Good point re: Jane Birkin - I'll admit that I perhaps didn't have the same cultural upbringing as everyone else around me, but I don't understand when people gush over vintage 'fashion' photos of women in huge menswear or literal potato sacks.

Well, Marilyn Monroe gets a pass for that one because her 'sack' dress was actually shaped lol, but for the rest I can't help but think that people are gushing over the thin (&, let's face it, often young & white) model in the photo IN SPITE of what she's wearing (rather than because of it). Like if contrasting menswear makes the wearer look more feminine in comparison - that sorta thing.

So in that vein, I think that 'styled' is referring more to everything coming together to evoke a certain 'mood'* than any particular styling technique.

* That mood very often being the French 'je ne sais quoi' fashion. In my case, je ne sais quoi 'styled' is supposed to mean! Sorry

I think Jane Birkin was happy to tread her own path, she had a carefree air and looks comfortable in her own skin. When compared to other iconic looks of the 60, the A-line mini or perhaps beatnik fashion her look was close fitting but unstructured and the colour palette minimal. She would also be an outlier if you compared her style to the hippie movement. When I look at her photos it looks as though deliberate choices were made in how she chose to present herself which suggests styled rather than dressed.

I do appreciate the concerns about how her image reflects the proliferation of young, white and thin style icons of the time and will be thinking this over some more.

Synne, you have no problem styling your outfits!

My 2 cents:

You get dressed when you wear an outfit - in that you are covered and not naked.

You are styled when you dress well.

The definition of WELL here is extremely subjective, and according to some sort of standard. That standard is a moving target, evolving, and both a visual and emotional thing. It can be your own standard, the standard of loved ones and friends, the standard of your audience, the standard of those around you, social media influencers, all of the above......and the list goes on.

The is no one way to style wardrobe items, or to look stylish. The possibilities are endless. But there is such a thing as style - (a way to combine wardrobe items so that it meets the aesthetic and emotional standard you have set for yourself) - otherwise you wouldn't be on this forum!

I often think that truly "styled" myself would be in some way uncomfortable, limited in movement ( fast walk, running after bus - lol ) and a bit pretentious looking person. All that scrunching, tucking, layering with extra accessories, super fine make up, well styled hair feels often as "too much" for me - which is not to say that I don't enjoy seeing other stylish people looking like a lot of extra time and effort paid off in their fine looks.
I guess I'm just "dressed" type of person - love the idea of "styling" but not for myself. I have seen beautifully styled outfits on YLF but love to admire and cheer them from the sidelines .

Angie, good point about the different criteria we choose to meet at different times!

Zaeobi, Euro cultures don’t really make space for unstyled looks from other places, huh? Pakistani grandpa’s shoes, young Tanzanian girl hanging around the house in a kanga, an Andean poncho—they’re all scooped up and labeled as “riotous” or “energetic”’or some such, never let as just the thing they put on to not be naked.

As an addendum to what Angie said, here’s my epiphany moment from eight years ago when I finally figured out why I needed to hang around YLF :

OK, I'm officially retracting all my negative comments about slouchy pants, faux-tucks, and rolled, cropped legs.

OK, I am brought to my knees, offering humbled apologies all around to all of you who have shown me how to wear these pants with your inspirational pictures and, of course, to Angie, who gives all those essential tweaks that make it possible for a 60+ woman to wear the latest fashions without feeling foolish. I'm now totally smitten with this look for my casual, hang-around-the-house days this spring. By the way, my husband also told me that I ought to listen to Angie and the YLF crowd in the future instead of being so set in my ways, so I'm promising to behave better in the future.

It's really an interesting topic - and why I like the forum - because Jane Birken (or many other beautiful young models) can make anything look good with the aid now of filters and professional photographers etc... Whereas our candid shots are more realistic.

I sometimes wonder why anyone would be interested in my clothing choices - but I am interested in others.....

And what Angie and Gaylene said...

I am certainly interested in styling my outfits to make them look better...

To me this is a very complex issue. Also an individual one. Some days I am well aware that I am just dressed. Other days I put in the care and time to style my outfit. Signature jewelry. Things cuffed, popped, ironed, scrunched and rolled. I believe that their are people who innately know how to do it. Angie is one of them which is why this forum works so well. It gives us a guide to styling and adding polish which adds to the styling.

Just my humble thoughts.

Hmm, you've all given me further food for thought on this. So to expand on what I said earlier about styling referring to a particular 'mood', I think it's a mood that consists of 'trendy + harmonious'.

In other words, there's some element of either a current trend or forward-looking trend (in the case of trailblazers) that looks *at home* on the wearer. Like Angie says, this part is subjective, but I think it partially depends on what harmonises with the wearer. If we think about those women in vintage menswear or mod looks, they tended to have a more Natural, Dramatic or Gamine kibbe type (e.g. Jane Birkin above). Whereas Marilyn Monroe was mostly known for her Romantic looks (though she did also wear some menswear like collared shirts etc, those don't tend to be the ones that come to mind when I think of her). Make sense?

I'm usually just dressed these days tbh! From looking at Finds, I decided that styled has accessories, often a topper, and intentional shoes. The BR looks are definitely styled, which is probably why I'm liking them more than other retail atm.
The first 2 of these I'd call dressed, while the others I'd call styled.

Suntiger, interesting. You pulling out different items as “dressed” vs “styled” has me rethinking my love of “lurking quirk”—details like cuffs, embroidery, maybe beads. They’re all things that don’t leap out at you and announce themselves loudly, but on closer inspection, they make a more “finished”impression (at least, I hope they do!) Even densely packed ditsy prints and the other “puke” patterns I love are like this—they add interest/texture, but not in a big, bold way. Could be my own personal shortcut to looking styled without doing the work every time I get dressed. Come to think of it, for a while (was it the early 00s?), I explicitly sought tops with embroidered yokes or beading around the collar because I thought they gave an impression similar to wearing a necklace, but were that much easier to put on. Blazers have never been me, because they tip the wearer’s hand, saying “I’m doing a fancy thing”. Looking that earnest and into people-pleasing has never been me. (Dare I mention that word from the world of video games again?)

Interesting conversation.

I definitelyl get the distinction between dressed and styled and would agree with Suntiger's examples -- the BR pics show items styled (maybe overly styled, for some tastes!) and the other two examples are just showing the item and the model looks "dressed."

I'm "dressed" today at home in workout gear, not at all styled. But if I go out for a bike ride and hike, like Jenni, I will be matching things and playing with proportions a bit and my outfit, while casual and for its purpose, will be "styled" -- to my mind at least!

For me, popping collars, adding a scarf or necklace, picking footwear and toppers deliberately, picking up and echoing patterns or colours or adding a note of juxtaposition isn't "work" -- it's what makes dressing fun and individual and makes me feel like myself in my clothes. It also brings older clothes up to date, makes them feel current again.

These tweaks may be more important for those who tend to buy neutral separates and combine them than for those who prefer highly embellished clothes. But even then -- you can wear an embroidered coat really differently. Do you wear it with jeans and boots or with a silk dress? Do you wear it buttoned up or open, revealing whatever is beneath? Do you add a hat? And so on.

In some ways it's just language evolution (I was going to say lingo, but I don't even think it's specialized anymore).

To my mind (and to be clear all of what follows is subjective opinion), when someone asks how to "style" new boots they are just asking what items would "go" best with them, using current language. It does acknowledge that the boots have some element of newness for the wearer in that she's not sure she can (or wants to) wear them the exact same way she wore previous boots. There's some thought being put into these boots and how to wear them, obviously. But it doesn't represent any higher standard of outfit creation, no specific degree of clothes layering, jewelry or beauty effort (hair, nails, etc). Any outfit I consciously put together is "styled", no matter how casual or simple. Wearing cropped or rolled pants and going sockless with closed toe shoes is a "styling", one that's become a default for a lot of people such that we don't even think about the fact that we no longer wear socks. But what I do "effortlessly" now depends on a conscious realization I had- at some late point no doubt - that visible socks were out. And now if I do wear socks it's with some degree of conscious "styling" to make it work...

Synne, you kicked off a great conversation! I swear I’m not trying to take it over, but people just keep saying these interesting things

Suz, how does this analogy strike you? I love to cook; I really do. But I find myself running out for carry out a lot. Why is that? Because when I’m hungry, I don’t want to cook; I want to EAT. i do much better if I prep my meals in advance so I just have to dump a jar salad in a bowl or heat up some soup I made earlier. That way I get the pleasure of cooking when I want it, and have meals ready to eat when I need them. I can’t put clothes on in advance, but getting things that have embellishments so I don’t need to add so many accessories (and figuring out how a certain garment looks best) lets me front load the styling in a way that meal prep does with cooking. Then when I am about to run out the door, I can grab and go. I’m not quite there yet, (as seen in my recent post with the green patterned sweater and black pants) but whether you want to call it “work” or something else, I’m moving the activity of tending to those styling details to the spot of time when I’m most interested in them.

Jules, I think we are similar tracks, with figuring things out in advance, so they seem automatic & effortless later.

Hmm. I'm not sure, Stag Fash. Cooking and eating feel like a whole different kettle of fish to me (ha, so to speak!) But I accept it if it works for you!

Rethinking what I said above, I suspect a preference for embellishment might be related to a feeling that "styling" is "work" or "extra effort" or whatever you want to call it.

OR it might just be a style preference, period -- an aesthetic difference, like the difference between baroque and high modern art.

In your case, it might be both -- you like embellishment, period. (It's a style preference). And -- conveniently -- it also lets you get out the door more quickly, which is important to you.

But a TOTAL maximalist would go for embellishment with additional styling, i.e. that person would add the hat, makeup, jewellery, etc. that you are willing to eschew in your bid to get on with your day.

And you probably do some of that unconsciously, too -- you decide to wear these boots with that pair of pants, and not those, etc.

I love this question, Synne, and this whole thread is full of great responses. I think an outfit is "styled" when the wearer puts intention into it, whether or not that intention is visible to others. Oftentimes, the most "stylish" outfits look effortless -- "I just threw this on" -- but we all know that getting there takes extensive thought and effort. I doubt Jane Birkin was ever just "dressed" even in her most candid-seeming photos.

On the flip side, I think the distaste for evident styling is pretty strong at the moment. I'm definitely aware of this myself. Part of it may just be winter pragmatism, but I think two years of pandemic life is also a big part of it. I'm definitely not semi-tucking, cuffing/rolling, adding accessories, etc anywhere near the way I used to. Little tweaks that I used to make all the time now feel fake and fussy. This means certain pieces -- a shirt that I only like if it's semi-tucked, or jeans that I only like with hems rolled -- fall to the wayside as too troublesome.

Of course, when a styling element starts to trend, it does have a certain shelf life before it starts to seem overdone and tired, and then there comes a cooling-off period. Those little hacks work when they're subtle and almost invisible, and if too many people are all wearing the same look, it loses its subtlety. This is maybe more so now than ever, as we're able to view so many outfits on a daily basis via social media.

Maybe the holy grail is the point where dressing and styling converge: when you have enough perfect and near-perfect items in your closet that you can just throw something on in the morning and look in the mirror and see not just some clothes but an outfit. I'm sure the process looks different for different people, but for me getting closer to that goal comes down to more careful curation: not just having better individual pieces, but having pieces that work better together. There's colour palette of course, but also hemlines, necklines, sleeves, inseam, vamp/shaft, layerability, etc. It's one thing to say "I need a winter coat" and another to say "I need a winter coat that works with slim-straight black jeans, slouchy olive pants, and chunky knitwear," you know?

What a good response La Ped!! Love it.

LaPed, I think your third paragraph says it best—styling trends are constantly changing and styling “tricks”which seemed fresh eight years ago look overdone, and often silly, a few years later.

A very thought provoking thread! Ha, now I am thinking about whether we can pre-style. On the one hand, I have long held that "effortless" styling is actually just an effect and plenty of forethought went into it (Jane Birkin aside, although I am not convinced she always just rolled out of bed like that). Also to Gaylene's point that certain tweaks get stale over time, styling takes a certain amount of agility and awareness. But, on the other hand, looking stylish (as per the dictionary fashionably sophisticated, which to me means well educated on what is happening NOW) is not everyone's goal when styling at all. You can style yourself to look pretty, approachable, powerful, effortless, intimidating, cute, attractive...the list goes on, but none of these stylings are necessarily stylish as defined by the dictionary. Unless you are clever Angie and define stylish as meeting your own needs!
(sorry for the ramble!)

Now I’m thinking about the relationship between styling an outfit and styling a bookshelf… like when they make a pink book jacket for every book. Could it be that styling has a larger vision at play
then dressing? Do people think about the gestalt more than they used to? Encyclopaedia sets notwithstanding…

Rachylou, books organized by color—the horror!

Jaime, now that you mention it, I guess there are some people who want their styling to be noticed qua styling. In my case, I want you to notice me, not what I’m wearing. I can be bookish me or goofball me or whatever, but for me, the outfit is never the point—it is there to support whatever the point is. In some cases, like teaching I use clothes to step into a certain role, such as a professor persona, but the point is not the tweed or the prof, but meeting expectations in a way that lets students turn their attention away from me, to the Material being taught.

I have enjoyed all the different comments!

Just getting dressed vs styled us sometimes like art - you know it when you see it— on YOUSELF also. So, the idea of meeting a “need” for some fashion fun, a current mood, season, or to express a persona or role, or other such things- resonates with me.

I think “ styling” can skew uncomfortable and/ or impractical- I think a lot of photo bloggers look that way— but it doesn’t HAVE to.

I would say that this thread gives me a particular inspiration- that overlaps with honing personal style, and with re- aligning wardrobe with my real life/ roles/ goals , plus body and FEET, and Wearing My Clothes —as opposed to imaginary lifestyle.

That is, to examine my wardrobe—in the broadest sense-and see how much more I might curate it so that “ getting dressed” is CLOSER” to “ getting styled”.
I’m not that great at consistent outfit- selection ahead of time ( except for special events), so it’s a little more about being more rigorous with requiring my wardrobe items to fit, flatter, be comfy enough, “ match” ( meaning work together) , feel authentic, so I’m not having to become a whole ‘ nuther person to dress in ways that make me feel styled.
I do think there are various “ levels” to styling( not meaning over- styled, but more time, thought, creativity), so that is still available for having even more fun with fashion , either with more lengthy SYC sessions, or Retail Research, concentrated intentional copycat or challenges, to come up with even more fab stylings.

I love styling my outfits but judiciously.
As much as I love super styled looks on others, too much styling on me and I feel inauthentic.

Stag, so I would say you style to look professional as a teacher or perhaps vibrant and interesting as an individual. I actually am happy to be noticed for my clothes, and prefer to communicate as much as possible with them rather than by conversing with lots of strangers!

Jaime, right. And part of why I style those different ways in different roles is to take the emphasis off what I’m wearing. As far as random conversations with strangers go, I think clothes that people will comment on is a way to start them.

Fun to see how this thread grew! Very educational to see the varying approach to (intentional) styling or lack thereof, and its meaning to us.

I agree over-styling can look contrived. Sometimes that can be the desired effect (ie. preppy looks).

I think in broad terms theres an overall agreeness that we want to be acknowledged and seen as WHO WE ARE. I sense theres a distinction among those who see dressing and style as inherently part of us or what we would like to communicate to the world, and those that see it as just outwardly "noise", something apart from who we truly are. (Or are telling the world about who we are).

I should have something more eloquent to say, but I fall short!

@SF (& @Suz & @Shevia) the cooking vs eating analogy also applies to my clothes, albeit with a different execution (exhibit A):

My clothes themselves are fairly simple (except for in terms of colour) but I 'pre-style' them by arranging my outfits for the week on the back of my door, to combat morning laziness lol. I include everything on the hangers, from basics (socks, underwear etc) to any extras (e.g. might be hard to see, but I have jewellery up there too).

So I do a certain level of 'styling' for the clothes before putting them on (e.g. there are contrasting layers peeking out from underneath my hung tunics) but I also have a contingency plan ready (exhibit B: the giant teal jumper on the right lol, just in case temps diverge from what's forecasted).

TL;DR: Even if I don't end up putting on ALL of these components before heading out the door (due to COVID, I often find myself leaving the jewellery on the hanger for the next outfit), I still consider myself STYLED vs dressed because of the thought that went in beforehand (vs actual execution) - even if it doesn't necessarily converge with what's 'stylish' styling these days (tunic dresses aren't exactly 'current', lol...)

Beautiful colours Zaerobi! I (try to) do the same as you, arrange my entire outfit ensembles ahead of time. It's a visual exercise for me. Not always successful though.. hehe..