Style and the Lack of It

"Sweatpants are a sign of defeat. You lost control of your life so you bought some sweatpants." ― Karl Lagerfeld
A recent article in the WSJ explained the Republican presidential candidates are trying to dress more casually to appeal to the average guy.



There is no single thing reminiscent of the 1960s as much as dressing down. It was de rigueur for the self respecting college student, men more than women because men will lean towards comfort and women will go braless and wear hotpants if it is flattering but disdain comfort that is not. (See "high heels".)

But all styles drift--especially when the revolution becomes the norm--and then gradually deteriorate; the best hang on as caricatures of what created them. In the 14th century long toed shoes became so long they had to be tied to the lower leg so the men could walk. The hop-hop, baggy and beltless stage is the 60's in their death throes.

But if Lagerfeld is right, the carelessness of our appearance as a nation may be more important than we know. Is our style a symptom of a national malaise? Perhaps the nation is in need of some real stimulus. Certainly high-mindedness and pride will not come from our political leaders. But cohesiveness and national unity can come from unexpected sources--like soccer or a lovely princess. Conan Doyle introduced his detective Sherlock Holmes in The Strand magazine in 1891 and, after 22 adventures, killed him off in 1893 in "The Final Problem". The nation was shocked. Women wept in the street, men wore black armbands to work.

Maybe raising the bar in style would be a good place to start.