John Arnold: the short on shorts, South Main Street, Blacksburg
Name: John Arnold
What Influences your personal style? “I actually just got back from studying abroad in Italy and France. During my time abroad I got the opportunity to visit London twice and absolutely fell in love with the style there. There are definitely some very exciting things going on there especially in terms of street style and personal creativity, but I’d like to think that I add my own flare.”
What’s this outfit’s signature piece? “That’s a hard one, but I’d have to say my shorts. I always try to push the envelope with clothes and I think they accomplish just that while also being kinda traditional in a sense too. Also I think they are really flattering.”
Where to get it: American Apparel
Occupation: Student
Age: 21
Location: South Main Street, Blacksburg
Date: Friday, August 3, 2012
Time: 6:12 p.m.
——————-
What caught my eye: Short shorts of course! Shorts are called shorts for a reason guys, and just like John demonstrates here so well, you can wear your shorts as high as mid-thigh. Good starting point is always wear your shorts just above the knee.
August 7, 2012 - 2:37 PM
But of course John Arnold, you look smashing!
Is this picture from 1983? Because the shorts and oxford stripe shirt sure scream that. The only difference is that nobody wore Chucks with that ensemble in 1983.
This is not a slam on the guy’s sense of style, just a comment. Everyone creates their own fashion. Maybe John Stocktons are popular in Europe, I don’t know.
I’ve wondered when men’s shorts lengths were coming back up. For thirty years, abetted by the cargo pocket trend in place for 25 years, men’s shorts have been creeping down, finally reaching the Allan Iverson hip hop below-the-knee look. It seemed inevitable that they would rise again, as the longer look has become synonymous with paunchy guys like the one in the orange shirt in the background of this photo.
The rolled up sleeves and fully buttoned shirt are a bit twee, although I suppose they go with this guys’ pink cheeked baby face. The best part are the chucks. With high top chucks having been adopted by rockers and skater boyz to the point that they now come in all sorts of (often atrocious) prints, the basic solid color chucks have classic status, and low cuts are free of the associations of the hightops. For an already healthy foot, they are also about the healthiest shoe ever made-lighter than vinyl sneakers and far more breathable, with superb range of motion and excellent protective function. Pre-China solid color chucks are becoming a pricey ebay collectible these days!
@ Pete, wow! That is a mouth full.
Welcome to 1979.
Chuck Taylors are horrible in terms of ‘healthy’ foot support. One flat console for the foot to rest upon? Seriously? They are awful. They have a niche in ‘retro style’ but they are horrible shoes. Range of motion? Protective function? Non existent, both.
The advancement of sneaker footwear has progressed about 10,000% since Chuck Taylors were invented. They are fine to make a fashion statement – I have some myself – but let’s be serious. They are horrible shoes. Their only value is in memory of a past culture.
Chucks are not healthy or protective. And skaters don’t wear them.
And I really, really hope I don’t start seeing men dressing like this. Twee is right.
The idea of chucks being healthy is based on the idea that for a perfectly healthy foot, free of any intrinsic pathologies, barefoot is the ideal. Of course, we don’t live our lives mostly walking on soft manicured grass or thick persian carpets, free of all sharp objects, and so chucks are a very good solution.
Just as when barefoot, a healthy shoed foot, free of structural pathologies, shouldn’t really need any arch support, so chucks, which do quickly sculpt on the inside to the wearer’s own foot and create custom support that way, are fine. Needing anything else is either an artifact of being too long dependent on artificial support, or having a structural pathology.
Canvas is vastly more breathable than vinyl, and much lighter, too, qualities which leave chucks far closer to a natural foot than vinyl sneakers of any kind. As for range of motion, just try to get up on your toes as easily and for as long with vinyl sneakers, or any other more fixed sole shoe, and also try flexing your foot within the shoe. Again, chucks allow closer to a natural foot action than vinyl or leather.
As for their protective function, canvas chucks obviously don’t protect in the same way as rubber hip waders, kevlar combat boots, or even heavy leather brogans. But those are categorically different. In this example of strolling around Steppin’ Out, and most of the time for any shoes worn for pedestrian uses, secure chucks are fine, since the protective function occurs primarily underfoot and at the toe.
Along the Crooked Road (at Galax right about now), one can see many goateed guys in cargo shorts and Hokie caps, if that is the level of individuality one thinks best. And, yes, some skater’s do wear chucks; hightops mostly. Categorical dismissals much, tass?
Sure, it’s a categorical dismissal. Chucks have zero grip and therefore they don’t serve the purpose skate shoes serve. Posers may wear them, but skaters categorically don’t.