I admire women who are effortlessly stylish, who laugh easily, who are genuinely kind, and who tell the truth about themselves.
" I open a fashion magazine; I see that two different garments are being dealt with here. The first is the one presented to me as a photographed or drawn — it is image-clothing. The second is the same garment, but described, transformed into language; this dress, photographed on the right, becomes on the left: “a leather belt, with a rose stuck in it, worn above the waist, on a soft shetland dress”; this is a written garment. In principle these two garments refer to the same reality (this dress worn on this day by this woman), and yet they do not have the same structure, because they are not made of the same substances and…- these substances do not have the same relations with each other: in one …are forms, lines, surfaces, colors, and the relation is spatial; in the other …is words, and the relation is, if not logical, at least syntactic; the first structure is plastic, the second verbal. Is this to say that each of these structures is indistinguishable from the general system from which it derives — image-clothing from photography, written clothing from language? Not at all: the Fashion photograph …bears little relation to the news photograph or to the snapshot, for …it has its own units and rules; within photographic communication, it forms a specific language which no doubt has its own lexicon and syntax, it’s own banned or approved “turns of phrase.”…Written clothing is carried by language, but also resists it, and is created by this interplay. "
R. Barthes “Written Clothing (via organization)