We're a self-centered bunch today. We dress for ourselves rather for others, which is why I hear over and over that clothes must be comfortable and easy to wear.
Many of the details of dress that were a mark of elegance are condemned today as uncomfortable or too time-consuming. Loafers replace oxfords, and sneakers replace loafers. Returning home from work, men in what were once considered white collar pursuits change from their jeans into their more comfortable sweats. On vacation they transform themselves into backwoodsmen or tropical islanders.
Now some of this is because many men have never had the opportunity to wear good quality clothes that fit. I had a colleague once that refused to wear wool because the little of it he'd worn was scratchy. He apparently had an intimate experience with unlined tweed trousers.
Men who seek comfort above all will eventually find they have become slaves to trainers and sweat suits. Pursued as a goal, comfort is the enemy of elegance. And the rest of us are the poorer for it.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Comfort
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Will, I totally agree with what you say here, and it has always puzzled me that so many people equate comfort with slovenliness. The most comfortable clothes I own are not my sweatpants; they're my perfect dress trousers, my fitted shirts, my good shoes, etc. And it's no surprise: these things were made to be comfortable.
And in fact, I find that much of the mass-produced clothing around here a) simply doesn't fit, b) has excess fabric that gets in the way, and c) pales in its textural comfort by comparison to better clothes. Ergo, they are less comfortable.
The world is mad.
I had a situation arise several months back at one of our semi-annual sales gatherings. Of course, most people there (men and women) broke out their "dress" jeans for the occasion and, if we were lucky, a shirt with a collar. Although, there was one Angels jersey, I remember. I, of course, was wearing wool trousers, a dress shirt, v-neck sweater and an odd jacket (pocket square included). I, as usual, received the "who are YOU interviewing with today?" comment. I had finally had enough. I explained to the gentleman that I was wearing a cotton shirt, really no different from his own, except mine fit. The kicker was when I explained that my trousers were lined with silk. So, in actuality, as far as my legs were concerned, I was wearing silk pajamas. Him....denim. The same stuff they make tents out of. I didn't speak to much to him after that. I shall be interested to see him at the next meeting.
This weekend, I journeyed to Baltimore to visit with some friends and take in a Yankees/Orioloes game at Camden Yards.One of my friends has an ecumenical bent and so we went to 4o'clock mass at his church where he was reading. He looked good in a navy blazer, loafers and striped tie. But it went downhill from there. Most of the people were wearing shorts, sandals, t-shirts, jeans, sneakers, sweatpants. I could not believe it. One older man was wearing a t-shirt that read "Old Guys Rule." I was appalled. Even in church, God's home, we cannot even make an effort to get dressed.
We clearly are living in a different era. And I agree, Will, we are all the poorer for it.
Wonderful post, Will. I would love to see it expanded into essay or even book form. Modern people think like children, for whom personal comfort is the main objective. They even dress like babies, with their sweats, sneakers, and baggy tops. And like kids, moderns complain that wool is 'too scratchy.' Coincidentally, the most comfortable trousers I own are worsted and flannel. In warmer weather, they are particularly nice.
Truer words were ne'er spoken, Will.
This posting was a masterpiece.
Once you get used to it, I bet you can clean the house in a good suit.
I like wearing my tie even after I return home at the end of the day. Not going out, not seeing anyone and the tie remains. Don't know why I take great pleasure in cooking a complicated meal without removing my tie and without soiling anything.
Has anyone noticed the first few scenes of "To Catch a Thief"? He was gardening and he was enviably well-dressed with an ascot!
A great post that needs to be reiterated.
A little old man down the street died this winter. He did all his yard work in a shirt and tie because "somebody might see him out." The last of a gentlemanly breed!
My parents ( 80 yrs old) are of a generation that changed clothes before they went into town. We dressed up for doctor's appointments. My mother would wear shorts to wash the car, but never into town. I lament the situation.
While I understand the views expressed, I think it should be remembered that the uncomfortable or impractical can never truly be considered 'elegant'.
Another winner post, and ditto the comments.
Over the weekend I watched some episodes from the old series "the saint" with Roger Moore. His clothing is a study in elegance and he wears it with the at-ease most people associate with tracksuits. He shows that comfort and elegance can be achieved with the same clothes, if some work and thought is put into their choice.
On a sidenote, some of his odd jackets are oddly detailed indeed (to steal from Alan Flusser's book), sporting dual chest pockets with flaps.
Regarding church attire, the last time I went, there were people in sandals and above-the-knee shorts, sleeveless t-shirts, and some exposed midsections; the church choir seemed to have been caught on laundry day. In a population of about 500 goers, one-third of whom men, there were fewer than 20 ties. Maybe the situation has improved since then, but I doubt it.
Dressing for comfort versus dressing for elegance? Are they not two sides of the same coin? Where I might dress to please myself (comfort) you may prefer to please yourself by dressing to please others (elegance). Just different ways of seeking pleasure I'd say. Whether one is superior over the other is like saying blondes are 2superior to brunettes or visa-versa. Don't forget too Ayn Rand's caution against being too selfless: "The man who is willing to serve as the means to the ends of others [e.g., dressing to please others?] will necessarily regard others as the means to his ends."
I take this quote from the article 'Why Beards?' by Meir Soloveichik in the February 2008 issue of 'Commentary':
Writing in a similar vein of our culture of "perpetual adolescence," Joseph Epstein observes on the basis of old newsreel films that even baseball games used to be attended by adults dressed "in a suit and a fedora or other serious adult hat." Now, "informality has been institutionalized" to the point where captains of industry dress like children. If, Epstein writes, it was once assumed that life had a beginning, a middle, and an end, and that "the middle--adulthood--was the lengthiest and most earnest part, where everything serious happened and much was at stake," today "the ideal almost everywhere is to seem young for as long as possible."
From "Barefoot in the Park" (1967):
Jane Fonda: "Before we were married, I thought you slept with a tie."
Robert Redford: "Just for formal sleeps."
In response to John's comment about the t-shirt in church that read "Old Guys Rule" - isn't God an 'old guy'?
;-)
I think you are overreacting. If you hate comfort wouldn't you be wearing stiff starched collars and thick cloth year round. I don't think anyone does that every day. Now, you don't take comfort very far, but you have embraced it.
However, very nice post.
Turling, you make me laugh because I totally agree. I imagine that many of those underdressed at the meeting were of a younger generation? I suppose the ieal these days is a sort of 'glamorized working-class,' with perfectly distressed jeans and other such paradoxical creations. I teach high school and do my best to dress well every day, though in company like this I undoubtedly have room for improvement. So thanks to you, Will, and Turling, and everyone else here for reminding us all that daily dress is a fine art too.
I agree, but I don't think it's just comfort that drives the masses to wear cloths that wouldn't seem out of place on a homeless child. I believe it has a lot to do with the obsession with youth. Everyone wants to stay as young as possible (perhaps forgetting how awkward being a teenager was) and as part of this, emulate teenage fashion... which more often than not lacks any sort of style.
Perhaps a contributing factor to this is that it's in vogue for men to show their feminine side, and act more like women. Almost every woman I know would like to look younger. Even girls as young as 19 or 20 sometimes complain that they wished they looked 18 again (Which I don't understand at all).
It may also have to do with people wanting to be the 'bad boy', or often girl. They want to dressed like the violent gangsters they look up to. Perhaps this is because these people seem to just give in to their basic desires, never having to control themselves and they get money and fame for it! As to why thugs wear baggy cloths, it obviously stems from a blatent show of disrespect for other people.
I think a definite reason for this casual style is the rejection of aristocracy. A few generations ago it was impolite to wear anything but coat tails in the presence of women. Now, the semi-formal dinner jacket is considered too high a formality for most people, and some men as old as 40 have never even owned a suit!!!!
Whatever the reason, I'm fighting back! At least, as far as I can without blowing the budget, or looking completely out of place.
The "captains of industry" in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area are also partly to blame (sorry, Will)...
Even before the dot com craze in the late 90's, most CEO's and venture capitalists who were over 40 adopted the casual GAP khaki trousers and blue denim shirts.
With the internet boom, the new "captains of industry" were much younger, and the new look included piercings and tattoos. And this infected the rest of the U.S.
While waiting in the lobby of a famous Silicon Valley law firm, I noticed a pair of Japanese businessmen dressed in navy blue suits, black shoes, and red ties waiting for their lawyer. The young lawyer came down the stairs and greeted his Japanese clients. Their mouths dropped open. The lawyer was wearing shorts, tee-shirt, sandals and a baseball cap!
I had to move to Europe to save my sanity...
Will,
I humbly propose a gentleman's contest on the wittiest, cutting, yet non-threatening comeback to the smug question put to turling and some many of us "Who are You interviewing with today" I wore a cream linen suit with a pocket square to a faculty meeting with a plain white polo and was the subjected to this question and the attitude that comes with it for a good part of the meeting - I didn't but momentarily I wanted to slug a few of my colleagues
Well written, Will.
And I agree that fit is really paramount in comfort. Not to mention braces that suspend my trousers from the shoulders instead of cinching tight at the waist with a belt. Pleats expand to allow me to sit comfortably... Well-made, properly fitted clothing is as pleasurable to wear as a robe.
I would say that it is an effort to not look more affluent or "lordly" than the next guy, but a glance at the number of Mercedes, BMW's and Jags parked outside gives the lie to that theory.
As to the comment about "impractical" and "uncomfortable" never being elegant, agreed. Flat-front, denim blue jeans weren't meant for sitting behind a desk. Shorts in air-conditioned environments are unnecessary, as are short sleeved shirts. Technical fabrics wick perspiration away much better at the gym, rather than soaking it up as sweats do. And why would you sweat profusely when not working out? So, too, advancements in materials make running shoes far superior to the tennis shoes produced at the turn of the century. Traction inside isn't much of a problem for me, although I rarely am required to run when working. My leather dress shoes breathe well and fit me much better than the running shoes that are sized to fit when my feet get pounded during exercise.
And, there is a lot to be said for being comfortable knowing that you're well-dressed no matter the occasion.
Which leaves me with the disquieting thought that the lack of effort to "dress up" is simply a reflection of "sociopathic" feelings -- the "I don't give a damn" attitude having become most prevalent. But again, there are the expensive cars and watches that make me wonder.
The old complaint. I see it on every forum and blog devoted to elegant male dress. Here's why: by wearing a jacket and tie, it is perceived you are saying you think you're better than someone in a T-shirt and jeans. Dressing nicely looks like it takes effort, and visible effort looks desperate. The goal is for clothing to appear effortless, there's a reason why "suits" are negatively perceived in the tech industry. Spending time buying and wearing suits means your priorities are wrong and you're trying to look like a big shot instead of being a big shot. Billionaires can wear T-shirts and shorts to meet heads of state because they have enough money that they can do whatever they want. So the very top tier has that as a status symbol. This inverse status trickles down from Silicon Valley and Hollywood, and has infected Wall Street as well.
I don't agree with this, but that is how it goes. Dressing too well in the tech or entertainment/media business is a career limiting move and implies that you're spending too much time being a peacock and not enough on your job.
Interesting thought Gary. The idea of "having enough money to do whatever you want" (that "I don't give a fig" attitude) has been posited before. But, I wonder then, why do heads of state continue to dress in suits? Out of respect for the office? Others? A desperate need to be perceived as powerful? To emulate "the boss?" Or is it just to hide the kevlar vests?
I know that I will never change the minds of those who think that making an effort to present one's self well in all ways is a waste of time. I, however, will continue to try and lead by example. If only for the benefit of my children.
Gary, I disagree completely with your analysis. I worked in Silicon Valley for several years and there was not a thought of "you think you're better then everyone else" by dressing up. It was sheer laziness. Corporations did not care and dress code policies were not enforced, so people began showing up in pajamas. (On more then one occasion that I can remember.) Yes, billionaire's will do what they do, but I believe it's safe to say most people are not those. It was people doing what they wanted to do because no one told them they couldn't.
Let's say you work in the Silicon Valley where everyone is wearing jeans or khakis and a polo. Let's say you decide to wear a suit to work every day instead. Are you really dressing for others when you are wearing a uniform that is plainly out of the norm?
No, you're dressing for yourself, just as much as the lawyer wearing shorts and flip-flops.
The moral is to dress for your audience. If you're meeting Japanese executives, wear a suit. If you you're meeting Silicon Valley executives, wear the khakis and the polo. They each have their own uses.
Post a Comment