Thursday, July 3, 2008

The Science of Glamour


Idealist that I am, I always thought that the allure of eccentric glamour was that it couldn’t—or shouldn’t—be codified.

After all, it’s eccentric style; it isn’t supposed to follow a chart or be reproduced.

But in today’s New York Times, Simon Doonan (whose creativity for Barneys I adore) held forth on house gifts for a cadre of eccentric glamour girls—the socialite, the gypsy, the existentialist—all of whom appear in his new book Eccentric Glamour: Creating an Insanely Fabulous New You.

I’m going to dash out this weekend to leaf through a copy, because I hope that the book is a treasure trove of visual delights—much like Doonan’s Barneys vitrines.

But here’s my concern: eccentric glamour is individual, and while I’m thrilled to see a visual representation of glamourous eccentrics (not exactly the same thing, I know), I resist the scientific approach. And this excerpt offers more classification than I want from my definition of eccentric glamour. In fact, I wouldn’t even dare to define it, because it would then lose its allure for me.

So I’m doubly steamed: first Steampunk hits the NYT Styles, now a guide to eccentric glamour. What’s next to enter the mainstream?

2 comments:

riz said...

I know I was really surprised about the steampunk thing.

I like SD also, he is always so delightful

enc said...

I shudder to think what will be entirely diluted and deluded by mainstream attention. [shudders]

I think
Eccentric Glamour = a gut feeling.

It can't be "defined" in the classical sense, can it, because it's really up to the individual, as you point out.