Discover your color palette and your style type.

What does "amount of detail" actually mean?

1/21/2019

One of the variables that differ from style type to style type is the amount of detail that is most flattering to that type.

Some of us look beautiful with a ton of detail; some of us look beautiful in a minimalist context; and some of us can pull off both high-detail and low-detail looks.

But what does "amount of detail" actually mean?

The best way I have come up to explain "amount of detail" is this: Imagine that your image in the mirror is a pencil sketch. "Amount of detail" is the number of pencil strokes you'd need in order to accurately render that sketch.

A shift dress can be rendered with relatively few lines, while a dress with a sweetheart neckline, a pleated skirt, pleated sleeves, and sequins would require literally hundreds of pencil strokes.

A flat piece of fabric is extremely low-detail. As soon as you gather that fabric into pleats or drapes or ruching, the image becomes much more detailed. Not coincidentally, pleats, draping, and ruching read as feminine.

Detail always reads as feminine. I have a couple of theories about why this might be. One idea is that we view detail as feminine because detail holds the eye, and throughout history we have seen women, not men, as the sex that exists to be looked at. Another idea is that we associate detail with femaleness because a curving line is "busier" (more detailed) than a straight line, and the lines of female bodies, on average, curve more than the lines of male bodies. A third idea is that we associated a highly detailed ensemble with femininity because creating a highly detailed ensemble takes time and effort, and women, not men, are traditionally expected to put time and effort into their appearance.

Regardless of why it's so, a high level of detail adds femininity, and minimalism adds masculinity. Women whose style types are mostly androgynous/masculine will usually find that too much detail makes them look mannish. Women whose style types are mostly feminine will usually find they are less pretty in minimalist looks.

I'm an Ethereal Natural with tiny smidges of a few other essences. My feminine-masculine balance is about 60-40 in favor of feminine elements. If my fabrics are rough and my colors are restrained, I can handle quite a bit of detail, but if my fabrics and colors are already very feminine, I can easily get overwhelmed with detail, and end up looking mannish. My curly hair by itself adds a ton of detail (imagine making a pencil sketch of it!), so if I'm wearing my hair down I don't have a lot of room to add more detail. Most of my garment choices are pretty simple.

Those curls add about as much detail as I can tolerate before I start to look mannish. I usually skip earrings, and I wear a *lot* of tank tops.

This sharply tailored suit could be drawn with very few pencil strokes. It's low-detail.

Alison Williams is stunning in it because her striking, masculine beauty calls for a very low amount of detail. (I think Williams is highly Dramatic.)

Jennifer Aniston is another celebrity who looks her best in very low-detail looks. She has a ton of Natural (which, along with Dramatic, is a masculine style type that asks for very little detail.)

See how much better Aniston is in the low-detail dress on the right than she is in the high-detail dress on the left. For a strongly Natural woman (like Aniston and myself), a low-detail context, which is masculine, actually makes her look more feminine.

Most off-the-rack fast fashion is low in detail. If you're a predominantly feminine style blend, shop for items with more detail built in, like pleats, complicated lapels, visible stitching, and a sheeny finish (which adds visual detail as a result of the play of reflected light.) If your clothes are simple and you need to add detail, the easiest way to go is to add highly detailed accessories: for example, profusely detailed earrings, necklace, and scarf.

30 Comments

Lilac

1/21/2019 04:42:00 pm

How about Gamine? It's masculine, but it does need detail...

Janelle

1/24/2019 11:12:29 pm

Hey Lilac, see my comment to W below! I think Gamine does need detail oftentimes, but it just won’t be in a way that comes across as feminine as romantic, Ingenue, or ethereal style blends.

ruth

1/25/2019 07:31:45 am

Detail can come from different aspects of an outfit - garment construction, pattern, layering, accessories. I'd say gamine detail comes mainly from pattern, not garment construction, think of boys' clothing which would be simple outlines but which might have fun patterns.

Amke

1/25/2019 06:06:07 pm

I was wondering that aswell. I get, that classic an Natural are low in detail, but gamine and dramatic?

Violet

1/21/2019 04:49:11 pm

Wow! This is so insightful and right on! I need tons of detail and feel my best when this is the case. And minimalist outfit always feel so unattractive on me. How thought-provoking and helpful. Though I wonder if there may be other things at play like proportions, angularity vs. roundness etc. In any event this makes such strong sense to me. Thank you!

Kellie link

1/21/2019 10:52:42 pm

Is it the same for wearing prints? Looking at photos of myself I look better in certain prints for example a floral and checkered print I looked more alive than a predominately white t -shirt . I think the pink is also one of my better colors.
I think I am more Gamine and some Ingenue. I have always passed as younger than my age and at times can look boyish.

Anat

1/22/2019 02:28:47 am

Very insightful- thank you! It verbalized an intuitive feeling I had about certain clothes really well.
Also, I just can’t help but ask, what is this stunning lip color you’re wearing in that photo?!

Lærke

1/22/2019 03:32:25 am

Can I pitch in on the busyness of detail-thing?
I think "amount of detail" flatters the feminine line because of what it allows for physically. (Keep in mind I am talking about the bodily construction, not the facial, but in a face that emanates a structure, regardless of the body, will then be read the same way).
On children, gamine and ingenue, the structured look might flatter them because of the form of the childs body. Not developed yet, it can fit in relatively simple, yet tailored styles. (Maybe the two styles difference in complication, since they are both flattered by a lot, but different detail, is about what you "expect them to grow into", but I am not sure about this). The natural, or the adult male here however, need something looser, yet still simple, to fit around their bodies, whereas a romantic, or the adult woman, cannot wear the structured dress, as in the shift dress, before things start to chafe, suffocate them or bulk. Adding details like waist cinching, poofier sleeves and other traditionally romantic details in the construction, allows for the womanly form. As for dramatics, their stunning sharp features need sharpedly tailored clothing to be allowed comfort, and ethereals complicated, flowy construction because of their more complicated, but narrow body shape. And classics are not visually "extreme", therefore their bodies need not extreme detail to fit into them. Make sense?
Why does that apply to the face, then, since Rachel advocates you dress for your face? Because what the face is read as is what the brain expects to see echoed in the body. The brain looks for consistency. At least that is my take on it. What do you guys think?

1/22/2019 04:06:34 pm

Hello Rachel :), now when we see you, could you explain to us where is Ingenue element on your face? I think your eyes and eyebrows are Ethereal. Am I right?

1/22/2019 05:20:53 pm

This is interesting -- though I do find myself not sure if I fit this mold. I may be unable to see myself clearly, however.

I find I do well in exceptionally low detail looks -- to the point of minimalism gone minimal. I could wear a full body leotard and it would look pretty slick. Yet I don't believe I have a very masculine look to me. When I have suggested this to others (friends, spouse, hairstylist) they insist that I look very feminine. Masculine hairstyles are very bad on me, for example, while clean feminine cuts look nice. With feminine clothes, I don't look more mannish, just sort of overwhelmed. Like I'm drowning in a scarf of something. I take off all jewelry except stud earrings andy rings. And likewise, very masculine clothes don't look bad, provided that they are well tailored. But if there cut is boxy, I again look lost.

Is this classic?

Ilona

1/23/2019 01:03:24 am

Personally, I find it frustrating how every time I try to ask someone’s opinion about my masculinity, the response is very much on the same lines as what you’ve experienced. In your case they could be honest but I have a lot of natural and maybe dramatic essence in me so it’s there to be seen. People just want to be polite and friendly and in their mind agreeing with a woman that she is somewhat masculine crosses that line. I got a little side tracked here but your comment just reminded me of that. It would be nice to plan hairstyles with a hairdresser who could talk about masculinity/femininity objectively.

1/23/2019 04:49:03 am

1/23/2019 01:22:24 pm

I hear you.

But I guess this is where I get confused, because I just don't get where Classic fits in. Or gamine, for that matter. Dramatic is low detail.... except when it's not. Take Cate Blanchett as Hela in Thor Ragnarok - she's got an insanely detailed outfit on, and the effect is quite dramatic. Yeah, she's got some ethereal too, but dramatic is the strongest note. Or take Jafar in Aladdin - his outfit is so dramatic, and it has a ton of detail. I think there is even a post here on TiB that shows Cher 'pulling it off because of dramatic features' -- where a classic cannot pull off a detailed garment 'because of classic features.'

So where I get confused is in the interplay between masculine/feminine and high and low detail. They do seem related in some respects, but they don't seem to be the exact same thing. Androgyny can be as flattered by high detail as by low detail, I think (Esther Quek, for example, who is always amazingly stylish -- and highly gamine, I suspect).

TL:DR - I appreciate the clarification about what constitutes 'high detail' vs. 'low detail' as that was something in the style guides that I had a hard time visualizing. I also appreciate the clarification about how Rachel balances the high detail of hair with the low detail of a shirt. Seeing that visual balance called out really makes sense. I am just still confused by the correlation between high/low detail and femininity/masculinity, as I feel there are exceptions to this rule that muddy the waters.

1/24/2019 11:49:20 am

W.,
I totally get where you’re coming from on the contradictory nature of Dramatic and Gamine’s level of detail. After being analyzed by Rachel, owning multiple style guides, and just being around the style analysis scene a while now, I have a few thoughts as to why this is. As you mentioned, D and G are fairly androdgenous, and I think This does allow them the option of a higher detaile look but as long as it’s not feminine, such as ruffles, lace, pleats, etc and more like bold patterns, high color contrast, pockets, detailed stitching (G), or oversized layered look (D).
Think quirkiness and childlike qualities of G and avant-garde style of D allowing the higher detailed option

Natural, on the other hand, seems to have no toletance for details as there is no androgeny. Plus, the very essence of Natural is its comfortable, practical, loose vibe, so this makes sense.

So to summarize, I think realizing there are multiple ways to attain a busier look without it coming across feminine is important.

1/25/2019 08:10:59 am

I reckon so. I would say that D minimalism and C minimalism have very different purposes. D minimalism is all about being bold and striking whereas C minimalism is all about reducing visual clutter as much as possible so as not to detract from the features. I suppose you could call it 'stark' minimalism v 'tidy' minimalism. D has the option to use detail, as long as it is bold and striking, whereas C does not.

Megan

1/29/2019 10:19:45 am

This is a REALLY helpful explanation, thank you!

Albie

1/23/2019 04:02:44 pm

Interesting! I think traditional advice was: calm, large patterns and accessories for tall/large/heavier people, and small-scale patterns and accessories for short/small/skinny people. Breaking the rule only makes the already hefty look huge and clumsy, and the tiny miniscule and insignificant - compared to bystanding average sized friends. Or is this something different?

1/23/2019 04:21:22 pm

If size dictates patterns, small people (ingenues and gamines usually) can only fight insignificance in a crowd by wearing flamboyant details. In mixed crowds, women also need more detail (and color) to stand out from the, on average, taller men because of the ”size” effect. For men dressing advice has always been ”less is more”. That is, they are simply traditionally simply classified as Naturals and Dramatics as their (overwhelming) main types.

Silver Roxen

1/23/2019 11:50:32 pm

"Most off-the-rack fast fashion is low in detail. If you're a predominantly feminine style blend, shop for items with more detail built in, like pleats, complicated lapels, visible stitching, and a sheeny finish"

That is so true, surprisingly I found several tops on Forever 21 that had these details.
https://www.forever21.com/us/shop/catalog/category/f21/top_blouses-shirts?dynamic=true

I wish pictures could be embedded, because I found several that would work for my type, which is Romantic Gamine.

Melina

1/24/2019 10:36:38 am

I'm about 90% feminine essences, and yes, "sweetheart neckline, a pleated skirt, pleated sleeves, and sequins" - all me! :) (Though I can't do all-over sequins, that just looks garish, and pleated can't be too strictly pleated, flowy is much better.)

I had actually thought I do well with less detail, and the limit of "too much" comes up fairly quickly, also as I don't wear much accessories, often none; but yes, taking the clothes into account, like described above, I now realize there's plenty of detail there. Plus my long flowy hair, as illustrated here ;)

Alex

1/25/2019 10:15:27 am

This is fascinating, and incredibly helpful!
How-many-pencil-strokes is a BRILLIANT way of understanding detail, and very useful. Thank you so much, Rachel!!

1/25/2019 10:17:20 am

The two photos of Aniston are so interesting. I would love to see the opposite as well: a two-photo comparison of a woman who needs a lot of detail, one where she doesn't have enough detail, and one she has the detail she needs and it works.

1/26/2019 10:30:22 am

I agree, that would be really interesting :)

Lizzie

3/9/2019 09:51:33 am

I would like to see that too Alex!

10/22/2019 06:32:35 pm

It seems that Helena Bonham Carter is someone who needs plenty of detail. I see a lot of Romantic, and maybe a bit of Ingenue?

Christy

1/27/2019 10:02:15 am

I did not get a chance to post on this earlier, but Rachel's points with this discussion of detail are so multi-faceted! Rachel typed me as EDC (primarily D) last spring. I would never have typed myself this way, even though I was really attracted to this look, primarily because I am not tall. Like Albie mentioned above, I always assumed I needed something more gamine or ingenue because I am smaller, yet it NEVER worked for me.

So I would opt out of fashion for a while and sulk. Similarly, the colors that work for my coloring would make my skin or eyes look great but still not feel quite right because, as it turns out, they did not suit my style ID. It was always a bit off.

One of the biggest things I have had to adjust to as an EDC is level of detail. My hair is naturally wavy (becoming more frizzy as I age), so very E. I do look better with long hair (surprising given my loads of D), but if I let my hair dry naturally it is so overwhelmingly E that I am out of balance. If, on the other hand, I pull my hair into a low ponytail with some wisps, I can get my balance back. On average, I do better with a smoother wavy or straight finish to my hair, which requires some annoying and time consuming work with hot tools.

I think that focusing on a single feature to determine style ID can be a mistake for many, and certainly was for me. Size, hair texture, or coloring were, for me, misleading things to focus on.

What I am getting at is that I am learning that style ID is all about overall impression and is not a static thing. Achieving the right balance is a goal every day. The pencil sketch thing helps, as I am only 30% E, so I only need about a third of my overall appearance to have a lot of pencil strokes.

1/27/2019 01:34:27 pm

That is an excellent example of why the traditional advice, choose details (mainly jewelry and patterns) according to your size is too simplistic! Gettine the hair rigbtnksnsuch a big part of coming across right stylewise, agreed. C and D essences were never advertised as being ”low-maintenance”: expensive well-fitted materials + impeccable grooming all around... :/

1/27/2019 01:37:32 pm

ahem...hair _right is such _a big part..sorry!

1/29/2019 03:29:56 am

That's very interesting, Christy; I have the same situation but kind of opposite from you - if I let my hair dry naturally it is stick-straight, which makes *me* out of balance, as I have mostly feminine essences (RIE) ;) So I need to spend time curling it / making it wavy (though if you keep your hair up in an updo for a while, it gives natural waves, too). Seems we all have our issues to deal with ;)

Elise

2/17/2021 03:22:31 pm

How do you reconcile Classic minimalist needs with Ingenue small details needs?

I find I need very clean, minimalist makeup, always foundation to smooth any imperfections, brow makeup to clean up those lines, not much else. (Making my small eyes look rounder harmonizes with the rest of my Ingenue features, but often any eye makeup has the opposite effect on my Soft Summer complexion. Advice on that needed. But I digress...)
But small dots on tops work very well for me. I have dainty lips and a cute nose.
Sometimes small earrings are wonderful on me (when I have a clean-cut sweet pixie) and other times I'm better without earrings at all (when I used to have long hair with a gentle controlled wave).
Is this just a matter of balance: detail in clothing with minimalism on the face, or vice versa?

Truth is Beauty

What does "amount of detail" actually mean?

Leave a Reply.

About Me...

Categories