Letter: Unconstructed style does not suit everyone
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Roger Tredre's interesting article 'Savile Row begins fightback to save the gentleman's suit' (16 July) reports Savile Row tailors' 'sneaking regard' for Giorgio Armani. I fear any such regard will hardly be sustained by the absurd Armani ensemble you published in juxtaposition.
The model appears to have been screwed up into a ball and left overnight; only his spectacles seem to offer anything like a reasonable fit, and the untucked-in shirt tails suggest he has neglected to adjust his dress before leaving.
Curiously, the shirt seems to be composed entirely of tail - there being no apparent evidence of any upper section above a waistcoat and jacket seemingly composed of wrapping paper.
We are urged to 'admire the . . . subtleness' of Armani's clothes. In this case it seems he has crammed in enough subtleness to stun a rhinoceros. I am constantly irritated by the invented jargon of 'unconstructed'. It ignores the infrastructure due to craftsmanship and can only be successful on the baggy, shapeless silhouettes which - thankfully - went out with the overwhelming vulgarity of the 1980s. It is so passe now.
Finally, surely the antonym of construct should be destruct - a far more fitting application in the circumstances.
Yours faithfully,
JOHN TAYLOR
Editor, British Style
London, N7
16 July
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments