Stunning time-lapse video of the Earth from the International Space Station, set to Howard Blake’s memorable Walking in the Air from the children’s classic, The Snowman. Very clever use of the song by NASA, demonstrating they still have some people who know what it takes to engage the public. No more words are necessary, just enjoy the beautifully crisp images and see if you can spot your home… 
Head of a Nymph, Sophie Anderson
I must confess a penchant for complex systems.
There is little more pleasant than the intricacy of checks & balances, although I only enjoy them if my understanding of them arrives through noting the overall patterns that result, rather than through crude mechanistic analysis. Appreciating the underlying ebb & flow of emergent phenomena speaks to what Jung would have termed my intuitive rational nature.
My fondness and aptitude for noticing these mechanisms is at least part of what attracted me to psychiatry. The mind is doubly complex, consisting as it does of both physical and psychic constructs. The physical is the complexity of our neuroanatomical wiring and the neurochemical connections within that network. While some argue that theoretically the psychic world can be entirely understood through the physical, even such reductionist evangelists would admit that our current understanding is a long way from complete.
The psychic world is the more intriguing. It consists of our modes of thought: how we view ourselves, others, and the interplay between these entities. We create an internal construct of both ourselves & others, often built upon rather dubious foundations, and our entire understanding of the world in predicated upon these constructs. Some of the constructs emerge through experience, some are models formally taught to us, and some are probably rooted in a genetic hard-wiring. Even more amusingly, we are only generally aware of a small minority of the conceptual filters through which we view the world, which gives rise to what Freud would term the unconscious mind and perhaps also to what the spiritual would call the soul.
Regular readers know I enjoy a variety of complex systems; not just psychiatry & psychology but also clothes, economics, philosophy and some kinds of art. The common thread linking these interests are the delightful emergent patterns that are created through expression & exploration these systems. Different schools of art & philosophy, different conceptual models of the mind & human behaviour, different fashions & economic systems… they are all best considered not as absolutes with pros & cons relative to some theoretical gold standard, but as different sensory modalities. No-one would ever claim that smell is better than sound, or sight is better than touch.
Of course, this very relativist and individualist intellectual position of mine is itself derived from a set of preconceptions. In the end, everything anyone can attempt to say really is nonsense, if Wittgenstein will pardon the liberty of my paraphrasing. But this is to miss the point entirely: it’s rather delightful to play the game anyway.
The title of this post is a lament at how much of the world either cannot play, or refuses to play. Instead, they focus on improving things in an endless search for perfection. While superficially a laudable goal, the problem is that in order to improve a situation, you must understand the system well enough to know what improvement means. Simply having one specific goal in mind frequently – possibly, inevitably – leads to problems in other important areas. Imagine a fat woman being squeezed into a too-small corset: the narrow waist comes at the high price of either fat spilling over as visible unsightliness elsewhere, or internal distress. Similarly, targets and outcome measures can lead to many more negative issues in unexpected areas even if the target is achieved. Better to appreciate the system for what it is, and harmonise your existence within it, which can mean insulating yourself from its excesses by detaching yourself from its impact through rising above it.
Naturally, I am extremely grateful that most people prefer to seek perfection. It has led to tremendous improvements in material comforts, and grants me the luxury of not having to live a purely subsistence lifestyle myself. Nonetheless, those capable of broader perspective will be happier for indulging that aloofness rather than chasing the flitting faerie nymph of perfection. The nymph, you will recall, generally doomed her lover.
From Masks to Helmets; specifically the Corinthian, Illyrian and Arcadian/Laconian types pictured from left to right in this photograph taken in the Benaki Museum, Athens. Helmets are of course primarily defensive pieces of armour, but their decoration reveals their auxiliary function identifying friend from foe on the battlefield. Massed ranks of soldiers uniformly attired also have a psychological effect, inspiring what modern tacticians might call “shock and awe” in the opposition, and boosting courage in the wearer.
A uniform also lends an identity to the wearer, sometimes the most important identity a person possesses if they are young and as yet unformed. This graveyard stele (right), photographed in the National Archaeology Museum in Athens, depicts the tomb’s inhabitant, an Athenian soldier.
The accompanying inscription tells the reader that the man died young, in service, and without a family of his own. Wearing his uniform in perpetuam on the stele gives his death some deeper meaning, a tradition we continue to this day with flags, poppies and other symbols of military Remembrance.
Society is generally good at creating roles for its constituent members. Regardless of what sociopolitical system is in place, their continued operation depends on the consent of the population being governed. The Greeks recognised four main systems: tyranny, oligarchy, timocracy and democracy, but were more open-minded than we tend to be today about which system is “best” for the population, and about what metric is optimally suited to define “best”. Regardless, even the most tyrannical regime depends of the consent of a critical mass of its population to survive. Without this, revolution ensues, as the populations of several Arab countries would attest to this year.
People generally like being assigned a role by society, even if the role is to be an angry outsider. It gives them the luxury of a pre-fabricated identity, and saves them the effort to trying to create an identity of their own. Society also benefits, because most people given a social identity tend to be quite predictable in their actions and will reinforce the status quo of the polity governing them. Deciding on one’s own identity/meaning – the process of psychological integration Jung called individuation – is a never-ending process with uncertain outcome.
Nonetheless, it does offer the prospect of defining a more profound and personal meaning. This votive relief (below) depicts an athlete crowning himself with a wreath; the holes show where a metal wreath was attached. It is an appropriate image to end this post with; the ultimate symbolic seizing of one’s own destiny.
Ancient fertility images routinely depict the pregnant female. This Greek Neolithic gold pendant can be interpreted as a schematic symbolic representation of this form, with the two protuberances at the top of the circular “belly” forming breasts. Adjacent to it in the National Archaeology Museum in Athens are these more obviously symbolic pendants:
It is not surprising to discover phallic and ktenic symbolism in ancient jewellery, when the creation of new life was viewed as a miraculous divine event. What is more amusing to note is that these Neolithic trinkets set the pattern for human jewellery down the ages. The simplified female form of the pendant in the first image became the necklace and the ring, and the phallic central pendant of the second image remains with us in earrings.
Of course, we have attached new symbolic meanings to these items. When a new culture subsumes an older one, it assimilates it, grafting sanitised new meanings to any older habits/traditions that are too deeply ingrained to expunge. Thus, the ring becomes a symbol of eternal union, rather than the fertility symbol of old. More controversially, phallic pendants become religious keepsakes, such as crucifixes.
Since Freud, psychiatrists are often said to see sexual symbols where there are none. These Neolithic items suggest that it is the wider population that has stopped seeing phallic-ktenic imagery where it previously existed. Thousands of years of cultural development have overlaid new meanings and more complex symbolism onto older, simpler forms. But the forms remain and therefore at some deeper level, so do the original meanings.
Think of that next time you pop on a ring, or a pair of earrings. And don’t get me started on the symbolism of piercings…
What do you see in the above image?
If you’re anything like me, your first thought is “ritual cultic mask”.
In fact, it is thought more likely to be protective headgear worn during metal-working in Bronze Age Greece. The mask is one of many I saw displayed on a recent visit to the National Archaeological Museum in Athens. It is interesting that my preconceptions/mental associations of Ancient Greece as a powerful mystical cultural source led to my assuming the mask had an equally mystical role. It’s amusing to see one’s own assumptions turned on their head; it encourages further thought.
Masks are commonly thought of as means of disguise; a way to conceal identity from detection. But in fact, they can also be used to create identity. Think of the masks used in Greek theatre or Japanese Kabuki, both designed to evoke the spirit of a character and so allow the observer to know how to react to their stage antics. Think also of Venetian carnival masks, used in a more permissory manner to give the wearer freedom from their normal responsibilities; a license to be licentious.
Masks are also commonly used in funerary rites, especially in earlier eras (though the art of the modern mortician could be thought of as continuing this ritual remaking of the dead). The Mycenean golden death mask below is also from the Athenian National Archaeological Museum, and has the rare feature of depicting the dead person with eyes open:
The death mask illustrates another role of masks: to transform the person wearing the mask into something else. The image below from the Benaki Museum in Athens is not a mask (it’s a garment buckle) but my reflection in the cabinet’s glass while taking the photo neatly replaces my own face by the Gorgon’s face (you can just about see my shirt collar below). Another masked transformation of sorts…
Masks can therefore be co-opted as disguises, as emotional guides, and as transforming agents. And of course, they are deployed in a metaphorical way during our daily lives, as we mould our words and actions to suit different circumstances, sometimes suppressing our inner thoughts to do so.
On that note, I will end by quoting American author Clifton Fadiman on the risks of our using self-created masks too often:
For most men life is a search for the proper manila envelope in which to get themselves filed.
Edvard Munch, Vampire (1893/84). Munch originally named the painting Love and Pain and it is not meant to be vampiric in theme; the lady is not a vampire but a lover. Its subsequent worldwide fame under the name Vampire is an intriguing example of the artist's expressionist message being re-interpreted by the viewer.
Expressionism and Minimalism are probably vaguely familiar terms to you. At their respective cores, Expressionist artists translate their subjective experience of reality into their work, so giving the viewer a glimpse of their internal experience; whereas Minimalism is reductionist, paring down meaning into its simplest components, rendering it more meaningful to the viewer. It could therefore be said that Expressionism is indulgent to the artist, as it is their personal perspective that matters the most, whereas Minimalism is over-generous to the viewer by stripping a message down to its bullet points.
There is a paradox here. The Expressionist artist, in his attempt to convey a holistic sense of subjective experience, may convey more to the viewer than the Minimalist, who with his more stark approach, overtly sets the agenda and the parameters of communication. The Expressionist may thus end up enabling the viewer more, in terms of permitting said viewer his own interpretation of the work. The Minimalist may end up narrowing the scope of meaning so intensively that the viewer has no choice but to interpret it in a particular way. We therefore see that – as with so many other situations in life – the intent of the creator may be at odds with the effect of his creation. It is a wise artist who is aware of this.
These terms are also used in other settings, especially Minimalism. The concept gained significant traction with the general public in the fields of architecture and interior design, to the extent that Minimalist designs are perceived as modern, clean, professional and efficient. This reflects the narrowness of the communication bandwidth used in Minimalism, and the clear intent of the designer to ensure form and function co-ordinate elegantly.
The terms are less commonly applied to clothes, but the parallel is quite obvious. A Minimalist approach to dressing encourages communication on the dresser’s terms, by setting a narrow agenda. It gives little leeway to the observer to perceive an alternative interpretation. To use an example many readers may be familiar with, Don Draper (the central character of TV show Mad Men) adopts a certain business look common in the 1960s. Unconsciously, viewers will regard him a certain way.
A different, but equally precise, dressing archetype would be Gordon Gekko (Wall Street). The moviegoer translates that look into the clichéd and largely meaningless term, “power dressing”. Note that while the message in both Draper’s and Gekko’s cases is resolutely Minimalist, the elements that compose it are not the same. In Draper’s case, the elements themselves are also Minimalist: mainly solid suits, narrow dark ties, white shirts, folded white pocket square. In Gekko’s, the elements are almost the opposite; flamboyant suits, braces, silk puffed pocket squares, boldly striped shirts. But the message in each case is remarkably similar, and equally pared down.
Another example of a clear & focused minimal message is Richard Gere’s Armani-draped American Gigolo. His character demonstrates that minimalism of message does not require harsh clean lines. His clothes at the start of the movie are soft in appearance but the message they exude is precise and unambiguous: sexual availability. As the movie progresses, his clothing becomes ragged, symbolising his increasing distress and loss of control. They no longer send out a message of his choice, but reveal his state of mind. In effect, they transition from Minimalist to Expressionist.
Costume designers are generally expert in a minimalist approach to dressing. Their very job requires them to distill a character down to core traits and find a way of conveying precisely those traits and nothing else that would distract or confuse an audience. While the elements they choose may vary from the clean & tidy to the gaudy & ragged, the message they create is usually simple and clear.
Precise and unambiguous sartorial message have their place in the real world too. Whenever you want to transmit a clear message to an audience, dress with a minimalist approach in mind. Identify the message, and choose items according. An everyday example should illuminate: how you would dress for a job interview in a conservative profession?
The typical dark suit, white shirt, simple tie, and black shined shoes conveys a simple and reductive message: “I am precise, professional, capable. and trustworthy”. Other examples would be dressing to look attractive to potential mates, dressing to give a presentation, dressing for a cocktail party, and so on. The resultant looks are varied, but share a common denominator of often being described as elegant. Elegance is thus conforming to social rules & expectations in a focused & precise manner while still appearing to do so effortlessly. This is the laser-like coherence of a focused and unambiguous sartorial message.
Can one dress in an expressionist manner instead? Yes, but with caution. Expressionism in dressing is far more risky. You can inadvertently reveal far more about your actual state of mind than you intend. Remember, Expressionism is your subjective experience of the world, albeit in this context through an outfit rather than through paint or stone. It is inherently more incoherent in its message than a minimalist approach. A clear message can still emerge (and indeed, should emerge) but it is a message that the viewer has interpreted. By wearing the proverbial heart on one’s sleeve, the dresser cedes some degree of control to the viewer. Done in an uncontained way, the outfit may elicit either discomfort or downright dislike, without the observer necessarily being able to pinpoint why.
But if done well, it can be used to create a more subtle sense of being at ease with the dresser. The look appear on the surface to be shabby or garish, and yet it somehow brings a smile and warmth rather than a disapproving eyebrow. This is the power of trust. Rather than feeling the need to convey a precise message, the message is an unthreatening “hello, pleased to meet you. I’m me”.
Beware: this is not the same as wearing whatever you want all the time! Done carelessly, that can all too easily result in a message of “F*** you, I’m here”, which, I think you’ll agree, is a rather disagreeable thing to project. Just as an Expressionist artist applies conscious thought to his work, so must the Expressionist dresser apply though to what elements best convey a perceptual mindset. This harks back to an enfant chéri of mine, the importance of personal insight. Understanding the person you are is vital to being able to confidently convey that sense of self with an outfit. That is the powerful and charming effect described as “being comfortable in one’s own skin”… or in this case, “being comfortable in one’s own clothes”.
Giving of yourself to others, done in safe and judicious small measures, can be remarkably charming. It is an expression of trust that can inspire the same from others. Trying to do it in a small way with your clothes may be one of the safest mediums within which to do it. Experiment with it and see the results!
Patrick Nagel - Isetan
This blog gets a varied readership at times, reflecting as it does my own interests which range from the philosophical on one hand to fashion on the other. I therefore couldn’t resist the somewhat cryptic title, though I must now disappoint the ethicists expecting a post about Thomas Nagel, and instead delight the sartorialists with a post about Patrick Nagel.
Nagel got his big break illustrating that venerable icon of men’s special interest literature (Playboy) but became more widely known in the 1980s partly through illustrating a famous Duran Duran album cover, and then because of his fashion illustrations. Famous for his bold, posterised depictions of beautiful women wearing elegant, if rather revealing, garments, his work has echoes of Art Deco but also a more timeless, almost Iconic quality. Though I suspect the Virgin Mary might balk at the idea of posing for a Nagel illustration.
Nagel passed away from a heart attack before he reached 40. Perhaps appropriately for a pop-art figure, he died of a heart attack after appearing in that most faddy of mid-1980s events, an aerobics-themed charity telethon. Now enough talk, and more Nagel pictures instead. And that’s the kind of altruistic yet self-serving generosity that those readers who expected a Thomas Nagel post should appreciate as well…
Patrick Nagel - Sunglasses
Patrick Nagel - Shannon
Patrick Nagel - Blue Sweater
The sense of being well-dressed gives a feeling of inner tranquillity which religion is powerless to bestow.
- Miss C. F. Forbes, English writer, 1817-1911
As quoted in the The Times today (14th June), and an amusing example of synchronicity in light of my last few posts.
Beau Brummell, Image via Wikipedia
There is an ongoing sartorial war, waged since time immemorial. Weapons technology has shifted kaleidoscopically over the millennia, from the first animal skins to today’s advanced textiles. Consider the battlefield a triangle, with three opposing base camps: Functional, Tasteful, and Extravagant.
The Functionals prefer clothes to serve a utilitarian purpose, meeting a physical need without regard to aesthetics. Form for this group is subservient to Function; beautifying details are looked on as frippery.
The Tasteful cohort view clothes as a backdrop of minimalist palette, allowing detail of texture and fabric to emerge as subtle indicators of quality. Bolder items are used sparingly and within unostentatious constraints drawn heavily from the historical canon of classic menswear (the 1920s to the 1960s). This would be a modern equivalent to Beau Brummell’s dandy approach, perhaps somewhat equivalent to a “stealth wealth” aesthetic, although at the time, dandyism was revolutionary rather than conformist.
The historical dandy (contrary to modern interpretations of the term) was a reaction to the gaudy fops of Brummell’s day, who may be considered historical members of the Extravagant tribe. For them clothes are about colour, pattern and peacocking. It is escapism, provoking calculated amusement in others and in oneself. In the modern world its lineage gives us movements like Sape, and is linked to the concept of Wildean excess and even conspicuous consumption. It’s about catching the eye, not taking oneself too seriously and generally using clothes in a more aggressive manner than the other group.
Few people fall wholly within one camp. The camps are vertices on the triangle that is the continuum of modes of dress, rather than discrete entities. I do not believe that one mode is objectively best. It is better only in the eyes of the beholder, and thus whether the clothes achieve the purpose you need them to have.
Obviously if you are in certain professions, you may be obliged to dress one way or the another. For the rest, the challenge is finding a mode of dressing you feel expresses your inner self and external needs the best, while still appreciating the qualities of other extremes of the spectrum as all are educational.
The idea that one mode of dress is universally correct is flawed. Find the balance that is right for you and your life. Explore the continuum, experiment with different looks, learn something about their history, think about your needs and your personality. Don’t prejudge and back yourself into any one corner.
Find for yourself which you enjoy the most, and which help you achieve the life you want.
Image by Capt Kodak via Flickr
Watching the amusing Business Nightmares (BBC2, Monday), the interview with a former senior Polaroid executive stood out. Polaroid is of course a company whose core product simply became obsolete for the mainstream user. He commented: “We weren’t able to see that people wouldn’t want a hard copy print; it sure came as a heck of a surprise that people wouldn’t want one…”
Then he paused and sheepishly admitted “But I don’t either”!
For many, the physical photo album has indeed become quaint, but let’s face it, those physical albums were only rarely looked through anyway. Are their modern digital equivalents viewed more, for all their greater accessibility? Probably, but I suspect there is still only a spike of initial views and then increasingly rare subsequent views.
Some photographs are taken with artistic aspirations, though perhaps pretensions is a more accurate word for the many taken with this intent but in the absence of talent. Others are taken for purely documentary or illustrative purposes in mind, be they journalistic or commercial in nature.
But the majority of photos are simpler snaps; taken to solely to mark a transient experience and commemorate the passages of life’s rituals. The documentary quality of the image is almost irrelevant in these cases; the emotional power of these snaps are nearly all in the acts of taking and sharing the image. I don’t Facebook myself, having an aversion to acquiring yet another time sink, but I’m struck by the avid taking and sharing of images by those who are on such social networking sites. The sharing of a photograph has an interesting dynamic tension: it works to define the sharer’s identity, but simultaneously the highly communal act requires others to pay the photograph attention to render it this definitional power. The photograph can thus be seen as a social transaction between the taker/sharer and the community, where the utility of the transaction is a mutual strengthening of interpersonal ties and roles.
This is a similar role to that of photos in their former hard copy incarnations. The leafing through the physical photo album was a ritual done at time of social or emotional need, to remind self and others of their respective roles through a remembrance of the emotional content of times past. This is the mythic power of the photograph, where it is not the content that matters, but the symbolism.
The photo is a conduit to emotional social resonance, similar to ancient folklore passed on through the oral tradition, or engrained ceremonial ritual such as we recently witnessed in the Royal Wedding.
If you have a favourite photo, do you love it for the image, or the emotional memory it evokes?
