Too Traditional?

[creagdhubh]

You know, one of your comments actually turned on a light bulb in my head. You said that JSFMACLJR (Sandy) looked more relaxed, even though he's every bit as traditional. And it occurs to me that you're absolutely right in the literal sense. He simply looks more relaxed. When I browse through Kyle's photos, he always appears to be 'striking a pose' or standing stiffly. And I'm not picking on you, Kyle, as I tend to do that too when I'm wearing traditional Highland attire! And heck, I know you're a Marine, so it may be difficult for you not to assume a more rigid stance. But in the end, I think it can make a world of difference in the overall visual effect. Two gentlemen, dressed to the same level of smartness and tradition, may not come across to the casual viewer as being dressed comparably, because one looks relaxed and natural whilst the other looks like he knows he's being watched.

In essence, I think being relaxed, comfortable, and looking like you were born to wear these clothes is just as important as what you wear.

Fantastic points, Tobus and I couldn't agree more.

Here are several of photos in which I had no idea I was being photographed, any difference (I know this is really not the central point/basis of what you are saying, Tobus)? Ha-ha, probably not...it's hard to shake the Marine mentality sometimes!







Cheers,

[Art]

I've gone from barefoot and tank top to full kit. Just wear it!

[Ryan Ross]

Ok, with all the talk of appropriate level of formality and such, I have this to pose:

Using the below picture as an example to comment on, how would you say that I was dressed, on the traditional scale, baring in mind that what I wanted to do was go for a walk in the woods on an extremely mild early-Winter day? Have a good look and think on it, before forming a concrete idea.

I'm certainly not dressed "too" traditionally... but am I dressed traditionally at all?

[SlackerDrummer]

Ryan,

You have posed an interesting question and one that I have given a lot of thought to lately. One of the issues with THCD is that it has not changed (I hesitate to use the phrase "kept pace") with the rest of society. It dates to a time when people wore suits - all people, more or less, regardless of what level of society they fell - and has changed little since then. While occasionally you will see kilted gentlemen at a highland games in Scotland wearing (what we call) a barn coat, most are wearing the Highland equivalent of a suit and I have wondered what percentage of the non-kilted at these events are wearing suits. I'm guessing not many. I have to admit I don't know, but I've been to the World Pipe Band Championships and I didn't see any suits there. So, what then is the analog in THCD for today's more casual dress? I'm stuck feeling like there just isn't one. And to that end, it's hard not to feel like a lot of THCD is an affectation, particularly outside of Scotland.

To answer your question, then, I think your dress is appropriate, but probably not "traditional" because what THCD is really based on is a class of society that would more than likely be wearing at least a collared shirt, even to go for a walk in the woods.

[CMcG]

... So, what then is the analog in THCD for today's more casual dress? I'm stuck feeling like there just isn't one. And to that end, it's hard not to feel like a lot of THCD is an affectation, particularly outside of Scotland.

To answer your question, then, I think your dress is appropriate, but probably not "traditional" because what THCD is really based on is a class of society that would more than likely be wearing at least a collared shirt, even to go for a walk in the woods.

Further to my posts 340 and 341 (YIKES this thread is massive ), here is a search string from Getty Images using the key words "Prince Charles," "Kilt," and "Casual Clothing":
http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Se...Prince+Charles

I think the Duke of Rothesay shows very nicely that there are traditional options that are less dressy than a jacket and tie, which provides more options in relation to one of the main conundrums of this thread: when traditional levels of formality don't fit into a more sartorially relaxed, contemporary context, dressing too traditionally can result in one being overdressed for the occasion.

From Ryan's picture, we can't see his shoes to comment. From hose to belt (excluding the recent origin of his tartan), he looks traditional. That shirt, however, would probably be considered "underwear" by THCD standards I'm not sure if this is a class thing as SlackerDrummer suggests, because traditional dress in general would always have a button up shirt.

Here is what Rothesay might wear for a similar occasion as Ryan's jaunt in the woods in mild weather:

[Ryan Ross]

That shirt, however, would probably be considered "underwear" by THCD standards

Hahahaha... That is precisely what I was thinking, when I put together that initial post: "A traditional sort could have theoretically worn this gear 'back in the day', but it would have ammounted to wearing one's skivvies on the outside."

But yes, thanks for the input, folks. What I was most interested in was feeling out the prevalent thoughts on whether or not a single item, in this case the shirt (granted, an IMPORTANT item), would be enough to make a whole outfit either "traditional" or not.

Fascinating thread, this.

[MacMillans son]

And to that end, it's hard not to feel like a lot of THCD is an affectation, particularly outside of Scotland.

Well SD, there are many who believe that any non-Scot wearing a traditional kilt outside of the Highlands constitutes an act of affectation. So who, and and at what level of dress, do you propose makes that distinction? Perhaps only those things made in Seattle are not examples of affectation outside the Highlands?

I suspect that some people are not comfortable wearing a style of dress that includes things reminiscent of their father's style of dress, ie neck ties and jackets. As was pointed out, those are not specific to traditional Highland attire but were, not too long ago, common day wear here in the states as well. I cant help but think that some people's current disdain for them, accept in the most formal of settings, is some kind of lingering rebellion born of the dismal 1960s .

I think that judging and labeling other people's manner of wearing Highland attire (as I may have just done ) is not all that productive. If you like wearing ties and jackets as day wear, cool, if you prefer to wear t shirts and flip flips, go for it. I certainly wear what I think is clothing appropriate to the setting (hiking attire while hiking etc). I must say though that there seems to be a feeling here, from the more casual of our members, that those of us who prefer a tie and jacket as daywear are, as you said affectational (not sure of that conjugation) and those who prefer a more casual style are somehow more real. I'm not sure where that feeling comes from. I truly don't experience it coming from the other side, but perhaps that's because I tend to come from that perspective.

Regards,
Brooke

[Dale Seago]

***, Brooke.

[creagdhubh]

Well SD, there are many who believe that any non-Scot wearing a traditional kilt outside of the Highlands constitutes an act of affectation. So who, and and at what level of dress, do you propose makes that distinction? Perhaps only those things made in Seattle are not examples of affectation outside the Highlands?

I suspect that some people are not comfortable wearing a style of dress that includes things reminiscent of their father's style of dress, ie neck ties and jackets. As was pointed out, those are not specific to traditional Highland attire but were, not too long ago, common day wear here in the states as well. I cant help but think that some people's current disdain for them, accept in the most formal of settings, is some kind of lingering rebellion born of the dismal 1960s .

I think that judging and labeling other people's manner of wearing Highland attire (as I may have just done ) is not all that productive. If you like wearing ties and jackets as day wear, cool, if you prefer to wear t shirts and flip flips, go for it. I certainly wear what I think is clothing appropriate to the setting (hiking attire while hiking etc). I must say though that there seems to be a feeling here, from the more casual of our members, that those of us who prefer a tie and jacket as daywear are, as you said affectational (not sure of that conjugation) and those who prefer a more casual style are somehow more real. I'm not sure where that feeling comes from. I truly don't experience it coming from the other side, but perhaps that's because I tend to come from that perspective.

Regards,
Brooke

Very well said, Brooke.

Best wishes,

[davidlpope]

I'm wondering if the title to this thread might not be better phrased as "Are we simulacrums?" (i.e. are we creating a perfect, yet inauthentic, replica of a Highland gentleman for the sole purpose of attending a Highland Games here in the United States?)

Thus the balmoral, clan plant badge, cromach, sgian dubh, garters, etc...

The practical purpose of any one of these items is likely better served by some more practical means/device.

But, to misquote Miss Bingley:

"Indeed, much more practical,

but rather less like a Highland Games."

Just food for thought, as I am determined to see a lion dance video...