From the daily archives: "Monday, July 11, 2016"

Image 6-29-16 at 6.32 PM (2) copy


It’s nearly impossible to picture Gwen Stefani without her platinum strands, or imagine Alexa Chung without her tousled brown waves, or to think of Anna Wintour without her signature crisp bob. These details make them easy to identify and provide the illusion of consistency even if they wear a wide range of clothing styles and makeup looks. There’s something appealing about a person who can stick to a single hairstyle—or slight variations on a theme—for decades. But why are we drawn to this sort of regularity? Is it only because consistency is unusual that it is appealing, or does a signature look signify something else, perhaps self-knowledge, or acceptance? If nothing else, a signature look is a quiet rebellion against the constant shifting of fashion trends, a way of dictating your own rules of styling instead of feeling pressured to follow someone else’s. Do you have a signature style? How long have you worn it? Click the notes to see celebs who are know for their signature ‘do and share your thoughts in the comments. –– Laura Martin  Click for StyleNotes →

Image 6-29-16 at 6.30 PM


The recent New York Times article about “mom hair” received outraged responses from Cosmopolitan, The Huffington Post, New York Magazine, and dozens of blogs. The view it presents is pretty narrow-minded about short hair, but it got me thinking about “mom hair” and how that term might be changing now that bobs and lobs are cool again. “Mom hair” as defined by the NYT is a “longer-in-back, slightly-shorter-in-front bob” without acknowledging that half of Hollywood is currently wearing that exact style. In fact, bob-length cuts with face framing layers are so trendy that I can’t help but wonder if it will soon by the moms with long shapeless strands who will be accused of “mom hair.” Click the notes to see examples of what the Times considers “mom hair” and let us know what you think of this look! –– Laura Martin  Click for StyleNotes →