile row tailor is not considered a proper gentleman's outfitter than what is?

I should also mention that I only have certain stapples of my wardrobe made in savile row, I am not snobishly ostentatious - though some may have said impression from my posts.

This form of dress and those particular terms for shirt and pants went out of fashion long before Noel Coward's time, unfortunately. Nowadays they tend to be favoured by the opposite gender looking to dress up prior to a little Victorian-style romantic role play.
Hence our confusion...


I just realized the problem. I am using american english and you british english.

When I say pants (the formal word being pantaloons) I mean trousers. And chemise is simply french for shirt.

I admit I have not been to london since last Tuseday but I doubt men have stopped wearing trousers and shirts...

Judging by these opening lines from The Picture of Dorian Gray, I don't think Oscar would have been amused.

The bastard irishman plagarised my portrait and o[ended his novel with it novel!

In all honesty it is a fascinating coincidence yet I am not surprised, I suppose all dandies are somewhat likeminded.

[Emil Miller]

You do indeed sound like a dashing young blade.

If you went into any gentleman's outfitter's in the UK today (even in London's Bond Street) and asked for a chemise and pantaloons they would probably laugh in your face before redirecting you to the nearest Fancy Dress shop.

Pantaloons is the proper term. I ocassioanly have bespoke clothes made by a tailor in Savile row - and it was from my tailor that I learnt the word pantaloons. If a Savile row tailor is not considered a proper gentleman's outfitter than what is?

I should also mention that I only have certain stapples of my wardrobe made in savile row, I am not snobishly ostentatious - though some may have said impression from my posts.

This form of dress and those particular terms for shirt and pants went out of fashion long before Noel Coward's time, unfortunately. Nowadays they tend to be favoured by the opposite gender looking to dress up prior to a little Victorian-style romantic role play.
Hence our confusion...


I just realized the problem. I am using american english and you british english.

When I say pants (the formal word being pantaloons) I mean trousers. And chemise is simply french for shirt.

I admit I have not been to london since last Tuseday but I doubt men have stopped wearing trousers and shirts...

Judging by these opening lines from The Picture of Dorian Gray, I don't think Oscar would have been amused.

The bastard irishman plagarised my portrait and o[ended his novel with it novel!

In all honesty it is a fascinating coincidence yet I am not surprised, I suppose all dandies are somewhat likeminded.

If you go to Charvet's in the Place Vendome in Paris, you will be able to have your pantalons and chemises made for you at a price that is way beyond the average for such attire. They also do some very nice silk dressing gowns for about £2000. However, not everyone took to les chemises as worn by women or the sack dress as it was known when it was fashionable.

http://youtu.be/LgHc6qEvAN8

It occurred to me that perhaps a little bit of Noely wouldn't go amiss after the somewhat raucous earlier musical offering.

http://youtu.be/B6iQBn2oJ2w

I'm sure that Oscar would have approved.

[Alexander III]

If you go to Charvet's in the Place Vendome in Paris, you will be able to have your pantalons and chemises made for you at a price that is way beyond the average for such attire. They also do some very nice silk dressing gowns for about £2000. However, not everyone took to les chemises as worn by women or the sack dress as it was known when it was fashionable.

http://youtu.be/LgHc6qEvAN8

It occurred to me that perhaps a little bit of Noely wouldn't go amiss after the somewhat raucous earlier musical offering.

http://youtu.be/B6iQBn2oJ2w

I'm sure that Oscar would have approved.

Charvet's has some loveley stuff - but for certain pieces in a mans wardrobe bespoke is simply the best option.

A 400 pound bespoke sport coat is far better than a 2000 pound Valentio sport coat - of the rack is always the same, the clothes can be beautifull but they are the designers creation and they are always made in unproportionate sizes so that they fit on everyone.

With bespoke I choose every detail from the cloth material to the size of the lapels - and it is made to measure for my exact body - to fit my exact proportions not general proportions to fit everyone such as all off the rack clothes.

I perfectly understand buying off the rack clothes if it is a question of price as bespoke is expensive- but why on earth would you spend a vast amount of money on things such as Ralph Lauren and Valentino and Paul Stuart when for the same price or easily less you could get the same article of clothing bespoke? Why be a slave to other mens design choices and pay ridicoulous amounts of money when for that same price or less you can go bespoke? A lack of style and confidence is the only reason.

Rant over -


"However, not everyone took to les chemises as worn by women or the sack dress as it was known when it was fashionable."

To be honest, I am alarmingly ignorant when it comes to woman's fashion - so what you just said went way over my head

[Emil Miller]

Charvet's has some loveley stuff - but for certain pieces in a mans wardrobe bespoke is simply the best option.

A 400 pound bespoke sport coat is far better than a 2000 pound Valentio sport coat - of the rack is always the same, the clothes can be beautifull but they are the designers creation and they are always made in unproportionate sizes so that they fit on everyone.

With bespoke I choose every detail from the cloth material to the size of the lapels - and it is made to measure for my exact body - to fit my exact proportions not general proportions to fit everyone such as all off the rack clothes.

I perfectly understand buying off the rack clothes if it is a question of price as bespoke is expensive- but why on earth would you spend a vast amount of money on things such as Ralph Lauren and Valentino and Paul Stuart when for the same price or easily less you could get the same article of clothing bespoke? Why be a slave to other mens design choices and pay ridicoulous amounts of money when for that same price or less you can go bespoke? A lack of style and confidence is the only reason.

Rant over -


"However, not everyone took to les chemises as worn by women or the sack dress as it was known when it was fashionable."

To be honest, I am alarmingly ignorant when it comes to woman's fashion - so what you just said went way over my head

I doubt very much that this youthful attachment to sartorial display will continue beyond a certain point as that is the norm for most people. I will admit to being similarly interested in what I wore when I was that age but youthful exhuberance can often lead to mistakes being made. Long ago I had a suit made by a Saville Row tailor. He was called John Barnes and he had a coat of arms on the door that proclaimed 'Clothes Maketh the Man; John Barnes Maketh the Clothes.' I was very taken with a medium-striped cloth that was displayed in the window and on a whim I went in and got them to knock me up a suit. After a number of fittings, the 3 piece garment was ready and I was very pleased with it until I met an acqaintance who said I looked like John Dillinger.

Anyway, this is what the sack dress looked like back in the early sixties.

http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/3337/potatosackdress.jpg

[Alexander III]

I doubt very much that this youthful attachment to sartorial display will continue beyond a certain point as that is the norm for most people. I will admit to being similarly interested in what I wore when I was that age but youthful exhuberance can often lead to mistakes being made. Long ago I had a suit made by a Saville Row tailor. He was called John Barnes and he had a coat of arms on the door that proclaimed 'Clothes Maketh the Man; John Barnes Maketh the Clothes.' I was very taken with a medium-striped cloth that was displayed in the window and on a whim I went in and got them to knock me up a suit. After a number of fittings, the 3 piece garment was ready and I was very pleased with it until I met an acqaintance who said I looked like John Dillinger.


Ahh, who knew that even you had a little menage with sartorial perfection. I have done similar things to your Dillinger suite as well, but luckily my fashion tastes have matured much like my literary tastes, and now I have learnt that listening to my mother on how to dress is the difference between looking like a fop and looking like a gentleman. But I really must mention that I sincerely doubt it is just an affectation of youth. I have as much love for dandyism (of which dress is but a part) as I do for literature.

I am sorry if I bore you with this Emil but, I am starting to realize something. You know how in the late sixties everyone especially the young from California to Rome, knew that something was going on and a change was coming - I can't help but feel that now is a similar time. But the change is the reverse. In the 60's they were a generation who grew up bloated on conservatism, now we are a generation bloated on that counter culture reformation - there is a desire for elegance, for the life of elegance which all these movies set in the 1960,'s and 40's and 20's nostalgically remind us off. There is a return to the right by the young, mostly because we live in a society full of PC propaganda and casualness, there is a desire for the new.

Amongst the many changes - fashion always does reflect the times. in the 60's and 70's fashion was overhauled, all forms of dress reflecting the conservatism and conformity of the past were abolished. Now there is a return to elegance. partly because the 90's were the peak of dressing-down fashion - now amongst the young sport jackets and blazers and suits are no longer seen as Bland, conservative, conformity - they are now elegance, superiority, a mark of beauty - Jeans are dying, and clothes are returning to fitting the man rather than being baggy parachutes ( though I admit in London on many boys this is too extreme in the pants department - yet somehow as always in Italy and France they have not taken slim pants to the ridiculous extreme such as in london)

This is just what I am noticing, as I am very lucky as I go all over europe on trips all the time whilst at university and I am starting to see the zeitgeist of my generation in europe - and I cannot help but say it, the times they are a changing.

This change at it's best could lead to a new society without the baggage of the liberal propaganda of the last 40 years which has become so odious to my generation. But it is also a bit scary. PC in theory is beautiful, but the way it has been done during the last 40 years was so ridiculous that there is an enormous hate for it amongst my generation - and the return of right wing sympathy could lead to us finally creating strong governments who are able to govern and are not slaves of the banks and the tyranny of the masses but it could also lead sadly to fascism sympathies - which sadly I also see rising in my generation.

[Emil Miller]

Ahh, who knew that even you had a little menage with sartorial perfection. I have done similar things to your Dillinger suite as well, but luckily my fashion tastes have matured much like my literary tastes, and now I have learnt that listening to my mother on how to dress is the difference between looking like a fop and looking like a gentleman. But I really must mention that I sincerely doubt it is just an affectation of youth. I have as much love for dandyism (of which dress is but a part) as I do for literature.

I am sorry if I bore you with this Emil but, I am starting to realize something. You know how in the late sixties everyone especially the young from California to Rome, knew that something was going on and a change was coming - I can't help but feel that now is a similar time. But the change is the reverse. In the 60's they were a generation who grew up bloated on conservatism, now we are a generation bloated on that counter culture reformation - there is a desire for elegance, for the life of elegance which all these movies set in the 1960,'s and 40's and 20's nostalgically remind us off. There is a return to the right by the young, mostly because we live in a society full of PC propaganda and casualness, there is a desire for the new.

Amongst the many changes - fashion always does reflect the times. in the 60's and 70's fashion was overhauled, all forms of dress reflecting the conservatism and conformity of the past were abolished. Now there is a return to elegance. partly because the 90's were the peak of dressing-down fashion - now amongst the young sport jackets and blazers and suits are no longer seen as Bland, conservative, conformity - they are now elegance, superiority, a mark of beauty - Jeans are dying, and clothes are returning to fitting the man rather than being baggy parachutes ( though I admit in London on many boys this is too extreme in the pants department - yet somehow as always in Italy and France they have not taken slim pants to the ridiculous extreme such as in london)

This is just what I am noticing, as I am very lucky as I go all over europe on trips all the time whilst at university and I am starting to see the zeitgeist of my generation in europe - and I cannot help but say it, the times they are a changing.

This change at it's best could lead to a new society without the baggage of the liberal propaganda of the last 40 years which has become so odious to my generation. But it is also a bit scary. PC in theory is beautiful, but the way it has been done during the last 40 years was so ridiculous that there is an enormous hate for it amongst my generation - and the return of right wing sympathy could lead to us finally creating strong governments who are able to govern and are not slaves of the banks and the tyranny of the masses but it could also lead sadly to fascism sympathies - which sadly I also see rising in my generation.

Well fashion has always played the swings and roundabouts; it's the way clothes manufacturers make money. If what you say is true it will be a welcome return to a more orderly dress sense than that of the of the past 50 years, although I see little sign of it. Hideous tattoos and scruffy jeans seem to be the norm, with grotesque potbellied Neanderthals shuffling along the streets of London like something from a dystopian novel by H G Wells or Aldous Huxley. Men are increasingly reminiscent of apes and the women seem to be getting more like men. Fashions in politics change also and I suspect we are about due for a reversal of the brotherly love syndrome of the past two decades, but whether it will lead to fascism remains a moot point. However, when the pending economic collapse occurs, all bets will be off.