This posting is to decry the current trend of tight high-water pants. It seems to be the approach for 20-30 year-olds being dressed by someone else for the purpose of magazine or catalog photography, converting otherwise very nice materials and patterns into a near-ruined set of clothing.
If you can see the sock beyond the occasional flash, the cuff or pant leg is far too short.
A high-water pant leg can be acceptable, but there should be room throughout the pant, not tight AND short. Socklessness with dress lace-ups is a bad move (Topsiders are one of the several obvious exceptions), and summer/early autumn (VERY early autumn) are the times for it.
What is barely passable in a photograph can be disastrous in the flesh/cloth. Tight pants on men should be restricted to wet-suits and other athletic applications.
Paul Rubens and other similar-schticked dressers could not have imagined that their parody would become emulated in earnest by those applying their brand of rough-tuning to areas generally off-limits as dictated by the human eye.
The faux-growth spurt look is odd, and is thankfully temporary. If the shortened look hits the wrists, I'll lose all hope. Style and fashion are two different things. Fashion takes style and tunes it, alters it, and repackages it into something that may or may not nod to the original. When "preppy" and "WASP[y]"* became the launching point for a particular fashion trend, it was inevitable that the mark was missed on many points. Observers emulated the color, patterns, materials, and combinations of the look, wrote examinations of the manners and attitudes, and analyzed and documented the customs. While many were VERY observant in their writings, most failed to note that which was NOT done. These young men are shocked and indignant when they are told that while their tweed jacket and club tie are nice, their jeans and sockless ankles will not allow them to remain at the Club (though they are generally allowed to finish their drink, if their host got them that far).
*Stop trotting out these terms so liberally.
If you can see the sock beyond the occasional flash, the cuff or pant leg is far too short.
A high-water pant leg can be acceptable, but there should be room throughout the pant, not tight AND short. Socklessness with dress lace-ups is a bad move (Topsiders are one of the several obvious exceptions), and summer/early autumn (VERY early autumn) are the times for it.
What is barely passable in a photograph can be disastrous in the flesh/cloth. Tight pants on men should be restricted to wet-suits and other athletic applications.
Paul Rubens and other similar-schticked dressers could not have imagined that their parody would become emulated in earnest by those applying their brand of rough-tuning to areas generally off-limits as dictated by the human eye.The faux-growth spurt look is odd, and is thankfully temporary. If the shortened look hits the wrists, I'll lose all hope. Style and fashion are two different things. Fashion takes style and tunes it, alters it, and repackages it into something that may or may not nod to the original. When "preppy" and "WASP[y]"* became the launching point for a particular fashion trend, it was inevitable that the mark was missed on many points. Observers emulated the color, patterns, materials, and combinations of the look, wrote examinations of the manners and attitudes, and analyzed and documented the customs. While many were VERY observant in their writings, most failed to note that which was NOT done. These young men are shocked and indignant when they are told that while their tweed jacket and club tie are nice, their jeans and sockless ankles will not allow them to remain at the Club (though they are generally allowed to finish their drink, if their host got them that far).
*Stop trotting out these terms so liberally.
I don't like the word "pant". Pant is what dogs do when they're hot. It also reminds me of 'panty-hose' and 'panty-liner' (I wear a dress at the weekends).
ReplyDeleteLike scissors, trousers is a plurale tantum, i.e. it's a plural only word. Pants is also a plurale tantum. But whereas you can hear 'trouser leg', 'pant leg' is a style-blogger invention. Pants leg is what was always said before clothes horses massed into the forums.
Man (in front of shop window): 'That's a nice pant'.
Me: I'm not panting (gasp!) I'm having an asthma attack!