Jenni NZ, I agree that my height, my frame and my features may allow me to achieve what many would consider a classically elegant style, however, this is not exactly what I am trying to do. You, Gaylene, and Rachy make me wonder whether only certain types of body frames can be elegant, or if everyone can be? Rachy and Gaylene seem to point to movement as a prime factor in what may be a key factor for elegance….the grace of one dancer or athlete over the physicality and athleticism of another. Gaylene’s point about refinement seems relevant here because when I think of elegance it brings to mind refinement and use of the simplest but best line, material, and item to suit a person… No extraneous distracting factors. In my original “definition” above, elegance happens when someone’s lines, innate personality and what they project are aligned. This clearly has to include movement, and the other factors that people have raised above. I also think adding refinement, the absence of clashing/distracting factors may possibly be a helpful way to think. I am not specifically referring to level of dress (formal/casual), style of dress (sporty, edgy, etc.) or even a wardrobe item that when standing alone, due to its long flowing lines, or rich material, one might call elegant. In my use of the word, it’s a dynamic process….the magic of congruence.
Clearly, not everyone wants or needs to achieve this sense of congruence as a goal of their personal style. I openly admit that it is mine. It’s funny that I use my aunt as my style icon. It’s not her wardrobe I want to emulate as much as her entire persona. I cannot wear the same style clothing as her because she was short, had large bones, had very rounded and curved features, etc. Yet, she always looked congruent, truly elegant, no distracting details. Her humor, warmth, generosity, kindness, social grace and poise were projected front and center.
Jenni NZ, I would argue that despite your remarks to the contrary, you are in fact very elegant. It may not be the typical word people come up with as a visual adjective for your look. However, you intuitively know your lines, and your personality projects to others in the way you would like….your style enhances it does not distract. In my specialty, I do not want my personality or clothing to be distracting to my patients. I have solidly come to terms with the idea that it’s more distracting when lines (etc.) and personality clash vs. when they are congruent and “elegant”. I believe now that my previous efforts to mitigate the intimidating and imposing aspects that come from my height, sharp angles and facial features were errors. I should not mitigate as much as enhance and highlight. Despite my height and angularity, I need a measure of delicacy to my look. So my current struggle is in how to more accurately project/complement my personality as well as finding the correct balance between the stronger, sleek, vertical lines which work so well for me and my need for some added ethereal detail.
Rachylou and Fashintern, you both raise a point about frame size. I have a small frame based on the method where you wrap your middle finger and thumb around your wrist and see if they overlap, meet in the middle or don’t meet. Despite my height, I can wear delicate jewelry, but strangely, I think I can also wear some large and dramatic jewelry because of my more dramatic features.
Sal, thanks! I was hoping you would answer my question this way. I am going to start experimenting with my outfits and accessories to see how adding various details or changing them might impact the overall look.
Firecracker, thanks, I’m glad you think my plan makes sense. I am going to rethink my style adjectives to see if they might keep me on track….right now I use “soft, fresh, classic, sleek, practical, light”. I wonder if I should eliminate “soft” in exchange for something else….maybe delicate, sharp, fresh, sleek practical, light? I’m not sure about using both delicate and light…
