Who besides me remembers when longish dresses worn with granny boots (or combat boots) were everyday casual wear?
The differing styles were talking about here are mainly levels of formality, aka lifestyle segments (my basic four: leisure, casual, business, social). In the above example, social (dress) + leisure (boots) = casual (nicer everyday wear). And, hard as it is for me to believe now, we all wore it. Which leads me to my first declaration of personal opinion on the propriety of mixing disparate styles:
If it’s a mainstream look and you have a mainstream personal style, go for it!
For example, it is still mainstream to wear flip-flops with everything, including wearing them as dress shoes. While I have a fairly mainstream idiom, I give this look a pass simply because I am not comfortable in flip-flops. And I do believe there are a few places where flip-flops are still inappropriate: the White House, professional office setting, or anytime you have to walk in front of a group of people quietly watching you. Conversely (no pun intended),
if you are a true style innovator, mixing metaphors is an integral part of your idiom.
After all, somebody first popularized the wearing of dresses and granny boots, right? Young people, aka the pre-employed, have more latitude in these matters; presumably they are still experimenting and finding their personal style. Also, if you haven’t yet collected all your permanent wardrobe pieces; you may not have the perfect patent leather sandals to wear to the family reunion, flip-flops will have to do.
There is one final circumstance in which I think it makes sense to combine differing styles, one which is a little trickier and sometimes messes me up:
when your accent style contrasts with your main style personality, combining those two styles is part of your idiom.
Such is the case with me: my main style is contemporary classic, my accent style is functional natural. How does that mess me up, you ask? Suddenly the other day, when I was reading some Jennifer Skinner’s excellent articles, I realized that, in combination with some other aspects of my personal idiom (budget, metal allergies, and so forth), contemporary + functional can misread as conservative. Which is not me. Except in politics.
So what’s your combining styles story?
The longish dress/granny boot was was more “casual-social’ or funky-business attire where I live. Women also wore those flowered longish dresses with the criss-cross ties in the back that made them look like 9 year old shepherdesses.
Mixing elements can either make you look innovative OR like you can’t afford clothes that are in season. I saw a lovely young woman the other day, in minus -10F in a long white eyelet skirt of very thin cotton, no slip, heavy, bulky wool sweater, Uggs with bare legs and waist-length parka. I wanted to scoop her up and buy her (at least) a pair of tights. Most of these cross-pollinated looks (the cowboy shirt with taffeta ball skirt, the wet-look tights with tailored blazer) just look getupy.
Love that last sentence! And I thought of another one this morning, which I’m a bit reluctant to mention, as it is sooooo mainstream — the lacy underwear top worn as professional attire. As my hero would say, it brings to mind a different kind of profession. Hopefully, if I’ve stepped on any toes, I’ve stepped lightly. 😉
Today I’m mixing creative (skirt with unusual construction and detail), with femine top (knit with bow detail on neckline), and elegant chic (pearls, but in a modern and unusual setting).
The mix will work when it is a true reflection of your personality. It won’t work when it’s someone else’s vision.