Dressing the part of a writer...

[Vautrin]

Before I elaborate I must clarify that this phenomenon does not only apply to aspiring writers. Many aspiring musicians dress and act like rock stars before they even land record deals or at least garner some kind of attention from anyone that matters(The Lower East Side of Manhattan is flooded with them. Hehe!) Many aspiring visual artists are the same way. Let me reiterate that I don't mean all of these people, but definitely many.

Now back to my main point.
Has anyone else noticed how many aspiring writers (heck even some published ones) tend to dress a certain way? For example, guys that wear sports coats with jeans, loafers without socks and a baseball cap. You’ll never catch them wearing a tie or anything remotely flashy. It doesn't have to be the same kind of clothing each time. It's more the way the clothes are arranged than anything else. Perhaps born writers all think similarly when it comes to how they want to present themselves to the world. However, I just don't buy it. It seems very forced to me. They clearly want everyone to instantly identify them as literary types. There are worse things in the world I know, but it does play tricks on people in the sense that it has an impact on first impressions. Most people, if they saw a guy dressed in a hooded sweatshirt and sweatpants would not say, "Hey I bet that guy writes for a living." The thought would cross their minds, however, if that same person wore a blazer with a scarf around his neck, indoors, for instance. It's as if the “scruffy intellectual” look is the unofficial uniform of writers nowadays. This applies to other generations as well. I’ve seen many writers of the older generation go for the Twain look (huge mustache, etc) or the Hemingway look (turtle neck sweater and a well groomed beard) and even some, the Hunter S Thomson look (dark shades and a short sleeve button down shirt, but not so much the hat)

My personal theory is we see these successful authors’ pictures on book jackets and subconsciously decide that this is how I should look if I am to pursue this career path. Also, it attracts the types of people we want to take notice. People become more concerned with developing a persona than improving their craft or having anything genuinely interesting to say.

Notice I didn’t include female writers in this rant. That’s because women seem to be immune from this “I’m-ready-for-my-book-jacket-photo shoot” phenomenon. Or perhaps they do have a “look,” and I just haven’t picked up on it yet.

[Virgil]

Now this is an interesting subject. I think it has evolved over time. There was a time when writers seemed to wear black turtle necks. ;)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_glQnNYqgW_E/SX_aL-lshnI/AAAAAAAAAYo/kXZsBSP8Rvk/s400/tnsuit.jpg

[sammyuk]

Yeah I know what you mean. You get a lot of people like that, they're basically people who take themselves too seriously and through lack of personality have to make sure everybody knows that they 'write' (they all say that as if it's all they do - ask them what sort of person they are and the first thing they'll say is "well, I write"). Generally a bunch of pretentious losers who can't write for ****, go to wine tastings, and talk about Kafka at parties. That's a massive generalisation, but I think people with real writing talent are secure enough in themselves that they just look and dress like a normal person.

[Amoxcalli]

Yeah I know what you mean. You get a lot of people like that, they're basically people who take themselves too seriously and through lack of personality have to make sure everybody knows that they 'write' (they all say that as if it's all they do - ask them what sort of person they are and the first thing they'll say is "well, I write"). Generally a bunch of pretentious losers who can't write for ****, go to wine tastings, and talk about Kafka at parties. That's a massive generalisation, but I think people with real writing talent are secure enough in themselves that they just look and dress like a normal person.

Or are just genuinely absurd people. Salinger springs to mind. Wilde also had personality :p.

Can't say I don't agree.

[Modest Proposal]

There's a great bit in Roth's 'The Human Stain' where his surrogate self (Zuckerman) upbraids the hat writers. Essentially, writers more concerned with looking the part--apparently hats are the key to this deception--than actually performing.

There's a picture of Cormac McCarthy on one of his dust jackets that makes me smile every time I see it. He doesn't take himself too seriously and even seems to pokes fun at the 'serious-faced' writer photos with an exaggerated one of his own.

Here it is: http://www.abebooks.co.uk/images/books/2009-review/cormac-mccarthy.jpg

Though I must say Graham Greene does command attention as a writer with this one:

http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/grahamgreene.jpg

[Paulclem]

I always thought Terry Pratchett looked odd in the Fedora? (Not up on hat-types)

http://www.noreascon.org/photos/pratchett.jpg

[sammyuk]

yeah I sorta thought that but Pratchett is a real character. Really sad that he's got Alzheimer's.

[Desolation]

People with similar interests and career aspirations occasionally dress alike? GASP! Who'd have thought?

That is truly mind blowing.

[Vautrin]

People with similar interests and career aspirations occasionally dress alike? GASP! Who'd have thought?

That is truly mind blowing.

I always love me some sarcasm!

There are many writers who do not dress alike. They have their own styles and do not follow the herd, so to speak. It should not be a given that people with "similar interests and career aspirations" should all somehow look the same or talk the same. Your clothes shouldn't scream who you are or what you do for a living. I mean people can do whatever they want, but in my opinion, it just reveals a sense of insecurity. It's almost like announcing you don't have enough faith in your writing abilities and compensate for it by dressing the part. I don't personally know any famous authors, but the best writers I know look nothing like "writers." There are no ascots or corduroy blazers in their wardrobes that I'm aware of at least.

[PeterL]

Thanks for the laugh. Unfortunately, writers live in diffeent places, and loafers without socks are inappropriate for many places.

[stlukesguild]

Desolation- People with similar interests and career aspirations occasionally dress alike? GASP! Who'd have thought?

That is truly mind blowing.

Vautrin- I always love me some sarcasm!

There are many writers who do not dress alike. They have their own styles and do not follow the herd, so to speak. It should not be a given that people with "similar interests and career aspirations" should all somehow look the same or talk the same. Your clothes shouldn't scream who you are or what you do for a living. I mean people can do whatever they want, but in my opinion, it just reveals a sense of insecurity. It's almost like announcing you don't have enough faith in your writing abilities and compensate for it by dressing the part. I don't personally know any famous authors, but the best writers I know look nothing like "writers." There are no ascots or corduroy blazers in their wardrobes that I'm aware of at least.

I'm sorry, but I must agree with Desolation (will miracles never cease?:lol:). Dressing in line with one's career has absolutely nothing to do with insecurity, and everything to do with dressing appropriately for the role. There is an accepted dress for the corporate office employee and this is often different from that acceptable for the CEO. Doctors have another mode of dress as do academics, plumbers, carpenters, artists, actors and actresses, etc... Within my own career there is an expected dress for teachers and this differs from the dress common to principals or other administrators. Part of this has to do with dressing comfortably considering the sort of work involved. Part of it has to do with how one is presenting oneself to the public. With some careers a set uniform is required... but in most cases one has a degree of freedom, but is still expected to dress appropriately for the role.

An actress walking the red carpet at the Oscars, an artist at his or her gallery opening (or at another artist's exhibition for that matter), or an author at a book signing, lecture, interview, or photo-shoot is working. These events are part of their job and there is a certain expectation as to how one should present oneself. At home, the CEO, the actress, the plumber, and the author may all prefer to dress comfortable in jeans and a sweatshirt. Such clothing may not be expected or even acceptable for the same persons in their professional roles. As an art teacher I am allowed a certain freedom in how I dress as a result of the mess my job entails... but I still must maintain a certain professional look. As an artist I largely dress in paint-spattered khakis, boots (there is constantly the possibility of nails and staples on the studio floors) and an equally spattered sweatshirt from my alma mater... or a t-shirt or no shirt in the summer. This is most certainly not how I dress for an art exhibition.

[OrphanPip]

I wish I could dress in anything at work. I used to spend a decent amount of money on nice expensive scrubs, but they get ruined too fast. Now I just buy cheap ones from Wal-Mart that fall to pieces in 5 months, but I save money this way anyway.

And you have no idea how hard it is to find scrubs for men without making a special order, Wal-Mart sells "unisex" ones, but I secretly suspect they're women's scrubs in blue.

[Veho]

Now this is an interesting subject. I think it has evolved over time. There was a time when writers seemed to wear black turtle necks. ;)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_glQnNYqgW_E/SX_aL-lshnI/AAAAAAAAAYo/kXZsBSP8Rvk/s400/tnsuit.jpg

That's the exact image I had in my mind when I started reading this thread.

[Vautrin]

I'm sorry, but I must agree with Desolation (will miracles never cease?:lol:). Dressing in line with one's career has absolutely nothing to do with insecurity, and everything to do with dressing appropriately for the role. There is an accepted dress for the corporate office employee and this is often different from that acceptable for the CEO. Doctors have another mode of dress as do academics, plumbers, carpenters, artists, actors and actresses, etc... Within my own career there is an expected dress for teachers and this differs from the dress common to principals or other administrators. Part of this has to do with dressing comfortably considering the sort of work involved. Part of it has to do with how one is presenting oneself to the public. With some careers a set uniform is required... but in most cases one has a degree of freedom, but is still expected to dress appropriately for the role.

An actress walking the red carpet at the Oscars, an artist at his or her gallery opening (or at another artist's exhibition for that matter), or an author at a book signing, lecture, interview, or photo-shoot is working. These events are part of their job and there is a certain expectation as to how one should present oneself. At home, the CEO, the actress, the plumber, and the author may all prefer to dress comfortable in jeans and a sweatshirt. Such clothing may not be expected or even acceptable for the same persons in their professional roles. As an art teacher I am allowed a certain freedom in how I dress as a result of the mess my job entails... but I still must maintain a certain professional look. As an artist I largely dress in paint-spattered khakis, boots (there is constantly the possibility of nails and staples on the studio floors) and an equally spattered sweatshirt from my alma mater... or a t-shirt or no shirt in the summer. This is most certainly not how I dress for an art exhibition.

Point taken. However, I'm not stating it as some revelation. My point is merely that many aspiring writers make it a point to come off, through their fashion choices, as literary types so much so that they in turn become caricatures of writers. I personally take them a little less seriously. sammyuk, I thought made a good point in his first reply when he stated, "I think people with real writing talent are secure enough in themselves that they just look and dress like a normal person." I couldn't agree more.

I once watched a documentary that included archival footage of a party back in the 1940's, which was attended by notable people in nearly every major field. You couldn't tell the physicists from the poets. All the men had on unpretentious clothing, mainly plain old gray suits. No one tried to stick out like a sore thumb and announce, "Hey everybody look at me. I'm so interesting!" Nowadays many people just want to be noticed just because. Let your work do the talking for you.

[The Comedian]

For female authors, I can hardly think of anyone better dressed for the part than the great Rachel Carson:

http://www.newtonmarascofoundation.org/doc/rachelcarsonpicture.jpg

And for male authors, it would be hard to beat the simple, used-car salesman look of Edward Abbey here:

http://www.focusdep.com/images/edward_abbey2.jpg

[burntpunk]

Now this is an interesting subject. I think it has evolved over time. There was a time when writers seemed to wear black turtle necks. ;)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_glQnNYqgW_E/SX_aL-lshnI/AAAAAAAAAYo/kXZsBSP8Rvk/s400/tnsuit.jpg

Was that photograph taken by The Sartorialist?

Excellent thread. I used to be fascinated with the writer's identity, before realising that the vast majority were sartorially challenged, I'm not talking about madhats such as Hunter S Thompson who break the rules, after all, it just works. I'm referencing figures such as Stephen King, who present themselves in a sartorially inept manner; ill-fitted jeans, novelty t-shirts, it all offends me. Nevertheless, figures such as Kerouac have influenced fashion in a positive manner with his broken but unbowed aesthetic.

I'm a firm believer that how we should dress in a manner that reflects our personality; being writer's we should have fun with this. In this aesthetic-fascist society we live in, image is just another vehicle of expression.

[sammyuk]

I'm a firm believer that how we should dress in a manner that reflects our personality; being writer's we should have fun with this. In this aesthetic-fascist society we live in, image is just another vehicle of expression.

Couldn't agree less with that. Mostly because what sort of dress does reflect personality? There's some obvious examples, the slightly less classy woman will wear slightly less classy clothes. But it's far too difficult to tell. After all, people have enough trouble establishing someone's personality through talking to them, it's going to be nigh on impossible based on what somebody wears.

[Modest Proposal]

I'm going to have to politely disagree with those who affirm writers dressing "as writers" as somehow equivalent to a work dress code. I have met and spoken with many different authors of different genre's and respectability and as a general rule the ONLY ones who seemed to dress "like authors" were the ones whose work didn't bespeak their occupation. The true artists and craftsmen I have seen and met dress with the diversity of any segment of society that I can tell, it is only those poseurs who seem to fulfill their role by dressing rather than producing art.

[Desolation]

I always love me some sarcasm!

There are many writers who do not dress alike. They have their own styles and do not follow the herd, so to speak. It should not be a given that people with "similar interests and career aspirations" should all somehow look the same or talk the same. Your clothes shouldn't scream who you are or what you do for a living. I mean people can do whatever they want, but in my opinion, it just reveals a sense of insecurity. It's almost like announcing you don't have enough faith in your writing abilities and compensate for it by dressing the part. I don't personally know any famous authors, but the best writers I know look nothing like "writers." There are no ascots or corduroy blazers in their wardrobes that I'm aware of at least.Here's my biggest problem with your argument; you're assuming that people are only dressing the way that you described so as to fit in with the crowd rather than that they actually (and here's a crazy thought, so hold onto your seat) dress that way because THEY LIKE THE WAY IT LOOKS.

Should people not dress the way that they want to dress just because other people with similar interests happen to dress that way too? You don't want to look like you're trying to play a part or anything, after all.

[Modest Proposal]

Here's my biggest problem with your argument; you're assuming that people are only dressing the way that you described so as to fit in with the crowd rather than that they actually (and here's a crazy thought, so hold onto your seat) dress that way because THEY LIKE THE WAY IT LOOKS.

Should people not dress the way that they want to dress just because other people with similar interests happen to dress that way too? You don't want to look like you're trying to play a part or anything, after all.

You really believe that all of the would-be writers running around HAPPEN to all want to dress a certain way? I think most modern social theory would suggest that this sort of coincidence is highly unlikely. It seems much more logical to suggest that--like so, so many other areas of society--they are trying to 'fit the part'. Writers are a diverse group linked often by certain aptitudes but rarely, I suggest, by fashion concerns. However, in a world were status is often determined by vestment--this statement being heavily backed by most theories I have read--many, especially those most conspicuously self-consious of their place due to a dearth of concrete proof, seem to cling to their position among the ranks by a superficial badge.

Let me add I have never met a successful author who told me about their Creative Writing degree or which school it came from. On the contrary I have met many of the hatted masses of would-bes--not to perjure them, maybe they will make it--tell me there Curriculum Vitea.

[Desolation]

You really believe that all of the would-be writers running around HAPPEN to all want to dress a certain way? I think most modern social theory would suggest that this sort of coincidence is highly unlikely. It seems much more logical to suggest that--like so, so many other areas of society--they are trying to 'fit the part'. Writers are a diverse group linked often by certain aptitudes but rarely, I suggest, by fashion concerns. However, in a world were status is often determined by vestment--this statement being heavily backed by most theories I have read--many, especially those most conspicuously self-consious of their place due to a dearth of concrete proof, seem to cling to their position among the ranks by a superficial badge.

Let me add I have never met a successful author who told me about their Creative Writing degree or which school it came from. On the contrary I have met many of the hatted masses of would-bes--not to perjure them, maybe they will make it--tell me there Curriculum Vitea.No, I don't necessarily think that they HAPPEN to look alike, I think that similar interests often leads to similar styles of clothing. Why does everyone who wants to be in a metal band lookalike? Or a punk band? Or a rapper? Or a specific kind of artist? As it turns out, people aren't all that different or unique, and it's really not very far-fetched to think that people with similar interests and aspirations would dress somewhat alike. I'm sure in certain cases they are copying each other, thinking "Hey, I like the way that person is dressed, and they also want to be a writer, so I'd like to dress like that as well," and that's fine too. Really, who the **** cares how other people dress? You don't like it? Then don't dress like that. You've got your own style that you probably share with a few million people, and they have theirs.

[Vautrin]

You really believe that all of the would-be writers running around HAPPEN to all want to dress a certain way? I think most modern social theory would suggest that this sort of coincidence is highly unlikely. It seems much more logical to suggest that--like so, so many other areas of society--they are trying to 'fit the part'. Writers are a diverse group linked often by certain aptitudes but rarely, I suggest, by fashion concerns. However, in a world were status is often determined by vestment--this statement being heavily backed by most theories I have read--many, especially those most conspicuously self-consious of their place due to a dearth of concrete proof, seem to cling to their position among the ranks by a superficial badge.

Let me add I have never met a successful author who told me about their Creative Writing degree or which school it came from. On the contrary I have met many of the hatted masses of would-bes--not to perjure them, maybe they will make it--tell me there Curriculum Vitea.

Very well put. I especially thought the observation you made that, "Many, especially those most conspicuously self-conscious of their place due to a dearth of concrete proof, seem to cling to their position among the ranks by a superficial badge", is quite accurate and gets to the core of my argument. There seems to be more energy being put into maintaining and showing off this "superficial badge", than in anything else of greater value or importance, such as the quality of the craft itself.

As for the argument made by the previous poster of all this being coincidental, I would agree with you that that analysis is highly unlikely. It clearly goes deeper than that.

[stlukesguild]

Again, what you don't seem to fathom is that public appearances are part of the artist's or author's work. Success in the arts involves a great deal of networking. This involves attending openings, lectures, speeches, and other events where one might make a connection with this or that dealer,, collector, publisher, etc... There is also the clear possibility that an actress, an artist, and author attending such an even may end up being photographed and as such there is a certain consideration for how one is presenting oneself to the world. I also agree with the suggestion that those with similar interests may be drawn to similar styles of clothing. As Desolation suggests it might just be possible that if one aspires to being a actress or an artist or a heavy metal guitarist one just might admire the style worn by those who have already achieved success in the field and wish to emulate the look. Whether you believe it or not, appearances matter.

[Modest Proposal]

No, I don't necessarily think that they HAPPEN to look alike, I think that similar interests often leads to similar styles of clothing. Why does everyone who wants to be in a metal band lookalike? Or a punk band? Or a rapper? Or a specific kind of artist? As it turns out, people aren't all that different or unique, and it's really not very far-fetched to think that people with similar interests and aspirations would dress somewhat alike. I'm sure in certain cases they are copying each other, thinking "Hey, I like the way that person is dressed, and they also want to be a writer, so I'd like to dress like that as well," and that's fine too. Really, who the **** cares how other people dress? You don't like it? Then don't dress like that. You've got your own style that you probably share with a few million people, and they have theirs.

We may just need to agree to disagree but before we do, I would once more point out that the weight in your arguement--evidence--seems to point to my point rather than your own. I don't think any essentialist or natural corollation can be drawn between the sound of punk-rock and tight-jeans/plaid jackets or death metal songs and trench-coats (pardon any stereotyping here, I am trying to stay within the limits of the quoted members arguements), other than those made AFTER the trend was established. What you have with these 'trends' is conformity in its truest and most clear sense. Someone the fans like starts doing it, others follow, pictures are circulated, CD covers published--ta-da. Obviously, all conformity is not bad, it is just a tad silly. And yes, I conform to the style of fitting-yet-unrestricting blue jeans and button-up shirts of various colors that I find inexpensively.

[Modest Proposal]

Again, what you don't seem to fathom is that public appearances are part of the artist's or author's work. Success in the arts involves a great deal of networking. This involves attending openings, lectures, speeches, and other events where one might make a connection with this or that dealer,, collector, publisher, etc... There is also the clear possibility that an actress, an artist, and author attending such an even may end up being photographed and as such there is a certain consideration for how one is presenting oneself to the world. I also agree with the suggestion that those with similar interests may be drawn to similar styles of clothing. As Desolation suggests it might just be possible that if one aspires to being a actress or an artist or a heavy metal guitarist one just might admire the style worn by those who have already achieved success in the field and wish to emulate the look. Whether you believe it or not, appearances matter.

No one said appearences don't matter. And I wasn't talking about photogenics. I said trying to dress like "a writer" is silly as the work doesn't require a certain vestment to work its craft. As I said before, read Philip Roth's description of the types you are defending, or better yet the Scriblerus club's upbraiding of these types. It isn't a team that they pressure you to wear the uniform for like cheerleading and you don't need scrubs and a stethescope(sp) like a doctor.

[Vautrin]

Again, what you don't seem to fathom is that public appearances are part of the artist's or author's work. Success in the arts involves a great deal of networking. This involves attending openings, lectures, speeches, and other events where one might make a connection with this or that dealer,, collector, publisher, etc... There is also the clear possibility that an actress, an artist, and author attending such an even may end up being photographed and as such there is a certain consideration for how one is presenting oneself to the world. I also agree with the suggestion that those with similar interests may be drawn to similar styles of clothing. As Desolation suggests it might just be possible that if one aspires to being a actress or an artist or a heavy metal guitarist one just might admire the style worn by those who have already achieved success in the field and wish to emulate the look. Whether you believe it or not, appearances matter.


Not entirely true. It is not necessary to sell an image to further your career. Scorsese dresses like a stock broker and he's one of the most successful and celebrated filmmakers of all time. Pablo Picasso dressed like a yachtsman and sometimes just in a sweater and slacks. Kurt Vonnegut dressed like a physics professor and that clearly didn't hurt his career.


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/brainiac/vonnegut.jpg

[Virgil]

That's the exact image I had in my mind when I started reading this thread.

:lol: Yeah I guess I have 1950s jazz club hangouts in my mind. I had professors who dressed like that. ;)

[Virgil]

Was that photograph taken by The Sartorialist?


I have no idea. I don't even know who that is. I just looked for a guy in a turtleneck. :D

[stlukesguild]

No one said appearences don't matter. And I wasn't talking about photogenics. I said trying to dress like "a writer" is silly as the work doesn't require a certain vestment to work its craft.

Perhaps it may be silly to dress up "like a writer" when one is at home alone writing, at the laundromat, or going grocery shopping. Then again... such may be how one prefers to dress. On the other hand, any of the photographs on book covers or with the author at a book signing, on a lecture tour, or at any such public event is most certainly as aspect of the job and entails dressing the part.

Not entirely true. It is not necessary to sell an image to further your career.

Now that just shows an absolute lack of any knowledge of what is entailed in marketing art of any sort. Whether you like it or not the image sells and corporations, publishers, dealers, etc... invest heavily into creating an image that will resonate with the largest possible audience.

Scorsese dresses like a stock broker and he's one of the most successful and celebrated filmmakers of all time.

Yes... and Scorsese is established to the point that he may dress however he pleases (not that one imagines any set notion of how a director should dress considering that they are behind the camera). The young Scorsese dressed like a typical hip young dude... complete with beard:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2780/4307387737_92c2718d71_o.jpg

Pablo Picasso dressed like a yachtsman and sometimes just in a sweater and slacks.

And what do you imagine was the dress de rigour of the artist at that time? The young Picasso dressed in the traditional bohemian garb of the working class... complete with beret:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4037/4307387773_3d107fdeba_o.jpg

The older Picasso dressed pretty much however the hell he felt like... and yet one can rest assured that he recognized that going about and posing for the camera without a shirt lent to his persona as the very masculine macho painter:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4010/4307408961_497306bfca_o.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4014/4308149962_27a480c2a1_o.jpg

Indeed, no one as visually astute as Picasso was unaware or unconcerned about how he presented himself in the public eye:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2686/4308150050_4a53db3283_o.jpg

[Vautrin]

Young Scorsese:

http://www.explodedgoat.com/images/misc/300px-Scors_3.jpg

Doesn't really come off as a "typical hip young dude." He seems to have always dressed in the business casual and/or formal wear style. A beard doesn't always translate into "artsy." Another filmmaker that dresses/dressed normally is Woody Allen. If no one knew who he was or what he did for a living, few would guess he was a film director.


Young Picasso:

http://cambrianplayers.ca/plays/picasso/PicassoYoung.GIF

http://www.leninimports.com/pablo_picasso_biography_photo_2.jpg

http://employees.oneonta.edu/farberas/arth/Images/110images/sl24_images/picasso_in_studio.jpg

http://www.worldart.com.au/images/pablo-picasso-studio1.jpg

Most of the time Picasso dressed up. Young or Old. You found one picture of young Picasso that was an exception, but it's not how he dressed most of the time when he was away from the studio. The pictures of old Picasso you posted are misleading because they were clearly taken for fun. There are many candid photos of him wearing sweaters and three-piece suits, which are closer to how he normally dressed.

A more contemporary example: Philip Roth dresses like a news anchor on PBS or an accountant. Cormac McCarthy dresses like a college football coach.

By the way, I have knowledge of the kind of marketing that goes into selling art and literature, and I've realized that the artists with the most talent need less of a push than the rest of the mediocre majority.

[stlukesguild]

Doesn't really come off as a "typical hip young dude." He seems to have always dressed in the business casual and/or formal wear style. A beard doesn't always translate into "artsy." Another filmmaker that dresses/dressed normally is Woody Allen. If no one knew who he was or what he did for a living, few would guess he was a film director.

I'll not question the issue of Scorsese... again Directors don't seem to be quite public figures enough to have cultivated a certain look.

Most of the time Picasso dressed up. Young or Old. You found one picture of young Picasso that was an exception, but it's not how he dressed most of the time when he was away from the studio.

You may wish to have a bit more than Art History 101 under your belt before you start challenging me on Picasso or art in general. Picasso most certainly cultivated a given look early on in his career... and maintained a certain personae later. As an absolute unknown freshly arrived from Spain he looks almost shell-shocked and disheveled... wearing an outdated ascot and dress jacket:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4033/4307624979_49bb9dc881_o.gif

In the studio the artist generally dressed in loose-fitting peasant or worker's clothing:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4031/4307599219_e25d33c7d7_o.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4008/4307625085_aee9314761_o.jpg

Even then, the beret... adopted from the French bohemian artists... was quite common. When photographed formally in the studio, such as in this picture in which the artist strikes a pose before his collection of Africal sculpture (stolen from the Louvre):

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4049/4308339868_d59010224a_o.jpg

Or in this formal studio shot:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4037/4307387773_3d107fdeba_o.jpg

the artist commonly wore the same dress as he wore in public... a typical bohemian dress of simple worker's jacket... sometimes vest, dress shirt, sometimes a tie, and slacks... and often the beret:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2733/4308364840_e8d4a8671f_o.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4307625057_46ea1bc281_o.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4018/4308339790_5aab6e1866_o.jpg

The artist at this time was largely unknown outside of the inner-circle that followed the latest cutting edge art trends and he generally followed the dress common to the status as artist.

Following his marriage to Olga, the ballerina, Picasso began to dress far more respectably... in more expensive suits and jackets. He was undoubtedly prodded to an extent by his wife who had aspirations as a social climber and was more interested, by many accounts, in Picasso the art star than she was in Picasso the working artist (and certainly not Picasso the bohemian or starving artist). The artist also must have been inspired by the manner of dress of the various theatrical and musical luminaries (Stravinsky, Cocteau, Diaghilev, etc...) that had become part of his social circle.

By the 1930s Picasso was a huge art star... perhaps the first legitimate artist-as-celebrity. Entering into his 50s the artist commonly dressed in a manner (when he knew he was being photographed) that promoted his personae as an incredibly macho, virile figure. He regularly posed in shorts and often bare-chested. He would continue to strike such poses well into his later years...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4014/4308149962_27a480c2a1_o.jpg

It was not uncommon for him to be posed holding court... surrounded by the endless products of his virile creativity:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2769/4307763999_6815171beb_o.jpg

In other instances he would adopt the look or strike the pose of given macho careers: the fisherman (dressed in the traditional French striped shirt), the cowboy, or the bullfighter... an image he repeatedly cultivated (often as a symbolic self portrait) in his paintings and prints:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4010/4308427480_e812b20d76_o.jpg

The persona struck by Picasso was certainly quite different... especially later on in his career... than that struck by Matisse who ever came off as the bourgeoisie businessman, dressed in a tweed suit and tie (perhaps something of an aspiration... certainly related to his upper-middle-class upbringing... and commonly the audience and collectors of his paintings):

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4049/4308522856_84985febc7_o.jpg

Later in his career he struck the pose of the upper-class businessman retired to the Mediterranean replete with white suit and Panama hat:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4052/4307778681_2c5b526457_o.jpg

The great German Expressionist, Max Beckmann, on the other hand, commonly took the pose of the tough, dour-looking artist... cigarette in hand... dressed in a suit or tuxedo. He even painted himself in this manner:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2528/4307778591_6754b32a9d_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2717/4308517900_0979f9d15d_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2793/4307778657_1634071efd_o.jpg

All these artists were almost certainly aware of the image they wished to cultivate for themselves... how they wished to be seen by the public. They all were active well before the sort of PR firms and agents common to the arts today that often suggest... or even dictate... how an artist... writer... actor or actress should dress in public.

By the way, I have knowledge of the kind of marketing that goes into selling art and literature, and I've realized that the artists with the most talent need less of a push than the rest of the mediocre majority.

That would seem to be how it should be... but it isn't always so. Talent at art or writing or acting or singing, etc... does not immediately translate into success at self-marketing or making the right connections. Marketing or the lack thereof may have little to do with the artistic merits of a given artist, poet, author, or performer... but often has everything to do with their financial success. Of course those who market artists, writers, performers, etc... tend to focus upon and offer the greatest push to those who they feel they can make the greatest profit on. Most of the biggest and the best artists, poets, novelists, actresses, etc... have the support of a strong marketing push behind them.

[stlukesguild]

By the way... I love the look the look of the young Ezra Pound:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4048/4307816309_0ac30bf22c_o.png

One can imagine him styling himself upon the decadent French Symbolists such as Arthur Rimbaud.:lol:

[JBI]

By the way... I love the look the look of the young Ezra Pound:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4048/4307816309_0ac30bf22c_o.png

One can imagine him styling himself upon the decadent French Symbolists such as Arthur Rimbaud.:lol:

I think he looks better in his mugshot.

[wlz]

Great pictures! I also see from most these pictres that artists and writers alike have either bad hair styles or no hair at all. THERE MUST BE SOMETHING IN IT? I guess you can't grow a thick crop in the same place at once... lol!

(I'm off to buy some hairspray!)

[wlz]

Where's that damned picture!

[wlz]

:crash:

[wlz]

Ring Lardner Jr. Now this writer had style!!!

[Vautrin]

stlukesguild:

I appreciate you taking the time to analyze each photo and provide background information. However, your breakdown of his older photos (i.e macho, virile, etc) sounds good in theory and has probably been argued by some art historians, but it's really nothing more than conjecture. Judging by the photographic evidence, which is all we can really go by, and more particularly his candid shots, Picasso dressed like any other average man of his time. He could have easily been mistaken for someone working in a variety of other fields. He didn't attempt to stand out like a sore thumb because he let his work speak for itself.

I will concede, however, that due to his reputation later in his career as a shrewd businessman, Picasso might have indeed begun to change his look in order to sell more of his work. In that sense, perhaps Picasso is a unique example of an artist who can support both of our arguments in that he was somewhat of a walking contradiction(which is not a completely terrible thing for an artist to be). But again, that's just a theory and not a fact. With all due respect, I no longer want to dwell on Picasso.

Let's bring it back to writers. I've named a few so far, such as McCarthy, who seldom makes public appearances. Like I said before, he dresses like a college football coach. He is a great example of a writer who did not feel a need to look and play the part, and became one of the most successful writers of his generation.

[PeterL]

By the way... I love the look the look of the young Ezra Pound:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4048/4307816309_0ac30bf22c_o.png

One can imagine him styling himself upon the decadent French Symbolists such as Arthur Rimbaud.:lol:

I'll bet he was happy to put on some years and the illusion of maturity.

[wlz]

Damn right, PeterL. It's hard to believe that was the nose that wrote Sestina Altaforte.

[Desolation]

For this debate to continue, I think that we need an operational definition on just what "dressing like a writer" means.

The OP suggests that writers wear jeans with a sportcoat (a look that you can see sported by just about any white male), a side-ways baseball cap (what?), and loafers without socks. This image certainly doesn't make me think "writer." In fact, I've never seen anyone wearing a baseball cap with a sports jacket. He also suggests that Cormac McCarthy and Kurt Vonnegut do not look like writers, an assertion that I must disagree with.

So, what exactly does it mean to dress like a writer?

[PeterL]

For this debate to continue, I think that we need an operational definition on just what "dressing like a writer" means.

The OP suggests that writers wear jeans with a sportcoat (a look that you can see sported by just about any white male), a side-ways baseball cap (what?), and loafers without socks. This image certainly doesn't make me think "writer." In fact, I've never seen anyone wearing a baseball cap with a sports jacket. He also suggests that Cormac McCarthy and Kurt Vonnegut do not look like writers, an assertion that I must disagree with.

So, what exactly does it mean to dress like a writer?

As a writer, I can attest that I have never worn a baseball cap sideways; I have only worn one, at all, a few times in this incarnation. However, I have worn a sport jacket with jeans since college. I don't believe that Dr Thompson ever wore a baseball cap sideways; he often wore a shooting cap with the bill forward, so that it would function as intended. Jack Kerouac sometimes wore a sport jacket with jeans, but I have never seen a picture of him wearing a baseball cap in any way; although it is likely that he did wear one at some time.

There may be people who have wore loafers without socks, but it would be uncomfortable, and I don't recall having seen such a person ever.

As to what it might men to actually dress like a writer, that would depend on what writer one was dressing like, since writers dress in any old way. With that said, I think that the only requirement would be that one dress, since without dressing, one cannot be dressed like a writer.

[Modest Proposal]

Here, I agree with you Desolation; it seems like there are different debates going on. Just to clear things up, I am all for people having style, I am all for writers trying to market themselves and I am all for understanding the power of being photogenic. What I dislike is--as I've said--the people who try and make up for their lack of output by dressing how they think a writer 'would' dress. This to me is fake, shallow and working toward the least important aspect of the occupation. What I am talking about is the conspicuous out of style/retro/trying-to-be-chic hats and general REACHING for the don't-care look, which reveals so clearly that one does. It is not that I dislike it as a style, it is not that I dislike writers 'marketing'--it is merely that I think certain sections of society are more concerned with appearing, than actually being, something great. I have little patience for people who buy-in to almost any cultural group wholesale, as I feel that to do so is to betray the subtleties that exist in every individual and which NO group TRULY meets all requirements. It is my same frustration with political parties. People join one which seems to agree with some of their views and soon they base their views off of their party and not their party off their views.

For the record those pictures of Picasso are great.

[wlz]

Operational Definition: (To Dress Like A Writer) - Rather than the white cotton of Calvin Klein products one should wear the new range pink satin Oscar Wilde labelled thongs. Wear white golf socks with Tom Wolfe written on them, or instead of this, one could decide on not wearing any socks at all and choose sandals in preference... try wearing sandals during the depth of winter - reasons unknown! ...in restaurants when feeling warm and free, take 'em off and prance about the dining room with a tiny glass of sherry like you were just born to be a daisy repeating incessantly: "whooz a lacky boy den?" - NB.: DO NOT CUT TOE NAILS - REMEMBER YOU ARE A BOHEMIAN. Slacks - colour not optional: THEY MUST BE WORN IN WHITE. However, the shirt is optional, an alternative is bare chested. NB.: Please shave all hair and wax if man. If dressed in a shirt the colour should be an antiseptic pink. Craveats are vital especially in the colours blue or red. Make-up, walking style and all poses should be in the style of Zsa Zsa Gabor. One must also be found sporting a Tennessee Williams' bow-tie - with or without shirt - one which preferably spins around randomly when in conversation with a hot male the size of Hulk Hogan or a hot female the breadth of a shoe string. An exaggeratedly long cigarette holder is crucial - cigarette is not important as you prefer cigars. A hair-do, if you still have hair, must be of an outrageous style something in fact that any normal person would only dream of trying out for a laugh on a kinky Valentine's Night rendition of Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. All behaviour must be melodramatic, especially with your semi-loved one, whom you say you'll marry "AFTER YOU GET PUBLISHED!"

A hat is optional but advisable as such an adornment may be used to fidget with when nervous at the approach of anyone walking towards you which is very unlikely!!

[wlz]

Now you can continue!

[wlz]

I know few writers in Ireland dressed in baseball caps turning in any direction. They are are not a big part of our head-wearing culture hear. However, the old twead happens to be...

[wlz]

I want a good discussion about Zsa Zsa Gabor and hat-cultures in different parts of the world. We could name-drop a few writers to make it all relative.

[Philsgirl]

Who gives a sh**e how they dress. If they are comfortable, and they must be or they would dress differently, then so be it. Who cares how anyone is dressed? What a waste of your obvious expertise to dwell on such a shallow topic.

[PeterL]

Who gives a sh**e how they dress. If they are comfortable, and they must be or they would dress differently, then so be it. Who cares how anyone is dressed? What a waste of your obvious expertise to dwell on such a shallow topic.

The opening poster seems to have been sufficiently interested to post, and others, myself include, thought the topic sufficiently absurd that it was worth the trouble of tossing in some more silliness. In addition, you thought so much of this topic that you also posted. Apparently is was deep enough that you though it worthwhile to point out the shallowness, which I think we already knew, judging from the posts.

[Vautrin]

For this debate to continue, I think that we need an operational definition on just what "dressing like a writer" means.

The OP suggests that writers wear jeans with a sportcoat (a look that you can see sported by just about any white male), a side-ways baseball cap (what?), and loafers without socks. This image certainly doesn't make me think "writer." In fact, I've never seen anyone wearing a baseball cap with a sports jacket. He also suggests that Cormac McCarthy and Kurt Vonnegut do not look like writers, an assertion that I must disagree with.

So, what exactly does it mean to dress like a writer?


For starters I never said, "a side-ways baseball cap." I guess you probably just misread my original post. No worries though. Also, I never said that it had to specifically be a sports coat with jeans and loafers with no socks. That was just an example. It has more to do with the overall style I've noticed many aspiring writers have adopted than just specific items of clothing. Actually I really liked Modest Proposal's description on page 3 of this thread.

Honestly, I don't have one concrete definition of what that style is per say. I would even point out that it also varies from country to country and state to state. In New York City, I've personally noticed that many aspiring writers I knew back in college, at work or just through socializing in general seemingly went out of their way to dress in a sort of jaded, laid back, scruffy intellectual, borderline bohemian style. It's harder to define than it is to notice. You can spot one from a mile away.

Vonnegut and McCarthy, the examples I provided as being the antithesis, did not follow such trends and made it on talent alone. Of course their work was marketed but they did not have to go out of their way to "look the part."

[Lumiere]

Honestly, I don't have one concrete definition of what that style is per say. I would even point out that it also varies from country to country and state to state. In New York City, I've personally noticed that many aspiring writers I knew back in college, at work or just through socializing in general seemingly went out of their way to dress in a sort of jaded, laid back, scruffy intellectual, borderline bohemian style. It's harder to define than it is to notice. You can spot one from a mile away.

Vonnegut and McCarthy, the examples I provided as being the antithesis, did not follow such trends and made it on talent alone. Of course their work was marketed but they did not have to go out of their way to "look the part."

I know the look, I think, and will admit to having been, on occasion, swept away by a sudden urge to adapt the "writer's appearance". I have a hard time thinking of a great writer who was not eccentric. I think part of the reason some strive for the writer's look is the need of aspiring writer's to be, or at least come across as, eccentric. (And if you have to try to be eccentric, then I suppose you're not truly eccentric anyway! All very silly, really). Because clothes are the most visible and easily manipulated form of expression, it's only natural that they would be subject to that certain undefined all-I-do-is-write-and-I-have-no-time-to-be-bothered-about-trivial-matters-of-fashion style of writers, (artist in general, for that matter).

[Katy North]

Oh goody, I can quote Lord Henry from "The Picture of Dorian Grey"!

" ... Good poets exist simply in what they make, and consequently are prefectly uninteresting in what they are. A great poet, a really great poet, is the most unpoetical of all creatures. But inferior poets are absolutely fascinating. The worse their rhymes are, the more picturesque they look. The mere fact of having published a book of second-rate sonnets makes a man quite irresistable. He lives the poetry that he cannot write. THe others write the poetry that they dare not realize."

Given the fact that Lord Henry's initial cleverness eventually becomes nauseating cynicism as the book progresses, it is up to you to decide whether that statement is true or not...

[Modest Proposal]

Oh goody, I can quote Lord Henry from "The Picture of Dorian Grey"!

" ... Good poets exist simply in what they make, and consequently are prefectly uninteresting in what they are. A great poet, a really great poet, is the most unpoetical of all creatures. But inferior poets are absolutely fascinating. The worse their rhymes are, the more picturesque they look. The mere fact of having published a book of second-rate sonnets makes a man quite irresistable. He lives the poetry that he cannot write. THe others write the poetry that they dare not realize."

Given the fact that Lord Henry's initial cleverness eventually becomes nauseating cynicism as the book progresses, it is up to you to decide whether that statement is true or not...

This quote exemplifies why I am surprised this debate is as balanced as it is. Every respected writer I can think of who says anything about this poseur style, seems to disparage it and suggest exactly what I and the thread starter did--namely, that the artists who try and fit the mold by what they wear are usually doing so because their work doesn't speak for itself.

I am surprised that otherwise curcimspective and--dare I say--deep posters would defend this seemingly obvious superficiality. I would not be embarrassed if my close were worn, or out of style, but I would be embarrassed if people saw my and thought "oh look, he wants to be a writer." If you will again pardon my political metaphor, it is the same reason I don't like slogans. My political beliefs are too complex to fit on a bumper sticker. Just as my actual engagement with writing is more important than making sure people know that I am.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Oh goody, I can quote Lord Henry from "The Picture of Dorian Grey"!

" ... Good poets exist simply in what they make, and consequently are prefectly uninteresting in what they are. A great poet, a really great poet, is the most unpoetical of all creatures. But inferior poets are absolutely fascinating. The worse their rhymes are, the more picturesque they look. The mere fact of having published a book of second-rate sonnets makes a man quite irresistable. He lives the poetry that he cannot write. THe others write the poetry that they dare not realize."

Given the fact that Lord Henry's initial cleverness eventually becomes nauseating cynicism as the book progresses, it is up to you to decide whether that statement is true or not...

All Wide's statements are true, even the ones which aren't...

[Virgil]

By the way... I love the look the look of the young Ezra Pound:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4048/4307816309_0ac30bf22c_o.png

One can imagine him styling himself upon the decadent French Symbolists such as Arthur Rimbaud.:lol:
That's Ezra Pound? I would never have guessed. Here's a more middle aged picture:

http://www.srpublications.com/tools/literature_language_arts/images/Ezra%20Pound.jpg

And here's one of him much older:

http://famouspoetsandpoems.com/pictures/ezra_pound.jpg

[wlz]

I love the way Pound eventually mastered the West Highland White Terrier with hat look!