Hah. I'm chuckling at being quoted on my own forum from FB, Anna. (Btw, I must have missed that outfit during recent NAS mayhem - no?)

I like to qualify fashionable fluid and oversized looks both on the top and bottom with just enough structure. That to my eye, is what makes the combination wearable for us all.

In the right refined fabrications, fluid and oversized fits both on the top and bottom look very chic and modern. I AM SO IN. Come on - I'm as '80s gal. I love baggy stuff. Of course I'm in. As a slight lass with narrow shoulders though, I have to be careful that the look doesn't swallow me up. That's all. Can be done - and is a totally fun look.

I think this discussion is getting all caught up in semantics, much like the discussion over leggings/pants/footless rights can get. Definitions are more important than buzzwords, and sometimes even then we have different pictures in our heads.

Volume, to me, indicates a more structured garment that is oversized. It literally creates volume, or the look that something is bigger than what it is. Oversized can be high volume or low volume. Fluid fit is all about fabric and movement, and a garment can be oversized and fluid OR oversized and have volume, but not both in my head. To give a more vivid description, Stevie Nicks was all about fluid, while David Byrne from Talking Heads was all about volume, even though both likely wore garments that were oversized. I may be totally off the mark, but that's how my head sorts the terms.

As for what my eye has adjusted to, I still prefer higher volume looks with another garment that is slimmer. Fluid fits or oversized and fluid garments can work to me with other fluid garments.

Yes, Echo. It is fluid over fluid that I enjoy(ed) wearing.

Also, because I am on the tall side, with a strong shoulder line and proportionately long legs, I am not swallowed or overwhelmed when wearing fluid oversized volume. In fact, wearing it makes me feel long and lean.

Can we add that it also needs to be scaled appropriately?

At 5'0, I could pull it off provided the top & bottom are scaled just so, for my height. For example, I ordered this sweater from NAS in XS:
http://shop.nordstrom.com/s/au.....ory-person

... and tried it on with my baggiest, most voluminous Boyfriend jeans (LOFT petites)-- and loved how it looked together. Sure, that sweater would also work with skinny jeans too. I guess it does provide some structure, as the arms are tight not loose, and the armhole is cut up high.

Devil is in the details!

I think Echo has hit the nail on the head for me with the David Byrne vs. Stevie Nicks comparison. I think the David Byrne is fashion forward for sure, and fun, and freeing, and a little bit rebellious and filling the pages of street style blogs like the Sartorialist. But I don't really expect it to be flattering, especially not figure flattering. Other parts of the outfit have to do the heavy lifting there (color, texture, details, peeks of structure in belts or ankles. Really fab shoes.)

Ag, it's possible that the look you posted, while volume on volume, didn't work not because it was volume on volume but because there are elements you could adjust for the look?

No, Shiny, no, don't show me something purple with an open neck and tell me that short girls look good in it. I'm supposed to be sending things back!!!

Yeah, Shiny, that's a great sweater! Want.

Gigi, volume describes ANY style that is not tailored or body-con - NOT form fitting or skimming to the contour of your body in any way. It's that simple. Fluid describes a fit that is baggier than tailored, but not as roomy as oversized. And there are degrees of oversized.

So, Angie, what then is the difference between something that is fluid and something that drapes? When things stand away from the body, not in an intentional specific body part camouflage way, is that volume or fluid? And if there is a lot of fabric but you can see the body shape inside it, is that drape?

Anna, was this this the look you're referring to? Most of the comments are actually pretty positive. http://noscrubs.lookfab.com/po.....hion-frump
I love your Hitchcock-esque sweater and do think you do volume on volume well. However I also think the fluidity is hard to capture in a static photo-I'll bet the culottes move well, which is key!
My eye is slowly adjusting to it, but I do not think I'd wear volume on volume well.

Ummlila, drape can be fluid or oversized depending on the scale of the drape.

If that is the outfit that Anna is referring too - there is definitely just enough structure: the welt of the sweatshirt, the tapered sleeves, and sleek shoes. Fun look.

Yes, that is this look I was referring to. For the record I felt great in that outfit and really liked it.
That being said, I've frankly given up dressing to be always attractive or flattering. No matter how I dress, I'm still single. So I'm like f*** it and just have fun.

I like that you mix up outfits to include conventionally and non-conventionally attractive items that you feel great in. That's so much better than feeling blah and boring in something that doesn't suit your vibe. I don't think I'd feel at home in the culottes, for example, but love them on you with the variety of tops you've paired them with. This outfit makes me think about using a sweatshirt-like top I got at NAS in a similar way, with bottoms that feel more me but still pays homage to the playful vibe you've got going on here. Again, I think the key is going to be my using a bottom garment in a fluid fabric, not stiff, in order to have enough structure for me to feel attractive in it.

I like what Kari said. I think photos can sometimes not show the true nature of oversized and volume looks. I have a couple of pieces that I think look good, and feel wonderful, but don't photograph all that well because the movement and flow is not captured... I don't know if that makes sense or not.

I do wear looser tops and bottoms together, but am still learning what works on me.

Similarly, i have worn pieces that look fine in 2D photos or when I'm not moving much, but as soon as I start bending, sitting and standing, walking-disaster! I know now to do more thorough tests in the dressing room and at home before I commit to keeping a piece to make sure I like the way it looks while in motion.

Have to admit this look is tricky on a petite. True, the appeal comes when the clothes move. And in the heat we are having now, I must say max on max sounds like a good idea. However whenever I sport the look I always end up feeling huge and frumpy.

I am a fan of volume on volume with enough structure. I have done it (attached) and I love it on others too. I think you wore that outfit well. But like everything else , individual tastes differ and its not necessary that for you to wear something, you have to be approved by every single person. You are one super fashionista and you are one, only because you are fearless. So have fun I say

I really like it, but I'm still doing country punk which I think calls for pegged pants. That said I saw a winter look from The Row which was not only volume on volume but fuzzy and it has stuck in my mind. How to make it punk, I don't know. I suppose I could just add a dog collar and call it day, lol.

I love it. I love it in the crazy high-fashion spreads, I love the way Anna wears it. I love it on a theoretical and social/historical level. It appeals to my earthy, sci-fi/fantasy inspired, artsy, avant-garde, and feminist aspects. I wear it a la the 90s example Claudia posted, and the outfit Neel posted. Drape, flow, some bare skin and/or scrunching are vital for my figure and aesthetic. Tomorrow for work I'm wearing EF harems and a flowy oversized silk blouse with diagonal short sleeves and high-heeled peep-toe sandal-booties.

What an interesting read, thank you for posting it
I don't overly like volume on volume, especially on the proportions of mere mortals, as opposed to 15 year old supermodels!
Even when I see a look I like (generally fluid rather than oversized), I still regularly think that it would look even better with some skinny jeans or a tube skirt So I guess I am not a convert yet ....

AG, i think I can't always understand the goal of your outfits. Ok, so it's not always attractive or flattering - but then what? Even if conventional flattery isn't your aim, then is it cohesive shapes? Contrasting colors? If it's to be fashion forward, which part of it are you pushing? If something feels great when you wear it, what about it is making you feel great? I can't see into your head, I need more help to not be a spanner.

I'm lost. What outfit of Anna's (anngybe? right?) are we talking about? I've scrolled back through this voluminous thread and don't see it. I have seen ithe volume over volume look done well, I think, on ladies with ahem, larger natural volume than others and I'd like to figure it out for myself--just for options.

I like volume on volume, I haven't figured out how to get this look 'right' for myself yet but I adore the look on others. It is challenging but a fun look when it's 'nailed.'

Having seen you in the culottes (insert cheesy grin of delight), I will say that they look smashing on you. I am not tall and not skinny and frequently wear volume on volume, as defined by Angie. I don't think I wear much structured volume in general, but definitely do a boxy top with a drapey bottom. Sometimes I just like to try things, or look interesting at least to myself, or challenge expectations (even if just my own) and all of these are as pleasurable to me as looking conventionally attractive with a "good figure".

Just want to point out that volume doesn't have to mean VOLUME. Like with most things, it's a spectrum. Wearing BF jeans with fluid tops? You're already sporting this look.

I don't have the body type for it ( as figure flattery is super important to me), but I adore the look on others.

If I'm honest, I'd have to admit that outfit wasn't one of my favorites, but that's the way it ought to be with fashion. Not every outfit, trend, or designer will please my eye--and that is OK, because fashion (and trendiness!) ought not to be a straitjacket that forces us into wearing things that we don't find pleasing.

My own preference has always been toward fluidity and volume rather than tight and body-con, but I suspect having that leaning makes me more influenced by my own aesthetic about how volume is incorporated into an outfit. Not every execution of volume over volume will "work" for me--on the runway and in the street, but my judgements say more about my aesthetic than about the outfit itself. IK's point that, unless we know something about what a person is trying to achieve in her outfits, it's hard to make a fair assessment, makes total sense to me.