I used to buy solely based on beauty/love, practicality be damned. However, that also meant that when it came time to walk around a dusty county fair with the kids, I had nothing whatsoever to wear. Likewise when I started substitute teaching at school.

So, I started buying more with an eye to the practical. I still have significant wardrobe holes, as I cannot seem to buy practical shoes to save my life. And I don't necessarily mean 4" heels (although I did wear 6" platform boots at my wedding - they were buried under the dress, so no one else could see them unless I showed them), but more big, stompy, statement shoes that attract attention.

Overall, I am getting better, but I still have a wardrobe stuffed with dresses and shoes impractical for everyday wear (at least in my life right now). I can justify accessories (especially jewelry) because I wear those daily, but I need to get better with clothing and shoes.

Oscar Wilde said that "the only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely." I guess that extends to wearing a useless/impractical thing.

I finally realized that for me, it's beauty/happiness/love first, then practicality last. Still, practicality has veto power since I'm on my feet and moving all day.

High five, Anna.

I LOVE pretty and beautiful things. My world revolves around appreciating beauty in all its forms - and I go to great lengths to make our environment aesthetically pleasing because it makes me happy. I almost studied Fine Art instead of Psychology (before I did Fashion Design) - so there you go.

I wear lots of white - which includes footwear, outerwear and bags - dashing around town (working) in a rainy and dirty city. It's soooooo pretty to wear white. It makes me happy. Why not.

As long as I am warm enough and my shoes aren't hurting my feet (I run around a lot in my job) - I am more than happy to add impractical aspects to my style if I think it's pretty. Life is too short to be practical all the time.

My first reaction to the question was that I only buy practical things, but on reflection, I don't think that's true. I wear white jeans and shorts, dry clean only items, and silk shirts that snag easily. I just bought a pair of suede booties, and I live in Seattle. In January, I bought a sequined dress to go to a bling party that I thought I'd only wear once (as it turns out, I've already worn it a second time).

But I draw the line at pain. I have fussy feet, and I worry that wearing the wrong shoes might cause further arthritis, so I only wear comfortable shoes.

What I wear doesn't always have to be practical.. but it does have to be comfortable.

Well, practicality is important to me, as far as most of my everyday wear being of a sufficient comfort and functionality level, but if my wardrobe *only* had to be practical, I certainly wouldn't have a wall of shoes in my closet, would I? Or a statement ring for every day of a month. Or seven leather jackets.

That said, I think one person's practical is another person's luxury or indulgence. I find a silk shirt fairly practical -- a MOTG or an artist who is a painter probably would not. But some women find pumps more practical than I do. Horses for courses, as Angie would say. I love having beautiful things that are also functional -- that is the best of both worlds!

I try to have them both as much as possible. Of course, it's not always possible. :^) So I do allow myself a small portion of purchases to be for things that just make me happy. I am a believer that every woman needs to have a pair of high stilettos in her closet, just because! Even if you wear them only once a year for a sit-down occasion, there's just something so overtly feminine about them that you have to have a pair.

However, I do draw the line at wearing things that would be unsafe for me, like heels in the snow. I would maybe wear heels when it was too cold out (but no snow), but when the snow hits, safety takes over! I suppose some people would put stilettos in this category also, since you could twist your ankle if you aren't accustomed to wearing that type of shoe.

I honestly wish I came down less on the practical end of things than I do. I love the idea of wearing something just because it's so beautiful that anything else is irrelevant. But, for me, more than a tiny bit impractical = so annoying that I can't enjoy it, no matter how much I love it. I think I just have a really low threshold for annoyingness with clothes. If it's physically uncomfortable or I'm constantly having to think about it to make sure I'm not going to get it dirty or whatever, I'm not going to wear it much and am going to resent it when I do.

I do think time/money can work as a sort of fudge factor, and I'm definitely willing to put in a little more of those to get something that works for me practically and also has something going for it aesthetically. Also, I think there's different kinds of impractical. If it's something like getting something with a really distinctive and memorable design that only goes with a few things I own, I'd be much more likely to do that if I really liked it than buy something that seems like it would be uncomfortable.

And, Isabel, I have to say the phrase "submissive peeing dog" just cracks me up somehow, even though it's probably not funny when you're the one getting your accessories ruined by said dog.

Edit: I also end up in circumstances sometimes where I feel like my clothes stand out as looking incredibly impractical, because, say, I'm in a dress, a wool coat, and cute flat boots rather than a t-shirt, a fleece, and sneakers. Which I'm generally fine with, although it's kind of interesting how my ideas of practical sometimes don't necessarily intersect with everyone else's.

I have practical everyday wear and impractical ocassion wear. My everyday wear cannot be impractical because of kids (it might have been different without kids). Occasion wear has the 3 inch heels and clothes (shorter hemlines) that are a little more precious.

Things that make me uncomfortable do not look good to me on me. So basically what Dana said. I do, however, have a closet full of clothes whose main purpose is to aesthetically please me. And I do especially enjoy thinking about what makes a particularly well made piece so much more beautiful than an average one - although both are equivalent for strictly practical purposes.

Karymk - such an interesting thing to bring up / connection to make: I.e., luxury. Was it Chanel who equated luxury with comfort? Fascinating. I've always considered privacy to be the greatest luxury...

I'd say practicality it's a fairly basic requirement at this point in my life, with two toddlers, long working hours, and crowded weekends that leave very little time for playing dress up. I will simply not wear anything that gives me the least physical discomfort, I need to be comfortable, washable and safe all the time. As much as I like them on others, high heels are impossible and wrong for my lifestyle, but I do wear white and silk. I just try to get fancy items at a deep discount, because I tend to lose them at the smeary hands of children One thing that I wear though impractical is leather jackets, they are insane for our climate, either too hot or too cold. But I love them so I make them work in that tree week yearly window they are viable.

I can handle a little impracticality if it makes me happier - which it does, a lot of the time. Heels are never as comfy as flats for me, but I wear them. I love bags, not rucksacks, so I never wear anything of the sort even though they are more practical, and so on.

On a side note: A date that could see nothing of value in art itself would not be a date of mine for very long. "Flipping burgers". Gah.

"Without art, the crudeness of reality would make the world unbearable." George Bernard Shaw. I think that sums it up. I love this book by Domain Home's on interior design and according to their test I am a visionary. I create little altars of lovliness, quiet places to recharge my soul that the darkness and stress of the world cannot touch, a sanctuary of tranquility for my family and close friends. I think we do that in our outfits, our homes, our gardens, our music, books, movies, cuisine. These things give us glimpses to a world that trancends the mundane and profane. It fills our spirits with possibilities we had not considered. A world without beauty and the arts...desolate. Not that I am not practical but you must leave space for what is fragile and evanescent too.

Fantastic question and thread Anna - thanks!

I used to be strictly about functionality which ended up equating boring for me. That's why I came to YLF in the first place.

Now I'm somewhere in between - yes, I need practical dressing for a winter climate like warm coats and boots...BUT...even those I now look for bright colors, interesting details and better cuts.

And I've ventured into the world of white (white jeans, white leather jacket, white leather handbag) even though I'm commonly known amongst my friends as Mrs. Spillypants. So white on me practical? Not so much. But I love it and am willing to risk it.

And if I hadn't screwed up my knee, I would be wearing those 4 inch heels with you

Chiming back in - functional does not have to mean boring. I often find the simplest items, if perfect, show an amazing amount of attention to material, fit, and longetivity.

Helmut Lang used to make t-shirts for men out of the best cotton (way back before he retired and the new line started). I purchased several ten years ago to wear when pregnant, then my husband inherited them. They are soft, gorgeous colors, perfectly cut. And ten years later they are *only now* ready for the rag bin.

Nothing makes me sadder than something I really liked for style and fit suddenly pinching, twisting, or falling apart.

I wear shoes that not that practical, but that I absolutely love. Having said that, I am currently sitting in my office in my bare feet because my shoes hurt so bad that I had to take them off. It drives my bf crazy because what I am wearing on my feet dictates just how much walking we can do on a given day.

But my clothes are professional and practical. I could not work if I were constantly re-adjusting them throughout the day. It would be too distracting and would drive me crazy.

IK - I totally agree that functional does not mean boring. For example, my EF drape dress is what I would tag as completely function but IMHO, anything from boring.

However, pre YLF my functional was completely boring. But that's just me.

Probably about 90% practical for me. I tried on a gorgeous dress that fit like a glove and was WAY out of price range normally, but on major clearance so it was not even the cost of an inexpensive dinner out. I read the cleaning tag and it said it needed to be cleaned at a leather place because it had a few leather accents. No can do; I left it.

I can't do special cleaning. I don't like to do dry cleaning. I balk at hang-drying. I won't take the effort to do anything special to remove stains. The tag must say "tumble dry low" for me to buy it! Otherwise I'm in for a headache. That is my where I draw my "practical" line. I also won't buy silk at this point because my young kids still get their slobber on me.

Oh, and shoes must be comfy without the slightest bit of discomfort. Even a scratchy thread will send the pair (or a shirt) into the donation pile.

I'm very practical. I have two terriers who like to dig, and are often muddy. I work in the garden, cook, walk the dogs. I have just a few opportunities to "dress up" - church, a few meetings, our weekly ballroom dancing class, occasional lunch with friends.

So my everyday clothes are practical: jeans, tees, fleece, windbreakers, walking shoes, gardening clogs, because these items work best for the situations I usually find myself in.

But for my "dress up" outfits I do try to look nice, but the outfits also have to be functional. Shoes and clothes have to be comfortable.

Not to diss those of you who are willing to forgo comfort and function for appearance, but that, in my opinion, is not good design. I would normally think of this in terms of home design, but I think it applies to clothing as well. Good design combines function and aesthetic. One without the other is a design failure.

Dana reads my mind for the second time on this thread - i'm getting kind of scared!!! heehee "Nothing makes me sadder than something I really liked for style and fit suddenly pinching, twisting, or falling apart."

This. I hear from so many people who say 'hey, it looks cute from ten feet away, what's the problem?' If that does it for you, fantastic! But for me, scratchy fabric and thread, loooooong serger tails that accumulate lint, off-grain cuts, it drives me all nuts. I also hate shopping (me, a style nut!) so i do NOT want clothes without staying power!

And, to me, a lot of practical things have/add beauty to a piece. I wear only leather shoes for practical as well as aesthetic reasons. They last much longer than manmade, they can be easily repaired and maintained, they breathe so my feet don't stink - sorry if TMI!. Leather is also much more beautiful to my mind. French seams increase the durability of a garment as well as creating a garment as beautiful on the inside as on the outside, both practical and 'impractical' considerations work together.

As a clumsy outdoor lover, I completely understand all the impracticalities of white. At the same time - i love walking at nite, and during winter it's a lot more necessary. Black may not show dirt but it also doesn't show you to any cars on the road. So there's different levels and viewpoints on practicality as well.

pastrygirl, this made me laugh at myself: "I also won't buy silk at this point because my young kids still get their slobber on me." i confess that i'll happily wear a less than pristine silk blouse or dress, i just love the feel so much! Is that practical or impractical of me, i wonder? I sure don't know!!! steph

I love what Debs said - I wear comfortable clothing that can be impractical. I will not tolerate fabric that scratches my skin, but am one of the few who happily dry cleans her clothes.

I'm sitting on the same bench as Dana, Steph, and JAileen in feeling that good design combines comfort, functionality and beauty. Poor design, in my opinion, is what forces us into tradeoffs like a pair of shoes that are gorgeous but hurt your feet with every step, or that are comfortable but are clunky and ugly, or that are pretty on the surface but fall apart after a few outing.

And suffering in the name of fashion or beauty is just not for me. There are lots of reasons and situations in which enduring something unpleasant is unavoidable, but my clothing isn't going to be one of them.

I try to dress so that I'm warm and can walk comfortably, but as far as delicate or special care fabrics or easily dirtied colors go I don't have any restrictions for the most part. I'm another one with muddy puppy paws in the house. So at home, practical rules. For work or going out - dry clean, silk, high heels, white are all worn frequently. Most of my heels are plenty comfortable for sitting most of the day. I wear different shoes to commute or run errands. I'll often remove a light colored jacket when eating lunch. And I hurry up and change when I get home, frantically dodging the puppy paws on the way to my room. I did get a full on puppy hug on my white tuxedo jacket last week, but c'est la vie. And I've had my share of "Marilyn moments" wearing full skirts on windy days.

I wear high heels every day, and although I have (mercifully) finally purged the ones that actually cause unbearable pain, most of them are not what you'd call "comfortable," and I don't walk as fast in most of them as I would in flats. But I don't care. I love my high heels and feel like they are an important part of my style.

I will not, however, tolerate having actual clothing that is uncomfortable. If it's too tight, or it binds or digs or itches, out it goes! I'm kind of a moderate on dry-cleaning. I used to avoid it at all costs but I'm coming around.

Beyond that, I change out my handbag almost every day even though it would be much more practical to use the same one all the time.

I haven’t been able to spend much time on the forum recently, but I have been pondering this question as I go about my day. Mainly I was thinking about what the opposite of practical would be in this context – presumably, beautiful BUT… (Useless? Uncomfortable? Unsuitable?)

For me, the real issue is what each of us find beautiful. For example, I don’t wear pumps. I have one all-purpose nude pair for the inevitable formal occasion. I truly do not see the beauty of stiletto heels. I never feel a pull toward them, never covet them, never think “If only I could wear those gorgeous , needle-thin 5” beauties.” Sometimes I feel like I’m just weird that way – just like I never thought Cabbage Patch dolls were cute or that Tom Cruise was hot. (This is not to say that I don’t admire all of you that successfully wear and look amazing in heels, of course!)

Like IK, I find a lot of beauty in function. I rarely wear something that is beautiful but impractical, however that is defined– because if it’s uncomfortable or not serving its purpose in some way, I’m not attracted to it for myself. If it's itchy or pinches or needs to be adjusted or hinders my movement (delicate heels) or requires work? Forget it. This applies to my decorating as well – I don’t collect things to display or for their own sake. Because frankly, I’m lazy and I don’t want to dust. The art I do own has a special meaning to me in some way – made by my sister or a local artist or given to me as a gift. I appreciate beautiful things that are just that and no more, but I don't WANT them.

(Okay, I do have a weakness for leather jackets which are not always useful in my climate, but I’m not sure if that counts as what Anna’s question is asking.)

And this leads me to the discussion about heels in snow. I feel there’s a difference between dressing against your fashion environment and dressing against your natural environment. There is no doubt Alaska is the original “normcore” fashion-wise. While I understand that very well, I don’t aspire or conform to it. However, I do seek style that embraces my climate, which is cold and snowy. And fortunately for me, I love boots! I would probably wear them even in Hawai’I with cutoffs and tank tops. And THAT would be impractical.

I think I used to be 100% on team practical after trying some really pretty things that were just too uncomfortable. But now I'm realizing there are some things that are both, and those are the ones I want.

In general I agree that great design marries craftsmanship, comfort, and aesthetics. Ideally it also doesn't need to be babied and is durable. It makes sense as a goal and K/R evaluating metric.

But then I think about the 'what abouts'. What about lace or open weave sweaters? If this delicacy appeals to you, sure, you could get it as a more durable print, but then you lose half of what makes it enticing. There is a point where a particular look might not be able to be made in a way that checks all these boxes. High heels might be as stable and comfortable as engineering can design, but still won't feel like wearing tennis shoes. So sometimes I selectively trade 'design' for 'art' which doesn't have the same restrictions

Also the kids, garden, puppies, kittens equation. I can have an incredible Helmut Lang t shirt, and my kitten could snag a hole in it in 10 seconds. If so, what is my ROI? Is it practical for me? Does it make economic sense?

I echo Deb and Angie's thoughts.

I'm very practical in that I want my clothes and footwear to be comfortable (otherwise I'm miserable, and don't feel stylish at all), but have a huge impractical side too: I love beautiful things and find pleasure in looking at them and wearing them. I, e.g., will happily wear silk shirts that need to be handwashed, sport light-coloured footwear, bags and coats when I do a lot of walking and use public transport often. Ooh and then there was the time I wore pristine white jeans to my then 4-year old niece's birthday party. Were they grubby when I got home, yes. Did it stop me from having fun with the kids? Not at all. That's what washing machines are for, right

I'm in the mostly practical and depends on the definition group.

I looked up a definition, and it referred to focusing on the USE of an item.

So I'm definitely in that camp, generically speaking, for clothing--it's meant to be used. Art is "experienced" through the senses. Clothing provides sensation, but just looking at it on a hanger is not enough.

Some care-taking is not over-limiting to me so I will dry clean some things and hand wash some things. But I do evaluate that for whether I can get the same style bang for less care-taking.

I think the things I see that really say "impractical" to me are those items that are unlikely to survive careful cleaning, or day to day wear. Things that will fall off, or break off, or yeah, right, find a dry cleaner that can handle THAT.

Jewelry and different belts and so on are ornamental--well, belts hold up pants and fill the loops, but YKWIM--so they're not practical, meaning, you don't NEED a necklace, they're decorative, but in a very wearable way (chosen for wearability).

I do have the odd low-ish heeled pump or 2 for dress-up occasions, that are comfortable for an evening but not for work. So, that is not full-comfort based but fits the USE desired for the occasion.

Clutch purses, same thing--not practical for many occasions, for me, but good for a few.

So although I generally skew very practical I can see quite a range based on tolerance for care-taking of clothes and also comfort--meaning, some people really are comfortable in pumps (some kinds of) and so there is nothing impractical for them about wearing them (well, not on the farm, of course).

When I think impractical, I don't as often think of clothes I see on the rack, but tend to imagine really weird things like some of the exaggerated runway styles of crazy fabrications no one could maintain, or buckles and chains you can't sit in, or Flying Nun hats or something.