What are you wearing today?

[cjbreed]

hey, what do u guys think about mail-moth's shoes from a few pages ago?

[BSR]

Ok, my turn, guys, for a bit more of theoretical masturbation. maybe we should create a "formal/informal" thread, but i don't know where...

so there is a competition between two acceptations of "formality":

-definition 1 (Christian, intrinsic): formality is said of a cloth which has a canonical form produced by a tradition

-definition 2 (BSR, extrinsic): formality applies to clothes that most people consider are worn because someone must wear them, and not because he/she chooses to wear them.

@mm: please just keep in mind that relativism is not relevant as soon as you follow the majority rule in def 2 ('most people'): i think for most people a suit is a formal outfit and not a pair of margiela sneakers combined with raw jeans and a loose and dirty tank. but the second outfit is certainly more appropriate if you want to be part of certain upscale parties here and there. nobody would call the latter outfit 'formal'. QED

maybe the two are extensionally equivalent, after all there is certainly a strong connexion between the history of a tailoring tradition giving rise to a specific form of cloth, and the construction of the social norm that prescribe that this kind of cloth should be worn in such and such circumstances.

definition 1 applies best to clothes, and definition 2 to outfits. a formal outfit, in my book, is an outfit that suits a convention. i agree it's not a property of clothes in themselves, so ok my definition is not complete, but on the other side, yours, Christian, is not either... i don't see that the idea of 'formality' could be defined without the wearers' intentions.

So formality = traditional forms + social recognition, right?

@Faust: are you sure you don't want to see a summer moth in chucks or dunks?

[cjbreed]

since i already made my obligatory smart ass post i'm actually going to chime in with my 2 cents (currently valued at about 1 cent) in 100 words or less

i think moth was right that the aldens didn't work primarily because of the shape, not the formality or lack thereof (although the leather looked a tad too shiny to me, giving the impression of being polished = formal which is a contributing factor nonetheless)

but to me the interesting discussion here has been this

No, formality has to be defined by intrinsic characteristics too. The extrinsic ones , like BSR tried - for his shame - are not enough. Or only half of the job would be done.

glad to hear that

but aren't the extrinsic characteristics a direct result of our attitudes associated with the intrinsic properties of the shoe itself? each shoe, or style of shoe, evolved to serve a purpose, with respect to its physical structure / construction. certain social value is attributed to that purpose. is it a shoe for agricultural labor? combat? industrial labor? certainly these are more informal activities and our attitudes toward these shoes, and the wearers of these shoes, reflect that knowledge. it has nothing to do with the shape or material in and of itself, but more so with our associations relating to the use of that material when in the form of a "shoe". so i don't think that making a judgment based on the extrinsic properties alone means that the job is only half done, i think it is more so that you have subconsciously "skipped a step" in reasoning.

and i guess on a more basic level of evaluating the appropriateness of a shoe as formal or informal, for me it is often based on the sole of the shoe first. not just the heel, but the sole itself. anything rubber, crepe, steel reinforced, athletic or enhanced with "support" characteristics, or anything like that should again be associated with physical activity and therefore is informal. anything with a leather or thin wooden sole, etc, high or low heel, is not for use in physical activity and CAN be formal but if the upper is distressed and so forth then it falls into a sort of middle road, where most of us spend our days...and its appropriateness for a specific look depends on the shape, color, material etc

that was more than 100 words i think...

[Chant]

Spring time/spruik time

Back on tracks

More pics in this thread

[Addicted]

M.A+
Rick over N&M
DRKSHDW
Guidi
Werkstatt and BPPS

notice: portion of right cuff missing and bandaged middle finger. pitbull attack Lower East Side the day I left for Europe. good stuff.

that looks awsome, put together nicely.
forgive the noob question but
But i keep seeing N&M on this forum, whats that stand for ?

[mrbeuys]

But i keep seeing N&M on this forum, whats that stand for ?

http://www.nicolasandmark.com/

They produce from the same place as RO (Olmar & Mirta) and their tanks are basically identical in cut and material. Never quite understood what the deal was with that actually, so maybe someone can explain?

[MikeN]

Can you guys slow down, I'm only on page 6 of this:

[philip nod]

how do u say pass the chronic in French?

[kunk75]

had french toast yesterday.

[jogu]

^ that actually looks rly good , ro looks great on body types like urs i even like the hitops here

[Vanna]

Hi Will. Hi SZ.




Everything by Forever 21.

[Acéphale]

[Faust]

Vanna, straight to Williamsburg. Lose the hat, I beg you.

[Vanna]

That's one hell of a Forever 21 outfit—brand synergy without the usual sacrifice of authenticity.

Oh J, I was totally kidding. Ann, Margiela, etc. Haha.

Vanna, straight to Williamsburg. Lose the hat, I beg you.

Ha! I totally appreciate what you're saying. I guess because I'm in DC, these hats aren't as common as they are in Billysburg/NYC. I like the hat regardless of how trendy they seemingly are (I can see myself wearing it 10 years from now), it's fun to wear and it sheilds my face from the sun.

[Addicted]

had french toast yesterday.

Damn, you're built. May i ask what sizes fit you from the typical brands here like ann d, attachment, julius etc so i can get a perspective on sizes?