i'm important. (!)

thefrogman:

[twitter]

ivorytowerstyle:

Few sartorial concepts repel me more than the seemingly pervasive desire to have a “pop” of color in a man’s attire. This is usually understood to mean taking a perfectly elegant outfit such as those worn above by SF member Axelman 17 and Vox, and defacing it with a red pocket square or bright purple tie or some such vulgarity, thereby transforming a gentleman into a clown. 

The result is indeed a sort of “pop” of color. The absence of color in suit and shirt heightens the color of whatever bauble is put in the middle. The eye is then drawn to and fixated upon the bright color, away from the face, while the mind wonders if the wearer actually chose that pocket square or if they were shot in the chest with a paint ball gun.   

The pursuit of “pop” usually arises from a worry that the dark suit-white shirt-grey tie combination is boring visually, or betrays a lack of iconoclastic vigor on behalf of the wearer. These concerns are childish. As evidence I point to the costume of males at high school proms: a dark suit, white shirt, and turquoise tie/pocket square matching set. 

Do not make this mistake. Do not vandalize your own appearance. Do not assume that just because there isn’t very much color, you need some more. Did Mondrian sit in his studio thinking, “You know…I’ve got all these straight lines…maybe I need a circle somewhere?”

There is power in extremes. The high contrast “city” look depends on austerity to achieve its goals. The lack of color accentuates the silhouette, and draws the eye up to the face. As long as it is not covered by a VoxDot. 

But for extremism to succeed, it must brook no compromise, and demand full commitment to the cause, lest it risk revolution and chaos. There is a place within tasteful menswear for wearing brighter colors, but that place is not with a dark suit and white shirt.  

lovely.