Somewhere in this maze of "fashion" into which I've launched myself,
I've grown a bit confused.
For the obvious reasons -
like how can we continually psych ourselves into thinking that each season's styles are "new",
when we know that they are, in fact, all old.
Or how someone deemed a "style icon" on just one occasion can forever and always do no wrong.
But my biggest hangup has arisen when attempting to differentiate
"style" from "Fashion" from "well-dressed".
Believe it or not -
being interested in "Fashion" in Wisconsin is a novelty.
Not that there doesn't exist a community for it - because there does - but it's a novelty, nonetheless.
This means that there are no niches here. No specialties.
"Style" means "Fashion" means "well-dressed".
So we're all already well-aware (from the 10 trillion blog posts on the matter) that "style is not "fashion", but what really trips me up is that people assume that this blog necessitates that I know the
best silhouette shapes for different body types,
and which colors work for which skin tones,
and which jean lengths flatter which heights . . .
and I do.
I do now, because I have to.
Which is silly.
Because, in my mind, style is an extremely personal expression of our inner sentiments. It's how we make ourselves into mini walking works of art.
Style has very little to do with being "well-dressed" - which is, in sum, the focus of TLC's "What Not to Wear" (RIP).
Less about style, more about social norms, proportions, and presentability.
In truth - I would, no doubt,
be have been a perfect candidate for Stacy to criticize, cultivate and cut loose.
But here I am, in a poorly-coordinated denim-on-denim-on-Matrix ensemble with unkempt hair, unflattering hands, and extremely dirty boots. Still as interested in style as ever. But wholly unqualified for Ms. London's role.
|coat: h&m, shirt: anthropologie, jeans: NSF, boots: vintage|
Is this just WI problem, or do we as a society suffer from proverbial 'blurred-lines'?
Photography by Zachary Pereles