The expression "emperor's new clothes" comes form Jan Christian Andersen's tale.
There was a ruler, who was so obsessed with fashion and clothes, that he neglected all the state affairs and spent lots of money for searching and obtaining new, more and more elegant garments. One day two conmen arrived at his court, claiming to be weavers that could make him new clothes, that not only would be more beautiful than anything else in the world, but would also have the magical powers to check who is stupid and who's wise, for noone stupid could actually see them. The emperor paid them lots of money and gave them all the silk and gold to proceed. Now and then he would send some of his officials to check how the work was progressing and although they saw empty looms, noone admitted it for fear of being seen as stupid and not capable of serving in their office. When the day came for the emperor to see the new material, he also didn't see a thing but same as everybody else, realised that he cannot admit it, because that would mean he is stupid and not capable of ruling the country, so he expressed his wonder about the new fabric and fine embroidery and told the conmen to proceed and sew the clothes from it. And finally the garments were ready: the conmen did a huge show of putting it all on the emperor, all the time gushing about how fine the material was, how elaborate the embroidery, how rich the stones and golden thread. Thus "dressed" the emperor set out to walk through the city, where everybody gathered and gushed about his new clothes. Then suddenly a little boy called that the emperor is naked and people started to repeat it in whisper, until everybody was saying that the emperor was wearing nothing. The emperor heard it as well, and he suspected it was true, but decided to carry on, walking even prouder and carrying his head even higher and his court played along.
There are two important things here: that the only one speaking the truth was the kid, who obviously knew nothing about clothes and fashion (or power); and that despite literally everybody realising the scam, the emperor carried on.
I became very disillusioned about the modern idea of dog breeding according to the written standard as opposed to breeding as fancy might have it or because dog performed certain, useful function. It used to be that purposeful breeding relied on function: someone had a dog that hunted well and his collegue had another, so they bred them hoping to get good hunting dogs. Those dogs had particular type when it came to physical apperance, it was not completely random, it was even thought that some aspects of dog's appearance were important because they helped with dog's work. At some point the modern idea that the breed's characteristcs had to be put down in a written standard to preserve it and that breeding stock should be first evaluated according to the standard, was born.
If you look of any cynological organisation stated mission, you'll find something like that (quote from the FCI statutes): "encouraging and promoting the breeding, registration and use of pedigree dogs ensuring that their functional health and physical features meet the standard set for each respective breed, enabling them to work and to carry out different functions in accordance with the specific characteristics of their breed", then also usually something about "promoting and supporting dogdom and dog welfare worldwide". You might also read about purebred dogs as historical and cultural legacy.There is also this claim that breeders should strive to "improve" the breeds, trying to achieve the ideal, described in the standard, while at the same time admitting that it's not possible (this is ridiculous... I mean the whole notion of every dog being "not good enough" and of striving for constant betterment for me is the root of evil here).
There is also lots of internet discussions on show vs. working especially in the breeds where it diverged greatly to the extent that despite one standard and one registration we basically have two different breeds (working border collies and working cocker spaniels are easy examples). One side would say these dogs don't even resemble the standard, would call them "mixbreeds" or "collie type", "spaniel type" dogs (as opposed to actual border collies or cocker spaniels) and depending on a country, would do everything in their power to prevent such dogs from breeding, the other side would say that the dogs actually still serve their original purpose, are on average much more agile and fit and that breeding for looks only is a disaster.
While it's quite obvious which side I'm on, let me elaborate a bit on the standards, these ultimate golden standards that preserve the breeds and serve as the ultimate goal we're striving for (oh, nevermind that the standards change, some colours are added or scratched out, the ideal size changes, the standards are here to protect the breed and show us what the breed should look like, fullstop). As the modern idea of breeding pure is around 150 years old (the British Kennel Club was created in 1873, the American Kennel Club in 1884, Federation Cynologique Internationale in 1911), it's time to evaluate perhaps whether it's actually working the way it was intended?
Case in point no 1.
Last weekend one of the most prestigious and important dog shows in the world, the Westminster Dog Show, took place. The Best in Show was given to a doberman bitch Penny. Penny looks like this:
