How Important Is Personal Style?

If you've known me for any given time, you've probably received a compliment from me. In fact, I've complimented so many people in a single day, the friends I was with accused me of being insincere. I guarantee this is not the case. I have two principals in my own fashion journey that I try to always live by:

(1). I never "tone it down" for other people. I wear whatever makes me happy, if someone doesn't like it, they probably wouldn't want to hang out with me anyway.

Though I stress that I wear whatever I want, I'm still mindful of the events and situations I'll be involved in. For instance, I wouldn't wear white to a wedding, or electric lime to a funeral, and if I'm wearing a mini dress (Which is likely) I don't move in ways which would be disrespectful to those around me.

(2) Because I appear confident in the way I dress, I'm also aware I can make others feel insecure. Due to this, I've made it a point to look for something I like in each person's style that I meet. It's not "insincere," it's intentional. It's a conscious effort, not only to broaden my own interpretation of personal style, but to put others at ease and hopefully convey the idea that no one has to dress like me or meet any kind of standard to look cool or feel confident.

Before I dive into expert takes and explain why anyone cares about this topic or why anyone should, I first want to clear up a common misconception. There's a distinct difference between "having personal style" and "developing personal style." I would venture to say (and I use this term broadly), everyone has some form of personal style.

I have a very dear friend who claims she has "absolutely no sense of style" and "really doesn't care what clothes she puts on in the morning." That may be true on surface level as she has a closet of clothes based not on accessories and flare but things that are comfortable to move in. However, in the ten years I've known her, I've only ever seen her in boot cut jeans. I know she likes tee shirts with a light jersey fabric and a signature style bag she's never without. In a crowd of people, I look for her handbag to find her.

Though my friend may not care if her shoes match her purse, and doesn't like to spend much time picking her clothes in the morning, her style is evident in the way I associate it with her.

Developing personal style is different because it takes conscious effort. The things we choose to wear almost always reflect our personalities in some way. However, to truly make our clothes express us and our feelings requires work. This work often leads to one discovering an aesthetic or creating one.

I feel that Edie Sedgwick captured the essence of discovering personal style best in regards to her own style and image in a quotation from Jean Stein's 1982 book entitled "Edie: American Girl."

" You have to put up with the risk of being misunderstood if you are going to try to communicate. You have to up with people projecting their own ideas, attitudes, misunderstanding you. But it's worth being a public fool if that's all you can be in order to communicate."

The reason I find this quotation so appropriate is even if your clothes reflect you in the truest form they're still pieces of cloth and as such are subject to interpretation, like a form of abstract art. A person could dress up, feel their best, and walk with their head held high. While another person may see them, take into account the clothes they're wearing, their good posture and come to the conclusion they're something of a snob.

So what is the value of personal style and how does it outweigh the risk of misinterpretation and judgement? Clothes are one of the most eye catching forms of self expression. In the article "The Value of Style" (Psychology Today, 2005), it's stated;

"Style is important, often undervalued because it is so widely misunderstood... It is a reflection of your unique complexity as a human being."

This backs up the statement made by Edie Sedgwick suggesting clothes are a form of communication. The article goes on to say;

"It always suggest that you are in control of your personal environment. (...) That's one of the reasons it is an invaluable tool in moving through the world."

In 2012, Hajo Adams and Adam D. Galinsky preformed a study on the psychological affects of wearing clothing associated with different types of work. The experiments involved giving students a laboratory task and a specific piece of clothing to wear, to test the systematic influence clothes have on the wearer's psychological process.

Three experiments were made; the first involving students who wore their everyday clothes with no further requirements of apparel. In the second, students were given a lab coat described as an "artist coat" and asked to wear it while they carried out their task. For the third experiment, students were given the same type of lab coat as in experiment number two, but this time it was described as a "doctor's coat."

Results showed increased selective attention on the task in experiment number three. Giving strong evidence to the idea that wearing specific clothing has a tangible effect on the wearer's psychological and physical performance. Researchers coined the term "enclothed cognition" to describe the affects clothing has on our subconscious.

Emma Feria expounded on this in a 2022 article for The Tartan (Opinion: The Psychological Benefits of Fashion) when she said;

"Personal style reflects how we want to be perceived. "Enclothed cognition" can be good or bad, depending on if it's associated with a positive or negative construct."

Tali Stolovy holds that not only do our clothes affect our behavior, our behavior also affects our choice of clothes. Examples could include someone who battles depression wanting to wear sweatpants everyday, or someone with lower self confidence intentionally styling themselves in clothes they see other people wear. According to "Styling the Self: Personality Traits and Body Image Among Israeli Women" (Frontiers in Psychology, Sep. 7th, 2021), women who are inclined to express confidence and individuality are less motivated by comfort when choosing their clothes.

"My main research hypothesis is that clothing practices are related to personality traits and can be predicted by body image."

It's important to note that Stolovy is referencing "body image" and not "body type." Suggesting women's personal styles are reflections not of how their bodies look, but how they feel about their bodies.

This research shows that not only is being confident tied to how comfortable we feel in our clothes, but that becoming confident will inevitably affect the way we wear clothes. It's not to say "everyone needs to develop their personal style." Rather that developing our personal style is a natural progression as we become more comfortable in our own skin.

In conclusion, we are subject to misinterpretations and judgement no matter what we wear. So why not wear what we want? However big a crowd wearing the same type of clothes, there will always be another crowd wearing something different and likely opposite. I encourage everyone to enjoy their clothes, whether that means wearing feathers and pumps or tee shirts and bootcut jeans. The idea behind personal style is to make it your own.

Hope you enjoyed my blog ! If you've made it this far consider leaving me a review!

-Coco Elouise Marie

Separating the Art from the Artist

We've all heard that phrase before haven't we? So often we hear it mentioned when someone is discussing art they enjoy and the artist has been branded "problematic." In a world where free speech has been magnified by the internet, the freedom to enjoy things at face value seems to have vanished. Before we can comment on our interest in music, movies, fashion, or art, we must first check to see if the creator fits into our peer's description of moral accountability. I stress "our peer's description" because left to ourselves without outside judgement how often would we analyze our own likes and dislikes?

Yet the question remains; can we truly separate the art from the artist? If the answer is no, at what point of the artist's corruption does their art become morally unconsumable? No matter what side of the debate you lean towards, or where you draw the the line, this is a divisive subject and there will be always be people who disagree. Even when I first started researching this topic some of the first articles I came across made claims both that the separation was needed, and that truly separating the art was impossible.

Does the separation of art from artist decontextualize their work and leave it void of any depth or meaning? Perhaps, or as so often the case, this to could depend greatly on piece by piece intention and translation. Is the song or painting referencing the controversy surrounding the artist? Does their latest fashion show encourage unethical consumption? It's pieces like this that are inseparable not just from the artist's controversy, but it's own as well.

The ability to disregard the entirety of an artist's life's work is further complicated by their own influence. Andy Warhol comes to mind as an example who's influence across several different fields can't be denied, much less disregarded. Putting your feelings on his personal beliefs and statements aside, his mark on the worlds of pop art, film, and even fashion have become historically significant. To erase this history because you disagree with the views of the artist would decontextualize most post-modern art being created today.

I have found a large amount of cancel culture surrounds around the idea of an artist creating moral controversy, and not about whether or not the art itself reflects that controversy or creates it's own.

After the recent death of Bridget Bardot there was a considerable amount of discussion surrounding how ethical it is to morn or celebrate the life she lead. Bardot was a fashion icon, sex symbol, and all around "it girl" in the 1960's, known for her big bouffant hair as well as for her work as an animal rights activist. However in the more recent years leading up to her death, she was noted for being convicted on five* separate accounts for inciting racial hatred. A mark that certainly overshadows her more charitable features.

*I have seen posts attributing her to six convictions, however I have only been able to confirm five through my own research.

Naturally the internet had lots of hateful things to add to the discourse. Some people sided with her, adding further hurtful comments on race, religion and political views. Others made equally hateful accusations against her, broadening the blame to anyone whose so much as saved a photo of the late actress to a Pinterest board labeled "Hair."

Now that some time has passed, and the rage of anyone with access to a keyboard has died down, the argument has again boiled down to the same question: Can we separate the art from the artist? Bardot's work, both as a model and film star leave behind a legacy of 1960's pop culture, one that can't easily be ignored. So how are we to interact with the piece of history that has been left to us?

As I've stated before, I believe art can be viewed separately from the artist as long as the art is taken in context of itself. I do not view Bardot as a suitable role model, however, I do have her picture saved on a Pinterest board labeled "Hair." This is not my way of condoning or disregarding her comments or views, but maybe my Pinterest board wasn't meant to be political.

Where we so often ask if the artist is problematic, do we stop to consider what message the art itself is sending? We listen to songs about topics we would never feel comfortable with their writers participating in, we enjoy runway fashions with little to no concern as to whether or not the models gave consent to what they would be made to wear. (Gisele Bündchen who walked topless for Alexander McQueen's S/S 1998 show.) We as a culture are quick to pass judgement with little care for context. We're so eager for our own opinions to be heard we often fail to properly articulate them. Wishing only to be marked with approval by our peers and praised for the work of a critic. Perhaps it's because it is easier to say something negative than it is to remain silent, and the only thing worse than having the agreed upon "wrong opinion" on the internet is holding no real opinion at all.

Thanks for reading, if you've made it this far consider leaving a review!

-Coco Elouise Marie

How Comfortable is Nostalgic Fashion?

This may seem like an odd topic of choice from someone whose personal branding is so deeply rooted in the past, and yet perhaps that's why it feels so important to address. Many of us are drawn to concepts and styles from decades that aren't our own. In the world of fashion ideas move in a cycle. The influence of the past is evident because everything is visual and inspiration is widely discussed. Every once in a while some brilliant designer will come up with something that feels especially new. However, more often than not some past decade is removed from its shelf, dusted off and the cycle of trends starts again with Y2K low rise jeans and butterfly halter tops whose inspiration can be traced back to the 1800's. With all of history at our fingertips we are constantly tempted to embrace the comfort of the past when our own future seems uncertain.

That's not to say some of these rediscovered or reimagined designs don't hold charm and allure of their own, or aren't worthwhile of revisiting. Dolce and Gabbana's 2025 Alta Sartoria fashion show gave us an incredible look at historically inspired menswear blended with modern tailoring. (Helped tremendously by their confidence in a bold color pallet.) What resulted was a breathtaking collection that felt both fresh and familiar.

Gucci offered another example of the past effortlessly transcribed into the present with their Spring/Summer 2025 collection which called back the 1960's in a way that made their inspiration obvious without feeling like they were trying to play dress up with vintage clothes. An important distinction for a brand as prominent as Gucci.

Now that I've given credit to fashionable callbacks and admitted myself to being entirely centered on nostalgic fashion, when does this indulgence in the past go to far? It's important to recognize the difference between romanticizing the past and learning from it. Nostalgia feeds of the idea we were better off in the past. While there's nothing wrong with bringing the better parts of the past into the future, sometimes we have to be reminded the only direction we can travel through time is forward. Nostalgic fashion becomes harmful on our mental wellbeing as well as our social outlook when it convinces us there's more to miss in times past than the simplicity of aesthetic.

This is usually when we see big retail brands trying to capitalize on the feelings that come through hindsight. They use algorithms, targeted ads, and the hype from nostalgia obsessed teenagers to create a collective longing for the feeling their product promises. I may sound like I'm making them out to sound intentionally devious, but how harmful can that really be? Anyone whose studied sales knows you can't effectively advertise products without marketing a feeling. Even my own brand is based entirely on the idea of reviving the styles and aesthetics of the 1960's. I recognize this is a grey area and it's difficult to draw an exact line at how much musing on the past is to much.

Which brings me to my next point, the fault of nostalgia lays in intention. Every brand no mater how big or small has a choice of how to market nostalgia. They can use their platform to encourage self expression through callback styles, or they can create longing for a period they claim their product can reproduce. Creating longing is usually used when a company is less concerned with community and than it is with profit. By convincing you that you missed out on how great things used to be they trap you into buying products full of false promises to bring back the feelings of the past. A past not near as spectacular as the glorified version we see in media.

So why bother looking back at all? Ryan Yip stated in his article, "To Be Original" (Fashion Review issue1) "Social Media has corrupted us. (...) It forces us to compare ourselves with what others are glamorously presenting. In short, it makes us feel incomplete and unsatisfied. Within the realm of fashion this takes away the one thing that is most precious to all of us: originality."

Already nostalgia has two factors ready to convince everyone to dive in, the first being uniqueness. Though one can never compare nostalgic styles to originality since it's very definition notes it's been done before, one also wouldn't consider someone dressed for a different time period to be 'mainstream.' Nostalgia brings to the table an odd sort of protective individualism. It's been done before and it was well liked enough to be remembered, but of course by dressing for another time you're bound to stand out in your own. The second factor nostalgia brings forward is community. Like many or any fashion movements, those who commit to an aesthetic are drawn to others who do the same. Thus sparking an online community for people who dress in nearly any decade.

So here we are, comfortably nestled between community and uniqueness, needing only to occasionally be reminded that we truly are better off in the present with the technology that makes so many niche communities possible.

Thanks for reading! If you've made it this far consider leaving a review!

-Coco Elouise Marie