It Is All About The Context
The moment we realise that clothes are communication, getting dressed becomes a strategic game, a skill we should master. Who do we dress for? For oneself or for others? I guess for both. We often want to communicate (in no particular order) one or more of the following qualities: beauty, authenticity, trustworthiness, competence, health, kindness, passion, reliability, openness, stability, intelligence, strength, status, wealth, good taste, elegance, … and much more.
Imagine I present you with five different colours on a white sheet of paper and ask you to order them from most to least “romantic” colours: grass green, deep aubergine, lemon yellow, pastel pink and grey. You may conclude that pastel pink is the most romantic colour of them all. And you wouldn’t be wrong. From a psychological as well as societal context this colour may be considered as a very romantic colour. You have reached that conclusion because you looked at the five colours in isolation, i.e. without any context. Now, let’s add the context, i.e. a human being. Suddenly the exercise is no longer about the colour alone. It is about: “in what particular context does this human, this face, eyes, hair, skeleton, body geometry, height, curve and straight line come across as most romantic - or authentic or competent or intelligent or healthy or open-minded or reliable or brave - you name it.
On some (e.g. Light Summer Colour Types), the answer will be “pastel pink”. On others (e.g. Deep/Dark Autumns), pastel pink will read as washed out, unhealthy and incompetent. Deep/Dark Autumn does not look feminine in pastel pink. She looks tired and washed out. She looks much more “romantic” in a deep aubergine or warm burgundy. This is a completely different story. A deep warm burgundy might not stand a chance next to pastel pink in the “romantic competition” on a white sheet of paper. However, in the context on the woman (or a man), the rules of the game shift to accommodate for the Colour Type of the person wearing the colour. Once the white sheet of paper is substituted by a human, the whole perception of colour properties changes based on the hue, value and chroma properties of the face. A similar analogy can be applied to materials, patterns, fabrics, silhouettes, make-up, hairstyles and accessories.
Maybe the most “romantic” and “feminine” dress in the world would be Scarlett O’Hara’s corset dress with lace and ruffles and bows. But it doesn’t mean that every woman wearing that dress would convey the same message as the dress does on its own. Add a human (i.e. a context) to the dress and the story may change. Suddenly the message might shift from feminine & romantic to lacking elegance, heavy, stocky, immature and/or incompetent and certainly not romantic.
In similar fashion of analogy, some women look incredibly feminine, almost fragile and delicate in a pixie cut. They are the epitome of feminine beauty in a pixie. Yet the very same haircut on a different kind of woman tells a different story. On some women a pixie haircut makes them look harsh, strict, matronly and less feminine. It is not a coincidence. Their Image Archetype is simply not in harmony with a pixie cut. That’s all. They have their own version of a haircut that is flattering and reads as “feminine” on them. What looks unsophisticated and matronly on one Image Archetype can be very flattering on a different Image Archetype and vice versa.
Some ladies look their most attractive wearing minimal detail or just one statement accessory. Other ladies look their most feminine “dripping in diamonds” and can pull off several pieces of jewellery simultaneously with ease and grace. And I could go on and on…
Any Body and Colour Type can (within reason) achieve any effect but each will do so wearing different clothes. Find out your version of elegant, competent and aesthetically pleasing with Style Identity.