In the comments to a recent post, my old buddy Keohane made an interesting point regarding that thing we refer to affectionately as "go to hell" clothing. He said:
"Here's a point worth examining. At what point do 'go to hell' pants cease to be 'go to hell' pants? J.Crew and Polo (among many others) are selling them this season. Several variations, in fact. I'd say at this point they've gone from go-to-hell to full-bore '80s preppy revival. Time to stow those suckers away until the trend passes and their FU is restored. The streets this Spring are going to be teeming with red pants, oxford shirts, oversized Wayfarers and yellow sweaters slung over shoulders. Avoiding pastels is the new go to hell."
I must admit he makes a valid point for several reasons. Still, even after having read that, i could not keep hold of the $5.00 it cost me to become the proud owner of these bright red shorts:
flat front, creased, and with a nearly scandalous 7 1/2 inch inseam.
Because, c'mon, how can I resist a label like that? Royal poplin? English Sports Shop? Bermuda? All the ducks are in a row on this one. I promise not to wear them with high socks, shirt and tie and a blazer. Though this was undoubtedly the way they were made to be worn, a man has to draw the line somewhere. But I digress...
I agree with Keohane completely...except for the part about putting away my brightly hued trews. None of this stuff has the shock value it once did. True, there was a time when garments like these proclaimed a certain degree of wealth, even a certain kind of wealth. And they were shocking. It was a way to give the world the finger, as it were, for men who couldn't or weren't allowed to with outright speech. We all know it, but that's just not the case anymore.
True, Ralph Lauren is an "outsider" who made his fortune by having a keen eye for this stuff, but we all know that too. Besides, he has been at it since 1967. One might ask when complaining about the way he co-opted this stuff ceases to make any sense, given the countless customers of his wares who simply don't know, or care to know, the history from which these garments derive.
Shock value is a strong thing. But it's strength is only good for so long. This is true of everything. When is the last time punk rock was shocking? Or mini-skirts? Or even swearing. When I was a kid, the f-word had a way of silencing a room. Now it's every third word out of most peoples mouths. Shock value fizzles, simply because it must.
Everyone likes to be cool. It's fun to be in on some hip secret. But when that secret gets out and it starts to become normal, the people who were there in the first place always get irked. But really, its' kind of unfair to exclude people from liking something only because the got around to it later, isn't it? Back in the punk rock days, I hated it when the things I liked got to be popular, and I took an instant dislike to anything that was popular. That kind of thinking made a lot of sense to me when I was 21, but the older I get the less it does.
So J.Crew and the like are selling pastel pants and RayBans this year. Is it really such a bad thing for young men to start wearing button front shirts and well fitting clothes? For years now, men have been dressing like slobs. Drives me crazy. So how can I complain if they all start dressing a little more like I do this Summer? Can't have it both ways, you know. Besides, trends like this tend to leave behind people who dress better generally even after the trend has passed. Where's the harm in it?
The WASPy types and the older crew will no doubt wail and scream about it, but it's because they're losing their once exclusive grasp on a cultural marker. But the fact is, clothing-as-signifier always trickles down to the masses. Is every guy you see in khakis a former military man? Is every man in a navy blazer with brass button ex-navy? Does it really matter? You catch my drift.
I, for one, will continue to wear my peacock colors all Summer long. I will also continue to avoid shopping at the mall at all costs. I like having a warm weather wardrobe that is starkly different form my cold weather wardrobe. It's fun. And when the trend is over, I'll still be the same guy, wearing the same pants. I suggest others do the same. Just embrace your sudden new found "coolness" for the Summer. If you still want to feel smug about, you'll always know that you have the "real stuff" and those damn kids don't. But don't give yourself an ulcer over it. Stressing too much about your red pants is kind of antithetical to owning them.
Maybe the name "go-to-hell" is the problem, maybe it just doesn't apply anymore, because maybe we're already there? Cripes, I don't know. None of this makes me like my pink pants any less.
Special thanks to Keohane, for opening a juicy can of worms.
"Here's a point worth examining. At what point do 'go to hell' pants cease to be 'go to hell' pants? J.Crew and Polo (among many others) are selling them this season. Several variations, in fact. I'd say at this point they've gone from go-to-hell to full-bore '80s preppy revival. Time to stow those suckers away until the trend passes and their FU is restored. The streets this Spring are going to be teeming with red pants, oxford shirts, oversized Wayfarers and yellow sweaters slung over shoulders. Avoiding pastels is the new go to hell."
I must admit he makes a valid point for several reasons. Still, even after having read that, i could not keep hold of the $5.00 it cost me to become the proud owner of these bright red shorts:
flat front, creased, and with a nearly scandalous 7 1/2 inch inseam.
Because, c'mon, how can I resist a label like that? Royal poplin? English Sports Shop? Bermuda? All the ducks are in a row on this one. I promise not to wear them with high socks, shirt and tie and a blazer. Though this was undoubtedly the way they were made to be worn, a man has to draw the line somewhere. But I digress...I agree with Keohane completely...except for the part about putting away my brightly hued trews. None of this stuff has the shock value it once did. True, there was a time when garments like these proclaimed a certain degree of wealth, even a certain kind of wealth. And they were shocking. It was a way to give the world the finger, as it were, for men who couldn't or weren't allowed to with outright speech. We all know it, but that's just not the case anymore.
True, Ralph Lauren is an "outsider" who made his fortune by having a keen eye for this stuff, but we all know that too. Besides, he has been at it since 1967. One might ask when complaining about the way he co-opted this stuff ceases to make any sense, given the countless customers of his wares who simply don't know, or care to know, the history from which these garments derive.
Shock value is a strong thing. But it's strength is only good for so long. This is true of everything. When is the last time punk rock was shocking? Or mini-skirts? Or even swearing. When I was a kid, the f-word had a way of silencing a room. Now it's every third word out of most peoples mouths. Shock value fizzles, simply because it must.
Everyone likes to be cool. It's fun to be in on some hip secret. But when that secret gets out and it starts to become normal, the people who were there in the first place always get irked. But really, its' kind of unfair to exclude people from liking something only because the got around to it later, isn't it? Back in the punk rock days, I hated it when the things I liked got to be popular, and I took an instant dislike to anything that was popular. That kind of thinking made a lot of sense to me when I was 21, but the older I get the less it does.
So J.Crew and the like are selling pastel pants and RayBans this year. Is it really such a bad thing for young men to start wearing button front shirts and well fitting clothes? For years now, men have been dressing like slobs. Drives me crazy. So how can I complain if they all start dressing a little more like I do this Summer? Can't have it both ways, you know. Besides, trends like this tend to leave behind people who dress better generally even after the trend has passed. Where's the harm in it?
The WASPy types and the older crew will no doubt wail and scream about it, but it's because they're losing their once exclusive grasp on a cultural marker. But the fact is, clothing-as-signifier always trickles down to the masses. Is every guy you see in khakis a former military man? Is every man in a navy blazer with brass button ex-navy? Does it really matter? You catch my drift.
I, for one, will continue to wear my peacock colors all Summer long. I will also continue to avoid shopping at the mall at all costs. I like having a warm weather wardrobe that is starkly different form my cold weather wardrobe. It's fun. And when the trend is over, I'll still be the same guy, wearing the same pants. I suggest others do the same. Just embrace your sudden new found "coolness" for the Summer. If you still want to feel smug about, you'll always know that you have the "real stuff" and those damn kids don't. But don't give yourself an ulcer over it. Stressing too much about your red pants is kind of antithetical to owning them.
Maybe the name "go-to-hell" is the problem, maybe it just doesn't apply anymore, because maybe we're already there? Cripes, I don't know. None of this makes me like my pink pants any less.
Special thanks to Keohane, for opening a juicy can of worms.
