Another slightly more general message from the more stylistically inclined parts of my personality, this time of an oft made mistake in dressing and adorning ones’ self: stuff.
Yes, stuff, that’s the technical term for all the things that are happening on or in your outfit. Accessories, colors, prints, they all add up to a busy or sedate look, depending on choices. They also add up to a look that suits you to a tee, or a look that you should not consider even if you know everybody around you is or will shortly be blind.
So how does one explain succinctly when or how something in or on an outfit is something that “happens” instead of just a part of the base outfit? Good question, and not easy to answer. Well, actually, it is. Anything that is NOT the base color or cut of your outfit, hair or skin is “something happening”. Yes, skin and hair as well, no outfit is an outfit without someone in it, and just because it works on someone else does not mean it works on you, so you should always consider what you look like yourself before considering what you look like in a particular piece or set of clothes.
But as far as happenings go, consider this to include, but not exclusively mean, earrings, prints, tassels, streaks, belts, shoes, socks, bracelets, necklaces, glitter, feathers and so on ad infinitum.
As a swift illustration, a few outfits, one with almost nothing happening, one with a lot happening:
In these two outfits it is easy to see which of the two has more happening to it than the other. The first outfit has simple lines, few decorations, and few distractions from the base of the outfit. I counted on first sight the three points highlighted, the sleeves, the beadwork on the bodice, and the beads and feathers on the train.
The second outfit immediately strikes as a lot busier, and not for nothing either, six items of distraction noted on the first look, to wit: the grey blazer to offset the black and green, the bow on that blazer, the long stole, the green shirt, the bag, and the pattern on the skirt in contrasting colors.
Which is better? Neither, depending on what you want to achieve. More stylish? Again, neither. There is no hard and fast rule what to wear where, after all. These two outfits are both very stylish, if in completely different ways.
Now for somewhat of a test. Two more pictures:
Which of these two has more happening?
Neither? Roughly correct. Both have a number of details and points that distract from the general outfit. The red outfit has the cap, the collar, the gloves, the wide cut of the pants, the epaulettes, the make up and the sown in crease of the lapel, where the colorful flapper has her shoes, her make-up, the hair, the fur, the coat-pattern, the hair-decoration and the large patterning on the dress to accentuate what she is wearing.
But how to decide when you have too much happening to an outfit? Well, a reasonable rule of thumb would appear gestaltlike from the above two pictures. To my mind, the red outfit has exactly the right amount of things done to the basic cut of her outfit, although she could stand to lose the hat, whereas the flapper has a riot of distractions, and it takes a good measure of woman to not be lost between all the contrasts and attention grabbers. Thus, it would almost be safe to say that contrast is the key here. If we look at the above two pictures again, and rate the distractions, according to contrast, then the red outfit suddenly has no distractions, as none contrast with the outfit itself, whereas the flapper has almost no distractions that don’t contrast at all.
One or two things that offset an outfit, like a belt or a pocket handkerchief, can look very stylish, but if it becomes impossible to see what the outfit was all about in the first place, style is often thrown right out the window. It has been said that one should create an outfit, stand in front of a mirror and remove the first thing that catches ones eye, and this is a good rule to live by, as it would nine times out of ten be the thing that contrasts most sharply with the rest of the outfit. Adding an extra piece so you have something to safely remove would be considered cheating, by the way, and cheating is rarely a recipe for style. No one really likes looking like they have just thrown something together in the morning, and nobody really has to.
Yes, stuff, that’s the technical term for all the things that are happening on or in your outfit. Accessories, colors, prints, they all add up to a busy or sedate look, depending on choices. They also add up to a look that suits you to a tee, or a look that you should not consider even if you know everybody around you is or will shortly be blind.
So how does one explain succinctly when or how something in or on an outfit is something that “happens” instead of just a part of the base outfit? Good question, and not easy to answer. Well, actually, it is. Anything that is NOT the base color or cut of your outfit, hair or skin is “something happening”. Yes, skin and hair as well, no outfit is an outfit without someone in it, and just because it works on someone else does not mean it works on you, so you should always consider what you look like yourself before considering what you look like in a particular piece or set of clothes.
But as far as happenings go, consider this to include, but not exclusively mean, earrings, prints, tassels, streaks, belts, shoes, socks, bracelets, necklaces, glitter, feathers and so on ad infinitum.
As a swift illustration, a few outfits, one with almost nothing happening, one with a lot happening:
In these two outfits it is easy to see which of the two has more happening to it than the other. The first outfit has simple lines, few decorations, and few distractions from the base of the outfit. I counted on first sight the three points highlighted, the sleeves, the beadwork on the bodice, and the beads and feathers on the train.The second outfit immediately strikes as a lot busier, and not for nothing either, six items of distraction noted on the first look, to wit: the grey blazer to offset the black and green, the bow on that blazer, the long stole, the green shirt, the bag, and the pattern on the skirt in contrasting colors.
Which is better? Neither, depending on what you want to achieve. More stylish? Again, neither. There is no hard and fast rule what to wear where, after all. These two outfits are both very stylish, if in completely different ways.
Now for somewhat of a test. Two more pictures:
Which of these two has more happening?Neither? Roughly correct. Both have a number of details and points that distract from the general outfit. The red outfit has the cap, the collar, the gloves, the wide cut of the pants, the epaulettes, the make up and the sown in crease of the lapel, where the colorful flapper has her shoes, her make-up, the hair, the fur, the coat-pattern, the hair-decoration and the large patterning on the dress to accentuate what she is wearing.
But how to decide when you have too much happening to an outfit? Well, a reasonable rule of thumb would appear gestaltlike from the above two pictures. To my mind, the red outfit has exactly the right amount of things done to the basic cut of her outfit, although she could stand to lose the hat, whereas the flapper has a riot of distractions, and it takes a good measure of woman to not be lost between all the contrasts and attention grabbers. Thus, it would almost be safe to say that contrast is the key here. If we look at the above two pictures again, and rate the distractions, according to contrast, then the red outfit suddenly has no distractions, as none contrast with the outfit itself, whereas the flapper has almost no distractions that don’t contrast at all.
One or two things that offset an outfit, like a belt or a pocket handkerchief, can look very stylish, but if it becomes impossible to see what the outfit was all about in the first place, style is often thrown right out the window. It has been said that one should create an outfit, stand in front of a mirror and remove the first thing that catches ones eye, and this is a good rule to live by, as it would nine times out of ten be the thing that contrasts most sharply with the rest of the outfit. Adding an extra piece so you have something to safely remove would be considered cheating, by the way, and cheating is rarely a recipe for style. No one really likes looking like they have just thrown something together in the morning, and nobody really has to.
Alternatively, if you stand in front of your mirror and notice that nothing catches your eye, you might be in danger of looking dull. And there is no style in dullness either. But then one has to find items that work well with an already chosen outfit, and that isn’t easy. Men, we have the positive side that almost all jewelry marketed for us will look good on most outfits; simple bracelets or necklaces will easily get you from Jeans-and-t-shirt to metrosexual. Women have it a little less easy, and are tempted to go overboard where men remain too bland.
A simple cut, easy line with little in the way of distraction can be helped by a brooch or a reasonably sparkly necklace, or even by putting a little extra time in hair and make-up, using your outfit merely as a frame for a pretty face.
To end this thing, men, everything above applies to us as well as to the women, just because examples in female fashion are easier to give does not mean we get a fee ride here. To illustrate, I am leaving you with two pictures of current men’s fashion, both with roughly the same amount of happenings, but not quite with the same effect.
A simple cut, easy line with little in the way of distraction can be helped by a brooch or a reasonably sparkly necklace, or even by putting a little extra time in hair and make-up, using your outfit merely as a frame for a pretty face.
To end this thing, men, everything above applies to us as well as to the women, just because examples in female fashion are easier to give does not mean we get a fee ride here. To illustrate, I am leaving you with two pictures of current men’s fashion, both with roughly the same amount of happenings, but not quite with the same effect.
No comments:
Post a Comment