Pix-Elated

41 Comments

• Elizabeth P replied 10 years ago

  Of course we've read "this far"!  Your posts and musings are always worth reading.  And I look forward to your journey.  I feel like all this thinking must be far too much work, so I live vicariously through you, and the others you mentioned above, as I online shop on my ipad in the dead of night...

  This is very vanualbe to me because I DO need to ponder the same things, I've been on a major shopping spree the last year or two, and it has to stop.  I need to figure out what/where my own wardrobe is going, and why I feel this need to keep getting more.  I do think I've filled my holes now, so we'll see. 

  To me, simple is how the outfit is put together, and minimal is the source of the outfit. 

• unfrumped replied 10 years ago

  I think those are great musings. You are focusing more on style and preferences for types of outfits than on a number. Simplicity instead of simplistic.
  Maybe turtlenecks, but several, instead of one black one in the French cliche wardrobe. Some great colors and knits but in your favorite styles.

• Mo replied 10 years ago

  I was struck by the comment that in review you found your look overall more modern classic than avant garde.  I also saw in review how less funky or rocker my look is compared to how I want it to be.  Just this morning I came to the conclusion that I will need to lean on somewhat more 'out there' pieces to achieve this.  When combined with the more sedate background ones, I should achieve closer to what my goal is.  Luckily, I have both leather panel and distressed white jeans on the way - both good bets in this category.  
  Perhaps an injection of some Helmut Lang or asymmetrical items would tip you just enough into the avant garde when pared with your more classic stuff? 

  Oh, and to me simple is more that I don't need a lot of layers or jewelry, just a strong formula base for my looks.  I don't think I'm minimal either, but I do think I have a simple look, so it makes sense to me.

• viva replied 10 years ago

  I am ready to embark on a wardrobe analysis of my own, and as always I am inspired by you, Suz. I find your comments so intriguing and love what you had to say about prefering to wear what you prefer to wear; not mixing for the sake of mixing; tiring of patterns quickly .... it makes me wonder what I will come up with on my own.
  I think there is a difference between simple and minimal, and it is similar to what Elizabeth said. Simplicity is about the styling; minimal is more about the essence or the pieces to me. So I think there is room to have a simpler wardobe but with more color, texture, pattern, and variety -- it's all about how you wear the items. A minimal wardrobe to me takes the simplicity all the way through to its essence so that every individual piece reflects that idea. Much less variation, if any. Given your musings, simplicity seems better suited to you (based on my definitions anyway).

• rae replied 10 years ago

  Loved this Epilogue, Suz. I myself did not participate in NO-vember, because one of my main goals this year has been to do the opposite: really love my favorites to death and wear them repeatedly. 

  I think you nailed it with simplicity vs. minimalism - a good way to distinguish between outfit minimalism and closet minimalism. Just because you aren't wearing the whole closet at once doesn't mean you have to keep to 10 items in the closet! Also looking forward to seeing how you negotiate this desire for more edge.

• Karie replied 10 years ago

  Such an interesting retrospective, Suz! I am currently taking daily outfit photos, and have been since the beginning of Sept. It is so interesting for me to see them all at once, particularily a seasonal stretch like the month of Nov. was. It was harder for me to analyze things when the months (Sept. and Oct.) were all jumbled up with warm and cold days.
  Such interesting thoughts from everyone on simplicity vs. miminalism. I have always associated wardrobe simplicity with just having fewer items to choose from, but it does go deeper than that. Wardrobe miminalism always conjures up images of no jewelry, no ruffles, no accessories. But then again, I think there is crossover...
  This is definitely food for thought, and you are prompting me to take some time and see what I have learned about my wardrobe and about my style from my daily picture taking.

• MuseumGal replied 10 years ago

  I yearn for a minimal wardrobe, but keep coming up against the fact that it's totally against my nature.  I think you have bridged not minimal but definitely not maximal beautifully, and your outfits are always gorgeous.

• gryffin replied 10 years ago

  Suz - this is so insightful.  I also like simple and minimal in my outfits.  I really like your term statement essentials - I think that's a very helpful way to look at important pieces not boring and in keeping with our style goals.  Do you think you want to add in sharper tailoring in your statement essentials to bring in the element of the avant garde?  Would unusual jewelry - a large, dramatic and important piece do that or would that be too fussy for you?  I don't know how you did the the challenge.  I too prefer to wear combos that i enjoy and I don't want to shake things up for the sake of change.  So I really applaud and am in awe of everyones efforts to do this.   Can't wait to see where this takes you in your journey!! 

• Angie replied 10 years ago

  Brilliant, Suz. And I echo what Rae said. 

  It's all about setting your own boundaries for closet size and outfit variation. I prefer a relatively small wardrobe because it's more manageable. I would not enjoy having a lot of stuff at once (that's why we live in a small house with just enough stuff). But I also crave variety so I keep my wardrobe moving by editing and adding. 

  I also bat for Team Simple Outfits and Team Outfit Repetition. Btw, Zara has amazing fluid layering turtlenecks. I bought two, and am wearing the ink blue right now. 

• replied 10 years ago

  Hi Suz,
  I loved your summary post but I did not have a chance to comment then. I did love the realizations there. Thank you for sharing this as well. I am also very appreciative of the Flavia series and all of the posts surrounding Mo's original challenge. There are a lot of things to ponder. Thank you all for the good narrative.

  Although we all kind of own very similar pieces, I think it is our take, what makes our styles so different. I am a very simple, streamlined dresser, I believe. I constantly edit things out, because I love simplicity. My outfits usually revolve around one focal point and I adjust the rest accordingly. For example, in my most recent WIW, the one with the bow blouse, I wanted to make that bow the focal point. That is why my hair is pulled back and I kept the rest of the outfit pretty low contrast. I do not have access to that picture at this moment, but I will add it later on. Simplicity to me then requires a measure of restraint and discipline. In that WIW, I guess the restraint and discipline was to keep the rest of the outfit as a background. I find that my favorite outfits usually revolve around this concept: One focal point, the rest as background.

  Re. Minimalism, as you know, I am very big on accessories and footwear. I do find uniqueness and edge on how I use them to convey a story line. My heavy use of accessories would probably disqualify me as a minimalistic dresser. I think of minimalistic as a style that demands very little or no accessories, which are so intrinsic to my style, I could not edit that out.

• Ingunn replied 10 years ago

  Suz, your analyses and musings are always very interesting reads. I haven't got much to add to your reflections, but what you write makes a lot of sense. I too yearn for a more minimal wardrobe than I've got, and I think ours are comparable in size. I too struggle with the scarf addition. I need it for warmth, but I don't want to wear one most of the time. To me, it seems like you are getting very close to the "perfect" wardrobe for you, meaning that you have most wants and needs covered, you have some variety, and you are able to edit out and replace along pieces when you wish to do so.

• Gaylene replied 10 years ago

  OK, Suz, I've got to take off in a couple of minutes, but I'm going to quickly add some of what I've been mulling over since Ornella's Flavia thread.

  What clicked was Ornella's comment about distillation in cooking. Cooking and baking have always been another passion of mine and I think it's not too outlandish to use it as a comparison here.

  To me, minimalism in food has always implied a limited number of ingredients in a recipe. Shortbread, for example, would be minimal product because it basically is just a combination of flour and butter; on the other hand, a chocolate-chip oatmeal peanut-butter cookie would be a more maximal product--both are good, just different. The key thing, though, is the quality of the ingredients and the skill of the baker make a huge difference in a minimal product like a shortbread cookie. A maximal product, however, can hide a less than stellar ingredient or technique because there is so much going on that minor flaws get overlooked.

  Simplicity in a recipe, to me, has always implied ease. A simple recipe can be minimal but, to my mind, requires less skill or effort to create. Again, the results can vary. Marcella Hazan's tomato sauce recipe is simple minimalism at its finest while a can of condensed mushroom soup over mushy broccali is another story entirely. It's the quality of the ingredients, again, which make the difference, but imagination and creativity also plays a big role.

  Distillation, which Ornella refers to, reminded me of the difference between consomme and beef broth. Both are basically composed of the same ingredients, but distillation reduces a product to its essence creating a complexity and depth that can knock your socks off. Distillation requires more time, effort, and care to produce a seemingly simple outcome but the pay off can be huge.

  Finally, just like in good cooking, a talented chef can turn humble ingredients into a stellar meal, while a bad cook can quickly turn even the best products into something that no one wants to even look at, much less taste. Knowing your own skill level is important as is taking risks and learning through trial and error. You can read about a technique, but it takes time and practice to be good at something. Some people like to follow a recipe exactly as written while others like to tweak and vary something every time they make it. Some cooks and bakers want to make the same recipe over and over until they can perfect it, while others would prefer to move on to something different. And our our own aesthetic plays a big part in how we like to show off our efforts. Some of us like to plate our efforts on pristine white dinnerware and dress our tables in perfectly pressed linens, while others prefer the comfortable look of mix and match china on a table loaded with good food surrounded by with family and friends.

  I guess what I'm saying is that all of these ideas seem, at least in my mind, to relate to fashion. Minimalism requires access to good products and a degree of skill to do well and the end product may not be universally appealing--some people will always choose a chocolate-chip oatmeal peanut butter cookie to a piece of shortbread. Simplicity is appealing because it offers the promise of good results with less demands on our time and effort, but, without a good recipe or a touch of imagination, it can be dull and uninspiring; that's why Angie's outfits, Pininterest, and MOTG formulas are so appealing. Distillation usually requires time, care, and a degree of dedication--and, while the taste could be appreciated by many, only a few would likely applaud the effort that went into its making. As for repetition, some people happily wear the same party outfit over and over for several parties, while others would reel at the boredom and want to re-invent a new outfit for each occasion. Our own aesthetic makes some of us feel overdone with blingy accessories, while others love the exuberant look that well-chosen pieces of color, glitter, and shine can bring to our outfits.

  This ended up being longer than I'd anticipated and those cookies (ginger shortbread with just three ingredients!) need to be baked.

• LACeleste replied 10 years ago

  You are so smart Suz!  Thanks for sharing your analysis with us!

• carter replied 10 years ago

  Very interesting as always, Suz.  Minimalism seems to be too focused on the numbers, and frankly, would bore the pants off me.  Simplicity, on the other hand, seems to me to be more about having the right pieces that do what you need them to do.  You have pieces in your wardrobe that combine into beautiful outfits with no accessorizing needed.  You also have items that create that blank canvas you need when your goal is to use accessories to make the outfit.  I think having that balance is key to having a wardrobe that works.  I will add that to my eye, outfits 2, 7, 10, 23, 30, 34 and 44 are the outfits that clearly demonstrate your confidence and sophistication in turning a blank slate into a fabulous outfit.  I think this is where you shine most.

• Beth Ann replied 10 years ago

  Oooohhh... I don't have time to reply.  I have a very short lunch break today, and Gaylene just made me insanely hungry!

  I'll respond in full tonight, but I wanted to pop on and say that I think the challenge did terrific things to your thought process and planning. 

  Here's to what comes next!

• texstyle replied 10 years ago

  Loved reading this Suz - it is so helpful to hear other's insights into
  their own fashion quest. I've been slowly learning this year that I
  need to say "no" to myself more often when I *think* I want something.
  Sometimes I know it will be out of stock that very day. I wear a very
  common size and I like to shop at places that seem to go out of stock
  on favs pretty quick so admittedly I feel if I don't act right away I
  will miss the opportunity.  But ---  I still get tired of returns and
  often find myself buying the same styles that I should know just don't
  work for me anymore (like semi-body-con knit tops) just "because" I
  like the color or something. Sometimes a special sale does draw me in
  and if the risk is low I will go for it (Mo's tip on the white jeans at
  $9 for example - or the Speigel leather moto which I am wearing and
  enjoying quite a lot). But the real lesson has been restraint I think.
  And maybe restraint is also a more simple approach to fashion.

  I can't really say that I'm bored with my clothes as I still have many
  items that I have not figured out how to style "just right." I think I
  get lazy in not wanting to do the work involved and so I buy more to
  satisfy that fashion "craving"instead of doing the real work.

  I do find that I really enjoy FFBOs. I think I'd like to have about 14
  FFBOs ready to go for each season so I don't have to think it over too
  much when getting dressed. This includes specific shoes, jackets,
  jewelry - all details that make it that much more of a challenge to me.
  Trying to buy an "outfit completer"  instead of an "item" is a good
  practice for me.

  This year I invested in more jewelry, belts and shoes than I ever have
  in my life. I'm glad I did but I haven't been wearing the jewelry and
  some of the belts as much as I thought I might. (Hello big chunky
  cobalt "link" necklace in acrylic - and the white belt I "had" to have 
  :-)) At least I buy lower end "fashion" items for most jewelry. I think
  the lesson there is that I need the occasional "bling" thing to add to
  an otherwise simple, (boring?) outfit.

• lyn67 replied 10 years ago

  Loved to read about your insights Suz, Gaylene, texstyle, and all others. I also seem to crave fabulous simplicity and not minimalism in my wardrobe. Cuple of FFBoutfits that look gorgeous and fit my curent body and  functions the best. I surely would have died doing No(repeat)vember outfits! I consider myself pretty creative, but trying to not duplicate an outfit and  having to re-mix just for the sake of this long would have killed me for sure in no time!

  So, hat off, Suz, Deb and other you did it sooo well!

• Caro in Oz replied 10 years ago

  Fabulous post & I really enjoyed reading the responses.  Just a couple of thoughts to add :)

  For me minimalism, as defined by the numbers only, is no longer a goal. I've found it isn't about numbers or lack of "stuff" it is about only having the right stuff i.e. what I need & use & love for all occasions in my life.  Concentrating on enough keeps things simple for me. Getting to the point of knowing what is enough was not as simple :)

  I think it’s much more difficult (to design) shop for & wear simple clothes/outfits. The quality, or lack of it, is much more obvious & the cut & fabric have to be spot on (for the body in the clothes).

  One thing I've discovered is that I'm happy to repeat bottoms & tops but I love to change my jackets & footwear. So I've been concentrating on upgrading my pants & now have fewer & better :) I also realised this is why I didn't like my summer wardrobe - it wasn't just about not being able to wear the jacket it was about the boredom of the ordinary bottoms & tops :)

• Gracie replied 10 years ago

  I enjoyed reading everyone's insights, and loved the cooking analogy, Gaylene.  Suz, I relate to what you said, "I'd rather repeat combinations I prefer than mix things up just for the sake of mixing." Once an outfit "clicks" I wear it a few times, because mixing the components differently would be somehow a less successful.

  I'm aiming to be minimalist in my outfits too but have a long way to go. I admire all the pieces that Deborah wears, to me they are minimal, avant-garde and edgy. Then I try something similar on, and it "swallows" me. The same with tunic tops – I'll be following to see if you find any flattering ones, as I also want more variety in the silhouettes of my outfits.

• Suz replied 10 years ago

  Thanks so much, everyone - I have loved reading your responses. I will be back with more comments after my evening meal. But I do have time for a couple of thoughts. 

  Gracie -- your problem is mine. I admire Deborah's style, too, but I can't manage all the draping. I've learned that if I am to go avant guard, that can't be my route. I need more angularity and structure. A small amount of draping can work if it is asymmetrical and if the placement is just right. As for tunics - oy. We can commiserate together. 

  Caro, you hit the nail on the head. I know that we have talked about the jackets issue before, and I came to exactly the same realization as you about the summer wardrobe. It wasn't the lack of a jacket per se that was the problem -- it was the fact that the jacket (and the shoes) were always my statement pieces. So I had to find a way to add what I am calling "statement essentials" -- i.e. the VC striped skirt. Simple, but packs a real punch. 

  And I like your idea of concentrating on what is "enough." There is a lot to ponder in that. Because it might be more in one category than another. 

  Lyn, Texstyle, I agree with you - a couple (or two weeks' worth) of FFBO can be the foundation of a happy wardrobe! Tex, when you describe your shopping pitfalls, I nod my head. I suffer from a lot of the same mistakes. I do think I have got better about this in the last year, though. I can see improvement and I am much less likely to haunt the sales racks. 

  Carter, thank you - and I think you might be onto something. The blank canvas is pretty appealing to me, I have to say. 

  Gaylene, I am wowed by your thoughts here and need some time to "digest" them (couldn't resist). But I want to come back to them in greater detail and may just need to start another thread on them! 

  More soon! 

• deb replied 10 years ago

  What a great read starting with you, Suz, then followed by others. I relate to the 30 unbroken days of photos and I am still having a difficult time. You have been able to take your analysis to a place I seem unable to reach. The Vision of what you want. You really have your head wrapped around it. I feel stuck in Gaylene's 'can of condensed mushroom soup over mushy broccoli '.

• Thistle replied 10 years ago

  Very interesting musings and analysis!

  I am intrigued by the idea of minimalism, and I see that in you as an Urban Prince. High quality pieces, which may not mean as many, but that each stands on their own.

  Not sure I understand the need or desire ot only have a 10 item wardrobe. Especially in a 4 season climate. Still, it sounds to me like you have a well curated wardrobe and that you have learned to love certain outfits. Repetition is okay!  Still, it was a fun challenge and did make you do some analysis.

• Firecracker (Sharan) replied 10 years ago

  Great musings, Suz. I agree, of course we read that far!--your thoughts are always interesting to read.

  About tunics. . . . I caught the one thread where you wore outfit 36, and you said you don't wear that sweater very much because it feels like an awkward length for you. And I felt what a lot of other said: it looks fine to me! But trying a little longer length might be worthwhile, to see if a more exaggerated tunic would feel better to you. Or try asymmetrical styles. I have a tunic that I love--but don't wear much, alas, because it is sleeveless and requires some figuring out how to layer for warmth--that has channels along the left sideseam, for drawstrings, which tie at the bottom of the tunic. They allow me to draw up the side as much or as little as I like. The look is just magic, and I think it would fantastic on you. Uncinched, the tunic is just a little bit A-line and falls about mid-thigh on me. You don't need too many pieces like this in your wardrobe, though, imo.

  About achieving more avant-garde looks. . .  See tunic comment above. ha ha! Also, I like the cardi you wore in photo 2. It's drapey without being overwhelming, and even though it might not be cutting-edge at this point, it is a break from the modern-classic look to a little more arty. I think getting a few more pieces like that one--maybe drapey style cardis in a waist length and in a cropped length--would play well with your wardrobe, because you could layer them over your existing knit tops (or your soon to be acquired turtlenecks) and straight or flared pants, pencil skirts, even dresses.

  Those are just some thoughts. I am mostly here to absorb YOUR lessons!

• dustt replied 10 years ago

  Love the distinctions between simple and minimal!! - and the discussion is very thought provoking - as a fellow cook/baker I feel the need to ruminate on this some more!! - Having never aspired to minimal in the number sense - I occasionally am drawn to minimal in the composition sense. - Does that make it simple or minimal

• Peri replied 10 years ago

  I sort of feel like these kinds of musings are over my head. Like I'm in third grade and this stuff is high school. I'm just trying to find clothes I like that I can also wear.

  It's interesting though to contrast simple and minimal. For you, it seems like simple is interesting clothes and less in the way of accessories. I might say that simple is very basic clothes...what some call a uniform...and lots of interesting accessories. Not all at once of course! Just that that is where my variety and boredom cures come from.

  And minimal might be numbers...like me and Claire...or might be Angie's definition of dressing clean. Like I said before that I am minimal but don't want to dress minimal. It seems like the terms can be used different ways.

  See...over my head!

• Suz replied 10 years ago

  Peri, you made me laugh...and I think you are right. Not about being in third grade, but about how mushy the definitions are. In the end it doesn't matter as long as each of us can figure out what we actually like and how to wear it - but, as you so wisely say -- that is the difficult part! Amazingly difficult. I have been around here 3 years and I am only just now figuring it out even a portion...

• Gigi replied 10 years ago

  I love this post, Suz! Like all your posts, it's very instructive.

  Although you didn't like mixing and matching for the sake of doing so, did you discover any new combos that you think will become favorites?

  As far as moving toward a minimalistic wardrobe, I would definitely give that time to sink in. I think it might be a good idea to continue in the avant garde direction first before starting to minimize your wardrobe. It sounds like you have a nagging suspicion that as much as you would like the practicality of such a wardrobe, it might not have the variety you need emotionally. I guess what I'm saying is, maybe let the current wardrobe continue to flower before you start pruning it?

• Mary Beth (formerly LBD) replied 10 years ago

  This was so interesting to read!   I really enjoyed seeing your process as you went through this experiment.

  Looking at your photos, there is a real sense of consistency and cohesion, regardless of how layered or how minimal a particular outfit was.   I never thought, "whoa... where did THAT look come from?"

  One other thing I noticed - the variation of emotional expression in your photos.   I feel like I can see where some outfits made you happier than others - the difference between "okay, this is pretty good", and "I LOVE what I am wearing".  

  So my question is this - were any of the pieces you wore, stuff you felt iffy about, like you had to give an item another chance, or outright orphans?   Or were these all your hands-down favorites?   And if that was the case, did the maybes and orphans make the grade?

  I ask, because I think at some point, I will be asking myself these questions, and perhaps trying the no-repeats experiment.  Or maybe a "weekly uniform" experiment in January.

• Suz replied 10 years ago

  Great questions! 

  LBD - one of the really nice realizations I had was that I truly like and enjoy almost every item in my current closet. So none of these were orphans. There are some that I like more for certain purposes or certain weather conditions than others. 

  The only items I'm not crazy about are the print pants -- that is a fit and fabrication issue. And the jeggings -- that is just because I'm pretty much "off" such a tight fit -- yet I need to maintain a few pairs in my wardrobe for wearing with tall boots in winter here. This just emphasizes the importance of fit. When the fit is off, I never feel completely happy. 

  Gigi, I did discover a couple of new combos -- I wouldn't have thought to pair my hoodie with a scarf tucked in at the neckline; I enjoyed that for a work-at-home day -- it felt cozy, and I'd wear it again. And my charcoal pants with the Munro booties and white on top was a new pairing that I really enjoyed as well. 

• Jaime replied 10 years ago

  Wow. Reading this thread is more thought provoking than some entire books! I laughed at the end of your thread Suz - of course I made it to the end, it is such a pleasure to gobble up your thoughts I would have gladly read on!

  Anyway, one thing that struck me is that the idea of minimalism in art has more to do with the outstanding design of the few elements present and less about the number of elements in the artist's entire oeuvre if you know what I mean. So a minimalist style does not require a necessarily small closet - although the cost of these outstanding pieces is a self limiting factor for most people. Gaylene's shortbread may require just a few ingredients but the kitchen might be stocked to the max.

  I am also intrigued with the idea that this month made you realize you want to add more edge to your look (if I may paraphrase) and am going to be watching eagerly to see where that takes you.  

  Thanks for your thread Suz - a true pleasure as usual!

• CocoLion replied 10 years ago

  There is minimal style and minimal closet count.  They are two very different things.  One could have a very arty, not minimal style but a minimal number of clothes.  In describing your WOW-est outfits, I thought they had an element of minimal style.  Not too fussy, not too many visual distractions, not too many colors.  I love this kind of style and especially like minimal color, tonal dressing because it is sleek and elongating.  I wish I could better pull off minimal style but at best I can pull of tonal dressing.  I take my cues from my own "look" -- longer, straight hair and a curvy figure.  I just don't see minimal working that well on me, or maybe I just love accessories too much.  A drapey minimal avant garde style would work better on me than a strict minimal style which works well on you and Angie.

• Ariadne replied 10 years ago

  I'm off to bed and haven't read the rest of the thread.  But, wow, so much of what you wrote in the first post is exactly what's been bouncing around in my head lately, especially simple vs. minimal.  I've been toying with 'uncomplicated' as one of my style descriptors.  It seems to incorporate elements of simplicity and minimalism while being a bit less restrictive, somehow. 

  Will try to expand later after I've slept ;)

• Beth Ann replied 10 years ago

  Well, my house is still a mess, but most of my work is done, so I have a moment to comment properly.

  When I reviewed your outfits, I was struck by how far you've come in the last few years.  Fits are beautiful -- modern and flattering, and the items all work together so beautifully.  You are beyond the broad experimentation phase and well into refining your personal style.

  Some thoughts:

  Jackets seem to be a favorite to build it structure and "presence."  They bring the emphasis to your face, as do turtlenecks.

  Your footwear is working for you beautifully!

  I think your scarves and belts are drawing outfits together and adding interest without drawing too much attention to themselves.  Brava!

  Your use of color is both subtle and strong.  You seem more neutral in colder months --- perhaps as a reflection of the world around you.  Will you need a color infusion in, say, February, or do you like the calmer palette for now?  As a colorphile, I don't look at the photos and crave more.  It seems like you added lighter tones to keep things bright.

  One of the hallmarks of great personal style  throughout the ages has always been elegant restraint.  I think this is what you've uncovered in your move to simplicity.

• jayne replied 10 years ago

  What a great read..a couple things resonated with me..the boredom factor, the issue with print, and the edgy.  I definitely get bored quickly but don't want to be constantly shopping.  Prints, love one day, argh the next.  Edge - oh yes!

  I have a tendency to pin your outfits because there are many that appeal to me but I definitely want more edge in mine.  The moniker 'prince' has never stuck a cord (nor princess) because to me it does imply a certain amount of refinery that does not suit me.  So edgy, I feel, is in some ways the opposite of refined. some get their hands dirty, some don't.  And I am definitely one to be getting in the dirt!  ANyway, style wise, I do feel I have been able to get edgy into my outfits and am happier and happier about that.  In many ways the outfits are simple, usually a top and slacks.  But the pieces themselves have a cool factor to them, zippers, extra pockets, studs, etc that makes the outfit edgy.  The items are not simple or minimal.  Pieces that I add, like belts and shoes, are definitely edgy.  No refined delicate heels here. 

  I haven't distilled edgy more than that...but I thought I should throw it out there since you mentioned it as a way you feel you want to go.  I used to think I wanted to be elegant but I found that it isn't really in me. I think you and Angie are elegant.   

• Jeanie replied 10 years ago

  Of course I had to read to the end.  You have a gift of words.  I try to learn how to write better from you :)

  I hear you on the minimalism.  I so want to be that girl that looks good in the statement scarf, like Ornella, but it conflicts with my minimalism.  Good insight.  I do like you in your 1 and 2 piece outfits.  I recall the David Meister dress you shot with a lot of different layering choices but the best IMO was simply the dress by itself.  It lets you shine through.  I crave minimalism in the respect that I like dressing in 1 or 2 perfect pieces but getting everything to mix and match like Claire that's a whole different story.  

• Alassë replied 10 years ago

  Of course we read it all! Still musing.... Thanks for writing & sharing with us.

• Transcona Shannon replied 10 years ago

  Late to the party, but I made it to the end too! Fabulous reflections Suz and much to ponder. I need to think about some of your comments/findings for a bit.

  The one thing that really stood out to me was your comment about possibly needing mid-season refreshers. I found last winter my purchases of a couple of sweaters in February really helped me get through that last, long stretch of cold, dark weather. I had originally wondered if they were too impulsive at that late stage but have since determined they were actually intelligent purchases. I will most likely be doing the same this year. Because those of us who have a long winter season, we're in those clothes from late October until March and boy oh boy, we are sick and tired of them by then, aren't we???

• Lisa replied 10 years ago

  I will have to go back and read the comments, but here are my initial thoughts.

  I was nodding my head with bullet 4, needing less variety.  But only for variety in terms of remixing outfits.  I have noticed from the DH challenge, that my "small" working wardrobe actually has a LOT of variety in it.  I have printed bottoms, solid bottoms, and they are straight leg, skinny and bootcut style.  I have blazers, sweaters/jumpers and cardigans as the toppers and my layering knits/T's are solids or prints.  That's a lot of variety in only 40 or so items!

  I am also very interested in "minimal" and "simple" wadrobes and follow The Vivienne Files and The Daily Connoisseur site (she does a 10 item per season wardrobe).  The make it look so easy, just a handful of items and endless outfits.  And while I consider these wardrobes minimal for item number, I do not consider them simple for ease of use, because you have to do a lot of remixing to end up with new outfits to have variety with these smaller wardrobes. 

  For myself, I prefer a "minimal" wardrobe in terms of number of outfits (I'm still deciding on that number but it looks like less than 14 per season so far) and a "simple" wardrobe in terms of outfit creation.  I have one or two outfit combinations I like best and then I want to sport a different outfit, not remix again. 

  Before all of the great thoughts on the forum lately, I would have answered that a minimal wardrobe was based on clean lines, classic colors and shapes, no crazy prints, no trendy pieces.  And a simple wardrobe would be a few pieces that remix endlessly.  And for a while my shopping habits reflected those preferences.  I have at least 4 black turtlenecks, 5 bootcut jeans, etc. 

  But now my thinking has changed.  My small wardrobe does not have 4 black turtlenecks in it, actually I currently have none.  Because I already have a black blazer, knit top and cardigan.  And that's enough black for me. 
   
  Some fun pondering here, now I am off to read the rest of this thread, thanks for sharing your thoughts Suz!

• ManidipaM replied 10 years ago

  Ha, reading right through, I think this may be where you and I part ways, Suz. :-D

  I completely get the minimal vs simple argument, though---only am headed in the opposite direction. I want less stuff in the closet a la Angie, more frequently refreshed; but unlike either of you, I don't think my style is essentially as simple and streamlined as either of you aim for. I tend to want a bit more colour/pattern/texture/drama though I was confused at one point when that need grew... not minimal but less maximal certainly.

  I can't do a whole month of different outfits to save my life. Not only because my closet won't allow but because I really rely on my favourite formulas. However, I can't enjoy simple textures and shapes for long either... the same thing that strikes you with pattern. Instead, I have days of simplicity as a breather, but most days yearn for a little kick. The secret snap of rice flour in that shortbread, or a pinch of chilli, or a smattering of lavender flowers or orange zest... not all the way to millionaire's shortbread, mind you, as I haven't the patience and too much variety irritates and overwhelms, but for me the tightly edited closet/pantry (for reasons of sanity and budget) has to be not precisely simple staples either. Lest I get bored or feel bland.

  So yes, completely understand where you are coming from, and approaching you from the other direction!

• E replied 10 years ago

  I've attempted to reply to this thread at least 3 or 4 times & each time delete what I've written, because I can't seem to express my thoughts coherently yet! But I loved reading it (and the marvelous comments), and it provided lots of food for thought, so I'm going to share my response anyway in case it's of any benefit to you. :)

  As far as I understand it, you're aiming for simplicity as in 'less 'stuff'' in both your closet and outfits (stuff being colours, layers, etc.) but not minimalism as in tiny wardrobe or only neutral classics. For me personally, simplicity has better connotations than minimalism; I associate it with voluntary simplicity and a kind of William Morris attitude to life whereas the minimalism movement (in my brain only) almost seeks to disconnect emotions from objects, rendering it 'just stuff.' I aspire to the former but not the latter, and aside from my closet and bookshelves I do a pretty good job of 'just enough.' You strike me as already possessing a quite tightly edited colour palette and silhouette choices: which colours/silhouettes would you eliminate?

  From a style perspective, minimalist style in my mind's eye conjures up a lot of black, white, and grey, structural/avant garde outfits. Lots of straight lines and sleek pieces, but not necessarily against layering/multiple pieces. I can't see minimalist style fitting in at a 50s themed party, say. Unless it opted for Buddy Holly glasses and a strict black suit with white shirt. Maybe. Whereas simplicity conjures up images of what the Amish and Victorian governesses might wear, if they suddenly found themselves in our culture. Still an emphasis on neutrals and nice, hard wearing materials, but somehow more of a timeless than futuristic feel and definitely fewer items of clothing at one time. Quieter, but a self-possessed kind of quiet. Simplicity is about letting the clothes fade a bit so that you shine more, while minimalist clothes make a statement and are more visible. Sometimes I enjoy dressing simply, but I can't imagine myself in minimalist styles (again, this is just my gut feel, so I hope I'm not offending anyone! I deeply admire people who dress in minimalist styles, it's just not for me).

  I don't think I'd describe my everyday style as simple, and yet I do have a limited colour palette and a couple of uniforms I stick with. So my getting dressed process is fairly simple: do I want to wear a skirt or trousers (or a dress, which is a skirt subtype I suppose in my 'system')? Woven blouse or knit? Colour or neutral or a combination? Layer or not? And my answers to one or two of those questions automatically solves the others, so I very rarely struggle. I could probably make a flowchart of my outfit decisions, and it wouldn't be a very complicated on either! But I have so much variety within each category, and I love mixing things (colour/texture/etc.) so much, I never get bored. I often think I should probably cut my wardrobe down, but then it grew to the size it did because I kept wishing I had item X in colour/fabric/cut Y. So I've decided as long as I have the space, and don't feel overwhelmed in the morning/on laundry day/etc. to not worry so much about the numbers.

• Alexandra replied 10 years ago

  I am really late to the party, just catching up on the last few days' worth of posts, but of course I read all the way to the end of your post. Who wouldn't?

  To me, minimalism used to imply nothing extra, nothing unnecessary. In other words, no frills, no embellishment, etc. These days though, it seems as if minimalism became the opposite of "more" (or "too much"), as in blogs where the writers express what comes across as contempt for material things. Sometimes to the point where there seems to be a competition to see who's "more minimalist" (and isn't that an oxymoron?), lives with less, etc.

  In my opinion, the true opposite of minimalism is not "more", but rather "enough". But I think that concept is more readily associated with simplicity.

  Personally, I don't want to live with the minimum necessary. I have things I don't truly need but that make me happy when I look at them or use them. Minimum necessary sounds like third-world country living to me. Maybe great for some, but definitely not for me.