Fashion: Meditations on Style

The upcoming V&A exhibit dedicated to Grace Kelly has had me thinking about style icons lately. More specifically, I keep wondering why icons from distant decades still have such a hold on fashion followers today. Why are we (myself included) so fascinated by images of the past? Why do women like Grace Kelly, Audrey Hepburn or Jackie Kennedy still inspire so much devotion?

Our obsession with fashions of the 40's, 50's and 60's in particular is to some extent counter-intuitive. Women had far fewer style choices back then. Rigid social codes dictated everything from hemlines to cleavage and when or where a woman could show her head uncovered. Gloves were de rigueur and diamonds before nightfall were considered vulgar. Sartorial choices communicated social and marital status but with few exceptions, fashion was not the tool for self-expression it is today. By contrast, both women and men now have so much more freedom to play with fashion. In fact, never have consumers had so much to choose from at virtually every price point. So why do we keep looking back? I would love to hear your thoughts on the issue.

Sincerely,

The Luxe Chronicles

Comments

[Sandi]

I think we're intrigued with 40's, 50's and 60's fashion icons because the women of this era were literlly captivating - stunning. Styles were more formal in these earlier times. So, when women dressed up, they looked like models from top to bottom. In contrast, with fashion today, anything goes. Even when 'stars' are photographed at award ceremonies, some of them just look garish. They seem to lack the sophisticated style and elegance from the past era.

[willowblue]

When there's too much freedom of choice, it creates confusion (some would say anarchy) and navigational help is needed. Too much fashion, so little style.
Icons such as Audrey Hepburn, et al, are timeless beacons. Despite the gilded cage - and age- that they lived in, ruled by social proprieties, they asserted individual taste and style.
That's their value, imo: it's absurb to dress like them unless one is going for a cosplay party. Their power is in inspiring women now to develop their sense of individualism within boundaries.
Also, such women are iconic because they set examples not only in the way they dressed, but as women, wives, etc. Hepburn, eg, became known for her work with unicef.
Wannabe-be icons such as Madonna, Kate Moss, are so one-dimensional.

[Helene]

I love that this post has sparked so many comments - thank you all for taking the time to share your thoughts.

Jen: I take your point that many of the style icons from past decades were indeed the product of the rigid studio system which carefully crafted public images for them (including wardrobe, hair & make-up and even finishing school for manners). In the case of both Audrey Hepburn and Grace Kelly however, their background and upbringing would suggest that they probably needed less coaching in the style department than most starlets of their generation.

Also, judging by old photographs, I would point out that even the average man and woman back then looked perfectly groomed and for lack of a better term, "glamorous". I suspect that much of this had to do with the clear demarcation between casual, business or day attire and evening dress. I also think it had to do with the quality of garments of that era. Even off-the-rack department store clothing from the 30's, 40's and 50's were exceptionally well-made and crafted in such a way as to flatter the figure. Today, most fashion is designed with the very young, tall and thin in mind leaving the majority of women struggling to adapt.

I would agree to some extent with Make Do Style and John Agee Paris - too much fashion choice coupled with the absence of clear guidance or rules makes it difficult for the average (by this I mean non-style obsessed) man or woman to find their way.

Thanks again for all your comments - keep them coming.

Helene

[Jen]

We all love Audrey Hepburn? The have little books about her at Urban Outfitters advising teenagers how to embody her style. Audrey is the embodiment of chic, minimalistic style with close attention to detail, she experimented with different shapes in her dress, had gamine hair and often wore flats. Marilyn Monroe was all about hour glass, low-cut dresses and heels or fitted menswear with a half unbuttoned shirt.

I see these styles today constantly. If you change the shoes, the hair, the make-up then almost anything they wore looks modern. Personally, I can't afford designer this and thats, however I have worn black silk hour glass dresses from the 50's with hundreds of pleats in the silk, lined in silk, and with delicately placed boning, that looked modern at parties and sometimes more expensive than dresses that cost ten times the price. Vintage clothes worn in a modern way and modern clothes worn with references to the past intermingle beautifully.

It is because of this that these icons remain relevant today. D&G draw so much from the fifties as does RM, as a 20 something my generation also looks to 80's excess and 90's minimalism for inspiration. Every era has its rules, the eighteen nineties, the thirties, the fifties and even now. Today the rules are less formal, but well understood, and women of great style will always be referenced and mimicked within the context of the current era's rules.

Also, while perhaps fashion was not seen as self expressive as it is today, Grace Kelly, Audrey Hepburn, Judy Garland, Rita Hayworth, all those studio stars, had studio stylists making sure their screen image was preserved off set, so their style was more elevated and directional than was typical for their time. Audrey would have never worn Givenchy without their help, Katharine Hepburn had Howard Greer, and Marilyn was introduced to Ceil Chapman. Today, just as in the 1950s, most ordinary people dress similarly and without attention to self-expression through style, here in the NW of America it's jeans and athletic fleece, show up to an art gallery and people are just wearing their fancier jeans and newer fleece. However, we still respect and admire the icons of our time like Kate Moss or Michael Jackson, and in time there will be an icon from the early 2000's that will be remembered and venerated fifty years later.

[pulchra]

OK, I confess I'm not nostalgic at all. Grace Kelly was an icon but who could be not a bit ridiculos with such a look and outfits now? I love Audrey Hepburn, but can you imagine her now walking on the 5th avenue?
Are we sure that being too nostalgic doesn't make us blind and unable to see the new style of the 10s of this century?
I see many wonderful stylish people on the Sartorialist.com
Let's look around, let's not see the glass empty when it can be full ;-)

[Make Do Style]

The trouble with fashion today is there is too much. Love the Diana Veerland comment we could do with some scathing and clear direction.

[Helene]

Dear Readers:

I think there is a consensus emerging:

1. Clear sartorial guidelines or rules are good;

2. Imperious, dictatorial style pronouncements in the manner of the late, great Diana Vreeland are to be brought back promptly;

3. Diana Vreeland should be brought back to life (which would take care of the previous point very nicely).

Glad we've got that sorted. Thank you all for your thoughtful input.

Helene

[John Agee Paris]

I suppose I'm old-fashioned (though I'm only forty) but I think the "rules" were actually good. I don't propose going back to spats for gentlemen or white gloves for ladies, but there is something about adhering to a certain aesthetic code that breeds a certain discipline. And these girls were DISCIPLINED. Diana Vreeland had the BOTTOMS of her shoes polished with a rhinoceros horn, and she "aired" out a dress a few days before she wore it to an event. Sigh.

I suppose we love the icons because they still have something to offer. Unlike the mind-numbingly banal celebrities of our era, the women listed above (and countless others) were truly themselves, and they continue to show us the way effortlessly and stylishly.

[Silent Storyteller]

I completely agree...if only we could bring her back !!!!

[Helene]

Could it be that countless options coupled with too much freedom in the absence of genuine style leadership get us nowhere? Perhaps we need someone imperious like Diana Vreeland to lead the way?

Helene

[willowblue]

I have Grace Kelly on video in It Takes A Thief and she's so...amazing! The blue chiffon gown in her first scene could stroll the couture catwalk even today!
Grace & co fascinate fashion followers till today (and probably will do so tmrw, as well) bcos their brand of style epitomizes constancy.
However much freedom in fashion that a gal has today - whether she wears 8-inch killer heels or skirts on the verge of legal minimum - she wants at heart always to be the woman who has doors opened and her hand kissed.
In short, a lady! But it's hard to re-capture that allure.
The spirit is not the same. Recently I read an article on Chinese cheongsam which is mostly fetishized as theme costume or occasion wear, despite its enduring appeal.
It is sexy yet decorous (the duality of being lady-like) and requires a way of walking and mannerisms which, in turn, comes from a mindset not part of modern life.
Something that makes us wistful, like those fabulous icons that women dream to emulate, but never will fully.

[A]

I share your fascination with women of that époque, and indeed “fashion was not the tool for self-expression it is today”, but perhaps this was the very reason that they are remarkable. They could not have solely relied on fashion to create an identity, it first and foremost came from their character and charisma – so it was not so much in what they wore, but in how they wore it. Perhaps this is the ikkk today… women rely too much on fashion to represent their character and do not sufficiently let their character be expressed through the clothes they wear.

[Silent Storyteller]

Incredibly interested point. Probably since the 60's individuality and freedom of expression in all creative areas including fashion, resulted, in my opinion to decades of mess and the constant quest for the 'unbeautiful' (dare I say the ugly) in terms of style. We had the hippies in the 70's, I'm not sure were to start with the 80's and the grunge movement in the 90's.

What we consider conventional beauty standard has been disregarded for decades. So when we need style references we must look back.

But it is hard to understand if we admire them so much, why is there no attempt to captivate their allure?