Appearances

      
This column has examined many commonly accepted “truisms” and found them untrue such as “all men are created equal,” “love thy neighbor as thyself,” “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and, my favorite, “those who know do not speak, those who speak do not know.”  Throughout time we have heard these phrases so often that we have taken them for granted without challenging them as we should.

Here’s one to add to our collection - “you can’t judge a book by its cover.”

Have you been to a bookstore lately?  Every book has an interesting cover.  They are designed to be interesting so that you will buy the book inside.  Book publishers and agents want you to judge a book by its cover.

Have you been to the market lately?  Each product is covered in a design intended to get the buyer to judge the product well by it.

But maybe the phrase doesn’t really mean “book” or even “product.”  Maybe it just means that we can’t judge people by their appearance.  Is that true?  What makes us decide to talk with someone or to get to know them or to go out with them?  What do potential employers judge us by?  Yes, it is our outward appearance.

So what can we do to improve our chances of giving a favorable impression?  We can try to look our best.  That might mean avoiding dreadlocks, body piercings, tattoos, pants that appear to be falling off, sloppy beards, dirty or greasy hair, bad breath, pants that are too long and lay crumpled on the floor, clothes that are too tight or too loose, body odor and/or baseball caps with misplaced visors.  And instead of always wearing solid colors we could try attractive patterns.  Look at the people in Guatemala, Pakistan, India, Kenya or Haiti and you see people dressed in beautiful colors and patterns.  You look at most Americans and it is all solid and uninteresting.

Even in men’s ties we have gone solid.  I think it started with Regis Philbin hosting   that million dollar game show.  He wore solid colored ties with matching solid colored shirts.  Then came “the Donald” who wore solid color silky, oftimes pink, ties.  Then there was George Bush II.  He almost always wore a dark suit with a white shirt and a light blue solid tie.  This became an almost international dress code.  I noticed one international conference where everyone, including George II, wore that same outfit.  Boring.  If you can’t wear a beautiful tie, don’t wear one at all. And don’t wear a striped tie with a striped suit (are you reading this Brian Williams?).  In fact, avoid striped suits.  They usually look cheap and make the wearer look like a trafficker in the world’s second oldest profession.  Even Tim Gunn can’t make them work (no offense, Tim).

Some of my previous columns have already lamented the improper use of what has been called “shorts” for men but are now more like “medium-longs” going below the knee on their male wearers.  And while real shorts are appropriate while on vacation in some tropical paradise, they are neither appropriate nor attractive on men during cool weather or in urban environments.  Most men’s legs are best when covered.

I have also surely said enough about big, fat watches.  They don’t make men look bigger or manlier.

But what about women, what are their sartorial issues?  They have come a long way since the big shoulder look of the 80’s.  Designers have discovered the miracle of spandex for women.  What a difference - finally pants that really fit to compliment and complement the female body.  Women also seem to be wearing less makeup during the everyday.  Women don’t need dark mascara on their eyelids  or eyelashes.  They don’t need pancake makeup, but a tan always helps. ( Force a dermatologist to tell you the truth and the doctor will confess that tans are nature’s way of providing sunblock.  But tans must be built up to gradually.) And though wearing high heels can improve a woman’s appearance making her legs look longer and slimmer and making her drooping posterior stay up better, especially under some spandex, it is too high a price to pay for beauty.  High heels really hurt women’s feet and are no longer necessary.  Some die-hard cultural relativists desperate to find a Western equivalent of the burkas and other full head-to-toe covering that some women under Muslim subjugation are forced to wear with Western women being forced to wear high heels.  Let us end burkas, full body coverings and high heels from any woman’s must-wear ideology.

Also as mentioned earlier, women, let’s have more interesting patterns, not just solid colors.  Look at Missoni (and look for him now too, he is still missing).  He knows patterns. Beautiful patterns can make a woman look bigger or smaller, depending on the need. And, please, no more black.  It is not really a color but the lack of one.  Black is for tuxedoes, funerals and the clergy, and I’m no longer sure about the clergy. I see black and white as plus or minus for real colors. Black darkens while white lightens.  

And pregnant women.  You are wonderful and shall be forever blessed.  But I have one request: no more tight fitting clothes until your body has released its precious gift and returned to normalcy.  We are all willing to wait to see the baby after it is born instead of snuggled and squeezed prenatal under your spandex.

With both male and female clothing wearers, the key should be dressing appropriate to the occasion and one’s physique.  Some part of the body that is too big should be covered by something that minimizes the effect.  Something that is just right should be displayed with elegance and appreciation. Sweat clothes are not appropriate at church or weddings, much less church weddings.  High heels, while not needed with anything, are surely out of place with cut offs or a bikini and on tennis courts.

Is this all too controversial?  Am I hitting below the belt and is the belt really appropriate?  Is this all too subjective?  Should we say say “to each his or her own”?

I say “no!”

We have reached consensus about moral issues like murder, lying, stealing and bragging, we can have a consensus about aesthetic considerations. Most of us agree about what looks good and what doesn’t.  Remember the Edsel?  You are probably too young or too old to remember.  It was designed in the late 50s.  Almost everyone agreed it was ugly and it failed terribly.  Look at the history of the Plymouth, Dodge and Desoto.  They were consistently unattractive and now many don’t even remember them. What about the Chevrolet Caprice of the early ‘90s?  It was so ugly, even police departments didn’t want them.  SFPD finally bought some against strong protest from its esteemed principal analyst.  No one wanted to drive in them.  It solved the take home policy problem - people were too embarrassed to take them home.  And let’s not even start about the Monte Carlo - consistently hideous. Gone too are padded shoulders for women, even those who held out vain hope that the large shoulders would make their large hips look smaller in contrast.  They were sadly wrong.  Gone are narrow ties for men as are their opposites, real wide ones.

So while aesthetics can be somewhat subjective, it can also provide standards that the vast majority can agree on.

My hope, here, is that we all agree with mine.