Reviewing the figures

figuring out the strengths of one's figure is undoubtedly a shortcut to greatly improving one's style (fit is key), but should body-type dictate style? that is, if one is an hour-glass, then is it possible to look for cuts that flatter an hour-glass shape without altering the desired style or look? hour-glass conjures up images of 1940-50s fashions, and some 80s as well, but does an hour-glass have to adhere to a specific fashion era? can an hour-glass body rock a punk senability? can a rectangle body go beyond boy-cut clothes? i think definitely yes, but it is tricky.
yours truly,

do you let your body define more than your tailoring? does it also define your style?


Iheartfashion said...

As an hourglass yearning to be a rectangle, I look for clothes that fit my body type, but hint at another. I'm always drawn to the sort of Kate Moss/rocker chic/skinny jean and shrunken leather jacket-look on other people rather than the 50's-style nipped-waist dresses that (maybe) belong on my hourglass figure. I've got more in common body-wise with Dita Von Teese or Marilyn Monroe than Kate or Audrey.

Carlene said...

Another hourglass here. I never yearned to be another body type. Maybe a smaller hourglass. Anyway, I abhor the 40's-50's-style nipped waist that I'm supposed to look so good in.

My body type may define my style, if only because I can't wear certain things without looking huge (those cute smocky type things, for example, and a little tent dress looks like an actual tent) or pregnant (not that there's anything wrong with that). So there's usually a form-fitting ribbed knit somewhere in the mix.

But it doesn't keep me from wearing (or at least trying) some things I'm not "supposed" to be able to wear. I can even rock the skinny jean thing (and I am a size 8, so, not thin), if I wear them with, say, a form-fitting ribbed tank top and a shapely sort of Edwardian jacket over it. Punk is in the details.

editor said...

iheartfashion - when you mentioned kate at the end there, i thought of hepburn, though i think you meant moss. but it's interesting, hepburn (kate) actually had curves i think, but she, or the fashions of the time, did not accentuate them much.

woohoo, go carlene. "punk is in the details." lol
as a rectangle, i can assure you that tent dresses (my fave) make even this rectangle look pregnant. i don't care. i'm committed. :)

Anonymous said...

Good topic! I did some digging after the earlier discussion about dresses and how some of us have decided they are hard to wear. there is one more thing to consider beside shape and that is porportion.

Rebbeca of The Space between my Peers blog did some interesting posts about length balancing. There is also the concept of the Golden mean which is a ratio I can't rembember right now but determines why some things look right and others don't regardless of shape.

Here's the link ( I made it smaller) , hope it works:

(It's Midnight)

Anonymous said...

Ah ha - this is of course the next logical question after the last post. I'm just loving this thought process! :)

Well...perhaps there are certain looks or individual pieces that one's body-type rejects wearing...but I don't know that it's so drastic that it would cut a person out completely if they really felt that their style was this or that. True style is something from the soul, I think.

To build on my last comment; I'm not an "exclamation point" body, so I can't do the scrawny rocker chick look. However, if I really was a rocker - I'd just be a buxom rocker! (But I'm not, I'm a nerd-girl).

Ooo, but that bodes the question - if I were a rail-type would I be a rocker!? Gasp, maybe our body types do define us more than we think?

Part of my Gen X theory, though, is going back and exploring the decades we Xers have lived through, subcultures etc. Punk, I think, has been very important for Gen X and Y - a huge influence. So I agree with you, sometimes we can retain detail elements of the things that define us, and that becomes part of who we are.

Gosh, you know what, I'm not sure I have a conclusive answer to thie question - it's more complicated than it seems at first.

Anonymous said...

Genx, wow you said/asked, do our body types define us more than we think....I never thought of that before but then that was the original Q wasn't it? I am so brain-dead today, geez sorry. (Midnight here btw)

I am an exclaimation point at 5'7" 117 which has absolutely influenced my ultimate choices for better or worse. There was actually a disconnect for years between my fantasy self (short/voluptous) and my actual self(long/lean) which contributed to a huge amount of wasteful overshopping. Wishful thinking and reality clashed too often!

I'm a babyboomer and the 80's were party time for me. Skinnies, high heeled pumps, big hair ugh but we rocked it, lol. I'm glad skinnies are back, they still suit me best but now it's with demure flats which are a hundred times better for my porportions.

Genx, is what you are thinking that we are drawn to familiarity and good memories in style choices b/c of special period defining elements? Is it also why we can so easily make errors in misunderstanding or denying our body types?

Did I understand you correctly, do I even make sense, I am feeling like I blundered into a Master Wardrobe Philosophy class :) LOVE IT!!!