In reply to Alex Kite:

Thank you for sharing the video .... I finally managed to watch it ..:):) ! Wonderful FOOD FOR THOUGHT !

I love Fashion and I enjoy ' Glamour ' but then I'm talking about my personal definition of GLAMOUR .. " that is ... having a unique and bewitching character , where knowledge shouldn't be less but more , combined with the art of finesse, being knowledgeable and understanding of what are beautiful and elegant aesthetics and not losing the human touch"... of course I'm talking about women and having said that, in spite of the author's insightful arguments about the negative side of FASHION he also very rightly points out that :

" ..... AS WITH OTHER INSTINCT OF INFLUENCES ... WE CAN NEVER RID OURSELVES OF THIS EFFECTS ENTIRELY , BUT THE MORE THEY ARE UNDERSTOOD AND RECOGNISED THE MORE WE CAN CONTROL THEM RATHER THAN THEM CONTROLLING US "

I have seen programs where women who once were indeed slaves of fashion and then decided to abandon it all together for whatever reasons due to changes in their personal lives .... they stripped themselves of all kind of embellishments .... then went through a kind of depressions for whatever reasons and then 'rediscovered' ' fashion ' .... and by doing so they seem to have improved their own state of mind , gained their confidence and enjoyed feeling better about themselves ... but I assume that by then they realised that it is not about fashion controlling them but them controlling 'their ' fashion ...

If today's so called " GLAMOUR ICONS " are taken that serious ... I tend to believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with us .... and the biggest culprit in influencing us becoming less "free" to pursue a better direction than being slaved to fake glamour then that is the MEDIA .... look at what is in offer on TV !

Reality TV has been really damaging in many aspects .... why do they do it ? of course because they want us to become more "ENLIGHTENED" ... but then again who is the MEDIA ? ........ PARIS ?

Let's not forget that today's glamour icons are mostly the girl next door with hardly any talent worth mentioning ... that of course will create a false sense of illusion that anybody can be ' posh, rich, talented and glamorous ' as long as they are able to pose in front of the camera .... or simply because of being 'beautiful ' ..... their only commodity available as far as being 'talented' in many cases ! ... very shallow indeed ....

In reply to Galileo's Universe:

I think the most interesting point is near the end of the video where Dan Laidler suggests that romanticism is a kind of antithesis of glamour (what he understands glamour to be). Which, if true would mean that much of what we think is glamour or art is a combination of glamour and romanticism?
The media? - there is a good bit near the end about uninspired celebrities whicjh I think touches on this. I think it is strange that these topics weren't covered more.

In reply to Karl Fuler:

PIC> www.globalgiants.com/ archives/2006/09/

In my own way of how I perceive glamour, I would then say then that to me glamour is a kind of romanticism in my world of appreciating beauty, because I mostly associate glamour with woman who had interesting personalities, unique in many cases as well as talented , very inspiring as to make people dream ..... and not the glamour type we think to be 'glamourous' , such as those who have acquired the title just because the MEDIA promotes them as such simply because of being rich and silly , beautiful with no style at all , and by style I mean also not wearing (free) couture as a kind of walking billboard for designers at such events as the Oscars, or because of their new acquire wealth that allows them to pose in every 'hot' spot of the jet set. I believe that when you are a truly glamourous woman you then buy your couture , chose it with great discerning and wear it to inspire...to dream !

I agree it is a topic that deserves more attention , I find this a fascinating subject because people seem to mistake glamour with status as well ...... you can have status and yet have no style worth mentioning or the finesse that is required to gain the status of being glamorous ! .... I can't really think of anyone that I could consider a true glamourous , inspiring and unique character .

Glamour I think it is in way a dying quality and it shall for good be gone to the realm of the world of ' romanticism ' ... at least in my way as I see it.

I don't know if you have ever read about Elizabeth Taylor's life ... she was known as a very glamourous woman, but if the press had being allowed to record every time she went to the loo ( sorry for using it as an example ) ...then she would certainly had come across as being a rather ill-manered lady who could give as she got in a rather vulgar manner ..... then we would be talking today in a different way of her.

Glamour is about 'the mystery and knowing just what is necessary ' ..... it is just about the 'dream' .

In reply to Galileo's Universe:

Mystique forms a vacuum that we are compelled to fill with our own imaginings. Perhaps it is wiser to resist this compulsion and leave it empty.

In reply to Karl Fuler:

But ... as always there is a but :):) ... in my own opinion it all depends how to interpret that ´mystique´ and how enriching it can be in the matters of opening your mind to invisible dimensions that are able to inspire ...and to me ´mystique´ is not only inspiring but somehow a kind of source of ´energy ` ... but then again everyone is absolutely different ... minds, I think, are just like a fingerprint ... never two of the same kind !... however much we would like or wish to believe the opposite...

In reply to Karl Fuler:

you think so? you agree with him about fashion?