What "looks good"

[AMM]

In the thread "Women Speak Up", there was some discussion of what makes an outfit "look good" or "look bad, as if there were some sort of standard of "looking good" which women (and gay men!) somehow get with their chromosomes or which someone can learn from a course or something. I don't agree, but rather than hijack that thread, I thought I'd start a new one.


The first problem I have with the idea of a "standard" is that what is considered fashionable changes over time. Think of what people considered fashionable in the 1890's -- women wearing bustles and corsets that made them look like an overweight Queen Victoria, or the pictures of men on bicycles or in bathing suits: to our eyes, they just look weird. Or consider some of the fashions from the 1960's, especially men's: bell-bottoms, Nehru jackets, paisley shirts are now considered stock sight gags.

A second thing is that tradition plays a big role. Consider the "traditional" formal kilt outfit. When you come down to it, it's a hodge-podge of styles: the wool skirt trying to evoke a Highland warrior's belted plaid, socks held up with fake garters (the "flashes" are supposed to look like the ends of a strip of cloth that you tie around your legs), both sized so as to expose just the knees, a fancy purse hung so as to look like a poorly secured codpiece, and a jacket that looks like it was taken off a late-19th century cavalry officer's uniform. It violates nearly every men's style guide. But we're all used to it, so it looks "right." In fact, change one element, and you'll have the Kilt Police all over you.

A third thing is that it really depends on what style you're doing. Punk, Goth, and hip-hop all deliberately violate the usual standards of "what looks good," but they have their own standards, and even if you're not into one of these styles, it's not hard to tell when something doesn't fit the style.

I think one of the problems we have here talking about what "looks good" for a man in a skirt is that it really depends on your own tastes and what look you are trying to acheive. For instance, there's a style that many of the guys here go for -- the knee-length faded-denim straight-skirt look -- that does not do it for me at all. I don't run around saying "that looks awful," mostly because it's obvious that they have different tastes from me, but if that were my only option for dressing in a skirt, I'd stick to trousers. By the same token, I notice that there's not a single person at the Cafe -- male or female -- that has shown any interest in dressing the way I like to dress when I dress up (or dress down.) Different drummers, and if my drummer seems to be leading an army of one, it doesn't prove I'm right-er or wrong-er than the next.

So I think my conclusion is: there's no substitute for investing in a good full-length mirror or two, trying out a lot of different things, and seeing how you like how you look in the mirror -- or in a photograph. Once you've found some combinations you like, try going out into the world, and see how you feel about how you look in different contexts. Be prepared for most of the looks you try out to not work -- in your own eyes -- and keep trying.

And be prepared for your idea of what looks good to you to change over time.

[crfriend]

What "looks good"? That's one seriously large can of worms, and I'll posit that they don't taste very good.

The first problem I have with the idea of a "standard" is that what is considered fashionable changes over time. Think of what people considered fashionable in the 1890's -- women wearing bustles and corsets that made them look like an overweight Queen Victoria, or the pictures of men on bicycles or in bathing suits: to our eyes, they just look weird. Or consider some of the fashions from the 1960's, especially men's: bell-bottoms, Nehru jackets, paisley shirts are now considered stock sight gags.

The notion of what's "fashionable" has changed innumerable times over the years, and any perusal of the assorted "history of costume" tomes available at one's local library will handily point that up. That something is "fashionable" at any particular point in time is neither here nor there -- it just is.

For instance, what, precisely, is wrong with bell-bottomed trousers?

In that vein, I loved the {snipped} commentary of the look of the modern kilt. One word: "brilliant".

A third thing is that it really depends on what style you're doing. [...]

Indeed, and I suspect that more than a few of us have very different aesthetics than the average denim. I know for a fact that I fall into that category. If I wanted to wear jeans (of the "one pipe or two" category) I would. I don't.

I think one of the problems we have here talking about what "looks good" for a man in a skirt is that it really depends on your own tastes and what look you are trying to achieve.

I've been trying to drive at that notion for some time, and I fully understand that there is a positively massive realm of possibilities open for exploration. As skirtsmen, we should explore these possibilities, but I believe we should explore them within the realm of our own sense of style and what "we're trying to achieve". For me that means one thing; for somebody else it will quite necessarily mean something different.

[...]I notice that there's not a single person at the Cafe -- male or female -- that has shown any interest in dressing the way I like to dress when I dress up (or dress down.)

I've met AMM in person, and have personally complimented him on his style. It works. Not just that, but it works well. However, it's not precisely my aesthetic, and that's not just fine, but it's healthy. (I'll let Sapphire post her own thoughts on this here.)

One of the things I find rather exciting about this point in time is that there are no rules. We have ultimate freedom to explore our own "fashion personalities". I have precisely no interest in denim, and have no anticipation of acquiring an interest in it; I would likewise not try to shoe-horn somebody that does not share my sense of style into my mould. It just would not work.

I think that the best exercise would be for each and every one of us to dig into our own psyches and figure out what looks good to us, on us and then evaluate whether the look may work "out and about" in the world at large.

Different drummers, and if my drummer seems to be leading an army of one, it doesn't prove I'm right-er or wrong-er than the next.

This is the sort of thought that keeps the world an interesting place!

So I think my conclusion is: there's no substitute for investing in a good full-length mirror or two [...]

To do that would mean investing in a new house; the current geometry prohibits a full-length anything that can capture my frame. That's why I [...]

[...] or in a photograph.

have to resort to technology. Thank goodness for digi-cams. (Although I remain a big fan of chemical cameras.)

And be prepared for your idea of what looks good to you to change over time.

And that's the sagest advice I've heard in a very long time. Thank you for that, sir.

[Since1982]

Then there was also the rage of the 1900-19 non-flapper look, talk about strange but popular, let's not forget the "Hobble" skirt, which did exactly what it advertised. Cut a woman right out of climbing stairs, getting in buggies, stepping UP or Down on anything, made walking 100 feet a real chore. And not only were the hems tight, some hobble skirts even had belt loops around the legs on the outside of the skirt in several places for her "man" to even hobble her more by adding belts in the loops and pulling them tight when she was home and sitting somewhere he wanted her to stay at. Talk about torturing fashions, that was one to nearly compare with the Balinese "fashion" of putting brass rings around your wife's neck to keep her celibate.

Hobble skirts were in fashion in America for about 40 years, but only really popular in the 1900 to 1919 period, the short skirts of the Flappers in the "gay" 20's made them less popular, but they were still semi popular until 1930. In TODAY'S world there is a small group of women and men who still wear them. Look online, there are sites.

Bottom line, no one can say what is really fashionable except for what's in fashion in some areas right now, but not tomorrow.

historic15.jpg

historic18.jpg