I resonate with your sentiments in this great piece, Tiia. Especially this: "What I perceive as their ‘style’ is the person underneath the clothes, not the clothes themselves." I am also drawn to Tilda, Georgia, and to similar kinds of interesting (but not necessarily conventionally "attractive") people like Susan Sontag and Joan Didion, for example. This quote makes sense to me when I think of all of them. I'm drawn to qualities about the person and their personality and their clothes are somewhat of an afterthought, just a logical extension of the person, but they are not the main event, they just play a supporting role. Your post makes me realize that I may in fact be more interested in just expressing myself/being myself than I am in fashion per se. This also means that my emphasis would be more on becoming/unfolding into myself first with clothing/style choices second, as opposed to the other way around. Having taken a 2-week break from IG (which will go longer now), I've already noticed that my creative expression and my imagination re: style feels freer to explore clothes from a more whimsical place rather than from a consumer mindset of thinking I need to have the latest pieces or to fill in gaps or to look good for FOMO's sake. It resulted in me purchasing a vintage shirt and sweater on Etsy (I personally almost never buy vintage) and neither of these pieces do I "need" or will fill holes in my closet or anything rational at all, but rather my creative self just dreaming of wearing them. I hope this distinction makes sense. It's a welcome psychic shift for me.
I am totally with you here, Lisa. I can deeply relate to what you mean when you say "my emphasis would be more on becoming/unfolding into myself first with clothing/style choices second". I feel that postmodern lives often come down to playing a part and trying to belong, and consumerism is the medium. It's really difficult to tap into yourself in this environment, but slowing down helps. Isn't it shocking how a simple break from IG can make a difference? For me it was like the fog was lifted and all of a sudden I could see myself and other people. I've been mindlessly scrolling again (mostly because of insomnia) and I can feel the fog thickening again. I've been planning to take a break for a few months now, but it's harder to pull the trigger this time, even though I know it would be good for me. *sigh*
Pardon my belated reply, Tiia, and thank you for your lovely comment. It's now been 5 1/2 weeks since I was *really* on IG. (I've scrolled only a handful of times and clicked on a few things since then.) I'm missing it all less than I thought I would, but I'm also busier in my life so that helps. I find I'm shopping less (though still am shopping) and not nearly as caught up in a feeling of Fashion FOMO, meaning, a constant feeling of not having what everyone else is having. And, interestingly, for better or worse, I'm actually falling out of love with my entire wardrobe. I feel like this break is allowing me to have genuine feelings about what I'm wearing, as in, is this really my style? Do I even like these clothes? Do *want* to wear them? I feel like I got seriously sucked in to the Tibi-verse and now am questioning if it's even right for me. That's not to say it never was, I may just be changing now, so not trying to shame Tibi. But the vortex around Tibi is akin to wearing blinders to everything else. Not sure where this will take me! Hope you are getting more sleep these days. xox
I have noticed the same feeling with women I admire...for years I really liked the simplicity of Sofia Coppola's style but ultimately it was her who embued otherwise very "plain" (but very tasteful) pieces with depth and interest, because of her work as a filmmaker.
I feel this way when I see the clothes at the Costume Institute at the Met. Without the human they fall flat. I wonder why this is why I am bored watching runway show videos, all those generic models uniformly and glumly projecting the brand’s aesthetic. Rather see the clothes IRL, or at least editorial.
That's a really interesting point re: the clothes at the Met! To me it almost feels like clothes that are displayed in museums are no longer clothes but artifacts. They are no longer a medium, if that makes sense. I got to thinking about that old dress that used to belong to Marilyn Monroe, and how it didn't become "alive" when it was worn by a Kardashian. The dress had more spirit when it was displayed at a museum, because it had a history. I can't quite make sense of that yet, but I'll have to give it some thought!
I enjoyed reading your articles. This one is excellent! and this sentence is giving me food for thought.
"The idea that people don’t wear clothing but reality is a thought-provoking one, especially in current times when we seem to be consumers first and people second, and what counts as ‘reality’ is in flux." Thank you! 💛
This was a fascinating read. I agree that, when it comes to famous personas, the face is what completes the outfit and compels the audience - we're looking for the person and that's where our eyes go.
Though I do wonder about our faces being what reflects our true selves. We can't choose our faces; we can choose our style. I'm coming at this from a queer perspective, thinking about all the people in the community who modify their faces with tattoos, piercings, hormones if they need them - sometimes surgery. Trying to make the invisible visible.
I get what you mean re: our faces reflecting our true selves. It's a really important point. I thought about this while I was writing and I actually had a paragraph about street style and how street style photography often focuses on people who are just conventionally attractive. At some point street style photography was mostly pictures of models wearing a t-shirt, a pair of jeans and sneakers, and it was obvious that they were not photographing "style" but a pretty person wearing whatever. There is definitely a beauty / size / convention bias when it comes to what we see as "good style", and you get more leeway if you are gifted in other ways. I feel like I need to do more research on face perception, because there's a lot there re: beauty and convention. I'd be curious to learn how much of that perception is based on learning vs evolution.
Oh yes! References to Irving Penn’s Small Trades always bring to mind another book for me, City of Shadows - Sydney Police Photographs 1912 - 1948. A trove of negatives was found in several years ago of photographs taken by police of people they arrested, before standardised mug shots. It’s an extraordinary series of the most expressive portraits of faces, but also of how people presented themselves in their everyday clothes, their daily reality. Some have such swagger, others shrink into their carapaces. These are not wealthy people of the era and the clothes themselves are very ordinary, but the faces along with their overall stances make them so memorable.
I've never heard of City of Shadows, but it sounds so fascinating! It reminds me of 'Strange Days, Dangerous Nights', which is a book that gathers together photographs of crime scenes and random events and such. It's an odd collection of photos of humans and the things that odd humans do. I'm also reminded of Michael Lesy's books, which I should probably write a newsletter about. They're some of my favorite books of all time.
It is very much true to me that clothes, empty of human, are just not as interesting. Sometimes not interesting at all. And also that a face that demonstrates life can stop me, hold me. Yet there is something painful in accepting that “this face is me” — when a face is immutable. Versus seeing clothes as a tool to reflect or help determine the self, because we can change them. Thank you as always for provoking so much thought.
"a face that demonstrates life can stop me, hold me"... yes, yes, yes. Beautifully said.
The really interesting thing about faces is that they do change as we age, and we also seek to change them, by painting them and filling them and cutting them... A face is not a constant, just like clothes aren't. I wonder if anything about us is anything more than a changing vehicle for the soul, and the soul isn't constant either. This is pretty deep stuff!
Unfortunately interesting clothes are much easier to obtain than intriguing souls... thank you for reminding us not to be so defined by possessions and work harder on ourselves!
I love this so much. What you wrote really captures for me the emotions around clothing that "product" cannot capture (I feel the same way about food histories!). I suppose that's why personal style content, while quite engaging when done well, usually never hits the emotional depth that we are craving. We are so much more than our things.
I'm dying to rewatch "Notebook on Cities and Clothes" but have not found a platform that streams it or rents it out in my geographical location. Going to double down on my search. In the meantime, you have inspired me to dust off my book on Peter Lindbergh...
I keep coming back to the idea of clothes as clothes vs clothes as products, and when did the change happen. I just listened to Eugene Rabkin talking to Derek Guy about the commodification of clothing and it was so interesting how Eugene kept asking Derek "so when did this or that happen", but obviously it has just been a gradual process. It's interesting how we still hope and expect to feel something when we buy clothes, when it's so obvious that mass consumerism can't bring about the emotional depth that you mention. If we lose the expectation to feel something, that's when we're in real trouble.
'Notebook on Cities and Clothes' is so good! (I sound like a broken record.) I was surprised to see that my local library actually has it. I've streamed it on Vimeo several times but the Japanese parts don't come with subtitles, and I had to look up a transcript from the depths of the internet to get a translation. Next time, I'll get the library copy.
My local library has 4 Wim Wenders films and none of them are "Notebooks", haha. I'm sure it'll turn up some day.
I got my partner to watch the Dries docu and he really enjoyed it, even though he doesn't feel the way about clothes the way I do and has even less interest in the luxury designer universe... in a similar vein he also enjoyed the Alexander McQueen exhibition when it came to Melbourne last year. Some clothes are really more than products, even to people who generally see clothes as just useful products (to get dressed, stay warm, look presentable etc), and I really hope we still have that in the years to come.
It also just occurred to me that I felt this way about Helmut Lang - for some reason, there was a Helmut Lang store in Singapore back when I was a teenager (very avant garde for Singapore) and I one day found the nerve to go in and I still remember how interesting it was - it was the first time I had ever seen ordinary, technical materials recreated through the eyes of a minimalist designer and presented like art, and it actually worked. The clothes felt like they had a message, something to say. And now the owners want to bottle that up and sell it again, but clothes like that only works when it comes from an original mind...I feel a bit bad for designers like Peter Do who have to design under these names because it's such a strange place to be in...trying to follow "house codes" when the name/brand was about individuality.
That's super interesting, and I'm completely contradicting myself when I say now that some clothes don't need a person to wear them for them to be special. I guess some clothes simply aren't just pieces of fabric, after all.
yeah...sometimes a designer comes along and makes something and tells a story that's really inspiring, and other times, the inspiring bit is how we wear and live in our clothes.
this whole article and comment thread is really making me appreciate my clothes this week!
I resonate with your sentiments in this great piece, Tiia. Especially this: "What I perceive as their ‘style’ is the person underneath the clothes, not the clothes themselves." I am also drawn to Tilda, Georgia, and to similar kinds of interesting (but not necessarily conventionally "attractive") people like Susan Sontag and Joan Didion, for example. This quote makes sense to me when I think of all of them. I'm drawn to qualities about the person and their personality and their clothes are somewhat of an afterthought, just a logical extension of the person, but they are not the main event, they just play a supporting role. Your post makes me realize that I may in fact be more interested in just expressing myself/being myself than I am in fashion per se. This also means that my emphasis would be more on becoming/unfolding into myself first with clothing/style choices second, as opposed to the other way around. Having taken a 2-week break from IG (which will go longer now), I've already noticed that my creative expression and my imagination re: style feels freer to explore clothes from a more whimsical place rather than from a consumer mindset of thinking I need to have the latest pieces or to fill in gaps or to look good for FOMO's sake. It resulted in me purchasing a vintage shirt and sweater on Etsy (I personally almost never buy vintage) and neither of these pieces do I "need" or will fill holes in my closet or anything rational at all, but rather my creative self just dreaming of wearing them. I hope this distinction makes sense. It's a welcome psychic shift for me.
I am totally with you here, Lisa. I can deeply relate to what you mean when you say "my emphasis would be more on becoming/unfolding into myself first with clothing/style choices second". I feel that postmodern lives often come down to playing a part and trying to belong, and consumerism is the medium. It's really difficult to tap into yourself in this environment, but slowing down helps. Isn't it shocking how a simple break from IG can make a difference? For me it was like the fog was lifted and all of a sudden I could see myself and other people. I've been mindlessly scrolling again (mostly because of insomnia) and I can feel the fog thickening again. I've been planning to take a break for a few months now, but it's harder to pull the trigger this time, even though I know it would be good for me. *sigh*
Pardon my belated reply, Tiia, and thank you for your lovely comment. It's now been 5 1/2 weeks since I was *really* on IG. (I've scrolled only a handful of times and clicked on a few things since then.) I'm missing it all less than I thought I would, but I'm also busier in my life so that helps. I find I'm shopping less (though still am shopping) and not nearly as caught up in a feeling of Fashion FOMO, meaning, a constant feeling of not having what everyone else is having. And, interestingly, for better or worse, I'm actually falling out of love with my entire wardrobe. I feel like this break is allowing me to have genuine feelings about what I'm wearing, as in, is this really my style? Do I even like these clothes? Do *want* to wear them? I feel like I got seriously sucked in to the Tibi-verse and now am questioning if it's even right for me. That's not to say it never was, I may just be changing now, so not trying to shame Tibi. But the vortex around Tibi is akin to wearing blinders to everything else. Not sure where this will take me! Hope you are getting more sleep these days. xox
I have noticed the same feeling with women I admire...for years I really liked the simplicity of Sofia Coppola's style but ultimately it was her who embued otherwise very "plain" (but very tasteful) pieces with depth and interest, because of her work as a filmmaker.
Yes, exactly as you say, Lin. Glad my comment resonated.
I feel this way when I see the clothes at the Costume Institute at the Met. Without the human they fall flat. I wonder why this is why I am bored watching runway show videos, all those generic models uniformly and glumly projecting the brand’s aesthetic. Rather see the clothes IRL, or at least editorial.
That's a really interesting point re: the clothes at the Met! To me it almost feels like clothes that are displayed in museums are no longer clothes but artifacts. They are no longer a medium, if that makes sense. I got to thinking about that old dress that used to belong to Marilyn Monroe, and how it didn't become "alive" when it was worn by a Kardashian. The dress had more spirit when it was displayed at a museum, because it had a history. I can't quite make sense of that yet, but I'll have to give it some thought!
LOL feel like the universe has separate rules for the Kardashians. That dress stunt was gross.
I enjoyed reading your articles. This one is excellent! and this sentence is giving me food for thought.
"The idea that people don’t wear clothing but reality is a thought-provoking one, especially in current times when we seem to be consumers first and people second, and what counts as ‘reality’ is in flux." Thank you! 💛
Thank you for reading, Susana!
This was a fascinating read. I agree that, when it comes to famous personas, the face is what completes the outfit and compels the audience - we're looking for the person and that's where our eyes go.
Though I do wonder about our faces being what reflects our true selves. We can't choose our faces; we can choose our style. I'm coming at this from a queer perspective, thinking about all the people in the community who modify their faces with tattoos, piercings, hormones if they need them - sometimes surgery. Trying to make the invisible visible.
Thanks Holly!
I get what you mean re: our faces reflecting our true selves. It's a really important point. I thought about this while I was writing and I actually had a paragraph about street style and how street style photography often focuses on people who are just conventionally attractive. At some point street style photography was mostly pictures of models wearing a t-shirt, a pair of jeans and sneakers, and it was obvious that they were not photographing "style" but a pretty person wearing whatever. There is definitely a beauty / size / convention bias when it comes to what we see as "good style", and you get more leeway if you are gifted in other ways. I feel like I need to do more research on face perception, because there's a lot there re: beauty and convention. I'd be curious to learn how much of that perception is based on learning vs evolution.
Oh yes! References to Irving Penn’s Small Trades always bring to mind another book for me, City of Shadows - Sydney Police Photographs 1912 - 1948. A trove of negatives was found in several years ago of photographs taken by police of people they arrested, before standardised mug shots. It’s an extraordinary series of the most expressive portraits of faces, but also of how people presented themselves in their everyday clothes, their daily reality. Some have such swagger, others shrink into their carapaces. These are not wealthy people of the era and the clothes themselves are very ordinary, but the faces along with their overall stances make them so memorable.
I've never heard of City of Shadows, but it sounds so fascinating! It reminds me of 'Strange Days, Dangerous Nights', which is a book that gathers together photographs of crime scenes and random events and such. It's an odd collection of photos of humans and the things that odd humans do. I'm also reminded of Michael Lesy's books, which I should probably write a newsletter about. They're some of my favorite books of all time.
Back on blazing form. You were missed.
Thank you Hannah! Much appreciated!
Just came to say what a good piece! I’ll be thinking about this one all week
Thank you, that's high praise!
It is very much true to me that clothes, empty of human, are just not as interesting. Sometimes not interesting at all. And also that a face that demonstrates life can stop me, hold me. Yet there is something painful in accepting that “this face is me” — when a face is immutable. Versus seeing clothes as a tool to reflect or help determine the self, because we can change them. Thank you as always for provoking so much thought.
"a face that demonstrates life can stop me, hold me"... yes, yes, yes. Beautifully said.
The really interesting thing about faces is that they do change as we age, and we also seek to change them, by painting them and filling them and cutting them... A face is not a constant, just like clothes aren't. I wonder if anything about us is anything more than a changing vehicle for the soul, and the soul isn't constant either. This is pretty deep stuff!
Unfortunately interesting clothes are much easier to obtain than intriguing souls... thank you for reminding us not to be so defined by possessions and work harder on ourselves!
"Interesting clothes are much easier to obtain than intriguing souls" -- ain't that the truth!
I love this so much. What you wrote really captures for me the emotions around clothing that "product" cannot capture (I feel the same way about food histories!). I suppose that's why personal style content, while quite engaging when done well, usually never hits the emotional depth that we are craving. We are so much more than our things.
I'm dying to rewatch "Notebook on Cities and Clothes" but have not found a platform that streams it or rents it out in my geographical location. Going to double down on my search. In the meantime, you have inspired me to dust off my book on Peter Lindbergh...
I keep coming back to the idea of clothes as clothes vs clothes as products, and when did the change happen. I just listened to Eugene Rabkin talking to Derek Guy about the commodification of clothing and it was so interesting how Eugene kept asking Derek "so when did this or that happen", but obviously it has just been a gradual process. It's interesting how we still hope and expect to feel something when we buy clothes, when it's so obvious that mass consumerism can't bring about the emotional depth that you mention. If we lose the expectation to feel something, that's when we're in real trouble.
'Notebook on Cities and Clothes' is so good! (I sound like a broken record.) I was surprised to see that my local library actually has it. I've streamed it on Vimeo several times but the Japanese parts don't come with subtitles, and I had to look up a transcript from the depths of the internet to get a translation. Next time, I'll get the library copy.
My local library has 4 Wim Wenders films and none of them are "Notebooks", haha. I'm sure it'll turn up some day.
I got my partner to watch the Dries docu and he really enjoyed it, even though he doesn't feel the way about clothes the way I do and has even less interest in the luxury designer universe... in a similar vein he also enjoyed the Alexander McQueen exhibition when it came to Melbourne last year. Some clothes are really more than products, even to people who generally see clothes as just useful products (to get dressed, stay warm, look presentable etc), and I really hope we still have that in the years to come.
It also just occurred to me that I felt this way about Helmut Lang - for some reason, there was a Helmut Lang store in Singapore back when I was a teenager (very avant garde for Singapore) and I one day found the nerve to go in and I still remember how interesting it was - it was the first time I had ever seen ordinary, technical materials recreated through the eyes of a minimalist designer and presented like art, and it actually worked. The clothes felt like they had a message, something to say. And now the owners want to bottle that up and sell it again, but clothes like that only works when it comes from an original mind...I feel a bit bad for designers like Peter Do who have to design under these names because it's such a strange place to be in...trying to follow "house codes" when the name/brand was about individuality.
That's super interesting, and I'm completely contradicting myself when I say now that some clothes don't need a person to wear them for them to be special. I guess some clothes simply aren't just pieces of fabric, after all.
yeah...sometimes a designer comes along and makes something and tells a story that's really inspiring, and other times, the inspiring bit is how we wear and live in our clothes.
this whole article and comment thread is really making me appreciate my clothes this week!
very insightful. thank you for all the books you mention...
You're very welcome!