A day's clothing should be in harmony, meaning each item should relate to the others. This is not simply a matter of matching colors or patterns, since, for example, contrasting colors can harmonize much more effectively than matching ones by setting each other off.
The way to achieve harmony is to see that no one item of clothing stands out by itself, in color, texture or cut. That does not mean that one's clothes have to be dull. For example, Luca Rubinacci of the eponymous Neapolitan clothing firm sometimes achieves harmony by combining several otherwise stand-out items, each of which loses its impact in the company of its equally loud peers.
On the other hand, in the second photo another highly publicized Italian menswear purveyor, Lapo Elkann, fails to achieve harmony despite the blended tones of his attire because the lapels on his jacket are so large as to command the eye.
Neither color nor texture nor cut should stand out in your dress.
Photos: Rubinacci and I Spirit Vodka
Posts
9 comments:
It looks like Mr. Rubinacci is wearing a sloop style shoe. Is that correct?
How did the Tardis end up in Naples?
Great observation, as usual, but I'm not a fan of Lapo. While this particular photo isn't too bad, Lapo usually gives me the impression of a little boy playing dress-up, and he usually looks as though he would benefit greatly from a shower, shampoo, and shave.
While I agree with your conclusion of the two men and which one's dress works better, I disagree with the general notion that dress should follow a particular rule such as harmony or anything else. Personally, I feel that dress is a form of self expression just like art, music, or even something like architecture. And while there may be the standard norms of what is considered good taste, straying from these simply requires more from the individual's character and personality since any form of self expression is merely a reflection of how we feel and what we choose to say or show.
I enjoy your blog and thoughts to understand the realm of good taste and what works from a sensible point of view. I also can appreciate the boldness of when someone wants to stray from the typical standards to try something new. After all, this is where innovations such as the dinner jacket and other breaks from tradition had their start.
Elkann is not a purveyor. A connoisseur perhaps.
Actually his principal occupation these days is his line of driving shoes and clothing.
clothes are not about harmony really, after all who wants to wear a suit that reeks office.even if it is in harmony. clothes are about things that stand out really well, if they are not then we dont have to worry about cutting an elegant figure for instance you buy that fav tie for a kings ransom in that napoli shop but no one cares that you bought it there or even if it looks in harmony because it looks like any other tie.elkann on the other hand looks like hes tried.
as regards carl well anyone so interested in clothes as we are are all little boys playing dressing up especially will and thats fine.
I think the difference between TIm and Maria's observations and some of the others on this blog concern an eternal difference between two views of dress: that of correctness, perfection and timeless beauty of fit and design on the one hand, and, on the other, self expression and innovation. Obviously both are needed in society. And while it is true that the excesses found in the self expression camp led to some truly awful developments in say, the 1970s, it is equally true that the self expression camp also gives rise to a sense of style in and of itself, and other goods like individuality. The tradition camp gives us a sense of quality of craft or comfort in symmetry and uniformity. Its excesses can perhaps be found in the image of the truly drab businessman circa 1959. I see the two sides as eternally quarreling and keeping all of us honest.
Post a Comment