speaking of belts, when i was selecting mine, i felt i was dangerously close to cliché territory: my choices were skinny belt, medium belt, wide belt. yes, in every imaginable color, but since i already knew i wanted black, the choice really came down to these 3 widths. i got bored with staring at my options, realizing that i was admiring more than deciding and just instinctively grabbed one.
it's the perfect belt for me (i can say with certainty now that i've held it up to all my clothes). a teeny tiny part of me was disappointed that i went with a medium width, wondering if i had wimped out. but the medium will actually serve my style, needs and imagination the longest. the beauty of the belt lies in the material, the quality, the simplicity, and not the neutrality of the belt (and by "neutrality" here i do not mean a high probability of compatibility. i mean "middle of the road").
and while i am not someone who would ever consciously aim for middle-of-the-road (frankly, i prefer to be off on the shoulder, sartorially speaking), it raised questions for me. what would make an item be defined as a style neutral? merely not being an extreme? merely not being trendy? is "trendy" applied to anything that is painfully, nauseatingly popular? if i had found this belt a year ago or 5, or 10, it would have been perfect for me. the appeal of it is not based on ephemeral and fictional standards of rightness. i do not like "in" and "out" lists since the very existence of the list is what makes the definition (things are not "in" or "out" until they are on the list - and then their status only matters to list makers and list readers. that's my theory anyway.).
is being unpopular the only way for an item to not be trendy?
do all items have a "middle of the road" option for people to retreat to when they (pants, blazers, hemlines, etc.) are rendered in "trendy" styles?