Friends, I've been thinking about the Audrey Hepburn post of the other day and trying to identify exactly what it was that set her apart from the rest of us -- in particular, what gave her the high fashion look she was famous for.
(Even her dog looks chic.)
Don't let it be thought that women are the only ones who compare themselves to fashion models and feel they come up lacking. There are many times when I scrutinize fashion photos and recognize that the clothes have the least to do with why those models look so great.
They're all tall, they're young, they're rail-thin, they have hair, plus they've been styled up the yin-yang. Put me in that exact same outfit and I would look just like I always do, only in different clothes. Attractive maybe, but definitely not high-fashion. I don't have a high-fashion look and I don't think I ever will. (I know, such first-world problems!)
If you read this blog regularly you've probably noticed that my everyday sew-at-home outfit is the same pair of jeans and either a (threadbare) sweater or flea-market Starlight Express sweatshirt (which I've come to understand would be quite the collector's item in Germany). Underneath I'm usually wearing a t-shirt. For around the house or running a brief errand, I just don't fuss. As long as my clothes fit, what I'm wearing is not terribly important to me unless I'm dressing with a purpose.
 |
| Maybe I'm just too approachable. |
Audrey Hepburn, on the other hand, looked Vogue-ready even when she was just going about her business. You never see her looking slovenly. As a celebrity groomed in the days of the Hollywood studio system, she'd been taught how to present herself.
She was also rail thin (and I'm talking a thin rail, not an ordinary rail), she was rich (so could afford great made-to-measure clothes), and while she was no Amazon, she looked tall. She also was a trained ballet dancer, which helped immeasurably -- she knew how to carry herself.
It isn't her beauty per se that gave her a high-fashion look. Marilyn Monroe was, in my opinion, more beautiful, but even when dressed elegantly, she never had a high-fashion look: she was simply too voluptuous, too warm (as opposed to remote). You could say the same thing about other girl-next-door types of the past like Betty Grable, Judy Garland, and Doris Day.
Sometimes I think the use of fashion models to sell clothes is a bit of a cheat -- those clothes will rarely look as good as they do on the models, and most people will never look like the models do in the clothes.
Readers, your thoughts.
1) Are there any requisites for having a high fashion look I've missed?
2) Do you agree that it's not so much the clothes themselves, as it is how those clothes are worn (and by whom)?
3) Do YOU aspire to have a high fashion look? How do you do it?
Have a glamorous day, everybody!
Posts
My experience from the business that there are three things you need to get a high fashion look: The fashion, of course, over-styled hair and really, really specific and well done makeup. Take those three things and just about anyone can look high-fashion. I've seen a wide variety of people with various heights, weights, ethnicites and facial features who easily have a high fashion look. You do still need the money though!
ReplyDeleteI guess I need more make-up...
DeleteMy formidable bust means I can never look high fashion. Anything remotely low cut and I look like a buxom barmaid.... I do suspect there's something about simplicity that can make one look high fashion though - i had a friend who (literally) only wore red and black and she had such a LOOK.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is fairly well know that Audrey Hepburn had, if not an undiagnosed eating disorder, at least an "issue" with food. I admire her style, but I admire her humanitarian work more. I don't like it when magazines shallowly call her a style icon, and say nothing more.
ReplyDeleteBut you do bring up a few things I never considered - as you often do.
My first thought is that I always assumed that high fashion meant you must simply be tall and thin and nothing else - and since the average American woman is about 5'4" and a size 14, none of us have a chance. But I see lots of tall and thin women who are not the least bit fashionable. The second thought is, that like you described, I dress mainly for comfort. How does that fact harmonize with how much I love looking at beautiful dresses (I don't own a single dress) or admire beautiful tailoring (I don't own a blazer or tailored jacket) or love to look at vintage patterns (nada)? Especially in my case, when I am well above a size 14, most women's clothing doesn't even come in my size. If it does come in my size, it never looks on me like it does in the pictures (the standard model is size 4, minus bust, minus butt and minus belly).
I think this is besides the point - but from what I've read of Audrey, her eating issue is a result of starvation when she was younger during WWII.
Delete(Thought it worth noting...) & loving this topic and all the various comments, Peter!
I was watching a doco recently where the presenter interviewed some Cambodian boys from a tiny village in the countryside. They looked to be around 9 or 10 years old. The presenter was shocked to find out they were 14 and 15.
DeleteAlso, remember how tiny people were even 100 years ago - look at the size of an old bed or clothing. If children don't get adequate nourishment they will not grow.
And, keeping it relevant, good on Audrey for the work she did with UNICEF to help reduce the number of malnourished children in the world.
I don't know what I love more - the title of this post or the text! I actually think that beauty and high fashion looks are often at odds. To me, beauty is about the face and body, high fashion is about the body as hanger for the clothing. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you can be high fashion if you are any of rich, thin or tall. Actually, I don't think youth is much of a factor at all. If you're rich you can afford it. If you're think you are nature's perfect fashion hanger and if you are tall, you can hide a multitude of imperfections. Mind you, you can be all of the above and insanely unfashionable. There's a je ne sais quois to fashionable that cannot be taught.
ReplyDeleteI agree. There's some extra something involved in being "high fashion." A certain attitude, perhaps? Being tall and thin helps; so does being rich, I'm sure. But you can have all those things and miss being high fashion. I've been thinking of the difference between being high fashion and being chic, and have decided I don't think they're the same thing. I'll never be high fashion (I'm short and roundish and anyway I haven't got the right attitude). But on a good day I think I might aspire to chic. It would have to be really good day, but still. Chic seems to be about putting some thought into what I wear--into the fit, the accessories, etc. I think chic is well-groomed, and looking put together. It has an intentional element to it. Which, Audrey Hepburn had that as well. But so did Doris Day, who as Peter mentioned, wasn't at all high fashion.
DeleteI completely agree with Leigh Ann! I am also short and roundish, but consider myself as at least "stylish" if not completely "chic." That being said however, my "style" is my own and I pride myself on my ability to find nice clothes in thrift shops, online and brick and mortar. So, not rich, tall or thin and certainly not "high fashion," but put together in a way that is my own version of "chic."
DeleteI'm a rather pronounced pear shape, which is definitely not high fashion. And my hair won't behave (it's flat. Even when straight, flat, hair was in, mine managed to be too flat and too straight and not stylish at all).
ReplyDeleteI find fashion illustrations off-putting because I know those clothes will never look like that on me, so why should I buy them? I would be far more likely to buy something that was displayed on an average-size woman to whom I could relate.
i think there's definitely an unspoken importance on how you carry yourself. audrey hepburn was an unconscious master of it -- it's worth noting that even when she was dressed down, she was stunning, like in this pic: http://edanafashion.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/agfkeepy76l1pe7f.jpg
ReplyDeleteyou forgot white. Tall, thin, young, rich and white.
ReplyDeleteHow about Iman. Tyra Banks, Naomi Campbell. Diana Ross, Beverly Johnson. Tina Chow. Just to name a few non-caucasian women who come immediately to mind.
DeleteI agree Peter... there are definitely non-caucasian women that fit the description of having that high-fashion look.
Delete...Lupita Nyong'o, Lucy Liu...
DeleteI think the way you carry yourself has a big impact on how you look, perhaps the most impact of all, body confidence. It's all about loving yourself, and telling yourself you look fabulous. Of course, there are certainly clothes that suit body types and it helps to recognise this. Ironically though, we always want what we don't have. Some would say I am lucky to be tall and rail thin and so find it easy to fit (and I will be honest, look good) in a lot of clothes. But I often look at photos of myself (with the same critical eye as everyone does) and just focus on the missing curves. But I know that if I stand tall and think fashion model thoughts, I can look fabulous, otherwise I can just look awkward and skinny.
ReplyDeleteHow you carry yourself is CRITICAL! I've had handsome actors take one step away from their "dresser/stylist" and look like an unmade bed. A sense of your own style helps.
ReplyDeleteCaring a bit about what you're wearing, helps.
I was hoping you's say that the only thing keeping me from being high fashion was my lack of height!
ReplyDeleteOh well, at least I try but not for HIGH fashion but put together. I think jackets make an outfit and hide waistline issues.
Sorry to be a joy-kill, but there are a lot of beautiful plus size models who are every bit at sexy and beautiful as those old 1950's models you mention. Welcome to the 21st century. If you have access to beautiful clothes (from a store or from your machine), a good and healthy attitude about yourself, and decent grooming, anyone can be a model. Living in sweats is ok - but don't complain about not being as chic as a model. Put in a little effort and anyone can be the model of their dreams.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in principle. But I don't think high-fashion has anything to do with beautiful and sexy. Again, Marilyn Monroe: stunning, sexy. But high-fashion? No.
DeleteJust yesterday I was looking at photos of Dita Von Teese. Not styled glamour shots, but candid on-the-street shots. She always looks amazing and high-fashion, even though she typically wears vintage clothing in her day-to-day life. I think it boils down to: she is always *dressed* (irony!): perfect hair, perfect makeup, always in a dress, well accessorized. She has a look, and you always see her in that look. In the Marilyn/Judy/Doris photos you posted, they are still styled to look like their typical roles of sex kitten or girl-next-door. In every photo I've seen, they are always styled in those roles.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things I most love about sewing blogs is how they've re-educated my eye. I'm used to admiring clothes on actual people. Now when I see a fashion magazine, I just want to feed those poor dears a nice sandwich.
ReplyDeleteHahahahahaha. That cracked me up. Having said that,i have resigned myself to the fact that i will never have that high fashion look. I just try to look as presentable as I possibly can.
DeleteI agree that beauty and high fashion are not synonymous. I don't necessarily agree on young, but I have a hard time coming up with any non-svelt examples of those who have a high fashion look. I'm glad it's not something I aspire to because, well, I'd fall short (and curvy).
ReplyDeletePS - Who knew you were a Brooklyn hipster when you sew? I'm sure that sweatshirt would be the height of cool and ironic in some parts of my home boro. ;-)
I remember the size zero debate which garnered a lot of press coverage 3 years ago. Despite the furore it caused at the time and the fact that less skinny models were used during London Fashion Week, the fact is those requisites in high fashion or even RTW will probably never change because this is what sells and appeals to the younger market. The current body shape used on catwalks is far removed from the reality of the population as the obesity rate keeps growing. But while I'm all for the larger percentage of the population to be fairly represented - and marketed accordingly - the real question is, would it sell? I know people of larger size who don't want to be reminded of their own image but that's a separate issue I guess.
ReplyDeleteThe fashion pack says the same thing about older models - that even older wpmen don't want to see older models who would remind them of their fading glory. Even the supposedly more forward looking ones. Which is rubbish. All the more reason for me to sew rather than buy. Because I have no confidence that they know how to dress older women if they've been relying on youth & natural 'beauty' to carry their products across.
DeleteIf you don't have a fashionable shape or can approximate one with figure-shaping aids, you aren't going to look high fashion no matter what you wear or how you are made up. I personally can aim only for reasonably attractive (or, let's face it, on most days clean and decent) -- I'm not willing to suffer for appearance's sake.
ReplyDeleteJust wondering: would you consider Beth Ditto as being high fashion? She isn't a stick figure, that's for sure!
ReplyDeleteWho else do you include in this group of people?
I think it's the emperor's new clothes. I can put on some edgy runway look and still look out of place -- because it's me (tall thin me, by the way), in my hometown, not her on a runway surrounded by people who have decided what they're looking at. One plus one equals two for me; one plus one equals a collective fantasy for her. It's not real (I'm not judging as bad, just saying it's a fantasy). Audrey Hepburn was real, of course, but what we see is -- something else. So to answer the question, no, you can't add up all the ingredients and get a high-fashion look. (And if you were to ask Audrey Hepburn, she probably wouldn't understand the question.)
ReplyDeleteI think confidence and attitude are part of the equation as well.
ReplyDeleteFor my everyday look, it's determined by whether I'll be seen in public, is it clean, is it comfy!
At 5'3", chunky, and prematurely (although pretty) gray, I'll never be high fashion. Too much pressure, anyway!
People who, like Audry, always appear put together are that way because they know what to choose for themselves and from head to toe there is no discordant visual note. Everything flows. There was also something about Audry that lighted up her face even in snapshots that light showed through.
ReplyDeleteI think you got it right when you mentioned they way Audrey carried herself. I think k the high fashion look is a lot to do with bearing (and maybe aloofness). Audrey had that and and people like Marilyn were much warmer.
ReplyDeleteAlso.to do with proportion . High fashion people are willowy - they may not necessarily be tall but the shorter they are the thinner they need to be to appear that way. Hence why most.of them are tall!
I think the reason we think of tall, thin women as "high fashion" is because we have been trained by repeated exposure to fashion shows, fashion magazines and other media. I have, at 5 feet tall, gotten over the idea of trying to look high fashion and instead aim for flattering my small frame.
ReplyDeleteAfter some fairly aggressive medical treatment last year,l lost 13kg in a little over two weeks,and l was slim to begin with. Combine with reasonably good core strength,due to ongoing exercises to prevent falls etc,l certainly had the willowy,elegant look. Felt dreadful,and my friends made very regular food runs to ensure l didn't disappear!
ReplyDeleteSome people do it naturally,but most people have to starve themselves,and exercise grimly to get that look.I've become very fond of a more gently rounded look.
I love your thought provoking posts! I have to agree with you. As I'm trying to figure out my style, I always loved the high fashion. I don't know if it's high fashion, but it's very Audrey Hepburn. I love how she dresses and carries herself, but I don't think I can pull this off because I am not tall, thin, young, or rich. Lol. I didn't realize why it doesn't work on me until you mentioned it. It makes perfect sense. It's kind of a relief to tell you the truth. Now I know it won't work for me and I'm okay with that. I'd rather wear something that's me than not because let's face it, nothing about me says high fashion. Lol
ReplyDeleteGROOMING.
ReplyDeleteThats all it is I think.
Having your hair not only styled right, but maintaining your cut too. Always having clean and tidy nails. Shoes in good repair. Tidy makeup/face (no matter how much you wear). Well looked after clothes that fit right. And excellent posture.
Hepburn was also European, at a time when French and Belgian women didn't go out in jeans and sweats, so that made a difference in her presentation.
ReplyDeleteAudrey had a more old-Euro controlled and polished look, while the US actresses you mentioned had that all-American "make it up as you go along" vibe. It's a cultural divide that still exists. Being in France for a couple of weeks, I never saw a slovenly teenager; they all had well-fitting clothes, a decent coat, and a nicely-tied scarf...then at the airport I saw a girl in sloppy sweats with "Love Pink" on the butt, wearing grungy Uggs with a too-tight tee and bottle-blonde hair. Right away I could tell she was an American in her "comfy for the long flight home" outfit.
ReplyDeleteTo me it is simply a matter of whether I want people to remember me or my clothes. I feel that those very high fashion looks are mostly about the clothes - the person if described would be in terms of, "you know, the woman who always wears green and stilettos and has perfect hair" or some such. I want to be remembered for myself, and how I dress second. You, I remember for you, not your jeans, or your Starlight Express sweatie. And that is how it ought to be! :)
ReplyDeletePerhaps when one sees "high fashion" people like Audrey and Princess Kate, you not only see the elegant outfits but also a hope that it is a look real people can imitate and wear in their real lives. And the high fashion icons usually nail it with proportion. You won't see Princess Kate wearing a ski jacket over her day dress or Uggs with her evening wear.
ReplyDeleteCinnamon on Mission Impossible always looked put together. Compare that with a current female character on a hit crime show who thinks it is high fashion to show up for work in ripped jeans and ill-fitting shirts. Even as a scam artist Audrey looked great in "How to Steal a Million".
Very interesting topic. In answer to your third question: I aspire to have a stylish, polished, put-together look rather than a high fashion one but sometimes utilise elements of high fashion (silhouettes, detailing) to achieve this. It sometimes works and sometimes doesn't :)
ReplyDeleteSpud.
1) Are there any requisites for having a high fashion look I've missed?
ReplyDeleteI think you missed, great symmetry in the face and body.
2) Do you agree that it's not so much the clothes themselves, as it is how those clothes are worn (and by whom)?
It's really how the clothes are worn and by whom that creates a fashion look. A person that stands straight will look taller and thinner than a person that hunches their shoulders down. Audrey almost always stood straight in pictures which added to her high fashion look. Her ballet training gave her good posture.
3) Do YOU aspire to have a high fashion look? How do you do it?
I don't aspire the have a high fashion look since it would take too long for me to achieve it. The good thing about it is that I'm tall- 6'4". I would have to lose about 100 lbs. though, currently I'm 315 lbs.
I think tall isn't a word I would use for Audrey Hepburn. At 5 ft 7 her length doesn't come close to the 6 ft of today's models. High fashion is designed for women without curves, length is of less importance. Check the Parisiennes: petite, but o-la-la, they've got what it takes! Curves interfere with the clean, mostly straight, lines in high fashion designs. Ask me how I know ;)
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking about this some more. Here are some other requisites:
ReplyDelete1. Discipline. By discipline, I mean not overeating in order to maintain one's weight. Exercising regularly to maintain one's muscle tone. Not smoking or drinkng excessively to preserve one's complexion. Making sure all one's clothes are cleaned and pressed and pet hair-free...I think you get the idea.
2. Inhibit your natural impulse (more natural for some than for others) to mix patterns, to throw an old, raggedy coat on over sweat pants, to wear your worn-out sneakers, peeling vinyl handbag, etc. Your "look" is your priority, not self-expression, comfort, practicality, ease, etc.
Like anorexia, there's a pleasure in self-denial, in total control. Everything is "perfect." As you can imagine, this can become a very unhealthy form of self-repression and "hiding" beneath an artificial veneer. Perhaps for some this is natural, but I don't think this comes naturally: look at the way children play dress-up. How many children end up looking like Anna Wintour? I think a high-fashion look is the antithesis of authentic self-expression for 99% of us.
3. Simplicity. Audrey's look is refined in the true sense of the word -- stripped of anything extraneous. Simple shapes that flatter her body. Monochromatic looks (or at most 2 or 3 carefully matched colors), perfectly matched acessories. Again, this is discipline. You don't wear all your brooches at once, or wear pilly sweaters just because it's convenient.
It calls to mind those amazing homes in decorating magazines. Yes, such-and-such a celebrity or hedge fund manager has a GORGEOUS home, but who decorated it? In what way is it a reflection (or expression) of him/her? It's not -- it's the expression of a professional decorator whose taste she/he trusts. Yes, it's neat and perfect and color-coordinated, but it's basically a hotel room, it's primary purpose is to communicate something to others but it has nothing to do with the person in an authentic way.
DeleteDo you forget Anna Wintour or Diana Wreeland? They definitely do not have the youth of Audrey, yet one canNOT say that Wintour is not high fashion, and Wreeland is even better, she does not even have to wear the usual haute rags, and still ...
ReplyDeleteIf you are talking about clothes looking good on someone I would have to say if you are tall and thin like my dh's family then everything looks good on you. They have a huge choice of style, look, length and fabric, My
ReplyDeletedh's sister is 43 she is 5' 11" and wears very youthful clothing. I am very limited in my choice of clothing.
One of my relatives use to be a make-up artists back in the 30's and 40's for a photographer that did still photographs of movie stars. He said that some actresses had beautiful faces but were not very photogenic, and others who were not considered as beautiful were photogenic. He said that in his opinion, the one actress/star that loved the camera loved happy, sad, raw, tortured was Marilyn Monroe. Others who were blessed with beautiful and unique faces did not reveal anything to the viewer other than a photograph of a stunning face.
I think that while they are all thin and have great bone structure, the main thing is their aloofness. Even when they smile, they seem aloof.
ReplyDelete"Walking as if stepping over the necks of peasants" was a quote of long ago in a short story by a woman writer I can no longer recall the name of. It was the story of two (19 years old?) girls of luscious looks walking by a noontime Manhattan construction site without showing any indication -- except the walk -- that they noticed their audience.
ReplyDeleteWe need a better definition of 'high fashion'! Do you mean 'editorial' or just looking refined & expensive (aka couture - which could be worn by not very high fashion looking women too)?
ReplyDeletePersonally I don't think there is requisites - Isabella Blow looks very editorial to me, but she's no rail thin model & even go around with smeared red lipstick. But the current fashion crowd obviously disagree. And I think they're just being lazy. (Though sometimes I think maybe it's that they're under too much pressure to create & sell, so have to take the shortcuts.)
And I would say it's not only how they're worn (& by whom), but sometimes how they're photographed.
Lastly, I do aspire to 'high fashion' looks, though not 100% of the time. Mostly because that's where a lot of my sewing inspirations come from: wanting to copy designer fashion that I can't afford and that wouldn't fit me.
BTW I thought your coat photos featured on the Mood Network looked suitably high fashion! For me 'high fashion' is rarely just about couture. I'm more the editorial camp.
Thanks! I guess I mean the couture thing more than the editorial over-the-top Isabella Blow type, amazing as that looks. People like Blow -- who are generally in the fashion industry -- are those extraordinary exceptions who are both extremely creative and courageous enough to blaze their own fashion trail.
DeleteI think that the "something more" involved in a high fashion look is remoteness/aloofness. It's not looking attractive as a person as much as a commodity-- so that if you had that high fashioned person on your arm, you would truly have arrived (in a sense.)
ReplyDeleteI think you may be right that you are too approachable to be high fashion; all I know is that based on your photos, I would definitely turn to get a closer look if I saw you on the street because your clothes fit you beautifully and you are really nice to look at.
I love your starlight express sweater!
ReplyDeleteA very elegant friend of mine lives in Paris and worked in fashion, and I once heard him say, "Everybody thinks she's chic because she's thin." So I guess high fashion is more than just a body and definitely has a lot to do with how the clothes are worn.
ReplyDeleteMyself, I aspire to a certain style, but it isn't high fashion. I work in a professional, but also pretty dowdy environment and if I wear high heels, everybody has to make a comment. High fashion would look ridiculous.
A little tidbit that might be of interest... a few months ago I attended a talk about Audrey Hepburn at the V&A in London given by her son, Luca Dotti, to promote a new book he's compiled about his mother. I learned that she had a photographer who was like part of the family who would follow her around when she asked him to, taking pictures of her doing 'normal' things like buying pastries on a Sunday morning. A lot of the 'effortless glamour' photos we have of her were prepared for and staged in this sense. I don't think this detracts from her general loveliness and chicness, but it does put all that 'effortless perfection' into perspective!
ReplyDeleteThat is fascinating, Rebekah. I should try that!
DeleteExpert make up, of course. Something in the carriage, and those aristocratic eyes and cheek bones, thinner neck, and that "I just slipped this old thing on nonchalance."
ReplyDeleteFascinating topic! Maryanne above hit the nail on the head--current models are selling clothes, so they look aloof to remove personality from the picture; the viewer focuses on the clothes. Real beauty is integrated: engagement, body, clothes together make an impression. Who would want to be an advertising object that doesn't connect with other people? Thai women, considered among the most beautiful in the world, wear flowers and sarongs and smiles, modestly covered but suggestively, and men love them. I admire them (and the Chinese cheongsam) for their clothing simplicity and versatility. Western fashion has done me no favors, and I don't aspire to sell clothes. In my real life I need to be able to move, to work all day, to be comfortable in my skin and my clothes, so the runway examples are only passing ideas. I guess I'm trying to say I want to be a person wearing her clothes, not clothes wearing me! The same is true for men. Although I sometimes wish he dressed up more often, my husband is true to his clothing needs and his work place, and frugal too. Couture fashion is an art form, but a long way from useful clothing.
ReplyDeletePS Hepburn suffered with many other Belgians from hunger during WWII, the reason she volunteered to serve UNICEF, the agency that had aided her family. We know that children who eat a poor diet are stunted in growth and brain development for life. Yet we seem to have lost appreciation for what a healthy adult looks like--usually a bit larger than a hungry one, or one who grew up hungry. Look at American immigrant families; in many cases the children are much larger than parents because their diet is much better. High fashion is a business and art form that influences trends, but seems disconnected from health and utility. As our country descends to deeper divides between rich and poor, well fed and underfed, high fashion seems farther away from most people's grasp or appreciation. New York may have it in view, but the millions of us who live elsewhere do not. Maybe it is a city phenomenon?
ReplyDeleteTall thin women showcase fashions the best. I don't mean super skinny women but you can put a dress on a thin person and it drapes well, the same dress on a fuller figure person does not even look the same.
ReplyDeleteMy uncle was a makeup artist. He said actresses would not be seen dead walking out of their homes unless they looked like the front cover of vogue. They did hire photographers to take pictures of them doing everyday things which they never really did in reality. I collect old magazines and in them you often find a celebrity article of her at home cooking for her family decked out in Oleg Cassini or some other trending designer of that time. They wanted her to appeal to the average woman, they get what you go through daily because they are also taking care of their family, but. in the background probably hidden away was their live in housekeeper and cook.
Some people are beautiful but the camera does not love them. Marilyn Monroe was probably the most photogenic woman. The camera loved her sad, happy, aloof, high, with and without makeup and glamorous. I read an article about photographers back in the glam days of Hollywood and every photographer that worked with her said their cameras couldn't get enough of her. She said so much with her face. They said that actresses like Elizabeth Taylor, Hedy Lamarr etc were stunning but their photographs didn't speak to them They were more like head shots and movie stills of women who were well coiffed, draped in high fashion clothing, jewelry and perfectly applied makeup. Very controlled with a purpose without revealing anything. Anyway that is what they thought.
Thanks, Josette -- that's fascinating stuff!
Delete