“Is Style Only for the Upper Class?” at The NYTimes.com
Q. While I always look at the section with interest, I sometimes can’t shake the feeling that Style is defined by any two of a writer’s friends with too much money and time on their hands. The “A Night Out With…” pieces, for instance, often suggest nightspots that most people couldn’t poke their noses in if they didn’t know the right people. Even some of the bylines of those articles reek of highfalutin-ness; how am I supposed to take an article seriously when it’s written “By Zo”? I don’t get the sense from your section that anyone who lives paycheck to paycheck has Style. Does “Style,” by definition, percolate downward from the upper class? And can it be affordable?
– John Dillon, New Haven
I didn’t care much for the NYT’s defensive answer. Here’s my take on it.
No. Style is not for the rich. It doesn’t have to be expensive. To me, style is different from fashion and it’s different from being trendy.
From Merriam Webster Online (one of my favorite reference sites):
Main Entry: 1style
Pronunciation: ’stI(-&)l
Function: noun2 a : a distinctive manner of expression (as in writing or speech)
b : a distinctive manner or custom of behaving or conducting oneself ; also : a particular mode of living c : a particular manner or technique by which something is done, created, or performed 4 : a distinctive quality, form, or type of something
5 a : the state of being popular : FASHION
b : fashionable elegance c : beauty, grace, or ease of manner or technique
If you take definition #4, distinctive quality, form, or type of something, it doesn’t mean you spend a lot. Style is often created by a lack of resources. Think Boho chic from thrift store finds. Think funky artsy style by dotting a pair of eyeglasses with a coat of nail polish and some rhinestones. (A friend of mine did this to great effect. She is awesome stylish!)
Being unique with a sense of style all your own isn’t about spending money. It’s about putting it together with some panache. (Does anyone even say that word anymore. Do you know what it means?) Style can come cheaply. I love the Sandra Dee-Gigdet look. It’s a pair of clean white Keds, clamdigger pants and a clean crisp white shirt. It’s classic and NEVER goes out of style. It’s a cheap look too and a lot of people look great in it. (Add a scarf tie to the ponytail and you are all set.)
I am confused by people who think style = money. Perhaps I hang with too many artsy types, but if you are going for an expensive style, sure it can be expensive. But if you are aiming for your own style without a lot of money, it can be done. Eclectic style doesn’t have to cost an arm and a leg. Use your brain and get your style to fit your personality. Don’t just buy style. It’ll be as sterile and as boring as the money that bought it. I suppose that’s a style too.
Related posts:
- NYC Trip Expenses $43.50 Bus ticket $10.00 Metro card fill $8.00 cab ride...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
The only part of any style section I’ve read in the paper is the comics back home in PA. The rest does always seem written for high-class people, even in Pennsyltuckey where there are very few.
When you look at magazines with names like In Style, the stuff they talk about isn’t for the thrifty and, ironically, it’s not for people with a “distinctive manner of expression.” It’s for people who want to look like someone else and how much money they’d have to spend to do it. It’s about copying, not celebrating uniqueness… unless you can afford to be unique with a $500 pair of shoes.
So, by definition, style has nothing to do with money, but the purveyors of all things stylish sometimes forget that. Or, they don’t think about it at all.
There’s a difference between the idea that “style=money” (nope) and the idea of style as a function of status (which I’d say is almost categorically true). It’s not merely a matter of access (i.e., it’s possible to get stylish clothing on a tight budget, though realistically, it’s harder and takes a great deal more time), it’s a matter of codes. The ability to “read” style is a learned one–much like the ability to figure out what an abstract painting is about. The ability to put together clothing in a way that reads as stylish to others (tastemaking others) is similarly coded, contingent on one’s assimilation of the code. As codes go, the code of clothing style is a reasonably accessible one, given the prevalence of fashion and style in the media, but I do think that, as in other things, status (and thus, money) are factors in style.
Being English and so living in a pretty class-ridden society, I’d say that in general style is not something for the upper classes (think Princess Anne).
But thats because I’m middle class (in an British sense – separate from wealth) and English Major is right, style is a function of status.
“Style editors” need to change their title to “merchandising editors” -they dont seem to identify a trend anymore – event the text that accompanies the images and products are simply copied verbatim from the manufacturers advertising speil.