Style versus styling

[Costi]

A recent post of J.S. Groot in a parallel thread prompted me to address a subject I have been thinking about lately in precisely the same terms: “style” (or, rather, “Style”) versus “styling”. And “versus” is not just a cliché, because I do think they are fundamentally different and irreconcilably opposite.
Some think that styling is the road to Style. What styling is, in reality, is the best way to kill Style, to suffocate the bud that is always there in each of us. It is like stabbing a living seed with the plastic stalk of an artificial flower, mindlessly sticked into the earth for lack of care and patience for the real thing to grow.
Styling is extraneous, ornamental, rational, artificial, while Style is intrinsic, intuitive and comes naturally. Styling tries to imitate the natural manifestation of Style, but inevitably ends up with a Frankenstein. Where there is Style, there is no notion of styling and no need for it, expressions flow naturally from the state of the spirit and are appreciated as “Style” by others.
In the presence of true Style, everything appears deduced like a theorem from the self of a human being. When styling takes the place of Style, we can sense the incongruity, the tension between what the person IS and what the person DOES.

[carl browne]

I'm not quite certain that I have the same definition of "styling" as you. I live near Hollywood, where "styling" is the occupation of a stylist. This is a person who's profession is, among other things, picking out clothes for others. It's a huge industry here. Stylists are hired to make their clients appear to have style. Was it Groucho Marx who said of sincerity that once you learn to fake that, you've got it made?

There's nothing about these Hollywood people that hasn't been styled. Plastic surgeons have even styled their faces.

I tend to believe that the result is far better than if they were left to their own devices. You should see these people when they stray from the reservation! I don't really disagree with you; innate style is best. Lacking that, there's little harm in bringing in a professional.

[alden]

I tend to believe that the result is far better than if they were left to their own devices. You should see these people when they stray from the reservation! I don't really disagree with you; innate style is best. Lacking that, there's little harm in bringing in a professional.

Carl

I have been making clothes in the LL Sartoria now for about four years and during that time I have "consulted" quite a few men about their style aspirations. I am sure that if you asked any of them how the sessions with me went, they would say there were far more questions asked than answers offered. And the reason is that the answers are inside each of us and it takes a bit of self exploration to find them. My idea is to aid men to find their own, "innate" style and never to structure a plaster edifice around them they do not recognize.

The very idea of style consulting as you have described it here is completely at odds with the discovery of elegance.

As a native Californian, born not to far from Hollywood myself, I have to admit that the world's view of Hollywood as the "Capital of Kitsch" is not too far from reality; and the style consultants of today surely share a part of the blame.

Style died in LA with William Holden.

Cheers

Michael Alden

[Gruto]

Style is intrinsic, intuitive and comes naturally [...] Where there is Style, there is no notion of styling and no need for it, expressions flow naturally from the state of the spirit and are appreciated as “Style” by others.

Costi, what you are describing seem to be some sort of free spirit zen-like mental state. That may very well be a good start for appearing with Style. However, I think it complicates a discussion to call that mental state style or Style. Style is something that happens in the outside world. Style is superficial. It would be easier - at least for me - to speak of Style's prerequisites like being personal, honest, using the senses, being unprejudiced etc.

[Costi]

Style is something that happens in the outside world. Style is superficial. It would be easier - at least for me - to speak of Style's prerequisites like being personal, honest, using the senses, being unprejudiced etc.

Gruto, it would be so easy if it were so, but I'm afraid this is just an escapist view (as escapist as thinking others are able to plaster style on you, like Michael wrote). The truth is simpler (it is all inside you), but there is a lot more work (with oneself, not with stylists) to bring it out. Call it Zen if you like the word or a mystical experience or cosmic integration if you want to ridicule it, but there is nothing more difficult for any of us in this world than understanding ourselves and coming to terms with what is there inside; and then take it all over again tomorrow, when we change.
Style does not happen in the outside world any more than gravity; how long did it take us to figure out such a "simple" thing?
Carl, like you wrote, in the end you agree with me: styling can create a "look", but cannot replace Style. Moreover, it puts an end to the quest for Style, creating the illusion of having found a solution outside - and that is a far more sad consequence of extraneous "styling" than an artificial look. Men and women look to embelish themselves through styling, failing to realize that they are orbiting a false sun.
A woman who puts too much red on her cheeks thinks men will find her more beautiful like this, when in fact they just notice she is wearing heavy makeup. But even if she realized that this doesn't make her any more beautiful in others' eyes, she would continue to do it anyway, because in fact we do these things for ourselves, so we would feel better about ourselves (thus deceiving ourselves), rather than for others, as it may appear. That is why we need to improve our relationship with ourselves, and our terms with the outside world (dress etc.) will naturally find a personal expression as a consequence.
Vanity is not Style.

[alden]

Style is something that happens in the outside world. Style is superficial.

Style is an internal phenomenon that manifests itself externally, a virus that provokes a fever.

Affectation is superficial.

Style rings true. The individuality of the expression makes it so. We recognize it in others. We need find it in ourselves.

I know it must be very frustrating to learn that true Style cannot be purchased, crafted or consulted into being by another. It does throw a few gallons of frigid water on most of the commercial enterprises trying to sell facsimiles of style in their myriad forms to the gullible, desperate or just hopeful.

A few years ago I had a young man say that he wanted to have his clothes look just like mine. I smiled and said it could never and should never happen. “We are two different people, different personalities, different ages,….your style and by extension your clothes will only ever be an expression of who you are. We could use exactly the same cloth, exactly the same tailor with a similar pattern in mind and the clothes will look very different because we essentially are different. And thank goodness for it.”

That is one of the beauties of Style, it is one of the only things in life we really ever possess in the sense that it is one of the only things that is ever really ours and ours alone.

[Gruto]

How does Style differ from being personal, sincere, charismatic, or charming? Aren't these internal individual phenomenons too that manifests themselves externally (in gestures, speaking, dressing and acts as such)?

Aren't we just saying that we should try to true to ourselves in everything we do, for instance dressing?

The thing is, we have a lot words about Style but few specific words. Mostly, we speak in metaphors, and it's great and it helps in many ways, but it doesn't really further the dialog.

What is finding your own Style?

Well, to speak about myself, I often feel more comfortable in a sports jacket and trousers than a suit. I experience that a suit is more demanding. I also enjoy colours and patterns. I feel too restricted in Brummellian minimalism. It's not for my temper. Maybe I should try to wear more plain garments, and sometimes I really love to wear a navy blue suit, a white shirt and a plain dark tie. I stay away from thin soled Italian shoes. They are not for feet size 47 W

[Costi]

How does Style differ from being personal, sincere, charismatic, or charming? Aren't these internal individual phenomenons too that manifests themselves externally (in gestures, speaking, dressing and acts as such)?

They are all consequences, results of what we chose to call Style.

Aren't we just saying that we should try to true to ourselves in everything we do, for instance dressing?

The thing is, we have a lot words about Style but few specific words. Mostly, we speak in metaphors, and it's great and it helps in many ways, but it doesn't really further the dialog.

Being true to ourselves sounds so easy, but it's very hard work in reality.
There are many words that we may use and no single one is a complete expression. That is why we chose to call it "Style" and use many metaphors to describe it. The metaphors also appeal more to our intuition than our intellect, which may help us grasp the notion the only way it may be acquired. To further the dialog we need to agree on the premises, while you keep saying it is an external phenomenon. Is music external because you can hear it with your ears? Does the same music mean the same thing to your dog, since it is all outside you? And what about playing it in reverse and at half speed - the sounds are the same, aren't they - so where is the Music? It is a personal experience with oneself and trying to explain it rationally is like introducing an interpreter between two lovers.

What is finding your own Style?

Well, to speak about myself, I often feel more comfortable in a sports jacket and trousers than a suit. I experience that a suit is more demanding. I also enjoy colours and patterns. I feel too restricted in Brummellian minimalism. It's not for my temper. Maybe I should try to wear more plain garments, and sometimes I really love to wear a navy blue suit, a white shirt and a plain dark tie. I stay away from thin soled Italian shoes. They are not for feet size 47 W

Great, so when you choose the colour of your tie, do you let your eye pick one, or do you take them all out and test the match with a colour wheel in hand, check the "Great Pictures" section of the LL and try to remember what the Duke of Windsor was wearing in this or that photograph? Could you really explain convincingly why you chose one and not another? And why you might not choose the same colour tie for the same combination tomorrow? This is not rationally determined - it may be rationally STUDIED, but the poet does not write the way the critic explains his writing.

[Gruto]

What is finding your own Style?

Well, to speak about myself, I often feel more comfortable in a sports jacket and trousers than a suit. I experience that a suit is more demanding. I also enjoy colours and patterns. I feel too restricted in Brummellian minimalism. It's not for my temper. Maybe I should try to wear more plain garments, and sometimes I really love to wear a navy blue suit, a white shirt and a plain dark tie. I stay away from thin soled Italian shoes. They are not for feet size 47 W

Great, so when you choose the colour of your tie, do you let your eye pick one, or do you take them all out and test the match with a colour wheel in hand, check the "Great Pictures" section of the LL and try to remember what the Duke of Windsor was wearing in this or that photograph? Could you really explain convincingly why you chose one and not another? And why you might not choose the same colour tie for the same combination tomorrow? This is not rationally determined - it may be rationally STUDIED, but the poet does not write the way the critic explains his writing.

I believe experience - not rationality - is the important shape maker in my dressing. I approach the closet drawing from my experience with what works for me. My experience is a ressource but also a boundary. My experience will evolve (hopefully), but slowly. On the other hand, rationality plays a dominant role in building my wardrobe.

[alden]

Below are pictures of two contemporary actors. One of them is an example of Style, and the other of styling (affectation.) Which is which?





Both men are bald. One man has Style because some strength from within allows him to be seen and photographed as nature has made him. The other man, in order to distract attention from his baldness has chosen the fashion of the shaved cue ball head styling.

Look at the two pictures. You can see strength in Sean Connery’s face and eyes. It is a face abundant in Style. No tupee, nothing to hide, what you see is what you get and what you get is grand.

On the other hand, you can feel the self consciousness in Bruce Willis, the cockiness betrays insecurity. The shame of his baldness has led him to choose the modern equivalent of the tupee by following the fashion of the shaved head

Are you dedicated to finding Style or are you backing into styling?

Cheers

Michael Alden

[Costi]

In my case, inspiration (which is irrational) is the triggering factor, further developed and checked rationally to build my wardrobe or dress for the day. Experience is not too helpful, it makes us follow patterns and beaten paths, we tend to become formulaic, we stop exploring - ourselves and, consequently, new means of expression. We no longer "see" when we let ourselves guided by experience (i.e. habits) instead of impressions. But how did you develop that experience which you use as a railroad track now? How did you decide in the first place that you liked certain combinations and not others? Did you wonder why you made your choices the way you did? Do you truly feel at home in your clothes or have you become accustomed to seeing a certain image of yourself in the mirror? Is that really YOU when you look in the mirror, or a carefully constructed character?

I agree there has to be a balance between what you feel expresses your personality and what you see in the mirror. Paul Valery defined poetry as a long hesitation between sound and meaning; perhaps we could paraphrase him saying that Style is a long hesitation between appearance and feel (of which, at any rate, the latter is the guiding force, unless we are such geniuses that the forms we are able to fabricate have such intrinsic poetry that it fills the void of their irrelevance to our persona).

[alden]

What is finding your own Style?

I try to avoid defaulting to clothes when talking about Style because good dress is the result of possessing style and not the contrary. But since this is the LL and the clothes focus seems unavoidable at times, I will offer one example (there are many) from work I have done helping men find their own style.

Mr. A is a very successful man, educated at one of America’s finest schools, co-founder of a highly rated technology business. When he came down to Italy to visit with me, he was full of energy and curiosity. As our discussions progressed he showed me examples of the clothes he used to wear, their shortcomings and his anxieties about how they made him appear. “I think these clothes make me look heavy and wide. My legs are too short for this cut of clothes. I think a double breasted suit makes me look dumpy!”

I asked him to forget about his clothes for a moment and asked, “Are you heavy and wide, are your legs short? What makes you feel dumpy?” He replied, “Well I have done some studying, read some books on the subject and from what I see in the mirror I must be difficult to dress because I always seem ill attired no matter how much time and resources I invest.”

The reality of Mr. A’s dilemma had nothing to do with his clothes. He was an athletic man, an ex football player, had a bit of a mid-age paunch, and was in every respect an excellent specimen of a man. When I pointed that out to him, he revealed more about his situation, how he felt he had to keep up with the younger executives, appear dynamic, youthful etc. His candor opened doors in a conversation that continued over a hearty lunch. It led to the substance of the style issues the man had invented for himself, imagined issues.

Mr. A possessed loads of something that none of the younger men could hope to equal and that was gravitas, experience, presence and the Style that comes with age. I gave him examples of these attributes and told him that I could fashion clothes for him but that until he had convinced himself of his own strengths and accepted who he was, they would be powerless to improve what he saw in the mirror. “You can save yourself some hard earned cash!” I said.

I remember him laughing, then he paused for a moment and said,” Michael, make me two double breasted suits and make them good and wide!” Well we made the suits (not wide), used our sartorial knowledge to its best effect and when the garments were finished, he looked pretty dashing in them. His step seemed different. His look was crisp and sassy. Mr. A, understanding and accepting who he was, left our atelier a rejuvenated man.

Cheers

M Alden

[Gruto]

In my case, inspiration (which is irrational) is the triggering factor, further developed and checked rationally to build my wardrobe or dress for the day. Experience is not too helpful, it makes us follow patterns and beaten paths, we tend to become formulaic, we stop exploring - ourselves and, consequently, new means of expression. We no longer "see" when we let ourselves guided by experience (i.e. habits) instead of impressions. But how did you develop that experience which you use as a railroad track now? How did you decide in the first place that you liked certain combinations and not others? Did you wonder why you made your choices the way you did? Do you truly feel at home in your clothes or have you become accustomed to seeing a certain image of yourself in the mirror? Is that really YOU when you look in the mirror, or a carefully constructed character?

I didn't mean to say that I use my experience mecanically. It's more a reflexive use of combinations, textures and shapes that I have experienced have worked for me. There is always room for change or trying something new, but I prefer slow change instead of chasing new expressions. Edvard Munch painted the same scene again and again incorporating small changes. There can be beauty in repetition.

In regards to constructing oneself, I believe it's part of human nature to do that. To me denying the tendency is avoiding to know oneself. We are made of dreams, and we should accept that get closer to ourselves. Looking in the mirror can be deceiving.

[Gruto]

What is finding your own Style?

gravitas, experience, presence and the Style that comes with age. I gave him examples of these attributes and told him that I could fashion clothes for him but that until he had convinced himself of his own strengths and accepted who he was, they would be powerless to improve what he saw in the mirror. “You can save yourself some hard earned cash!” I said.

I remember him laughing, then he paused for a moment and said,” Michael, make me two double breasted suits and make them good and wide!” Well we made the suits (not wide), used our sartorial knowledge to its best effect and when the garments were finished, he looked pretty dashing in them. His step seemed different. His look was crisp and sassy. Mr. A, understanding and accepting who he was, left our atelier a rejuvenated man.

Cheers

M Alden

I think that nice story also illustrates that choosing is very important. There is no such thing as a solid ground when we speak of human beings, but we should try to find it believing in ourselves.

"Don't forget to love yourself." [Søren Kierkegaard]

[Costi]

I agree that chasing novelty for its own sake is vain, but that is not what I am proposing: we don't need new landscapes, new clothes, new haircuts - we need new eyes. New INNER eyes. A fresh perspective on ourselves which will make us see right THROUGH all the structures we have built around to hide ourselves like tortoises. Being ourselves is not a game of Lego in which we construct ourselves using bricks of predefined colours and sizes (culture and experience), it is rather like Michelangelo carving the block of stone to free his Prigione from it.
Change and novelty cease to mean an intentional outer change, a rational decision to change our haircut, start wearing suits or take guitar lessons. It becomes a matter of naturally following our inner currents rather than fight them, swimming against the tide or confining ourselves to shallow waters. Making choices ceases to mean comparing and analyzing and weighing pros and cons - it becomes a simple matter of instinctively picking what suits us. The ground becomes solid as we gain confidence in ourselves and stop doubting, avoiding and hiding (from) ourselves. Mr. A didn't do anything to LOOK better when he ordered those suits, he just took an important step towards FEELING better and more confident about himself; that got him in the right spirit to wear well the same DB suits he might have dreaded before he realized what it was all about. He did not CONSTRUCT himself, did not add more mortar between the bricks of the self-built prison walls, but changed the perspective, climbed the wall and saw the air was just as breathable on the other side. He conquered a self-built structure that made him dress in a certain manner FOR THE WRONG REASONS. Now he can wear WELL (with aplomb and confidence) anything that he pleases, including his old taboos. A nice story? - then we might call Hallelujah of Haendel's Messiah a nice tune
There are no deamons out there, we create them and then we fear them. They are fierce guardians, they won't let us do things and go places. They threaten to disclose to the world our true selves - because yes, we ARE made of dreams and hopes and fears. Smile at them instead, take them by the arm for a walk beyond the gates they so fiercely guard and you will see them vanish like characters of a shadow show, of which we are the script writer, the director, the pupeteer and the only audience.