Clarity

For the sake of clarity with regard to yesterday's post please allow me elaborate. There is no question that Mr. Flusser is correct conceptually that when one pattern jockeys for position with another pattern the potential for compromise as opposed to victory exists.  What I mean by that is that instead of a shirt or a suit creating a background for the tie to be noticed the possibility of the two blending together is strong.  There are however a few ways for the patterns to get noticed.  One of course is to change the sizes of the patterns so that they are distinct in and of their own right and dont blend into each other.  This is what Flusser recommends and its correct.  So of course, this:



Looks better than this small patterned tie (which IMO looks OK, even if not as sharp as the larger patterned tie):



And this with its contrast against the cream shirt of course is easiest as it doesnt involve mixing of patterns.



Which is comprised of this:



My main complaint was the fact that while the concept may have been true, the picture that Mr. Flusser used to elucidate that point was exaggerated, almost as if to show that the eye cannot ever tolerate similarly sized patterns without glazing over.  Assuming that would be correct then the lesson is better taught with a clear picture rather than a blurry one.  Mr. Flusser uses a blurry picture to complete a thought while attempting to bolster his position I personally feel he weakens it.

But thats just my opinion and I haven't yet sold any books ;-)