Rant and rave

ilkhanid

A long threatened grumble here about the pathetic coverage of men's fashion (or should I say "mens fashion"..such as it is ) in the general press.
I'm used to seeing a few token words about the men tacked on at the end of general fashion articles,but last thursdays example in the Indo took the biscuit.
After 123-I counted-lines on all the latest female trends we got at the end:
"Traditional tailoring has timeless appeal for men who will be back wearing three-piece suits. Key colours to watch are grey, navy and camel". Illustration followed of one of the usual dullards in a grey suit. I wonder is there a law that says that they have to use the words "timeless" whenever they write about men.
And grey! Amazing. Very cutting edge :rolleyes: If this is all they can come out with, then they should leave men out altogether, instead of insulting us with this kind of lazy effort.
I will be able to find plenty more examples of this tawdry stuff soon enough, I'll bet.

FruitLover

My solution is simple: I wear whatever I like.

Do you need a newspaper to tell you what you're allowed wear?

ilkhanid

No I don't and I won't be wearing any grey suits either, but I just think the coverage is lazy and useless as a rule and the writers are pathetc excuses for journalists. If you know nothing about something and care less then leave it out.

Twee.

I agree, it's pretty poor. But honestly, it's mainly women who are going to be reading the fashion pages. Have you thought about reading male specific material, for example GQ. If you type "men's fashion blog" into Google you'll find loads of sites. The Sunday Times Magazine do a men's issue every season, look out for it in the coming months. Always good stuff.

Street fashion is always a good way to see who's wearing what all over the world. The Sartorialist snaps the most dashing and stylish men!

Harrybelafonte

Twee. wrote: »

I agree, it's pretty poor. But honestly, it's mainly women who are going to be reading the fashion pages. Have you thought about reading male specific material, for example GQ. If you type "men's fashion blog" into Google you'll find loads of sites. The Sunday Times Magazine do a men's issue every season, look out for it in the coming months. Always good stuff.

Street fashion is always a good way to see who's wearing what all over the world. The Sartorialist snaps the most dashing and stylish men!

Agree completely with Twee, Sartorialist is the way to go. GQ style shrink is obsessed with blazers, chinos, brogues etc so you still end up with a particular look or style if using it, I think this applies to most reporting/coverage of men's style. Otherwise just go into H&M/Topshop etc and buy whatever the latest trend is

ilkhanid

Indeed, I would be looking at those magazines, although the interesting stuff never seems to make it over here (never mind the price). But I'm not short of ideas. I just think that it's time to slap the examples of sloppy,lazy thinking, cliches and stereotyping (not to mention the puffing up of shops,stylists and designers) that one see in the mainstream press. Other fields of journalistic activity,from art to cookery to film get some degree of critical thinking,but this one-perhaps it is regarded as trivial-does not. So I'm putting my kicking boot on.:D

Orlee

Twee. wrote: »

Street fashion is always a good way to see who's wearing what all over the world. The Sartorialist snaps the most dashing and stylish men!

love love LOVE the Sartorialist!

Fajitas!

He was out partying in Dublin last year. Nice guy.

OP, the problem is on your first line... 'general press' - They're just a bit too... er.. general. Go specific.

There's a few choices out there. GQ do a fashion mag, but I've never bought it, I don't generally like GQ, but I do like Esquire. i-D, Wonderland and D&C have some menswear but it can be a bit 'too' trendy, even moreso for Ireland. As said, get searching fashion blogs. Go into shops and see what they have in stock, see what's on their posters, check out their blogs and ezines. I don't particularly like either Topshop or Urban Outfitters, but I still have a browse through to see what they think works.

ilkhanid

Fajitas! wrote: »

here's a few choices out there. GQ do a fashion mag, but I've never bought it, I don't generally like GQ, but I do like Esquire. i-D, Wonderland and D&C have some menswear but it can be a bit 'too' trendy, even moreso for Ireland.

I don't know all of those. GQ and Esquire seems on the conservative side-as is anything American usually. Some of the Men's magazines are very 'lad' oriented..jeans, hoodies....etc etc

Anyway, I was looking at the fashion page of an Irish Sunday paper and they had a mention of a new label in Debenhams which is "influenced by hardwearing military and industrial garments". This stuff make me laugh, its a real staple menswear trope you see every now and again;this 'macho' trend,all rough-and-tough. This is one of the constant things in menswear. Since little changes in menswear, companies have to project fantasies to sell stuff. One of these-not sure what word fits- 'rhetorics' as I call it, is the old Macho-ness/Ruggedness thing. All waffle about the toughness and practicality of clothing,almost imputing heroic qualities to the wearer by implication. I saw a range a few years ago in Arnotts namechecking Tom Crean of all people. You know the stuff:."It's qualities of hardwearing ruggedness are in the spirit of the untamed wilderness, of men struggling against nature. These trousers will protect against sub-zero temperatures and resist rainstorms and winds" etc,etc, blah, blah, blah. The guys who buy into this will use them for nothing more arduous than walking to the pub or driving the SUV,but they like the dream.

Fajitas!

ilkhanid wrote: »

I don't know all of those. GQ and Esquire seems on the conservative side-as is anything American usually. Some of the Men's magazines are very 'lad' oriented..jeans, hoodies....etc etc

For the record, Esquire (FHM and GQ too, afaik) is/are regional - I've only ever bothered with the UK editions, and found it not very lad-like at all - it's very much aimed at the upper end of menswear. There's also a lot of British sartorial styling in it, unless the shoot is international (Even then, a lot of the actual images used can be different...)

I can't speak for GQ or FHM though.

Anyway, I was looking at the fashion page of an Irish Sunday paper and they had a mention of a new label in Debenhams which is "influenced by hardwearing military and industrial garments".

Aye, every Winter is a kick off for the 'military' and 'industrial' keywords, menswear and womens wear. I'm not complaining like, but I dislike when companies and designers promote their 'military inspired collections' as if they hadn't done the same a few months previous.

Since little changes in menswear, companies have to project fantasies to sell stuff. One of these-not sure what word fits- 'rhetorics' as I call it, is the old Macho-ness/Ruggedness thing. All waffle about the toughness and practicality of clothing,almost imputing heroic qualities to the wearer by implication. I saw a range a few years ago in Arnotts namechecking Tom Crean of all people. You know the stuff:."It's qualities of hardwearing ruggedness are in the spirit of the untamed wilderness, of men struggling against nature. These trousers will protect against sub-zero temperatures and resist rainstorms and winds" etc,etc, blah, blah, blah. The guys who buy into this will use them for nothing more arduous than walking to the pub or driving the SUV,but they like the dream

ilkhanid

Fajitas! wrote: »

- I've only ever bothered with the UK editions, and found it not very lad-like at all - it's very much aimed at the upper end of menswear. I can't speak for GQ or FHM though.

I've found FHM can be very 'lad' oriented with a lot of emphasis on different types of trainers and such-like,which is, I'm sure, a real yawn for shoe-wearers.

Fajitas! wrote: »

Aye, every Winter is a kick off for the 'military' and 'industrial' keywords, menswear and womens wear. I'm not complaining like, but I dislike when companies and designers promote their 'military inspired collections' as if they hadn't done the same a few months previous.

Indeed! This is a thing you get all the time in menswear. Since the 'coming-around-again' period is so much shorter than in womenswear,they have to pretend that the same old stuff is, in fact, something new. A few years ago, it was beige. Last year, or the year before, it was 'sand'. This year they call it 'camel'. Every once in a while, they announce the return of the 'sharp' grey suit, as if we somehow missed, rip-van-winkle style, a few years when men weren't wearing suits at all. :rolleyes:
Then they stick a few more shiny buttons on a coat,stick a few button-down pockets on the breast of this years jacket and pronounce it as the return of "military". Yawn. I should have gone into menswear design for a living,as it doesn't seem to require much in the way of creativity.

ilkhanid

Latest foolishness. Clothes that are-well, not bigger-but better on the inside.
Looking at jackets at a certain Grafton street shop. Astonished to see an expensive (well, by my lights) jacket that was not particularly outstanding or noteworthy on the outside, but with the most elaborate lining you ever saw:very decorated and fancy.
Now. Could I see this when if I was wearing it? No. Could anybody else? No. Would I spend time gazing at it at home? No. If I wanted a beautiful fabric I would buy a tie, or wallpaper or a cushion...not a jacket, where all the decoration is invisible.
The medieval architects made elaborate carvings high on the walls of churches where nobody could see them, because, in their minds, God could see them,but I doubt we are dealing with this here. If 1.this fanciful ornament was simply omitted then the jacket would likely be considerably less expensive and alternatively, 2.some of the creativity displayed on the lining could be used on the outside where people could see it.
Otherwise this is just another example of the ridiculous,fanciful conceits that designers and manufacturers waste their time and peoples money on.:mad:

OldGoat

Have to disagree. I love hidden details. I'm consious of them and that makes me feel good. I've had the majority of my suits made with the same really LOUD scarlet lining. Every now and then it peeps out for someone else to notice and always gets remarked on (in a positive way).

It's like having working cuffs on your jacket, few people know they are hand finished but you do and you feel better for it.
Or what about having silver shirt collar stays? No-one but you knows they are there yet you feel better dressed for having them.
Silk boxers rather then cotton? Same thing, you feel better because you know you are dressing better.

Makes sense to me anyway.

ilkhanid

Sorry, I just don't get this This logic of the beauty of things unseen would make sense to me if I was a chemist or a naturalist,but in the world of matters aesthetic I would consider that things made attractive should be seen just as music should be heard. Personally,I hardly get anybody remarking on my clothes at all, so I doubt they will be remarking on the linings.
Silver stays? I'd say that if nobody knows about them and if other things do the job just as good,then they are an extravagance. As for silk underwear I'd ask "Do they feel better, are they more comfortable, are they more practical in some way,or confer some advantage?". If not, then I'm not sure what "better" means in that context.
It seems that Erich von Stroheim would have been sympathetic to this point of view..

"For his next major project, 1922’s Foolish Wives, von Stroheim was given a lavish $250,000 budget. He essentially attempted to re-build Monaco on the Universal set. With costs spiralling out of control, a sign, updated weekly, was erected in Time Square which detailed how much he had spent. Eventually the film became the first to cost over $1 million.
Universal had been outwitted by von Stroheim on Foolish Wives: they could not stop his excesses once filming was underway because he was the lead actor. For Merry-Go-Round they demanded he cast another actor. von Stroheim held up shooting one day because actors were not wearing period underwear. When asked how anyone would know, he answered, “I will know.” He was fired from the project."

baby and crumble

ilkhanid wrote: »

. Personally,I hardly get anybody remarking on my clothes at all, so I doubt they will be remarking on the linings.

Until I started to appreciate things like hidden piping on jackets, the specifics of the cut, my cufflinks (I dress pretty masculine), small details like that, I never really got comments either. Now, though...

SO perhaps the very fact that you don't get comments on your clothes and you don't are about the details is related?

I honestly don't mean that to be personal, and it honestly isn't meant that way...

ilkhanid

baby and crumble wrote: »

Until I started to appreciate things like hidden piping on jackets, the specifics of the cut, my cufflinks (I dress pretty masculine), small details like that, I never really got comments either. Now, though...

Cufflinks are visible and the the cut affects the external appearance of clothing,how it fits. So I would regard those as different to the things I mentioned.

baby and crumble wrote: »

SO perhaps the very fact that you don't get comments on your clothes and you don't are about the details is related?

I honestly don't mean that to be personal, and it honestly isn't meant that way...

First of all I care about the visible details.
Secondly, you may not have meant it, but that is the way that it sounds.....personal, and I don't appreciate the implication.:mad:
Honestly.

baby and crumble

I'm sorry that you've taken it that way. It wasn't meant that way.

ilkhanid

That's as may be,but the inference is quite clear. Tell you what. If you remove the remark by editing, I will remove my response and the exchange will disappear and no harm done.

ilkhanid

If we are to believe The Metro,the latest fashion is to be shorts for men. Which may seem 'so what',but in fact according to the pictures these are actual shorts as opposed to "shorts"....as I've been mystified for years as to how such a term can be applied to the wide,baggy,cropped trousers-the hem often nearer to the ankle than the knee-that has been the masculine norm for over the last twenty years. This will be a turn up for common sense at least -and the English language-if not fashion.
Whatever next? Can we look forward to the final re-appearance of the male knee,or even-God save us all!-thigh (banished from sight for many years now) in male swimwear? :eek:

RoscommonTom

The Kerry footballer paul galvin does have a piece in the Sunday independent about men's fashion most weeks.

ilkhanid

I usually read it,although I tend to scoff at it much of the time.

reallyrose

Why don't you just dress how you please? Start your own trend?
I know it can be hard to be inspired when all the clothes are just camel and grey and black. However, but you can try the vintage shops or second hand shops. You can look at the many many MANY online shops. The internet is a vast place. Somewhere on it, someone else is thinking the same thing and will have set up a shop.

I certainly don't dress according how to fashion tells me too. I just wear clothes that make me happy. I wear cuts that I think suit me, fabrics that I like, colours that I love. I love to wear greens and blues and purples so I wear them and fashion can shag off.

If you want to change the way that Irish men dress, in general, then that's more difficult, I can't help you there.

RoscommonTom

ilkhanid wrote: »

I usually read it,although I tend to scoff at it much of the time.

Same as me then, last week he was talking about how men should be wearing more womens clothes :eek:

padi89

RoscommonTom wrote: »

The Kerry footballer paul galvin does have a piece in the Sunday independent about men's fashion most weeks.

The guy can't even dress himself properly, he is in his 30's and dresses like a teenage hipster, he looks absolutely ridiculous.