BJ, I would consider Angie's cream coat and gold jeans statement pieces, for sure! The sweater may be a canvas, but the cream coat and jeans and white boots, wow!

I think there maybe is a semantics issue Una.

Statement is such a strong, powerful, succinct word that by contrast the opposite would appear a little weak or flaccid and who wants to admit to that?

By definition would a canvas require a statement to make it complete?

ETA - adding to BJ's post, Angie's sweater (from today's blog post) may have been a canvas item a few seasons ago but this season it is bang on trend and therefore does it become a statement piece in it's own right.

I think Angie's outfit of today : turtleneck, jeans, boots is a canvas regardless of whether she would choose to accessorize it.

Could it be that one person's statement is another's canvas? Fashion is so subjective! And items need to be considered in context with current trends and what they're being paired with.

That being said, I think I am on the statement piece end of things. Usually I dress with at least one statement piece (if not more) of clothing per outfit. The canvas (or "essential" I think that term's been used here before) piece anchors the statement pieces.

I think Angie's outfit is statement minimal. Each piece is in itself an interesting, unique item that adds interest just by being part of the outfit. By contrast my outfit today is two statements (sweater and boots) and a canvas piece (Gap leans). I thought about wearing my silver skinnies which would have made the outfit more exciting but a little OTT for the doctor and office.

I dont know that this concept can or must be pinned down but it was a "click" moment for me somehow!

Ok, I confess I am super confused right now, but I think It has to do with being absent for a bit. I'm off to catch up on the latest discoveries.

A statement item is unique and usually not something that you wear year-in, year-out.

An essential or "canvas" piece is something that seems more timeless, although with a few tweaks over the years. Examples: white button downs, skinny jeans (because they have been on trend for so many years), trench coat, turtleneck, classic blazer, pea coat.

It seemed very clear earlier, but now I'm confused too.

OK, this is a bit harder than I'd originally thought. If I classify Angie's outfit of turtleneck, jeans, and boots as a "canvas", then what do I tell her to do to make it complete? Add a belt or scarf? In my opinion that would negate the strength of each piece which comes from the simplicity of the outfit. Maybe simplicity can can turn an ordinary item into a statement piece? Just think of Audrey Hepburn in her black sweater, black capris, and ballet shoes. Denise might call these "canvas" pieces because of their timeless appeal, but, as Audrey wears them, they look like iconic statement pieces to me--nothing incomplete (or flaccid--love that term applied to outfits, R&J!) about her look.

But, having said all this, I can see another woman wearing the same outfits as Angie and Audrey looking "incomplete". Why??

I have been thinking about this some more whilst washing my hair.

I have a wardrobe of roughly 20% basics, 70% essentials and 10% statements.

Some of my essentials could be classed as canvas pieces because they are easy to layer or may be easily transformed with accessories but I do not view them in this way because I layer as little as possible and happily pair my clothes with the same accessories time and time again.

Gaylene - I think the look you described may look incomplete due to poor fit, cheap fabric or figure flattery issues. There is nowhere to hide with such a simple outfit.

@ Gaylene: I think Angie's clutch, specs, watch and red lippies are the completer pieces, but I'm quite hesitant to call shiny, fantabulous pants a canvas.

I can see how an item can be classified in this matter. i.e. canvas vs. statement, but I think the true nature (jeje) is revealed when the item becomes part of a composition, i.e. the outfit. It is almost as if the item's true identity is revealed once it is paired with something else. Sometimes that item can be the statement, sometimes it can play second fiddle. I dunno

I think that in the case of the Audrey Hepburns of the world, the style elevation is so ethereal, that the person becomes the statement, and the clothes do play second fiddle. I think that's what you see in Angie too. It is almost as if the clothing choices are no longer "too relevant" since you see the person first, no matter if she is wearing a trendy, a classic outfit.or whatever combination of trendy and classic. You will recognize that signature style nevertheless. I think it has to do with the confidence of having found what works for oneself.

"Take the outfit I am wearing today: tight black turtleneck, blue skinnies, rugged dark brown mid calf boots. Now - is that canvas or statement?"

Ah, Zap, I was thinking of Angie's statement earlier in the thread, not that gorgeous blog outfit. When I visualize her in the outfit she described above, though, I can see each of those items as iconic statements pieces as worn by Angie. On another woman, however, I might be thinking of what completer pieces should be added to make an outfit sing. Your comment about the true nature of statement vs. canvas as being revealed only in the context, though, makes me think you are on to something.

We're talking about two different Angie outfits here, I think....the one she is wearing in the BLOG post today (with the gold jeans) and the simpler version she is wearing today, with a black turtleneck, skinnies, boots.

For whatever that is worth.

I do think it might be worth something....the blog post outfit with the gold jeans and the amazing accessories is one type of ensemble. Today's outfit sounds much more straightforwardly like what some people might call a "canvas" ... but she is not painting on it. The essentials stand alone. And that in itself makes a statement.

But it wouldn't, I suspect, if Angie were not also wearing fab specs, and if she had an ordinary haircut, or even a mousy and nondescript hair colour. The turtleneck etc. looks great on Audrey partly because of fit, quality, figure flattery. But it also looks great on her because she is Audrey. And what Audrey looks fab in, Liz Taylor doesn't (and vice versa). Some of that, again, is pure figure flattery....but some is personality. What SUITS a person.

That is what no list in the world can tell us -- what suits us? That is what only PPP and perhaps a lot of mistakes can tell us: what suits us.

Oh crapola, where is this second outfit? I'm too rusty... I'm off to look. I'm sorry for the confusion.

Zap - Angie just described it, we can't see it. She describes it someplace in this thread - simple tight black turtleneck, skinnies, dark brown boots. Full stop. I am betting she is wearing her specs...well....just because!

Yep, you are right Suz, Angie is probably wearing some killer specs along with some nice arm candy, awesome outerwear, killer shoes and her signature gold watch... No canvas.at.all.

... and I just realized Gaylene explained it as well too... My reading comprehension levels are at pre-k levels today. Too jet lagged....
Aren't you glad I'm back? Tada

Are you kidding? We are not just GLAD. We are jumping for joy!!

Oops, Angie, I screwed up and analyzed your blog post outfit today.

Rethinking the whole thing as I drove back from the doctor (because I am Team Overthink Everything!), my distinction was also less extreme. I was talking about individual pieces vs. the entire outfit. Every outfit makes a statement, after all - your self-described outfit surely does. Maybe it's the difference between the noun "statement" and the adjective "Statement"?

To give a different example, my husband is very much about a neutral, say off-white, paint color for a room, with interest added via artwork, knick-knacks, pillows, and other variables. He's Mr. "Only a psychopath would paint a room four different colors." That to me is Team Room as Canvas. I, on the other hand, am all "paint this wall lipstick red and that wall mango, throw in a purple, red and mango chair and call it good. Please don't make me shop for home decor." That's Team Room as Statement.

How might that translate to clothing? Team Value Added? Team Built-In Impact? What this realization has meant to me (and it's not new, it's just that Mochi really defined it for me) is that I don't enjoy having to add on to my outfits - scarves, jewelry, or layers. I like my cake and icing mixed together. In other words, stop shopping for all-purpose items - the plain black dress, the do-it-all cardi, the everyday black boots.

Now, is your (Angie's) outfit today cake, icing or both? And does it really matter? Probably not, but It's fun for me to think about! Most of you probably already knew this about yourselves and didn't to have me thresh it out.

That's all.

I find it all endlessly fascinating.

I *think* you're leaving one possibility out....plain left plain. So....cream/white walls, and forget the knick-knacks. Turtleneck, skinnies, brown boots.

I tend towards this...um...."style statement" if one can call it such.

Of course in Angie's case, as I insisted earlier, even this plain outfit would have tons of interest. The distressing of the boots, the ribs of the sweater, the fit of the jeans, her specs, her hair...It is not as if she is wearing a plain white bathrobe.

And I'm also betting that the cut/ shape of all of these would make it clear that she is current; they would not be identical to what she might have worn in 1988, even if she wore an outfit with the same components then.

(Ironically, the walls of my house are painted all kinds of vibrant colours AND I have a heck of a lot of books, adding additional colour, pattern, texture, and even shine.....)

Yes, plain left plain is just the cake. And cake is good too.

Yeah....just the cake, that's it!

That's me. Just the cake.

Albeit, a bit of a fruitcake....or better yet, a nut cake....but just the cake!

Endless complications, no?

Makes sense, Una. You have a gift with words. You are amazing at explaining these things.

Suz, you are too kind, hehe, I missed you all. Did you notice the NYC meetup thread? The dates were set for 2/8 - 2/10/2013.

Zap, I've missed you! I fear I'm not good with words, as I seem to create more confusion than clarifty. But thanks for the props! Hope you are around more now.

And yes, you don't necessarily need to decorate the beige walls, yet, I think it is really hard to be a true "beige undecorated wall". We all put a little somethin' somethin' in our individual recipes, no matter how minimalistic we want to call ourselves. If it is not via the clothes themselves, it is thru our individual personalities, physique etc. The outfit cannot exist without the individual, after all.

I've had this thought:

Team Canvas is French Style
Team Statement is American Style

Canvas is fine quality, beautiful basics. Then perhaps you wear a lovely piece of *real* jewelry or pretty scarf. The jewelry or scarf may be something special that stands on its own in a way. You don't necessarily consider it part of the whole outfit; you come up to admire it on its own. The accessory isn't exactly accessory.

Statement is where the clothes are the things you come up to admire. The jewelry or other key accessory is more along the lines of seasoning, more likely to be costume, and blends in more.

I think there's a version of Canvas, where a single striking piece of clothing takes the place of the traditional gem, expensive silk scarf. Which means Statement would be about whole ensembles and outfits, clothing that works as a single unit.

In which case, I might be more of a statement dresser than I originally surmised.

Zap - I did notice the meetup dates. I need to do some strategizing!!!

Zap, I'm drifting over to your perspective that the statement belongs to the individual, rather than the garment. I'm still thinking this one through, so bear with me.

When you find an item that really "speaks" of your personality and style, then maybe that is what makes that item shine so brightly that you, and others, see it as a statement piece. It's a type of synergy that meshes the individual and a material object (now I'm sounding a bit mystical, but i can't think of any other way to put it); others can wear the item but for most it just wouldn't have that same distinctive quality. That's why a statement piece can be a simple as an impeccable, perfect turtleneck or as complex as an intricate designer piece for another. To use Zap's thinking, it takes the individual to make the item a statement piece.

Canvas pieces, on the other hand, are those pieces that do the heavy-lifting, so to speak. We all need certain items to go about our daily lives. So, for my wardrobe, that designer coat could just be a nice coat, not a statement, even if it was an expensive purchase, if it didn't have that close association. Statement pieces do not have to be high quality, or expensive, or current. What they do have to be is uniquely associated with the individual. Audrey's ballet slippers, Marilyn's beaded dress, Angie's white coat, Suz's fuchsia jacket, Una's Burberry coat, Ingrunn's navy cashmere sweater, MaryK's animal prints... You think of the person and the item as a unit.

Thoughts-- or should I go sit on the bench with my nutcake?

I think those are what Angie might call "signature" pieces. The ones that really define a person's style. Not everyone has signature pieces, but those who do, work them.

Sweet of you to say my fuchsia jacket is a signature. I don't think it is, really....but it might be a signature colour. And jackets in general are a bit of a signature piece for me, as I think they might be for you, too, Gaylene?

*headache*

Never mind the arm ache.

Jokes aside, I think you ALL make sense. Fab thread, Una.

Zap, Rachy, Suz, Denise, Gaylene, Jules and Cathy's perspectives on this really resonated with me.

@Gaylene, with Zap's original thinking, and Suz and Cathy too, YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD here for me:

" When you find an item that really "speaks" of your personality and style, then maybe that is what makes that item shine so brightly that you, and others, see it as a statement piece. It's a type of synergy that meshes the individual and a material object (now I'm sounding a bit mystical, but i can't think of any other way to put it); others can wear the item but for most it just wouldn't have that same distinctive quality. That's why a statement piece can be a simple as an impeccable, perfect turtleneck or as complex as an intricate designer piece for another. To use Zap's thinking, it takes the individual to make the item a statement piece"

Thanks! My arms (and head) can rest