Positive aesthetics simply means it has to look good - it should follow the rules of proportion and symmetry, the colors should be flattering, etc.
What's the difference between these 3 images? Why is one the ubiquitous example of great style, another the joke everyone wants to avoid becoming, and the last what your typical guy looks like?
I'll explain.
Positive aesthetics simply means it has to look good - it should follow the rules of proportion and symmetry, the colors should be flattering, etc.
The clothing visuals we love are those that are pleasing to the eye and give us a sense of satisfaction while looking at them.
You can't throw on a toga, or a kilt, or a 19th-century 3-piece suit and walk around in it today because, as beautiful as the aesthetics are, there's no cultural relevance.
This is where most trends come in.
Aesthetics are thrown out the window and a goofy, exaggerated version of relevance takes shape.
Once they've been stripped of their relevance, it becomes even more obvious that there was no inherent beauty or aesthetic to them and we wonder how we could ever have thought it looked good.
So great style is a combination of both.
You have to both understand aesthetics well enough to make your clothing look good, and your culture well enough to make your clothing relevant.
So, rather than play to win, they simply attempt to not lose.
Rather than choosing clothing that's beautiful, they get stuff that isn't ugly.
Rather than risk standing out in a bad way, they do their best to simply fade into the background and simply exist
And even the execution isn't that difficult once you know what to look for and how to make it happen.
https://t.co/Zpi0nIu8sg
More from Culture
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
In a recent article published in the Stern, there is now a criminal complaint filed against Michael Inacker, the then CEO of the PR firm WMP for what includes allegations of the knock out payments from the emirate of Qatar to hide a dossier for their role in financing Hezbollah
That allegedly 750,000 euros, which would have been divided between Jason and Michael.
In return, "Jason" was supposed to keep to himself the information he had researched in Qatar, that a high-ranking person in the emirate of Qatar was financially supporting Hezbollah.
https://t.co/TdaAECu35a
There is an interesting point in the article, WMP (Inacker) still had PR contracts with both Qatar and Saudi and “Jason” had some information about arms deliveries organized by people from Qatar with suppliers in Belarus, Serbia, Macedonia, and Yemen.
That allegedly 750,000 euros, which would have been divided between Jason and Michael.
In return, "Jason" was supposed to keep to himself the information he had researched in Qatar, that a high-ranking person in the emirate of Qatar was financially supporting Hezbollah.
https://t.co/TdaAECu35a
There is an interesting point in the article, WMP (Inacker) still had PR contracts with both Qatar and Saudi and “Jason” had some information about arms deliveries organized by people from Qatar with suppliers in Belarus, Serbia, Macedonia, and Yemen.
You May Also Like
The YouTube algorithm that I helped build in 2011 still recommends the flat earth theory by the *hundreds of millions*. This investigation by @RawStory shows some of the real-life consequences of this badly designed AI.
This spring at SxSW, @SusanWojcicki promised "Wikipedia snippets" on debated videos. But they didn't put them on flat earth videos, and instead @YouTube is promoting merchandising such as "NASA lies - Never Trust a Snake". 2/
A few example of flat earth videos that were promoted by YouTube #today:
https://t.co/TumQiX2tlj 3/
https://t.co/uAORIJ5BYX 4/
https://t.co/yOGZ0pLfHG 5/
Flat Earth conference attendees explain how they have been brainwashed by YouTube and Infowarshttps://t.co/gqZwGXPOoc
— Raw Story (@RawStory) November 18, 2018
This spring at SxSW, @SusanWojcicki promised "Wikipedia snippets" on debated videos. But they didn't put them on flat earth videos, and instead @YouTube is promoting merchandising such as "NASA lies - Never Trust a Snake". 2/
A few example of flat earth videos that were promoted by YouTube #today:
https://t.co/TumQiX2tlj 3/
https://t.co/uAORIJ5BYX 4/
https://t.co/yOGZ0pLfHG 5/
Trump is gonna let the Mueller investigation end all on it's own. It's obvious. All the hysteria of the past 2 weeks about his supposed impending firing of Mueller was a distraction. He was never going to fire Mueller and he's not going to
Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.
Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.
Mueller's team was 100% partisan.
That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election
They looked high.
They looked low.
They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.
And they found...NOTHING.
Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.
What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?
THERE WEREN'T ANY.
Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.
BREAKING: President Donald Trump has submitted his answers to questions from special counsel Robert Mueller
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 20, 2018
Mueller's officially end his investigation all on his own and he's gonna say he found no evidence of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election.
Democrats & DNC Media are going to LITERALLY have nothing coherent to say in response to that.
Mueller's team was 100% partisan.
That's why it's brilliant. NOBODY will be able to claim this team of partisan Democrats didn't go the EXTRA 20 MILES looking for ANY evidence they could find of Trump campaign/Russian collusion during the 2016 election
They looked high.
They looked low.
They looked underneath every rock, behind every tree, into every bush.
And they found...NOTHING.
Those saying Mueller will file obstruction charges against Trump: laughable.
What documents did Trump tell the Mueller team it couldn't have? What witnesses were withheld and never interviewed?
THERE WEREN'T ANY.
Mueller got full 100% cooperation as the record will show.