Formalwear as avant-garde?

[Shucks]

thought i'd stick my neck out there and pick up on monadahl's idea on the relation between formal wear and avant-garde clothing.

to me, formal wear is all about adherence to certain limitations and conventions, and the avant-garde is about the questioning and tearing-down of the same. so it makes for an interesting challenge to combine the two. how many of the established rules of formal wear can one break whilst still maintaining a sense of formality? i think deviance can range from small detailing and subtle unconventional choices of materials, to radical deconstructionism, but obviously whether or not a look can still be considered formal wear is also subjective and highly context dependent.

would be interesting to hear some examples of things you've seen or tried. or inspirational images perhaps? for instance, theaddict in ccp in the german foreign ministry was interesting to see.

[Heirloom]

this is done all the time. pretty much anything daphne guinness wears is formal, but groundbreaking all the same. its not mutually exclusive and not particularly tricky to accomplish in my book.

[Mail-Moth]

This is a curious question. If avant-garde is not recognized as such and therefore tolerated in a context otherwise devoted to formality, is it still avant-garde ?

For exazmple : when TheAddict is wearing his CCP suits in those pics, does he really wear them as CCP ? Except for the length of the sleeves, the fit looks pretty classic, or at least not more avant-garde than Dior. No stiff bunching at the hem, very formal shoes... That's ace as a look, no need to question that, but is this what CCP wants to achieve through his work on suits ?

To answer your question, I think that avant-garde can be tolerated in formal environment as long as it is not recognized as such but simply as the result of a lack of knowledge - i.e. of "good taste". Otherwise it would be seen as a provocation. Would TA have worn CCP oxfords with those suits, maybe there would have been reactions.

[Shucks]

still, i find it interesting when somebody experiments with formal attire just before crossing the line of no longer being accepted as such. i don't think it is an 'easy' thing to do. though obviously it is more interesting to discuss specific instances rather than generalize about it. so feel free to provide some examples of how you do it, heirloom.

and moth, yes, i agree that often the result can be that your environment either a) thinks you are lacking in knowledge or b) trying to provoke. sometimes though, you may achieve c) people actually (without acknowledging it) wish they had the balls to do what you did. i like the way fuuma is not only most likely provoking the general public with his spin on how to dress, but it seems also provoking and inspiring the general sz population as well.

but i do think just the CUT of a ccp suit would be quite unusual and raise a few eyebrows at a foreign ministry office. it is just too damn slim.

[zamb]

avant garde is avant garde whether it is percieved as such or not. I once had this discussion with my friend patricia, (an avid SZ lurker) who is an Avant Garde designer. I told her that i call her work "quiet avant garde" because it doesnt shout, its not in your face but its definitely groundbreaking.

I am usually not a Rebel as such, and respect many of the western institutionalized ideas with regards to dressing and such, but as i have gotten older, and more knowledgeable of life and many of the ideas I have in my head, I have developed an increasing distaste for formality, for theses masks and screens behind which we hide our true selves.

this for me extends in the area of dress too, where I am beginning to see the suit, jacket it particular as a symbol of restraint, restriction and fake mannerisms that the formality power and authority it represents to some.

In my dressing its not my intent to shock, but If I want to attend, church or a function in something a little different that the traditional attire, I feel now that i should be free to do so, not as a rebel but as someone who is more at peach with what I am wearing.................

[Mail-Moth]

It will be a bit difficult to have this conversation without defining what everyone here considers as formality, or a formal context. For me, what conditions the existence of formality codes is the necessity to present yourself not as an individual, but as the embodiment of a function. Thus there are very few contexts that demand to abide to formal rules.

Zamb's example about the church is a good start IMO. I was myself thinking about funerals in their more traditional form : you're not here as yourself, but as a mourner. Standing out in such a context would be easily seen as a lack of respect to the community. You dress in black, but beeing too well dressed in this situation, or even trying discretely to do so, sounds off the mark to me. Because this is not the moment to show good taste. Once again, i'm trying to illustrate the most conservative point of view on the matter.

And I believe that there are some more occasions where showing that you've got the balls to be what you want to be is for the least unappropriate. It would be tolerated from a newcomer in a firm, for example, but I assume that as your position in the hierarchy evolves you're somewhat bound to limit the expression of your identity to a few details, such as the choice of your tailor, of blue vs grey, of double-breasted jackets vs simple buttoning, etc.

[Shucks]

formality codes is the necessity to present yourself not as an individual, but as the embodiment of a function.

yes, though i would actually argue that this is expected in quite a number of situations in daily life - work being a major one, but certainly not the only one. people around you always have a set of conventions and preconceptions to which they would like you to conform...

and even if i can see zamb's point about the restrictive nature of formal wear, i also see it as a point of departure or a sounding board. the 'garde' - if you will - in front of which one could 'advance'. also, borrowing symbols from the conventions of formal attire and rearranging them / distorting them is an interesting way of creating new meanings and expressing individuality. aren't a lot of sz brands actually continuously referencing aspects of formal attire but rearranging them and corrupting them? damir doma's blazers for instance...

and yes, i agree that in a situation such as a funeral it could be deeply disrespectful of others to aggressively push your individuality to the forefront. there is something else which is supposed to be in focus, and if one disagrees with this, then maybe one shouldn't attend. of course this is a matter of good judgement and context. at a wedding i would argue that the freedom for expression would be much greater. there's a time and place for everything...

by the way, discussing funeral attire brings to mind queen victoria who was in mourning dress for so long and to such extent that it actually trickled down to become a fashionable style to the (well-heeled) masses. this is sort of the converse, when formal attire becomes 'regular' attire, no?

I assume that as your position in the hierarchy evolves you're somewhat bound to limit the expression of your identity to a few details

not if you're the boss...

[Faust]

The whole Daphnie Guiness thing is nonsense - she is a celeb, she can do what she wants. We are talking about real people.

Anyway, this discussion is interesting. As someone who spent 10 years on Wall St. I have a lot of first-hand experience with this. I think Moth is absolutely right here - if A-G is not recognized as such, then it's moot what you wear. And, yes, the roles we play at work demand a certain attire. The question is who sets it. It's a power struggle, I think that is closely linked to societal values. Up until the 50s men wore a pretty standard uniform of a suit and hat. In the 70s, if you worked at IBM, you couldn't wear a blue dress shirt, white only. Once the .com boom hit though and the suits had to start depending on the nerds who would not be caught dead in a suit, that diktat changed. Internet firms had to be seen as creative, and wearing a suit is uncreative. Casual Fridays were instituted on Wall St. in order to show the Internet kids that the suits were not all uptight.

I've seen several people who were stuck on Wall St. because of money, but clearly did not belong there. You could always tell who they were - whether by the color and maker of their tie, the cut of their suit or what they wore on casual fridays. Little details have always stuck out.

I've already stated my aversion to suits and blazers. Now take indie rockers and hipsters who wear suits - they wear them in another context. They did not have the experience I had - gray, mind-numbing jobs, with gray, mind-numbing people, days wasted in soulless, unfulfilling labor, the fake enthusiasm and cheery facades of money-making zombies. To them a suit represents something different - it's another playground. I once wrote a short blurb on that.

[theaddict]

Wow Faust you seem to be very traumatized from your wall street time...;)))
I think every world has it's advantages and disadvantages, look at the fashion world, there are also countless of narrow minded empty brained people working in there and don't tell me that there is a more superficial field...I think there is a way to travel between both worlds taking the best out of them. I love working with crazy fashion people but also with conservative very grounded people. The middle way is the best imo.

Regarding AV in my workig field, I am wearing ccp out of a very very simple (you will laugh) reason...ccp is the only one who uses such stiff fabrics thaty anorexic legs are covere like in jeans. There is no other brand that uses stiff fabrics like them. All this 120woll shit makes me look like mc hammer in his super drop crotch;)
and you guys are right, ccp suits worn with a white shirt and tie looks like a suit, and only conscious people recognize that there is something special about it. Set in a working context it won't stand out too much as AV but as a very good fitting suit.

And climbing the hierarchy ladder I think it will be easier to wear AV stuff. The new guy should stand out with his skills an not with his outfit. It makes you vulnerable when you stand out in this way. Later it doesn't matter so much bc people know your skills.

[Mail-Moth]

And climbing the hierarchy ladder I think it will be easier to wear AV stuff. The new guy should stand out with his skills an not with his outfit. It makes you vulnerable when you stand out in this way. Later it doesn't matter so much bc people know your skills.

Mmmmh, I'm not so sure, SA. Climbing the ladder also means that you're more and more constantly representing the firm or the office you're belonging to : its history, values, etc. So I'd say that regardless of your skills the social pressure asking you to conform to this collective representation gets much higher.

As for the main subject, I'm a bit lost here. I don't think Heirloom or Mana heve in mind the same kind of formality as Faust or myself. I must say that I don't know the first letter of women's formality codes, which doesn't help.
For example, Mona, I can't figure what's formal in the RO dress you're taking as an example. Is it because it is black, or because of its length ?

[Faust]

Theaddict, don't mind me, I just like bitching. I like for things to be good and fair and right. So, I will bitch if I work on Wall St., I will bitch if I work in fashion, I will bitch if I live in New York and talk about how great Europe is, and when I move to Paris I will bitch about that. I am no Tom Joad, but I think like one.

[theaddict]

You are moving to Paris??? Like to live there E? You hater;)

Hmmm moth, ok I got your point, but I think it always depends on the occasion when you have to represent. Where I work no one wears a tie except us "freshmen" and when there are client meetings. We had a guy who came in a t and jeans who had his suit hanging in his office. I wouldn't dare that as a new guy but maybe later on? Depends very much on the indiviual firm of course. But you might be right too...

[Fuuma]

Formalwear usually refers to "black tie" and this appears to be how Mona interpreted it (thinking of galal dress and stuff like that). Male posters seem to have been thinking of business formal (suit+shirt+tie+dress shoes). I like to include elements of both (except ties which I rarely enjoy seeing).

More experienced white collars professionals at law/banking/whatever firms tend to have more surface liberty but it is strongly linked to a form of expected eccentricity (i.e. 60 y/o partner wears bowties and red socks). The price of divergence is still as strong as with junior workers and their social network is quick to enforce unwritten rules. Since they rarely have much of an interest in questions of "free choice" (capitalism assumes free choice so they almost have to subscribe to that to bring meaning to their lives) they're content in thinking they have actually acquired this mockery of liberty.

[Shucks]

Same thing goes for this Rick dress that I bought. I love it, I think it's beautiful, but there's something deeply conventional about it in so many ways - it exposes a lot of skin, which is pretty typical for evening wear. It's an interesting dress, but it doesn't strike me as sufficiently different from other evening dresses that much more conventional designers make.

this also depends on your familiarity with available alternatives. with your knowledge and taste for more avant-garde fashion you could be somewhat desensitized to what others from their perspective would perceive as highly unusual in an evening dress. and also, again, i'd say it is context dependent. for a certain occasion this dress would perhaps be considered very conventional, but in another the (to me) unusual bust would attract attention. so discussing formal attire i feel means to an even higher degree considering the situation of use, more than when discussing other categories of clothing. there is an OCCASION for which it is intended and possibly also one for which it is deemed unthinkable.

I feel that the clothes that I'm drawn to for the every day and the clothes I'm drawn to for formalwear come from two very different aesthetics.

whether 'the avant-garde' has its own codes for formal occasions i wouldnt presume to be able to answer. perhaps there is a tendency to take things even further at special occasions, to push the envelope a bit and amplify one's blatant disregard for convention? personally i can relate to the feeling of having (at least) dual esthetic preferences. but perhaps there is also an enjoyment to be found in this, in making an effort for certain occasions - maybe since i'm not at a law firm and am free (more or less) to wear whatever at work.

that's not to say that even design firms, advertizing agencies and other such supposedly creative places do not suffer from conventions regarding work attire, it is just that these conventions may be more surreptitious. in fact, having clear conventions i believe may to some people be more reassuring than limiting, people who would otherwise feel quite lost; "ok, i've bought the suit and the shoes, now i can stop worrying about getting accepted and get on with other things". it keeps things supposedly simpler - though there's a lot of one-upmanship no matter where you are. signalling goes on everywhere, even if it is just with the flash of a watch underneath your cuff or wearing your rag on the left side.

but i agree with the addict - the young turks tend to stick to the rules, carefully adjusting their appearance to mimic successful seniors.

also, the guy asking for money will usually be the one in the tie...

[Shucks]

guess i must have really killed this topic with my rambling on... too bad. was fun while it lasted...