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

The Death of Physical Media

As 2025 came to a close an interesting movement sparked to life on the internet, that being, an increasing demand for physical media and a greater romanticizing of life lived offline. The movement gained momentum in the new year with 2026 being declared "the year we go back to analog." It's a sort of strange irony to watch content creators flaunt hauls of CDs and hear through various TikToks how much better life would be without, well... TikTok. Don't get me wrong, I think the idea is wonderful and the demand for things that last is long overdue. I also understand that ironic or not the fastest way to spread the word is through the internet.

So, if I'm on board, why am I writing about the death of physical media? My hesitancy to accept this as the "year of analog" stems from Gen Z's track record of impermanence. We dive into a new idea, romanticize the crap out of it, overconsume, and inevitably burn ourselves out before moving on to the next big thing. I guess my question boils down to; is this truly a movement, or just another trend?

If it is a trend, and three months from now no one cares if you're buying DVDs or paying for three different streaming services, then it will only serve as a nail in the coffin of the way we consume physical media. I don't think it's going to go extinct or die in terms of simply not being created anymore, because as long as human beings exist we will have an innate desire to create. There will always be people who believe music sounds better on vinyl, poets who will always prefer the feeling of paper under their pens, and artists who'll mix their own paint before they ever succumb to generating their ideas through AI. Our very nature is to create, explore and experience. Our curiosity has always driven us forward and I fully believe it will continue to do so.

What's in danger isn't the existence of physical media, but rather the way we experience it. Gone our the days of driving to the local Blockbuster to rent a movie, and though we're not likely to stop making movies or watching them, the experience that came with renting a DVD has been outmoded for the sake of convenience. Our way of life has conformed to the idea that anything taking us out of our way must be labeled "inconvenient."

Even our romanticizing of the past has been neatly formulated into short form content and five second clips to scroll through while watching another larger screen simultaneously. Is it redundant to say nostalgia isn't what it used to be?

It's certainly redundant to say the world is always changing, because it always has been, and yet the changes seem to be coming faster now. Like an avalanche gaining momentum as it crashes down a mountainside. It's hard to imagine 250 years ago the sewing machine didn't exist. Neither did the phones, cars or movies for that mater. Now with the rise of artificial intelligence, we can generate movies within moments, ride in cars that drive themselves, and phones have evolved into pocket computers so complex they seem to rival the technology that put man on the moon. Have we gone to far? Is this avalanche of technological industrialization truly killing the creative industry? Perhaps "reshaping the creative industry" is a better term. However, the question remains, is it a better fate?

We're already seeing the toll AI is taking on graphic designers, painters, musicians and even actors. Aspects of the fashion industry are also suffering the effects of AI dupes as our generation struggles to find a balance of creative control. Realistically speaking they're not going to discontinue the use of AI, so why are we resisting the future? The answer is simple really; in order to embrace hope, we have to resist control.

Gen Z has the right idea by spreading the word that tangible media is still important, but what percentage of Gen Z do you think woke up on January first and declared the beginning of the "year of analog" by deleting Spotify? Or Netflix? Or by trading out their smartphones for Blackberries? I'm not saying we're wrong for not jumping in 100%, just the opposite in fact, I think we're on to something. By searching for a balance between the physical and digital, we're projecting the idea that entertainment is meant to be enjoyed. We're announcing that we should be allowed to take control of it, to slow down and rewatch or reread the things we want to consume.

It's interesting to me, of all the things to be invented, industrialized, and automated in the last 250 years something as simple as the sewing machine still requires the steady guidance of human hands...and feet. Which brings me to another question, where does fashion fit into the preservation of physical media?

When we think of media we often think of movies, music, zines and writings. Though fashion may not meet the textbook definition of media, one can't deny the influence they have on each other. It's also one of the most physical forms of creative work as the very function of fashion is to be physically worn on the body. I think it's safe to say you can't fully digitize fashion, and with the sewing machine still requiring man/woman power, you can't even fully automate fashion. However, the way we experience fashion is in the same danger as the way we experience physical media.

With the rise of flash fashion, the convenience of same day shipping and cheap prices, we're allured into sacrificing the quality that comes with clothes crafted with intention. Trends have become something we metaphorically subscribe too. Here one day, gone the next. Something so physical, so personal as clothes, becoming as impermeant as paper plates. It isn't often teenagers today plan trips to the mall in early September, armed with $200 and the goal of finding new school clothes. Now it can all be done from an app you carry in your pocket. Add it to the cart and it arrives at your doorstep in less than 48 hours. Is this the face of convenience? Stripping away the activities associated with community? Is this why it's become of awkward to ask someone to hang out; because anything that could be done on our phones has become taboo to want to do in person?

Trend or not, right now we're making an effort to preserve physical media, let's not lose sight of why. It's not to build collections and it's not to find new ways to consume. We're doing this to preserve connection.

Thank you for reading! If you enjoyed what you read consider leaving a comment!

-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