Substance vs. Style

[tragula]

I read an interesting book recently called The Substance of Style. It was basically challenging people like me who have always felt that focusing on style was a sign of superficiality.

It makes the argument that Style, beauty, and aesthetics add value to something. So a cool design or a cool haircut is worth paying extra for. And is completely separate from issues of substance or function.

I still haven't decided if I buy that idea, at least when it comes to personal appearance. I mean vanity is a bad thing right? If you die your hair and bleach your teeth and tweeze your eyebrows, and buy Fashionable clothes.... Does that say mostly good or bad things about you?? It takes so much time and energy!

Part of me dislikes super-hipsters, because instinctually I feel they are just posers.

And part of me says it's a losing battle--so it's time to pay a lot more attention to matters of personal hygiene and appearance because people ARE going to judge you by that. (Mostly S people I bet.) What does everyone think?

BTW I'm not a slob or anything, just a little scruffy.

[indie]

I agree that being fashionable is kind of a waste of time. I find many of my clothes at thrift shops or inexpensive vintage clothing botiques.

I would not be caught dead in Ralph Lauren, or. . . well, I can't even think of any other fashion designers, lol. I believe people can look good and still have substance without paying the premium price for name brands.

[Edmond Zedo]

"INTPs with less developed aesthetic taste..." (socionics.com)

indie, if you really didn't care about looking nice, I bet you would buy a lot of sweatsuits from Wal-Mart. Nice doesn't have to be expensive. It's still about style.

tragula, I'd ask you to define the difference between style and substance if I thought you could. Poetry is style, as is vocabulary, as are ways of speaking and acting. Roger Ebert says "A movie is not what it is about, but how it is about it," meaning a good movie can be made about anything. That's style. What is substance in a person? The simple quality of their genes, and their health? You can tell so much about a person from how they care for their appearance, and it's not "how long it took."

[Lee]

Style reflects substance, whether that style is good or bad depends on what you consider substance which is a totally subjective question.

Idealy both are preferred however you judge by style first (good or bad? is subjective) because thats all you have to go on, later by substance.

You cannot get to know everyone properly and must use stlye as a rough guide to deem who probably has the right substance for you.

"INTPs with less developed aesthetic taste..." - socionics.com
This does not mean a great deal as it is a judgement relative to average tastes in society. less developed and different are two seperate things.

[Edmond Zedo]

That quote begins a phrase; it is not complete.

[Lee]

uh ok sorry

[indie]

Sweat-suits from Wal-Mart? :huh: You make quite the ironic post, given my recent rants on Wal-Mart (looks for the "punch Zedo" icon. . .)

Sorry to disappoint, but I do not own any sweat suits. My post was referring to purchasing trendy clothing lines that spend millions of dollars on advertising in the pursuit of image.

[Garyincinci]

You can have style without being superficial. Would you consider these younger kids running around in all black with every appendage of their body superficial? They're definately stylish. Haveing style doesn't make you superficial....thinking that style is the only thing that matters...does.

[Edmond Zedo]

Sweat-suits from Wal-Mart? :huh: You make quite the ironic post, given my recent rants on Wal-Mart (looks for the "punch Zedo" icon. . .)

Sorry to disappoint, but I do not own any sweat suits. My post was referring to purchasing trendy clothing lines that spend millions of dollars on advertising in the pursuit of image.
Aww, tiny girls punching big, strong guys is so cute. Esp. when they hurt their little knuckles.

I wouldn't be surprised if tragula thinks style means "designer clothing" but I don't. I could stitch together a hell of a stylish outfit with old bedsheets if I had the mind to. (I didn't catch your Wal-Mart comments.)

[Miss Anthropic]

I could stitch together a hell of stylish outfit with old bedsheets if I had the mind to. Oh hey, Edmond, want to go to a toga party?

[Edmond Zedo]

As long as I'm the only guy there.

[gypseymothlee]

Technically if you make a point to buy the antithesis of the preppy expensive clothing that the so-called stylish people wear, you're also buying into the whole idea of the outside reflecting the inside. If your didn't care at all you wouldn't comment on how you wouldn't wear that type of clothing, or tweeze or whatever.

I personally always judge books by their covers, it's the visual artist part of my brain trying to take over the logical part.

[indie]

Technically if you make a point to buy the antithesis of the preppy expensive clothing that the so-called stylish people wear, you're also buying into the whole idea of the outside reflecting the inside. If your didn't care at all you wouldn't comment on how you wouldn't wear that type of clothing, or tweeze or whatever.

I personally always judge books by their covers, it's the visual artist part of my brain trying to take over the logical part.

You misunderstood. Or . . . more likely, I misstated. :) Guess part of that came out wrong.

What I meant was that I wouldn't be caught dead in a "brand new" Ralph Lauren article of clothing. Shirts that cost $60 and jeans that cost $110? That seems a little ridiculous and extravagant to me. I'm of the

"When I get a little money, I buy books. And if there is any left over, I buy food." ~Desiderius Erasmus
clan.

I tend to buy clothes that are reasonably priced. I can put together my own sense of style without having to purchase what is "trendy" right now. It seems ridiculous to spend massive quantities of money on a piece of clothing just because it has Abercrombe & Fitch embroidered across the front. I'm usually drawn to a piece of clothing for its color or texture or fabric. I don't care if it "matches" anything in my *gulp* wardrobe at the time. :)

I admit: I'm not of the "visual artist" clan; I don't judge a book by it's cover. Nor am I a dowdy or a frump. Beleive it or not, my purses *usually* (64.3472% of the time) match my shoes. Most of my clothes don't have holes or stains on them (91.7431% don't). Female INTPs do have to get by in the world somehow.

Anyway, the whole notion of style and substance having any relation is kind of silly to me.

Sorry for the rant. Guess I was just looking for another outlet to vent frustration against shallow corporate America and MTV pop culture shoving showy flashes of "wealth and beauty are necessary to be happy" down our throats.

[Edmond Zedo]

You seem to like that Versace pillow you're sleeping on.

[indie]

Aww, tiny girls punching big, strong guys is so cute. Esp. when they hurt their little knuckles.

Aren't you about to find out.

[mgb]

Aren't you about to find out.

I read this without reading the quote, I thought you were talking about the Versace pillow. ooops

[Edmond Zedo]

Aren't you about to find out.
You wouldn't be the first woman ever hit me! First woman I ever whoop her ass, neither! :)

[tragula]

tragula, I'd ask you to define the difference between style and substance if I thought you could. Poetry is style, as is vocabulary, as are ways of speaking and acting. Roger Ebert says "A movie is not what it is about, but how it is about it," meaning a good movie can be made about anything. That's style. What is substance in a person? The simple quality of their genes, and their health? You can tell so much about a person from how they care for their appearance, and it's not "how long it took."

In your own specially charming way you do seem to actually be making a good point! 8O
When it comes to personal appearance there is no clear line between our shell and our real selves. (As opposed to say a book where you can just remove the jacket.)

How smooth our voices are, how clear our skin is, our gestures and expressions--are all part of our personal style in a way.
Of course when people change their hair color, their eye color, their breast size... they are perhaps in a sense engaging in false advertising--their appearance is no longer an accurate reflection of their genes.

I think everyone would agree that a modicum of grooming is a good thing. However, spending all day in front of the mirror can't be a good thing. Celebrities have it easy because they have a troop of professionals dedicated to making them look good. And unfortunately the celebrity look becomes sort of a "standard".

[tragula]

Also--my money is on Indiejade... :-)

(KO in the first round)

[Edmond Zedo]

Of course when people change their hair color, their eye color, their breast size... they are perhaps in a sense engaging in false advertising--their appearance is no longer an accurate reflection of their genes.
Who is anyone to say that people should be bound by genetics? I can most certainly tell you, if super advanced cybernetic technology were available, I'd be full of it.

[jyakulis]

My mother does all my shopping for me. Anything that will fit into my standard uniform is ok by me. :thumbup:

[booyalab]

Technically if you make a point to buy the antithesis of the preppy expensive clothing that the so-called stylish people wear, you're also buying into the whole idea of the outside reflecting the inside. If your didn't care at all you wouldn't comment on how you wouldn't wear that type of clothing, or tweeze or whatever.



I agree with this. It's illogical to assume that because people who only seem to care about their appearance are shallow, then you must be deep and complex if you try to look ugly/mediocre. I have no stigmas about any clothing aside from a combination of plain old aesthetics and pragmatism. Also, I'd prefer to be paid if I'm going to advertise so I won't wear clothes with the brand name apparent.

[gypseymothlee]

I admit: I'm not of the "visual artist" clan; I don't judge a book by it's cover.

I meant I judge books by their covers. Not people, just books. Titles often play a bit of a role, but only the very eye-catching.

[misutii]

i don't know.... i'm actually quite picky when shopping and spend alot of $, i find track pants and jeans very unattractive and prefer to strive for (and prefer to look at) the "stylish and sophisticated" look

[Witticism]

No matter how hard you try not to, everyone judges at least a little based on what someone looks like. It's human nature. Therefore, to me, it makes sense to try and look as good as possible - maybe not like the cover of Vogue, but at least presentable. I don't think that trying to be stylish equates to superficiality, or that a scruffy person is a profound thinker. Sometimes they're just slobs.

[squints]

Style, just like exercise and hygiene, can very much help with the social life. Not so much that people I care about will like me any more than otherwise, but simply because these things boost my confidence and I feel much more solid in most situations. When I look good, I feel good, and these are valuable things to me.

Furthermore, like it or not, the way someone looks quite often does tell you something about them. It could be something as simple as, "that person doesn't give a damn about attracting superficial ladies," or, "that guy probably likes roping bulls."

[panda]

Thanks, champ.

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/9f33595d925024849c04f549a27e95canecro.jpg