Giant sunglasses and groomed (but not necessarily “done”) is sufficient to get the feeling of casual glamor—Jackie o walking on the beach. High glamor is a whole nuther level.

Aspire to the former. The latter is too much work.

Does anyone else have a difference in their head between “glam” (David Bowie) and “glamour” (Marilyn Monroe)? To me, “glam” is combining elements of glamour with maximalism.

Oh yes. Glam is different from Glamourous. Glam has a street vibe.

Rachylou’s comments resonated with me. I see glamorous as a not-so-concealed attempt to impart an image to attract, almost seductive in motive. I sit here watching an old black and white movie, and the lady on screen is definitely glamorous, projecting by her clothing (figure draping satin), makeup (impeccably 1940s feminine)j, and mannerisms (gracefully conscious of her own body’s attractiveness) that she wants to influence the man she is interacting with. To me glamour is more encompassing than elegance - it indicates something about both the glamourous person and the reactions/interactions of those whom she encounters.

Along with cjh, I think glamour is more about the relation of the audience to the glamorous person. Attraction is a major element. Elegance is more aloof.

Vildy—I watched the video. The presenter calls lots of things glamorous, like certain buildings, spiral staircases, translucent things. It is interesting she says glamour is not necessarily related to a certain bygone era; but rather, a certain set of streamlined shapes that convey a sense of travel. Travel is glamorous, it’s true. Things that are futuristic seem glamorous as well. She mentions churches as being glamorous—-not sure I agree with her on that one, though I can see her point.

I definitely think of her view of “glamour” as closer to mine, and that elegance is something different.

Jenn- I think of glam as David Bowie, yes.

CJH: yes, I agree that glamour is seductive. (Not that I want to seduce anyone or anything!)

CJH is and Shevia: I hadn’t really thought that glamour came about the relationship between the audience and the glamorous person. Food for thought.

for me, "glam" is sort of a parody of glamorous...glam wears its costuminess on the outside while glamorous wears it on the inside....

To me, the Postel work is about the power on the audience of the unknown. While Thanksgiving is a huge travel day of people going back home, she's using travel as representing the unknown - to the audience - and therefore into the future. Her whole concept, to me, coincides with Effortlessness, that everyone's always trying to decode about style. It's how the trick is done. Which only the magician or the backstage people know and supposedly not the audience. It's why we're always trying to figure out and define elegance or chic. It's something someone else, the glamorous one, can figure out and pull off and though we can relate, because we're all people, we can't get all the way "in" because shut out by the dark glasses and the remote gaze that won't recognize us. I think there's a connection here to Cool, too. I think of Cool as someone who follows their own lead and doesn't ever look around to take the temperature of how the audience is reacting.

Vildy, thanks for posting that Ted Talk. I really enjoyed it. It's funny that I specifically mentioned celebrity travel looks above. There is an allure to going into the unknown, even though we know the reality of travel is often cramped airline seats, too many bodies too close to each other, and lugging heavy bags through spaces that are always too hot or too cold for comfort.

Jenn, yeah, that's why they show the outside of the spacecraft but the inside wouldn't be glamorous. I think this idea relates to the glamorous celebrities/stars of the past. Their images were always managed and we were not supposed to know their interior life, or indeed their private lives. It's harder to figure out who might be glamorous today since way too much about them is known. I think that's part of why people are shocked by certain celebrity suicides today. They seemed to have such a perfectly managed life with no details contrary to that allowed to leak out. As with Kate Spade, it might "hurt the brand," that purports to show you how to live your best life.

Poise, impeccable attn to milking simplicity and the understated. Jackie Kennedy and Hepburn come to mind. There is a certain mystery about glamour. We can strive and do all the prescribed actions but then we see someone in the simplest of circumstances, not all dolled up or even caring, and we smile at that beauty. A mother gently brushing her child’s hair from her eyes; an elderly couple in an open market, picking out tomatoes. Grace, beauty, glamorous to the nth degree.

I've been looking at embellished Jean's lately, thinking "glam", but when I saw this post I actually decided to look up the definition of glamorous.

Well, it said "having glamour". Which wasn't helpful.

So I looked up "glamour" and got "the attractive or exciting quality that makes certain people or things seem appealing or special"

So I guess glamour is whatever you think it is. I guess for me, since I'm so rough & tumble out here trying to homestead in the middle of nowhere, it's pearl embellished or painted jeans, it's Iris Apfel and her accessories game, it's white clothes (because I canNOT keep whites white), it's a pretty dress, a high heel...
It's all those things that just don't make sense for my lifestyle :-/

I don't have any suggestions, unfortunately. Because to me, these days, glamour for me is the daily, stylish outfits on YLF LOL

I hear you CJ but to me beauty and grace are not the same as glamour.
I think there has to be that allure or attraction. Sort of like magnetic.
I think it’s also fun, regarding outfits, as to whether some of the Hollywood outfits ( maybe especially airport or street style) are glamorous of themselves or ONLY if you recognize that the person is famous and “glamorous “ ( as opposed to infamous!)! I have fun with some of the red carpet looks because I don’t know half ( or more) of the stars!

What smittie an kkards said! The first thing i thought of was sunglasses, which seems to be the consensus, but not all who wear sunglasses look glamorous. Bright neon sunglasses aren't glamorous, they're quirky, young. Glamour to me implies mystery, exoticness, full grown woman not young girl. The sense of she/he must be someone important, but you can't quite place it...

Some celebrity airport shots I would consider modern, everyday glamour. Not all of them are wearing sunglasses, but many are. Is it merely the allure of being in an airport, carrying chic luggage? Julianne Moore managed to look glamorous in faded jeans and Birkenstocks. Naomi Watts does it with two kids in tow.

1. Emma Stone
2. Elizabeth Olsen
3. Selena Gomez
4-5. Julianne Moore
6. Naomi Watts

This post has 6 photos. Photos uploaded by this member are only visible to other logged in members.

If you aren't a member, but would like to participate, please consider signing up. It only takes a minute and we'd love to have you.

Love those photos!

But I winder, what is the difference between glamorous and say, chic? Overlaps of course but is glamorous something more, or just different? And perhaps that’s where the “ personage “ comes into play.

To me, glamorous is more set apart, a mystery ( yes, I listened to the Ted Talk. Something is a bit hidden. Chic is more approachable and open, although both are polished and groomed.

Okay, any thoughts on the "Glamorous Grandmas" article NYT published a couple months back? It's about Accidental Icon, etc.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0.....ndmas.html

Do these ladies have glamour, as NYT suggests, or would you call it something else?

To me, there's something unapproachable about glamorous people.
You can get just so close and no closer. It's a surface image and you are left to read in the depth. I have trouble reconciling this with bloggers who need attention either in and of itself or to make an income. They "need" the audience and I see glamour as the opposite of needy.

In Jenn's airport pics above I would say the first pic feels glamorous - the others maybe just casual chic. The difference to me is in the attitude of the person. The first pic of course being black and white adds to the glamour, as does her large travel bag..."where is she headed?" one wonders, and she is a very attractive young woman with a secretive, pose and direct gaze.

What doesn't feel glamorous to me in pic 2 in particular is a combo of the visible growing out dark roots from bleached hair, the huge ripped hole in the jeans and the paper sack in the woman's hand in pic 2.

Note to self: If you want to appear glamorous, never hold a paper sack in public

Ok... I don’t think the NYT ladies are doing glamour. They are way over the top and are pure fashion, IMHO.

I think there is a polish element that is missing from several of the airport pics.

I noticed that several of them are wearing hats and sunglasses and looking down. This is a glamorous airport pose, I think

Extreme Polish seems to hit the glamour buttonfor me. I sometimes see regular people in an airport wearing sweatpants and yet they are so polished and I think of them as glamorous.

Some of those grandmothers I think of as glamorous, yes, I can’t say why. Some of them are making faces which I think makes them approachable, not aloof and glamorous. The really severe ones look glamorous, haha!

I think the Instagram / iPhone effects can make pictures look glamorous.

I don't know how to define it, but Eva Longoria is my go-to glamour celeb ... Even in jeans and a tee, her hair is bouncy and styled, her earrings are blingy, her lips are shiny, her sunnies and bag are designer and her heels are high!