In reply to KaWai:

yes! This is something that really interests me and something that seems to be a fundamental ingredient 'successful' fashion.
Does anyone have any ideas of what it is?

In reply to KaWai:

Yes that is true ... I somehow see her in a way as the only present old Hollywood school glamour. Remember the story of Greta Garbo ? But from the moment she became less enigmatic to the public then things changed in her career .
Ms Kate Moss is very wise to keep her enigma going, the public wants that. Of course we are in a different time and she is a modern woman as far as life goes, I think, but nevertheless people WILL ALWAYS want someone who can inspire them ... the chemistry.... it is all about the chemistry....

In any case this pic of hers has something Dietrich-sque & Monroe-sque combined ... the air about it .... absolutely glamourous!
I cannot really understand the negative reactions about this project ... just consider that Nick Knight, I think, was trying to experiment by combining poetry , visuals, voice and glamour ... that in itself is quite something that deserves some recognition . After all he's the first one who has tried that .... as far as my knowledge goes....

In reply to Galileo's Universe:

What do you see as the differences between glamour and romanticism?

In reply to Karl Fuler:

Romanticism was a reaction against the order and restraint of classicism and neoclassicism, and a rejection of the rationalism that characterized the Enlightenment. ..... and Glamour is the attractive or exciting quality that makes certain people or things seem appealing or special ..... but to answers your curiosity, I personally believe that 'glamour' as we see it today is totally deviated from the actual meaning .... I think that in Kate Moss' case .... yes it is a kind of Romanticism that makes her unique ... because, as I see it , glamour doesn't exist anymore in the real context as it did in its hay days ... the meaning has been hollowed, it only applies today to the superficial , the packaging, rather soulless .... as far as I see it.

It is indeed emotional the connection as I see it .... and Kate does seem to be able to make the link, she not only inspires the public but she does seem to move them emotionally, for whatever reason .... while most of the 'glamourous stars ' can and have achieved the title by the grace of the press .... but lack the emotional connection in general .... I think ! :)

Look at that pic !!!... it says so much more ... it is not just a pic of a model posing... it is a pic with a soul and individual character.... and that is very difficult to catch !.

Glamour is also poetry ... you have it or you don't ! ... if you can understand what I mean ...

Do forgive me if my explanation doesn't seem to make any sense ... but that's how I perceive it :):) ...

In reply to Galileo's Universe:

Thanks GU.
You seem to have a very strict perception of romanticism. I was thinking more of our personal romanticism – romantic vision;
“(usually initial capital letter ) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a style of literature and art that subordinates form to content, encourages freedom of treatment, emphasizes imagination, emotion, and introspection, and often celebrates nature, the ordinary person, and freedom of the spirit”

Glamour and romantic vision are products of our personal imagination – they both have much to do with fantasy don’t they?
Your points about hollow, superficial glamour – I think this has much to do with our culture’s increasing trend to reject the romanticism of the individual. Imagination is not encouraged. Now I’m struggling to make sense.
I think there is a confusion of ‘romantic’ and ‘glamorous’.

In reply to Karl Fuler:

On the contrary it makes sense and ...... your statement fits well in the project of ' FASHION POLITICS ' , as I see it personally ! ...

Harnessing the power of the imagination is not exactly what 'THEY' want .... but now I must be careful where I'm trading on ... because if I understand well the POLITICS OF GLAMOUR, we have then been fooled along the way :);) ... and I prefer, personally, the ' romantic' vision of glamour ....:) a contradiction in the end ....:), therefore I would like to quote the following... knowing in my understanding how much you may be interested in the subject without the 'dream' attached to it ...

'Glamour is absolutely not to be questioned and analysed but simply claimed and marvelled at. Glamour emanates in locations where the grand entrance, wealth and beauty reside, properties and qualities about which one simply does not speak in deference to the implicit/complicit decree of silence. '

"Glamour is thus a technology of radical visibility. And as with all technologies and archives of visibility the access to glamour is politically, economically and culturally regulated. Who or what is 'glamorous'and for what reasons? Who determines and defines what at a certain place and at a certain time has earned the title 'glamorous'? Just what work and exactly what knowledge is invested in the production of glamour? In order to answer these questions we have to treat glamour as an historically evolved and determined category of the capitalist aesthetic "

Ref: Aussehen, auftreten, abblitzen. Glamour as work and knowledge "Doing Glamour"-
Conception: Tom Holert
Coordination: ith - Institut für Theorie der Gestaltung und Kunst an
der HGKZ, Zürich

" ... our culture's increasing trend to reject the romanticism of the individual. Imagination is not encouraged." ...... great quote ! ...

PS. I hope I'm making some sense :):)