By James H. Grant
In the early 1970s, I knew a priest who served as the Catholic chaplain at Emory University in Atlanta. We occasionally conversed over a beer at Jagger’s, a local pizza restaurant. Father Genesse taught me the Latin expression: De gustibus non est disputandum. There are several nuanced translations of the phrase, but the one I prefer is, “There is no accounting for taste.” In other words, what represents style or what is fashionable to me, might not be to you. Which brings up another matter – what is the difference between style and fashion? Many folks use the words interchangeably. I do not.
A little over fifty years ago, psychedelic tie-dyed T-shirts, double-knit bell-bottoms, leisure suits, Nehru jackets and white patent leather shoes were considered fashionable men’s attire. Thankfully, not for long! I am proud to say I never owned one of those ephemeral novelties.
When I started my career as an assistant furniture buyer at Macy’s in Atlanta in 1973, the principal focus of the store’s ready-to-wear departments was fashion. Never mind what was traditional. Never mind what folks wore last year. Never mind iconic outfits from former times. Fashion was the name of the game at Macy’s, Bloomingdales, Marshall Field, Nordstrom and other major department stores across the country.
As it turned out, I left Macy’s after three years, but continued my career in the furniture industry until I retired in 2009. Throughout that time, a distinction was always drawn between style and fashion. A Chippendale sofa, a Queen Anne wing chair, a Louis XV fauteuil represented distinct 18th century styles. Regency and Victorian were styles in the next century. Art Deco and Mid-Century Modern were 20th century styles, although they were fashionable for only short periods of time.
Audrey Hepburn, Cary Grant, Grace Kelly, Gregory Peck, Catherine Deneuve, George Gershwin, Lauren Bacall and Fred Astaire had style. Paul Newman, Steve McQueen and Miles Davis possessed a casual, yet traditional style. (Believe it or not, all three wore Weejuns and OCBD’s.) Sean Connery as “Bond, James Bond” exuded style. Vladimir Horowitz projected style when he performed at Carnegie Hall. Joe DiMaggio epitomized style between the chalk-lines at Yankee Stadium. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan exemplified style. Syndicated columnist George Will still does. Jackie Kennedy and Princess Diana were fashion icons, but both had great style.
Gregory Peck portrayed a Depression era, rural Southern lawyer, Atticus Finch, in To Kill a Mockingbird, and he was a 1950s New Yorker, Tom Rath, in The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit. He mastered both roles with appropriate style.
Daniel Day-Lewis was a talented, self-absorbed, irascible London fashion designer, Reynolds Woodcock, in the 2017 film Phantom Thread. Both Woodcock and his automobile projected an abundance of style.
Regardless of what we might think of the British monarchy, the royal family has been consistent in the execution of its sovereign duties and has provided the British people with an institutional pillar around which they can rally and celebrate. Her Majesty the Queen, Elizabeth II, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, always conducted her public affairs with great dignity, grace, and style.
When I worked for an upscale traditional furniture manufacturer in the 1990s, our design team usually made two trips a year to New York for style and design inspiration. We cruised the antique shops – not necessarily the chic, expensive boutiques – but the ones in lower Manhattan where regular folks shopped for bargains. We went to Bloomingdale’s and Macy’s to check out what was fashionable. We visited Pierre Deux for rustique French furniture and Shabby Chic for innovative casual upholstery. We toured ABC Carpet & Home at 888 Broadway. The furniture floor at ABC was always packed so tightly with traditional furnishings that it was difficult to navigate their labyrinthine aisles without bumping into a table or chair. Oddly enough, we got some of our best ideas at the Ralph Lauren flagship store on Madison Avenue. Not only did the store showcase creative interpretations of traditional clothing, but its vignettes included a large, constantly changing inventory of antique furniture, paintings, and accessories. Their ‘look’ was one we aspired to emulate in our own showrooms. It was ‘style’ and Ralph Lauren continues to influence style.
On the other end of the menswear spectrum is the talented creative director at Louis Vuitton, Pharrell Williams. Louis Vuitton is one of the pillars of Bernard Arnault’s multi-billion- Euro luxury goods conglomerate, LVMH (Louis Vuitton, Moet, Hennessy). Like Ralph Lauren, Mr. Williams has wielded, and will continue to exert, considerable influence in the realm of men’s apparel and accessories, but his innovative introductions are strictly fashionable, and they are invariably ephemeral.
Defining the limits and nuances of style can be a slippery slope. I am reminded of what Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said about obscenity. He declared that “…obscenity is nondefinable, but I know it when I see it.” One could say the same about style.
Perhaps our friend, Hardbopper, nailed it when he said: “Style endures, fashion comes and goes.” Therein lies the essence of the matter.
But always remember: De gustibus non est disputandum.
The famous Latin expression could be translated as — “Taste should not be the subject of debate.” It’s bad taste in itself to argue about taste, as it’s so subjective. However, I would improve this expression a bit by adding only one word — “Good taste should not be the subject of debate.” Let’s say’s one prefers Bach to Mozart. Both are great composers and there’s really nothing to argue about. Not all taste is good though. Taste can certainly be poor and vulgar, and there are standards according to which we judge such things. If there are no standards, there’s no culture. We need standards in any industry and any vocation.
Speaking of style vs fashion, I think James Bond, as portrayed by the various actors over the decades, demonstrates a great example of traditional English style, projected through the prism of various fashions. Sean Connery’s outfits in the 60s and Roger Moore’s outfits in the 70s couldn’t possibly be more different, representing strikingly different and contrasting fashions, yet the fundamental style is still the same.
IT: You raise some excellent points. With all due respects to Messrs. Broccoli and Saltzman, I have never been able to move past Sean Connery as James Bond. I am sure some of the other guys did well in the role, but to me, Connery was James Bond. Bravo on your observation that taste can be poor and vulgar. Regrettably, one does not have to look further than the United States Congress for ample evidence of that. Thanks for your insightful comments. JHG
I think there’s one other important distinction: Style is something you control, while fashion is something that tries to control you. You determine your style. You follow fashion.
You are so right. “old money” still has style and taste. “new money” has no taste or style but spends a ton of $$$$ on fashion.
It’s easy to pick and choose what’s “stylish” in the context of these discussions, but this ignores the influence of “fashion” on menswear and the evolution of menswear over the decades.
Are slim ties and lapels from the Brooks brothers archives stylish? Or maybe look the wider 70s lapels; or maybe the boxier 90s? Should I stick to 3 piece worsted or flannel suits or are odd jackets ok? What about khakis which were considered “fashion” immediately after the war. Are loafers acceptable or are they too fashionable? Is it ok to wear Ralph Lauren or is it “fashion” like it was in the 70s?
Hindsight is 20/20 – what’s stylish isn’t set in stone, and I’d argue “style” is just fashion moving at a slower pace. It’s good to study what’s fashionable and consider it in the context of one’s personal style.
With exception of Queen Elizabeth, God bless her soul. Who exactly of all the listed Ivy style icons listed including the jazz greats, are so called “old money”?
Mac: Good to hear from you. I doubt if any of them were “old money.” It would be my guess that they were self-made men and successful due to their own hard work and perseverance. With regard to James Bond – Agreed. I stand corrected. JHG
James H. Grant,
” Connery was James Bond ”
Respectfully, you are wrong! Connery is James Bond!
Helpful to recall that the 19th century Brooksy salute to the U.K. was indeed fashionable —‘the’ fashion among a measly, meager percentage of the American (East Coast) elite. It was a style (British soft tailoring) within a broader style (Anglophilia). There were a few religious (Anglican/Episcopal, Presbyterian) affiliations, as well as political (Wilsonian globalism) and cultural, many of Edith Wharton chronicled. Only one of the Ivy League universities was proudly and ostensibly Anglophile, which explains a lot. For that legacy, one should look to Trinity, Sewanee or William & Mary. The latter is too frequently neglected as a bulwark of traditionalism.
The 20th century, including two world wars, took a toll on the British Empire. Dedicated Anglophiles insist that, when we answered the call to assist with the rescue of the Brits from German fascism (thanks largely to the friendship of Churchill and FDR) we were retrieving and honoring the best of who we’ve been since earliest days (18th century)— in terms of architecture, art, antiques, avocations, and clothes.
Hamilton and Adams were Anglophiles through-and-through (Franklin was early on) — their legacy perseveres among the (still) very few Americans who delight in the countryside, flower gardens, gothic architecture, single malt whisky, an afternoon cuppa, Barbour jackets, William Byrd, Scottish tweed, West of England flannel, Huddersfield worsteds, and the lightly canvased, sloping shouldered, full-fitting sack coat.
Only a very few college town stores represented the stylistic details and (top drawer) quality of pre-WWII Brooks. Most did not, and at least one American* deemed this a travesty worthy of a call to action. The best carried hand sewn/stitched goods (Southwick, Norman Hilton, Alden) that paid homage to the best of Britannia.
* Ralph Lauren
You have excellent taste, Mr. Grant. It just so happens that I’ve recently learned that the Louis XV, Queen Anne, and Chippendale styles often featured cabriolet legs, as opposed to the more “rectilinear” construction of their predecessors.
So, now I am learning architecture, and furniture along with Ivy Style clothing.
Last week or so, Mr. G. Bruce Boyer noted that Mr. Tom Davis’ style “is classicism at its best”.
For another post, might you be able to give us a brief overview of the state of furniture manufacturing in the US? Did the hurricane in NC set us back? Wild fires, tariffs, off-shoring of industry, emphasis on environmentalism, cost of labor, lack of skilled craftsmanship, low demand, etc.?
Hardbopper: You might find this difficult to believe, but when I retired from the furniture industry sixteen years ago, I left the building and never looked back. I never read shelter magazines or trade publications. I do not go to the furniture market. I do not keep up with my former employers. In fact, I can only recall going into three furniture showrooms in 16 years. Occasionally, I run into former colleagues around town. I always enjoy seeing them and catching up, but I have moved on from furniture. The industry has changed considerably since I left. It is not necessarily worse, just different. Most of the case goods (bedroom and dining room) are now manufactured in Asia, but my hometown has always been known for fine quality upholstered furniture – both in fabric and leather. In fact, many of the finest upholstery companies in the world are located within 10-15 miles of where I am sitting right now. A few factories sustained water damage from the Helene disaster, but most of the real devastation occurred west of here and in the mountains. Thanks for asking. As you note in your email, there have been, and will continue to be, many external influences which have changed the industry. The Covid-19 pandemic had a huge impact. Changes in “style” preference have also brought about gigantic shifts in demand. I worked for a company known for 18th and 19th century English and American reproductions. We were one of the world’s largest users of authentic Honduras Mahogany (swietenia macrophylla). As tastes changed, much of the furniture we manufactured became less and less popular, so the market had to adjust – just like any other industry. As you note, the availability of a skilled labor force is a huge challenge. As the manufacturing of case goods shifted to overseas suppliers, the industry lost many skilled workers, and unfortunately, those skills and those craftsmen were lost. And that is a shame, but Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” continues to move whether we like it or not. Hope this answers some of your questions. It was great hearing from you again. – JHG
What Mac said.
Connery was style. Thank you Terrence Young.
Those who followed were fashion.
Who among them could dial up that briny North Sea brogue and query …”Shhtrickt rules of Goulff Gouldfingahhhh?!”
For Connery it was just another day at the office.
Unreal.
Molière succinctly differentiates taste from talent, wit, and good sense. He cited good sense as the cause, and good taste as the effect. In a culture where good sense seems to be in short supply, good taste will only become more of a rarity, and thus that much more valuable. Good taste is like obscenity; it’s difficult to define but you know it when you’ve seen it.