suits [uniform and uniformity]

    Newer Older

    .

    firstly, an apology to jane austen for my shameless plagiarism :)

    onward.

    certainly far less controversial than the accompanying burka piece, still a subject i feel is worthy of discussion.

    why are these suits and not uniforms?

    well, to answer my own question, it seems a suit can have some latitude with respect to style, colour and cut.

    a uniform may not.

    [ i refer to uniform above in the sense of the uniform of a certain regiment or organisation, rather than uniforms in general]

    though i still feel the suit is essentially a uniform.

    it behaves in much the same way.

    a suit is a communication device.

    a suit is worn to communicate the wearers opinion of him or herself to others.

    it is a social status communicator.

    when worn, it stridently states 'i am not a manual worker'.

    fundamentally, i feel the suit [especially early iterations] is worn to serve just that very purpose; the differentiation of those who work in certain occupations demanding no physical labour from those who work in jobs that involve manual labour.

    otherwise, why suits?

    in seeking to communicate this differentiation, a suit suggests the wearers position in a social hierarchy.

    the clothes of a manual worker are more often than not almost entirely utilitarian.

    they offer physical freedom of movement and have no reason whatsoever to communicate the wearers social or financial status.

    a business suit has no need to be a utilitarian garment.

    in this sense, 'form follows function' does not apply to the business suit.

    it is predominantly an identifier and communicator.

    and as such, notions such as 'style' and 'fashion' can be [and are] taken into consideration.

    so why suit and not uniform?

    well, saying 'i'm wearing my business uniform' doesn't sound quite right does it.

    but conceptually, it is excactly that.

    a uniform.

    nb - i am aware that almost every garment is the wearers communicable 'advertisement' of themselves.

    and anti-fashion is still a fashion.

    such is the psychological complexity of 'fashion' [which is predicated upon death].

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suit_(clothing)

    personally, i still think there is an exceptionally bland uniformity with regard to business suits.

    now, where's my wife beater?

    mensfashion.about.com/od/wardrobebasics/tp/TopTanks.htm

    1. sp.neale 45 months ago | reply

      "a suit is a communication device"

      as are many items of clothing

    2. Fusty Box 45 months ago | reply

      I agree Paul. Thankfully in my profession suits are rarely required.

      I have a suit. It is reserved for weddings, funerals, and court appearances

    3. J A Mortram 45 months ago | reply

      Ditto Tim : )

      Important post as always Paul.

    4. murphyeppoon 45 months ago | reply

      Paul,
      This image could also nicely point to our election result in australia, an empty male and femal power suit for a hung parliament.

    5. Julian Holtom 45 months ago | reply

      "I have a suit. It is reserved for weddings, funerals, and court appearances"

      Likewise. Two actually, the black one for seeing off the stiffs.

      "a suit is a communication device"

      as are many items of clothing

      Isn't how we all choose to dress just another way or aligning ourselves in terms of being too fucking cool for school, and the all too important distinction of not being part of the herd? Or reflecting our musical tastes? Fiscally based or not our uniforms are just more tribal bullshit. Suit or stripey leggings, militant logo emblazoned long sleeved t-shirts or Asda's own child labour branded threads. You're kidding yourself if you think any mode of dress isn't more than just another uniform.

    6. theG™ 45 months ago | reply

      @ jules:

      "a suit is a communication device"

      my line dude.

      and i go on to say:

      'nb - i am aware that almost every garment is the wearers communicable 'advertisement' of themselves.

      and anti-fashion is still a fashion.

      just sayin' :)

      the|G|™
      the|G|™ stream

    7. Julian Holtom 45 months ago | reply

      I'm just sayin' in shorthand luv xxx

    8. Beyond.the.Box 45 months ago | reply

      Suits used to be a distinction of class rank...and I would assume where the term 'business suit' came from...but I don't know for sure..
      A woman's suit....I suspect women needed to appear 'manly' to be taken seriously in the business world...or the Annie Hall fashion trend spun off....
      But it all goes back to the bases you have already covered G...
      We all know the 'clothes don't make the man' but I'd bet Armani and similar would like you to believe differently...Hmmm..a business of business suits?
      I call this attire..prick suits and cunt coats...and that may offend those who wear them...and undoubtedly will defend saying they are 'required' to wear them...so 'required dress'=uniform right? Great post G..love the imagery as well...

    9. A Dharma Bum 45 months ago | reply

      guess what darling, you're right again !! so true.
      <3
      :)


      You're kidding yourself if you think any mode of dress isn't more than just another uniform. damn right !!

    10. solarixx 45 months ago | reply

      i hate men wearing suits
      my mum loves it
      she thinks is kinda sexy
      for me is like: i am a boring cheap average shit.

      sorry to all the men wearing suits

    keyboard shortcuts: previous photo next photo L view in light box F favorite < scroll film strip left > scroll film strip right ? show all shortcuts