What, to you, is glamour/glamorous?

[Lily Powers]

Thinking more about this, a lot of the descriptions of glamour can also be attributed to definitions of style - "individual," "inherent," "comes naturally without trying" - but I don't think of the two as being the same. To me, glamour evokes a bit more extravagance or wealth (for lack of better descriptions) than style.

I see that one of the gentlemen has removed his earlier post from this thread regarding his example of a glamorous woman, and begun one for the gents only to define and show examples of glamorous men. Women can have style, men can have style, but I think the word glamour is distinctly a feminine descriptive. (Although I can't argue Amy Jeanne's example of William Haines as a glamorous man - he's certainly embodied it in his design style.) How do you feel glamour and style differ?

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think glamour is something that transcends style. As I said, Garbo was still GARBO no matter what she was wearing -- it was an aura that surrounded the person, elevating them beyond the realm of mere mortal, more than a look. There are, and have been, very very few people who have ever possessed this, because it requires a specific kind of personality and a specific kind of talent above and beyond the ability to look well in clothes. If all it took was style, anyone reading a fashion magazine could be glamourous.

 

[Alice~]

Lemme let you boys in on a little secret: a lot of us don't dress to please anyone but ourselves.

Absolutely agreed. How quaint that some men seem to think the world revolves around them. The male gaze is of absolutely no importance to me, and I know many others feel the same.

I agree with others that the glamour present in some of the stars of the golden era seems sadly absent in the "stars" of today. Why is that? There are one or two people I know in real life that I would define as glamorous, but nobody in the world of acting or modelling.

 

[Heather]

Absolutely agreed. How quaint that some men seem to think the world revolves around them. The male gaze is of absolutely no importance to me, and I know many others feel the same.

I agree with others that the glamour present in some of the stars of the golden era seems sadly absent in the "stars" of today. Why is that? There are one or two people I know in real life that I would define as glamorous, but nobody in the world of acting or modelling.

I suppose the media is partly to blame for that!

 

[LizzieMaine]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.

 

[angeljenny]

I think Marilyn looks glamorous here. Not perfect or icy though!

If I were married I would dress for my husband - even as a single, somehow a man's approval matters a bit more. I have found that women tend to be a bit more likely to criticise or to give back handed compliments. I tend to dress for myself but I won't pretend that it isn't nice when someone says I look pretty!

 

[Lenore]

I've always found Isabella Rossellini glamorous.

 

[ThemThereEyes]

I've always found Isabella Rossellini glamorous.

Agreed! Also, I feel Michelle Pfeiffer and Juliette Binoche to be glamorous.

 

[Flicka]

I think glamour is something that transcends style. As I said, Garbo was still GARBO no matter what she was wearing -- it was an aura that surrounded the person, elevating them beyond the realm of mere mortal, more than a look. There are, and have been, very very few people who have ever possessed this, because it requires a specific kind of personality and a specific kind of talent above and beyond the ability to look well in clothes. If all it took was style, anyone reading a fashion magazine could be glamourous.

I know I mentioned earlier on here that I stumbled over an elderly gentleman who'd actually known Garbo. I was waiting for the bus outside my house, when an old man sat down next to me and started talking to me in the way that old people who are alone all day do. He told me about his job on a big Atlantic steamer, his travels all over the world and his family - and then he casually let slip he’d known Greta Garbo. “See, she crossed the Atlantic quite a lot,” he said, “and I got to know her quite well. She was the nicest lady and she didn’t like being alone at all. Rather the contrary. She just disliked strangers and people ogling her. She'd always ask for me the moment she got on board, and she loved chatting. I had a sister who lived in Brooklyn with her family and she’d go there for Sunday dinner every now and then, just to be herself and speak Swedish.” And when he tells you that, and then adds –– 70 years later, mind you –– with this glow on his face: "She was a real lady. Finest lady I've ever met", then I think that's about as close to a definition of "glamour" as I can manage..

 

[W-D Forties]

Wow! What a story!

I think Helen Mirren is glamorous, in a very unnafected, happy in her own skin way.

 

[sheeplady]

I don't see the icy aloofness as glamorous. It seems too contrived and fake. Being polished is something I equate with glamour, but not icy aloofness. I don't know why- perhaps I tend to think of icy aloofness as being cold and calculated, and it really seems like it could be an act. Someone who is glamorous could be standing there in rags and they'd make them look good- and act like they were wearing a million bucks, but they wouldn't necessarily be aloof. They'd just be comfortable and act like they had on the best outfit in the world.

In fact, it wouldn't be so much them acting like they were wearing a million dollars or the best outfit in the world, it is more like their attitude is that they always wear the best, and they are wearing this, so it must be the best because they are wearing it.

 

[Bluebird Marsha]

I don't think that iciness is a necessity of being glamorous, but it can a component. I can see some very self-assured people wearing whatever they please- that's one part of being old money versus nouveau-riche. "I know I have money, and everyone else knows it. Therefore, I have nothing to prove by wearing head to toe Chanel." But that isn't necessarily glamorous. Someone in that other thread suggested that Sir Richard Branson is glam. I agree. And I also believe that it is a very calculated public performance. He behaves like a sober, happy version of Hemingway. I would post a picture of him with a model riding behind him on a jetski, but that pic is NSFW. At it's heart, I believe "glamorous" is fake. And I don't think that is a bad or dishonest position. It only causes problems if we really believe the public personae is the real thing. Example: Rita Hayworth. To (mis)quote: "Every man I was with went to bed with Gilda, and woke up with me."

 

[sheeplady]

So if some part of glamorous is an act, or fake, or contrived, or whatever it may be, is saying someone is "glamorous" a loaded compliment?

 

[LizzieMaine]

I've heard it used exactly that way, in fact. Where I grew up you called someone "glamourous" thru clenched teeth. "Well, isn't she glamourous." It meant someone who was stuck up, phony, and extremely narcissistic. It was not something you said about someone you genuinely admired.

 

[Mojito]

I grew up around - and still enjoy surrounding myself - with people who thoroughly enjoy glamor, in themselves or others. I think negative associations can cluster around the word itself - aloofness, self-aggrandisement etc - but so can positive ones: elegance, beauty, joy, excitement etc. It was certainly never innately negative unless coupled with a more specifically critical term. I don't think it's innately false or fake either, although it can be - it certainly can be overly conscious (overly self-conscious "glamour" can take away some of the joie de vivre I believe is a component of many glamourous people, and mitigate the charisma and style that the possessor might have).

 

[St. Louis]

My sense is that the word "glamour" has changed a bit since the 1930s and 1940s. I've seen lots of etiquette and style manuals for young women that encouraged them to develop their own glamour. It seemed to have been considered an attainable goal, don't you think? Maybe they equated it more with nice grooming, ladylike etiquette, cleanliness, a sense of style, and a pleasant manner?

I'm just assuming this -- I could be wrong, of course. When I think of modern ideas of glamour, I get the feeling that people are talking about red carpet or runway-level of style. That is, glamour now seems to mean designer evening gowns and expensive jewelry.

 

[VoodooDolly]

I agree that very few modern women are glamorous, but I think Carolina Herrera embodies the look of timeless, elegant glamour. I base this only on appearance since I'm not familiar with her personal life, but she always looks so put together and ladylike to me.

 

[danofarlington]

Glamor is a kind of power.

 

[Grant Fan]

I think glamour is a state of being. It has to do with being completely comfortable in your skin and knowing not only what looks good on your but makes you happy. It also have some timelessness I it.

 

[Lotta Little]

Intentional glamour

In my opinion, glamour is intentional. We all make a choice to present ourselves a certain way, and I define glamour as the intent to enhance one's appearance in a specific way, showing "personal style." I often see some person out somewhere who has really put himself together well, and I think "Aaah, glamour!" It has to be authentic, though. That's why it's so hard. Just draping yourself in "glamourous" fashions doesn't do it. Think of some celebrities today, a stylist has dressed them up in something that doesn't feel authentic to them and they look miserable in their own skins.

I do agree that it can be taken too far, with trying too hard, etc, and then we get into "personal branding" territory. Ick.