The Idea of Glamour

Here is a review I wrote for the text, A Note on Glamour by Elizabeth Wilson. I have highlighted what is relevant to the different spheres of backstage performance versus frontstage appearance.

Review on:
A Note on Glamour
By Elizabeth Wilson


Wilson has authored a respective number of books and essays about dress and fashion. In this reading she explains the evasive concept of “glamour” that we all aspire to obtain. She expresses the history of social ideology and shows where this state of being derived from and what it truly means to be glamorous.

The term originally was associated with witchcraft, occults and the devil and was a western concept that surfaced at the dawn of the industrial age. It meant to dazzle and hypnotize the onlooker with an air of beauty like no other, - “The Oxford English Dictionary cites an early eighteenth century use: ‘when devils, wizards or jugglers deceive the sight, they are said to cast a glamour over the eye of the spectator’ ” (Wilson, 2007, p96). This idea which begun in the Romantic Movement eventually developed into dandyism and progressed to the celebrity character of George “Beau” Brummel who is famous for establishing the modern mans suit.

He was an individual that used glamour as a force and personality where, “the dandy aesthetic was one of exquisite restraint, refinement, cleanliness and renunciation...the aesthetic of the dandy is basically an attitude,” (Wilson, 20071 p97). Glamour not only meant having a desirable style and attraction, but also to have a charming and magnetic personality. It as about being an individual that combined fashion and beauty with an indifference towards the world through an unanchored personality when it came to traditional social relations. Brummel is iconic became the first celebrity where everybody from every social hierarchy looked up to him with high respect and anticipation. He successfully used glamour to become a social star by sheer force of personality, then appearance.

Before Brummel, Kings and Queens inherited their celebrity status through the structure of their social system, but in environments like today’s Hollywood society chooses its celebrities by the way they act and look as leaders. Hollywood in the 1930’s and 1940’s marketed glamour and celebrity status as a product for consumption and to envy over, expressing the idea that with glamour comes a luxurious lifestyle full of friends, money and freedom. This has played a big part in this century’s ideology of success and fame where glamour and being a celebrity are perceived to be the same thing. However Wilson strongly disagrees with this concept stating, “Celebrity is all about touch; glamour is untouchable” (2007, p101).
She supports this statement by arguing that celebrities and glamour are complete opposites where being a celebrity is about having a vulgar and public life where anything personal or private is put on display and judged by the world. Wilson uses case examples such as the fame and scandal of Hugh Grant, Princess Diana and the likes. She believes true glamour is a life that is untouchable, unconsumed and unspoiled. Because Hollywood markets glamour as being a focus on a person’s outer image, there is no room for the inner self. Glamour is a word that separates the elite from the normal and sends a global message that we can dream to be glamorous but will never reach it. It is an empty dream because the tragedy of glamour includes “desire, fear, loss, and an acknowledgment of death” (Wilson, 2007, p100). She powerfully concludes, “Glamour is primarily an attribute of an individual. It is an appearance…is created in combination with dress, hair, scent and even mise en scene. Its end result is the sheen, the mask of perfection, the untouchablilty and numinous power of the icon” (Wilson, 2007, p105).

[Wilson, E (2007). Fashion Theory: A note on glamour. Oxford, New York: Berg]


 
I find this reading relates not only to the ideas of glamour and celebrity (that are highly involved in the fashion and entertainment industries), but also to my precedent Théâtre du Soleil. In my preliminary research I found;

"The company built its process based on the concept of a theatre company as a tribe or a family, a community of equal citizens: everyone receives the same wages, and the workday follows a schedule to which all actors, musicians and production assistants rigorously accommodate."

[refer to pg1 of blog for reference] 

This is quite opposite to the obvious hierarchies the Fashion Industry (i.e Anna Wintour, press/writers/reviewers, designers, production team, fashion photographers, models etc).

http://blogs.elleuk.com/beauty-notes-daily/2009/09/23/thumbs-up-for-anna-wintour/

 http://www.fashionologie.com/Anna-Wintour-Makes-Back-Night-Stars-2418933?page=0,0,12

I also consider this quote from the Theatre Du Soleil director to still be relative;

"Theatre is doubtless the most fragile of the arts, 

the theatre public is now really a very small group, but the theatre keeps reminding us of the possibility to collectively seek the histories of the people and to tell them [...] The contradictions, the battles of power, and the split in ourselves will always exist. I think the theatre best tells us of the enemy in ourselves. Yes, theatre is a grain of sand in the works."

- Ariane Mnouchkine

This relates to the contradictory term of "glamour" and the idea of fame. The pull towards being glamourous or cool creates a social hierarchy that instantly divides community, yet holds them together simultaneously.