What do you think?
Rate this book
The Power of Glamour: Longing and the Art of Visual Persuasion
In provocative detail with more than one hundred illustrations, critically acclaimed author Virginia Postrel separates glamour from glitz, revealing what qualities make a person, an object, a setting, or an experience glamorous.
What is it that creates that pleasurable pang of desire—the feeling of “if only”? If only I could wear those clothes, belong to that group, drive that car, live in that house, be (or be with) that person? Postrel identifies the three essential elements in all forms of glamour and explains how they work to create a distinctive sensation of projection and yearning.
The Power of Glamour is the very first book to explain what glamour really is—not just style or a personal quality but a phenomenon that reveals our inner lives and shapes our decisions, large and small. By embodying the promise of a different and better self in different and better circumstances, glamour stokes ambition and nurtures hope, even as it fosters sometimes-dangerous illusions.
From vacation brochures to military recruiting ads, from the Chrysler Building to the iPad, from political utopias to action heroines, Postrel argues that glamour is a seductive cultural force. Its magic stretches beyond the stereotypical spheres of fashion or film, influencing our decisions about what to buy, where to live, which careers to pursue, where to invest, and how to vote.
The result is myth shattering: a revelatory theory that explains how glamour became a powerful form of nonverbal persuasion, one that taps into our most secret dreams and deepest yearnings to influence our everyday choices.
What is it that creates that pleasurable pang of desire—the feeling of “if only”? If only I could wear those clothes, belong to that group, drive that car, live in that house, be (or be with) that person? Postrel identifies the three essential elements in all forms of glamour and explains how they work to create a distinctive sensation of projection and yearning.
The Power of Glamour is the very first book to explain what glamour really is—not just style or a personal quality but a phenomenon that reveals our inner lives and shapes our decisions, large and small. By embodying the promise of a different and better self in different and better circumstances, glamour stokes ambition and nurtures hope, even as it fosters sometimes-dangerous illusions.
From vacation brochures to military recruiting ads, from the Chrysler Building to the iPad, from political utopias to action heroines, Postrel argues that glamour is a seductive cultural force. Its magic stretches beyond the stereotypical spheres of fashion or film, influencing our decisions about what to buy, where to live, which careers to pursue, where to invest, and how to vote.
The result is myth shattering: a revelatory theory that explains how glamour became a powerful form of nonverbal persuasion, one that taps into our most secret dreams and deepest yearnings to influence our everyday choices.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2013
70 people are currently reading
1514 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews
April 3, 2023
I won’t deny that the photo on the front cover of this book lured me in to begin with. Taken in 1947, a young woman in immaculate tennis whites sits on a sun-kissed wall and gazes at the hills beyond. As the author puts it, the portrait “embodies youth, beauty, athleticism, self-possession, wealth, leisure and…escape to a benign eternal summer.” It’s an alluring image, and there are others in the book, but this is more than just a collection of photos.
Each of us is confident about our ability to recognise glamour, but it’s also hard to define. It’s subjective. There are things the author includes in here that don’t seem glamorous to me, though I think she hopes the book will at least give the reader an understanding of why we see different things as being invested with glamour.
Broadly speaking, the main theme is that the appeal of glamour is rooted in the desire for transformation and escape, to get away from the everyday and the mundane. It’s often seen as a modern phenomenon. The author argues that the concept has been around for a long time, suggesting for example that the legendary Homeric warrior Achilles was an early example of “martial glamour”, but she broadly agrees that it became fully developed in the 20th century with the proliferation of mass-media images. It’s noticeable how in the 1930s images of speed and transportation became the epitome of glamour. Cars, fast ocean liners and, most of all, aviation, offered a dazzling image of luxury combined with international travel, things very few people had experienced. Even today, when as the author says air travel is commonplace and usually unpleasant, it still retains a residue of that appeal.
Distance can be important in maintaining the image of glamour. Paris and New York City are probably the two most glamorous cities in the world, but I doubt the people who live there feel the same way. Similarly, it is probably harder for today’s celebrities to maintain a glamorous image than it was in the last century. It’s hard to keep the mystique in the world of social media and where everyone carries a smartphone camera.
For an individual to be glamorous, one vital feature is the ability to make difficult tasks seem effortless. The glamorous always seem to know what to wear, what to say and how to behave. In the 1950s, actors like Cary Grant, Grace Kelly and Audrey Hepburn projected this image of sophistication and confidence. In the 1960s, the fictional “secret agent” became a vehicle for the image, with the creation of The Saint, Mission Impossible, and of course, James Bond. It’s all a façade of course. The author highlights how the apparently effortless dancing of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers came about only after exhausting and often physically painful rehearsals, but the movie audience never saw that.
The author rejects the suggestion that glamour generates envy, arguing that envy incorporates hostility and resentment, whereas glamour creates simply the desire to join the glamorous. She also distinguishes glamour from concepts such as charisma, or simple physical attractiveness.
The book did feel a bit repetitive at times, but on the whole I enjoyed reading it. It’s not a subject that can really be argued in scientific terms, more a book of thoughts to provoke discussion. Quite often I would break off from reading to think about what I had just read, and I quite enjoy a book that produces that effect. Some quite nice photos too.
Each of us is confident about our ability to recognise glamour, but it’s also hard to define. It’s subjective. There are things the author includes in here that don’t seem glamorous to me, though I think she hopes the book will at least give the reader an understanding of why we see different things as being invested with glamour.
Broadly speaking, the main theme is that the appeal of glamour is rooted in the desire for transformation and escape, to get away from the everyday and the mundane. It’s often seen as a modern phenomenon. The author argues that the concept has been around for a long time, suggesting for example that the legendary Homeric warrior Achilles was an early example of “martial glamour”, but she broadly agrees that it became fully developed in the 20th century with the proliferation of mass-media images. It’s noticeable how in the 1930s images of speed and transportation became the epitome of glamour. Cars, fast ocean liners and, most of all, aviation, offered a dazzling image of luxury combined with international travel, things very few people had experienced. Even today, when as the author says air travel is commonplace and usually unpleasant, it still retains a residue of that appeal.
Distance can be important in maintaining the image of glamour. Paris and New York City are probably the two most glamorous cities in the world, but I doubt the people who live there feel the same way. Similarly, it is probably harder for today’s celebrities to maintain a glamorous image than it was in the last century. It’s hard to keep the mystique in the world of social media and where everyone carries a smartphone camera.
For an individual to be glamorous, one vital feature is the ability to make difficult tasks seem effortless. The glamorous always seem to know what to wear, what to say and how to behave. In the 1950s, actors like Cary Grant, Grace Kelly and Audrey Hepburn projected this image of sophistication and confidence. In the 1960s, the fictional “secret agent” became a vehicle for the image, with the creation of The Saint, Mission Impossible, and of course, James Bond. It’s all a façade of course. The author highlights how the apparently effortless dancing of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers came about only after exhausting and often physically painful rehearsals, but the movie audience never saw that.
The author rejects the suggestion that glamour generates envy, arguing that envy incorporates hostility and resentment, whereas glamour creates simply the desire to join the glamorous. She also distinguishes glamour from concepts such as charisma, or simple physical attractiveness.
The book did feel a bit repetitive at times, but on the whole I enjoyed reading it. It’s not a subject that can really be argued in scientific terms, more a book of thoughts to provoke discussion. Quite often I would break off from reading to think about what I had just read, and I quite enjoy a book that produces that effect. Some quite nice photos too.
January 4, 2015
Let's say that this book is Ms. Glamour herself and this is the one chance we've had to interview her. What is she like? How beautiful is she inside? Well it's a little difficult to tell.
It doesn't help that this look at glamour comes from an unlikely position. The motive of libertarians is to gain freedom, to keep government out of our lives. Postrel gives the same cold shoulder treatment to analysis here. Like loudmouths at a Tea Party rally she keeps hammering away at a definition.
It's a shame that she has sourced a thousand references (sent to her from friends via email and contributions made to her blog) and kept her own opinions in the backdrop. Because at one point she leans toward critiquing the embarrassing spectacle of Naomi Wolf and her loopy blathering about "the beauty myth". It seems the least of Wolf's problems are her leftist politics. If you take feminism seriously glamour is the bitch that keeps stepping out of line. Wolf wishes to have glamour, to embrace it even, as seen in her effusions about Angelina Jolie. Men with their male gaze, that sickening leer, objectifying us with impossible body image standards wrong wrong wrong! And yet Wolf cannot help admiring Jolie's "well-crafted personal narrative" that involves exploiting her beauty and glamour for more cash. Postrel concludes, "This is not social envy. It is more akin to a schoolgirl crush." Oh good, I thought, more of that. But then Postrel withdraws from critique, as she does throughout the rest of the book, quoting the Japanese concept of "akogare" - yearning - for instance, without showing any evidence she's engaged with Japanese culture on its own terms (as she doesn't any aesthetic claims from artists themselves, or anything glamorous outside of an American context, for that matter). Glamour, that Greek goddess that refuses to die, What is she like? What makes her so captivating? From this book, who knows.
There are some good points if obvious ones that glamour is a form of "nonverbal rhetoric". That it assumes a receptive audience (in other words, a group of people already familiar with what is being glamorized). Humor relies on surprise, glamour requires distance. How the image of a woman smoking encapsulated two of glamour's most potent forces: distance PLUS danger. And that, as expressed in the word "sprezzatura", it's all about graceful nonchalance that conceals art with effortlessness suggesting a superior being. As one enchanted with female beauty in all its forms physical and intellectual I have no idea why certain groups are out to destroy this aspect of the female experience: it makes me want to worship, to want to know. Counter to this enchanting realm of the world there are all those who praise a writer or artist for "refusing to glamorize his/her subject". How boring. I would rather eat oatmeal than see Lena Dunham naked. That's a kind of realism I can do without.
Poetry is glamorous. Its beauties are non-verbal. It's an outstanding inducement to look beyond the real or the literal.
Yesterday morning, for instance, I read the following lines from an essay. Sure, now I might look at the term "glamorous wife" with renewed interest. But with much greater interest when treated like this,
A Portuguese couple, described to me as ‘a poet in exile and his glamorous wife’, would remain friends of Doris, about the only ones who did, until her death. R.D. Laing was a guest a couple of times. I watched amazed as his wife (the first, I think) actually closed her eyes and dropped into sleep every time he started to speak.
Here's one of my favorite pieces of glamour produced over the past ten years or so, featuring the incredible Maggie Cheung. I will never get tired of watching her walk up and down a staircase,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjcTP...
Or hearing her argue for copyright protection for artists, by arguing against one of the worst impulses of this "postmodern" age,
If there are no copyrights you don't even know who the talents are, whether we're just copying each other's work. Then anybody could be a creator. I could use your words in my book. I can use your images in my film. If I'm reading a book I need to know who the author is. It helps me to understand everything about him. And I'll buy another one of his books if I like the book. If I was reading a book and I wasn't sure where the information is coming from, that it can be copied from anywhere, then I don't recognize anything. Without (the protection of original material) in the end there's no art. It would just die.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLdjX...
March 21, 2016
Before I read this, I had thought of glamour as being essentially synonymous with glitz; some showy display designed for and appreciated by shallow people. Not "serious"; not for me. Postrel did a phenomenal job of showing me how wrong I was, articulating how universal the concept of glamour is and how it works, and really putting the lie to the idea that you can be somehow "above" fashion, style, or trends. She manages the neat trick of posing questions of taste without imposing questionable taste herself, and discusses what makes things attractive and desirable to people in an approachable and insightful way. Replete with plenty of examples from all aspects of life, the book gives you a fascinating way to analyze your own desires and sense of aesthetics. Perhaps even more importantly, it conclusively demonstrates that anyone who doubts that illusions are not only important but even necessary in their life is merely participating in an ever bigger illusion.
Glamour is a tricky concept to put words behind. While the effects of glamour are universal, quite often the specific objects that evoke it are unique to each person. Additionally, the process of recognizing glamour usually occurs on a pre-rational level, using the kind of emotional reactions often associated with hidden longings and personal worries. Glamour is not a specific object per se, but "a form of nonverbal rhetoric, which moves and persuades not through words but through images, concepts, and totems." This means that it's often confused with other, similar things, so that point about glamour being a form of rhetoric is crucial to understand how Postrel attempts to "distinguish glamour from style, celebrity, or fame; to establish the relationship between glamour and such associated phenomena as charisma, romance, spectacle, elegance, and sex appeal; and to identify the common elements uniting disparate versions of glamour across audiences and cultural contexts."
She backs up that lofty goal by covering the origins, operation, and evolution of glamour. Quite helpful are the chapter-length analyses of 14 different icons of glamour, each of which provokes some degree of fascination in most people: The Aviator, Smoking, The Princess, Wind Turbines, The Golden State, The Makeover, Wirelessness, The Superhero, The Window, Shanghai, The Horseman, The Gibson Girl, The Suntan, and The Striding Woman. While it's easy to say that any individual one of these icons is not your own personal cup of tea (The Striding Woman, an advertising motif evoking progress, self-advancement, and women's liberation, also brought to my mind the entirely unglamourous internet meme Women Laughing Alone With Salad), it's not really arguable that many, many people react to the idea of, say, California, with an almost mystical longing for what that state represents: sun, surf, youth, girls, Hollywood, etc. While it's possible and even expected for an icon to disappoint somewhat when confronted in the flesh ("Venice is glamorous, until the breeze off the Adriatic brings in the smell of rotting fish and raw sewage, at which point it is like Hoboken with better architecture", in one quote Postrel collects), it's the idea that matters. Flying the regular short-haul route between Cleveland and Indianapolis might not be quite the lifestyle that someone raised on Charles Lindbergh or Howard Hughes expected, but you still get to participate in the glamour of The Aviator.
This would seem to leave the charge open that glamour is essentially just advertising; some kind of lie that deceives more than it delivers. For many people an icon like The Superhero or The Princess is not glamorous but childish, a totem that immature people use to transparently project their own longings into a world where their limitations are absent. Well, sure, that's obviously true in one sense, but in another sense that's meaningless, because who doesn't have inspirational icons that are forever beyond them? A scientist could idolize Isaac Newton, a painter could idolize Rembrandt, a musician could idolize Van Zandt, a director could idolize Orson Welles, an actress could idolize Lucille Ball, a CEO could idolize Rockefeller, and so on - all of those figures are glamorous because they evoke strong passions, and even if a writer knows deep down that he'll probably never be Steinbeck, it's the idealized qualities of Steinbeck that helps him find essential meaning in his work.
We all need idols, along with their illusions, because "though felt to be true, these illusions are always known to be false." One can scoff at someone who's collected an unusually large amount of Star Trek memorabilia, but Star Trek is just an unusually good way of expressing the values of adventure, exploration, and social and technological progress, and who wants to scoff at those? Relatedly, Postrel has another good quote: "science fiction is to technology as romance novels are to marriage: a form of propaganda." Even people who like to scoff at romantic comedies would have to admit that there's something about the idea of two people finding each other they enjoy; they just need a more acceptable presentation mode to allow themself to accept its glamour. Romance (which Postrel does distinguish from glamour per se) wouldn't be such a vast industry if we all didn't share very similar longings for the happiness that the Right Person can bring you.
What about fashion? If there's anywhere to criticize glamour it would seem to be there, since fashion can change very rapidly, what's fashionable at any given time is almost arbitrary, and a primary component of fashion is often impressing other people. Shallow, right? Well, don't think about fashion as being about clothes themselves, think about it as being about what those clothes represent. A shirt's not just a shirt, it says something to other people about who you are, or who you would like to be seen as. Not caring about fashion might seem like you're above it all, but really it means that you're willing to be thought of as unfashionable, which is quite different. The most hard-headed utilitarian will admit that the right dress on a woman evokes quite different feelings than another does, or that dressing up for a special occasion brings a sense of being a different person above what a simple change of fabric should do. Fashion can be a game of status, an expression of personal taste, a way of demonstrating solidarity with a group, or a way of transforming yourself, and everyone identifies with all of those at different times. The parallels to art, music, literature, and so forth are clear: participating in fashionable activities with other people lets you participate in the glamour of popularity and being an insider. If you disagree, are you sure you aren't trying to play the glamorous part of the outsider? There's no escape!
Of course, to be glamorous, you can't be seen as trying to be glamorous; an essential component of glamour is sprezzatura, or "a certain nonchalance, so as to conceal all art and make whatever one does or says appear to be without effort and almost without any thought about it". That criterion of illusory effortlessness is important, and helps distinguish glamour from romance. In Postrel's words, "romance does idealize reality - it omits the tedious, meaningless, and boring - but it heightens the glory of success by showing the struggle that produces it. Glamour is less narrative. It captures not a story but a scene: the dance, not the rehearsals; the still photo, not the film. Glamour and romance are closely related, but glamour is about being, not becoming. We experience the result, not the process." I think one of the main things that separates successful people from unsuccessful people is the willingness to do the unglamorous work process behind the scenes over a long period of time, in order to reap the rewards later on. Are the people most susceptible to glamour the least glamorous themselves? And in reverse, are the most glamorous people the ones who spend the least amount of time thinking about it? Hopefully knowledge of glamour is itself glamorous, or else this book is playing an awful trick on its readers.
Those questions are intimately related to the process of glamourization. How does something go from unglamorous to glamorous (suntans), or the reverse (smoking)? Does society as a whole select for glamour, which individuals then absorb in a René Girard-ish "imitative desire" process? Or is glamour in culture simply the aggregate of human choices, and certain things are considered glamorous only because others aren't? Glamour is a non-rivalrous quality, since being thought of as glamorous by one person doesn't prevent it from being thought of that way by another; quite the opposite for many things. But, while for some things glamour is additive, like the positive feedback loop that glamorous celebrities enjoy; for other things it's subtractive, as in the entire underground/punk/DIY subcultures devoted to rejecting what society tells them they should want. I think the answer is that it depends on the specific glamorous object, since popularity is a component of glamour for some things (it's no fun being The Princess if you don't have a court), while it's not for others (does your own version of The Window look out over an idyllic ranch or a crowded cityscape?). Even nuns are glamorous to the right person.
And after all, it is ultimately up to what you feel you need. As Postrel says, "the first precondition for glamour is the willingness to acknowledge discontent with one's current situation along with the ability to imagine a different, better self in different, better circumstances." That sounds about right: glamour is not fundamentally different from any other aspect of society that's driven both by general similarities (certain things are intriguing to just about everyone), and individual differences (each to their own taste). And as far as things gaining or losing lustre over time is concerned, "glamour inspires projection and longing; spectacle produces wonder and awe", so it's possible for some things to appear very glamorous in one era but not so glamorous in the next, while other things seem to remain timeless. The 1960s must be the most written-about decade in world history, even beyond the fact that we're still living in the era of the Baby Boomers, specifically because so many of the things produced in that era resonate with modern human longings better than what came before or since.
And to that end, I found the sections on modern glamour very interesting, although occasionally filled with some funny pretentious over-theorizing - apparently "modern, self-illusory hedonism" is different from old-school hedonism because it's about the anticipation of experiences and not the actual experiences, as if the ancients never made that same distinction between wanting and having, or between the idea of a thing and the thing itself. Glamorous concepts have been around as long as humanity, but the 1930s was when glamour came into its own as a commercial power. This introduces the distinction between things that were thought to be glamorous in the 1930s, and things from the 1930s which are still glamorous, like the Chrysler Building. Nothing gets old as fast as the future, which is why striking and glamorous science fiction often ages very poorly, and why marketing your product as "modern" or "contemporary" is almost guaranteed to get it laughed at a generation down the line (compare also the label "postmodern").
Economic development is the key to understanding modern glamour. Wealth makes glamour more affordable and available, which is good for everyone, but there are also more opportunities to be judged by other people, and countless glamorous products have become unglamorous simply because they got more affordable and hence less exclusive. Mystery is central to glamour, and so striking a balance between broad appeal while retaining just the right amount of distance is difficult in a world of consumer sovereignty. Will the number of universally glamorous icons decrease over time, as markets cater to individual tastes more precisely? Or are there other forces of social conformity at work? And, as always, openly attempting to seem wealthier than you are is definitely unglamorous to those who are actually wealthy: "Meanwhile, the contemporary reincarnations of the old forms of glamour - the gold, diamonds, cognac, champagne, and fancy cars found in countless hip-hop videos - strike the economically secure as hopelessly crass." I think Lorde had a hit song about that a few years ago....
As human beings, we all participate in illusions constantly, because fantasies are an integral part of consciousness. Glamour is such a fascinating subject because to even discuss it is to participate in its appeal, as you pursue this intriguing but mysterious concept, trying to understand the world and yourself better, but (predictably) being left with even more questions about your own wants and desires. This book is indispensable as a tool to understand why some things are so appealing, giving you a rational framework to understand your own irrational (but perfectly human) preferences, and also making you appreciate whole new swaths of human culture. This is best read in conjunction with other works that analyze trendiness or imitation, such as something by Duncan Watts or René Girard, but stands on its own quite well. Best of all, the book proves its own point by being inherently interesting when you mention it to other people. Postrel hit it out of the park, and anyone afraid of her inserting her own idiosyncratic libertarian political opinions will be pleasantly disappointed.
To digress a bit as a coda, one example of how this book helped me analyze glamour's effects on myself related to my hometown of Austin. Until the late 90s tech boom we were primarily a middle- to working-class town, without much of a noticeable class divide since the main draws in town were state government and the university, neither of which brought in a lot of money to locals (ironically, the fact that the rest of the state hates us might reduce local corruption by eliminating our ability to get pork projects). Without money, people find other ways to differentiate themselves, so a lot of that infamous "weirdness" stuff comes from the grad school aesthetic of old, vaguely run-down bungalows with decent but unrenowned restaurants, used/vintage clothing stores, offbeat artists, and cheap bars with talented but often unambitious musicians plucking away inside. Then our investment in technology paid real dividends, and now Austin has a lot of money, and hence nice houses, craft cocktails, world-class food, high-end fashion, trend-setting artists, and internationally famous music festivals.
That stuff's not bad; it's just different. I personally love the 80s/90s low-rent slacker oasis Austin I grew up in (in my mind a glamorous "city of smart, funny, creative individuals who don't care what the outside world thinks") and have mixed feelings about the 00s/10s high-rent tech hub Austin (to newcomers a glamorous "cool city on the cutting edge that the rest of the world admires"), but it's a mistake to think that the glamour of the former is "authentic" while the glamour of the latter isn't. Clearly I'm projecting my own vaguely narcissistic ideas of what the city "should" be onto a collection of buildings and roads. I want something about the city to reflect my childhood forever and maintain my almost spiritual sense of belonging. The fact that that can't really happen only makes that mythical Perfect Past Austin even more attractive! Whatever, I'm still going to hate on the Domain, because Austin was perfect right when I got here, and ruined right when you got here.
Glamour is a tricky concept to put words behind. While the effects of glamour are universal, quite often the specific objects that evoke it are unique to each person. Additionally, the process of recognizing glamour usually occurs on a pre-rational level, using the kind of emotional reactions often associated with hidden longings and personal worries. Glamour is not a specific object per se, but "a form of nonverbal rhetoric, which moves and persuades not through words but through images, concepts, and totems." This means that it's often confused with other, similar things, so that point about glamour being a form of rhetoric is crucial to understand how Postrel attempts to "distinguish glamour from style, celebrity, or fame; to establish the relationship between glamour and such associated phenomena as charisma, romance, spectacle, elegance, and sex appeal; and to identify the common elements uniting disparate versions of glamour across audiences and cultural contexts."
She backs up that lofty goal by covering the origins, operation, and evolution of glamour. Quite helpful are the chapter-length analyses of 14 different icons of glamour, each of which provokes some degree of fascination in most people: The Aviator, Smoking, The Princess, Wind Turbines, The Golden State, The Makeover, Wirelessness, The Superhero, The Window, Shanghai, The Horseman, The Gibson Girl, The Suntan, and The Striding Woman. While it's easy to say that any individual one of these icons is not your own personal cup of tea (The Striding Woman, an advertising motif evoking progress, self-advancement, and women's liberation, also brought to my mind the entirely unglamourous internet meme Women Laughing Alone With Salad), it's not really arguable that many, many people react to the idea of, say, California, with an almost mystical longing for what that state represents: sun, surf, youth, girls, Hollywood, etc. While it's possible and even expected for an icon to disappoint somewhat when confronted in the flesh ("Venice is glamorous, until the breeze off the Adriatic brings in the smell of rotting fish and raw sewage, at which point it is like Hoboken with better architecture", in one quote Postrel collects), it's the idea that matters. Flying the regular short-haul route between Cleveland and Indianapolis might not be quite the lifestyle that someone raised on Charles Lindbergh or Howard Hughes expected, but you still get to participate in the glamour of The Aviator.
This would seem to leave the charge open that glamour is essentially just advertising; some kind of lie that deceives more than it delivers. For many people an icon like The Superhero or The Princess is not glamorous but childish, a totem that immature people use to transparently project their own longings into a world where their limitations are absent. Well, sure, that's obviously true in one sense, but in another sense that's meaningless, because who doesn't have inspirational icons that are forever beyond them? A scientist could idolize Isaac Newton, a painter could idolize Rembrandt, a musician could idolize Van Zandt, a director could idolize Orson Welles, an actress could idolize Lucille Ball, a CEO could idolize Rockefeller, and so on - all of those figures are glamorous because they evoke strong passions, and even if a writer knows deep down that he'll probably never be Steinbeck, it's the idealized qualities of Steinbeck that helps him find essential meaning in his work.
We all need idols, along with their illusions, because "though felt to be true, these illusions are always known to be false." One can scoff at someone who's collected an unusually large amount of Star Trek memorabilia, but Star Trek is just an unusually good way of expressing the values of adventure, exploration, and social and technological progress, and who wants to scoff at those? Relatedly, Postrel has another good quote: "science fiction is to technology as romance novels are to marriage: a form of propaganda." Even people who like to scoff at romantic comedies would have to admit that there's something about the idea of two people finding each other they enjoy; they just need a more acceptable presentation mode to allow themself to accept its glamour. Romance (which Postrel does distinguish from glamour per se) wouldn't be such a vast industry if we all didn't share very similar longings for the happiness that the Right Person can bring you.
What about fashion? If there's anywhere to criticize glamour it would seem to be there, since fashion can change very rapidly, what's fashionable at any given time is almost arbitrary, and a primary component of fashion is often impressing other people. Shallow, right? Well, don't think about fashion as being about clothes themselves, think about it as being about what those clothes represent. A shirt's not just a shirt, it says something to other people about who you are, or who you would like to be seen as. Not caring about fashion might seem like you're above it all, but really it means that you're willing to be thought of as unfashionable, which is quite different. The most hard-headed utilitarian will admit that the right dress on a woman evokes quite different feelings than another does, or that dressing up for a special occasion brings a sense of being a different person above what a simple change of fabric should do. Fashion can be a game of status, an expression of personal taste, a way of demonstrating solidarity with a group, or a way of transforming yourself, and everyone identifies with all of those at different times. The parallels to art, music, literature, and so forth are clear: participating in fashionable activities with other people lets you participate in the glamour of popularity and being an insider. If you disagree, are you sure you aren't trying to play the glamorous part of the outsider? There's no escape!
Of course, to be glamorous, you can't be seen as trying to be glamorous; an essential component of glamour is sprezzatura, or "a certain nonchalance, so as to conceal all art and make whatever one does or says appear to be without effort and almost without any thought about it". That criterion of illusory effortlessness is important, and helps distinguish glamour from romance. In Postrel's words, "romance does idealize reality - it omits the tedious, meaningless, and boring - but it heightens the glory of success by showing the struggle that produces it. Glamour is less narrative. It captures not a story but a scene: the dance, not the rehearsals; the still photo, not the film. Glamour and romance are closely related, but glamour is about being, not becoming. We experience the result, not the process." I think one of the main things that separates successful people from unsuccessful people is the willingness to do the unglamorous work process behind the scenes over a long period of time, in order to reap the rewards later on. Are the people most susceptible to glamour the least glamorous themselves? And in reverse, are the most glamorous people the ones who spend the least amount of time thinking about it? Hopefully knowledge of glamour is itself glamorous, or else this book is playing an awful trick on its readers.
Those questions are intimately related to the process of glamourization. How does something go from unglamorous to glamorous (suntans), or the reverse (smoking)? Does society as a whole select for glamour, which individuals then absorb in a René Girard-ish "imitative desire" process? Or is glamour in culture simply the aggregate of human choices, and certain things are considered glamorous only because others aren't? Glamour is a non-rivalrous quality, since being thought of as glamorous by one person doesn't prevent it from being thought of that way by another; quite the opposite for many things. But, while for some things glamour is additive, like the positive feedback loop that glamorous celebrities enjoy; for other things it's subtractive, as in the entire underground/punk/DIY subcultures devoted to rejecting what society tells them they should want. I think the answer is that it depends on the specific glamorous object, since popularity is a component of glamour for some things (it's no fun being The Princess if you don't have a court), while it's not for others (does your own version of The Window look out over an idyllic ranch or a crowded cityscape?). Even nuns are glamorous to the right person.
And after all, it is ultimately up to what you feel you need. As Postrel says, "the first precondition for glamour is the willingness to acknowledge discontent with one's current situation along with the ability to imagine a different, better self in different, better circumstances." That sounds about right: glamour is not fundamentally different from any other aspect of society that's driven both by general similarities (certain things are intriguing to just about everyone), and individual differences (each to their own taste). And as far as things gaining or losing lustre over time is concerned, "glamour inspires projection and longing; spectacle produces wonder and awe", so it's possible for some things to appear very glamorous in one era but not so glamorous in the next, while other things seem to remain timeless. The 1960s must be the most written-about decade in world history, even beyond the fact that we're still living in the era of the Baby Boomers, specifically because so many of the things produced in that era resonate with modern human longings better than what came before or since.
And to that end, I found the sections on modern glamour very interesting, although occasionally filled with some funny pretentious over-theorizing - apparently "modern, self-illusory hedonism" is different from old-school hedonism because it's about the anticipation of experiences and not the actual experiences, as if the ancients never made that same distinction between wanting and having, or between the idea of a thing and the thing itself. Glamorous concepts have been around as long as humanity, but the 1930s was when glamour came into its own as a commercial power. This introduces the distinction between things that were thought to be glamorous in the 1930s, and things from the 1930s which are still glamorous, like the Chrysler Building. Nothing gets old as fast as the future, which is why striking and glamorous science fiction often ages very poorly, and why marketing your product as "modern" or "contemporary" is almost guaranteed to get it laughed at a generation down the line (compare also the label "postmodern").
Economic development is the key to understanding modern glamour. Wealth makes glamour more affordable and available, which is good for everyone, but there are also more opportunities to be judged by other people, and countless glamorous products have become unglamorous simply because they got more affordable and hence less exclusive. Mystery is central to glamour, and so striking a balance between broad appeal while retaining just the right amount of distance is difficult in a world of consumer sovereignty. Will the number of universally glamorous icons decrease over time, as markets cater to individual tastes more precisely? Or are there other forces of social conformity at work? And, as always, openly attempting to seem wealthier than you are is definitely unglamorous to those who are actually wealthy: "Meanwhile, the contemporary reincarnations of the old forms of glamour - the gold, diamonds, cognac, champagne, and fancy cars found in countless hip-hop videos - strike the economically secure as hopelessly crass." I think Lorde had a hit song about that a few years ago....
As human beings, we all participate in illusions constantly, because fantasies are an integral part of consciousness. Glamour is such a fascinating subject because to even discuss it is to participate in its appeal, as you pursue this intriguing but mysterious concept, trying to understand the world and yourself better, but (predictably) being left with even more questions about your own wants and desires. This book is indispensable as a tool to understand why some things are so appealing, giving you a rational framework to understand your own irrational (but perfectly human) preferences, and also making you appreciate whole new swaths of human culture. This is best read in conjunction with other works that analyze trendiness or imitation, such as something by Duncan Watts or René Girard, but stands on its own quite well. Best of all, the book proves its own point by being inherently interesting when you mention it to other people. Postrel hit it out of the park, and anyone afraid of her inserting her own idiosyncratic libertarian political opinions will be pleasantly disappointed.
To digress a bit as a coda, one example of how this book helped me analyze glamour's effects on myself related to my hometown of Austin. Until the late 90s tech boom we were primarily a middle- to working-class town, without much of a noticeable class divide since the main draws in town were state government and the university, neither of which brought in a lot of money to locals (ironically, the fact that the rest of the state hates us might reduce local corruption by eliminating our ability to get pork projects). Without money, people find other ways to differentiate themselves, so a lot of that infamous "weirdness" stuff comes from the grad school aesthetic of old, vaguely run-down bungalows with decent but unrenowned restaurants, used/vintage clothing stores, offbeat artists, and cheap bars with talented but often unambitious musicians plucking away inside. Then our investment in technology paid real dividends, and now Austin has a lot of money, and hence nice houses, craft cocktails, world-class food, high-end fashion, trend-setting artists, and internationally famous music festivals.
That stuff's not bad; it's just different. I personally love the 80s/90s low-rent slacker oasis Austin I grew up in (in my mind a glamorous "city of smart, funny, creative individuals who don't care what the outside world thinks") and have mixed feelings about the 00s/10s high-rent tech hub Austin (to newcomers a glamorous "cool city on the cutting edge that the rest of the world admires"), but it's a mistake to think that the glamour of the former is "authentic" while the glamour of the latter isn't. Clearly I'm projecting my own vaguely narcissistic ideas of what the city "should" be onto a collection of buildings and roads. I want something about the city to reflect my childhood forever and maintain my almost spiritual sense of belonging. The fact that that can't really happen only makes that mythical Perfect Past Austin even more attractive! Whatever, I'm still going to hate on the Domain, because Austin was perfect right when I got here, and ruined right when you got here.
August 22, 2014
This was a really fascinating book. As Virginia Postrel works through her definition of glamour--which she defines as something very similar to CS Lewis's sehnsucht or Sweet Desire, a longing for something beyond the world (“a promise of escape and transformation; grace; and mystery”)--you come to an odd realisation. Call it the only book you'll ever read which does nothing much beyond explain to you in detail why you wanted to read it.
There's a lot of insight here. Postrel unerringly puts her finger on a lot of the whys behind our cultural obsessions, and correctly pinpoints eschatology as the premier example of religious glamour. More interestingly, the final chapter discusses how our longings have changed with the years. In the 1930s, she says, divorce was glamorous being a luxury only affordable by the rich and famous. In the 2010s, stable family life and kind fatherly guidance is now becoming glamorous. And that may be a comforting thought.
There's a lot of insight here. Postrel unerringly puts her finger on a lot of the whys behind our cultural obsessions, and correctly pinpoints eschatology as the premier example of religious glamour. More interestingly, the final chapter discusses how our longings have changed with the years. In the 1930s, she says, divorce was glamorous being a luxury only affordable by the rich and famous. In the 2010s, stable family life and kind fatherly guidance is now becoming glamorous. And that may be a comforting thought.
July 31, 2014
Had some interesting perspectives and photos. Overall, however, it was very disjointed and the author's ideas were all over the place. Halfway through I gave up on the book. It was too frustrated jumping from one unrelated idea to another.
January 17, 2015
I loved the example of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers bloodying many pairs of shoes to perfect a dance sequence where a floor kept immaculate between takes helps create the illusion of effortlessness and glamour during the dance. Glamour involves channeling desire through imagery after the removing of tedium, effort and difficulties to achieve escape and transformation through mystery and grace. Thus Obama’s glamour died when his mystery died and his policies appeared to more and more Americans like those of his unglamorous predecessor George W. Bush. Grace Kelly, Cary Grant and Sean Connery spent years being coached and studying all the refinements that made them who we think they were. It was also hard work made to seem effortless (I remember Baryshnikov once stating that his biggest effort was to make his dancing seem effortless). It took five years to write this book and I can see why; it wasn’t at all shallow and it gave me a deep understanding of all the parameters of glamour, what it is and what it is not. This book also teaches you in depth about all the main icons of glamour: the Aviator, Smoker, Princess, Wind Turbines, California, Makeovers, Wirelessness, Superheroes, Windows, Shanghai, Horsemen, the Gibson Girl, Suntans and the Striding Woman. It was cool to readthat in the 1880’s and 1890’s more than one half a million Parisians went to the theater once a week and more than one million went once a month. Brilliantly explained was the highly planned creation of a consumer society not by the people and for the people, but by the advertisers and for profit. The following problem became that the inviting glamour of the new tech achievements for sale, was being replaced by the non-glamorous cutthroat merchandising aspect. Also, the glamour of cars helped to sell the energy inefficient US highway system just as the glamour of fancy new stuff sold Americans the concept of planned obsolescence and overproduction leading to forcing new markets to open up elsewhere on the planet to buy this “rare” stuff. Great book on a rather elusive subject.
October 6, 2016
This was generated from a TED talk. A fact I didn't know till I read the afterward. It's really a fascinating book on how the world works in regard to the recognition of desirable beauty, mystery, and longing.
Why are some things glamorous? What is recognition of glamour tapping into in our psyche? This was one I read with a pen in hand to mark the page near thoughts that were resonant or that I wanted to come back to later.
One example (of many): "Whether achieved through misdirection or editing, deliberate manipulation or selective imagination, darkroom grace is the deception people usually mean when they refer to "glamourizing" something or someone. It creates a seemingly accurate image distilled to its most desirable essence."
"So here is one answer to the question of what glamour does. It offers a lucid glimpse of desire fulfilled-if only life could be like that, if only we could be there, if only we could be like them. For all its associations with material goods, the fundamental and insatiable desires glamour taps are emotional.
Critics like Berger often assume that glamour create those desires. They imagine if glamour disappeared, so would dissatisfaction-that, for example, women would not long to be young and beautiful if there were no cosmetic ads or movie stars. But glamour only works when it can tap preexisting discontent, giving otherwise inchoate longings an object of focus.
We all know the woman who went to buy the practical blue gingham dress and came home with an impractical pink silk negligee. We are all that woman now and then... Our known want and recognized need is for the blue gingham dress. But the sight of the pink negligee somehow sets aflame a desire which, until this unrestrained moment, we have not known existed! Dormant desires, unknown even to ourselves; but how full of possibilities!
Beholding the pink silk, the shopper realizes she yearns to be not merely a practical housewife, but an enticingly feminine seductress. She achieves that identity, if only in her imagination, by buying the negligee. It provides the armature of her unspoken desire.
Glamour takes on many forms because both the object objects that embody such longings and the longings themselves-the cladding and the armature-vary from person to person. If the yearning to belong to an elite is an armature, for one person the cladding may the image of a U.S. Marine as "the few, the proud"; for another it's getting into the city's hottest club; for another its matriculating at Harvard.... One would be writer finds a display of Moleskin journals irresistibly glamorous while another is drawn to a photo of a mountain retreat or a little attic in Paris with a skylight."
"Glamour and romance are closely related, but glamour is about being, not becoming. We experience the result, not the process. The relationship between subject and audience is also different. In a romance, the audience feels a range of emotions along with the characters: excitement, fear, love grief, joy. Glamour, by contrast, remains an outside view. requiring mystery and distance. In the classic version of the character, we don't inhabit James Bond's mental universe. We project ourselves into his setting and talents. He is all "façade". We do not feel what he feels but, rather, the idea of him makes us feel. This distanced identification is why anonymous models or even inanimate objects can be glamorous. We do not need to know them from the inside, we fill their images with our own emotions and desires."
"No one can accomplish anything without first imagining it." Gregory Benford
"The best and most enduring fashion is inspired by our longings for transcendence." Christian Dior advert.
Why are some things glamorous? What is recognition of glamour tapping into in our psyche? This was one I read with a pen in hand to mark the page near thoughts that were resonant or that I wanted to come back to later.
One example (of many): "Whether achieved through misdirection or editing, deliberate manipulation or selective imagination, darkroom grace is the deception people usually mean when they refer to "glamourizing" something or someone. It creates a seemingly accurate image distilled to its most desirable essence."
"So here is one answer to the question of what glamour does. It offers a lucid glimpse of desire fulfilled-if only life could be like that, if only we could be there, if only we could be like them. For all its associations with material goods, the fundamental and insatiable desires glamour taps are emotional.
Critics like Berger often assume that glamour create those desires. They imagine if glamour disappeared, so would dissatisfaction-that, for example, women would not long to be young and beautiful if there were no cosmetic ads or movie stars. But glamour only works when it can tap preexisting discontent, giving otherwise inchoate longings an object of focus.
We all know the woman who went to buy the practical blue gingham dress and came home with an impractical pink silk negligee. We are all that woman now and then... Our known want and recognized need is for the blue gingham dress. But the sight of the pink negligee somehow sets aflame a desire which, until this unrestrained moment, we have not known existed! Dormant desires, unknown even to ourselves; but how full of possibilities!
Beholding the pink silk, the shopper realizes she yearns to be not merely a practical housewife, but an enticingly feminine seductress. She achieves that identity, if only in her imagination, by buying the negligee. It provides the armature of her unspoken desire.
Glamour takes on many forms because both the object objects that embody such longings and the longings themselves-the cladding and the armature-vary from person to person. If the yearning to belong to an elite is an armature, for one person the cladding may the image of a U.S. Marine as "the few, the proud"; for another it's getting into the city's hottest club; for another its matriculating at Harvard.... One would be writer finds a display of Moleskin journals irresistibly glamorous while another is drawn to a photo of a mountain retreat or a little attic in Paris with a skylight."
"Glamour and romance are closely related, but glamour is about being, not becoming. We experience the result, not the process. The relationship between subject and audience is also different. In a romance, the audience feels a range of emotions along with the characters: excitement, fear, love grief, joy. Glamour, by contrast, remains an outside view. requiring mystery and distance. In the classic version of the character, we don't inhabit James Bond's mental universe. We project ourselves into his setting and talents. He is all "façade". We do not feel what he feels but, rather, the idea of him makes us feel. This distanced identification is why anonymous models or even inanimate objects can be glamorous. We do not need to know them from the inside, we fill their images with our own emotions and desires."
"No one can accomplish anything without first imagining it." Gregory Benford
"The best and most enduring fashion is inspired by our longings for transcendence." Christian Dior advert.
August 12, 2022
"What does your Soul look like?" - DJ Shadow
Glamour's modern prominence as a prime mover of mankind coincides with growing secularism and materialism. Glamour can replace the soul as the inspirational intermediary between consciousness and our surroundings. When what we see becomes all that exists to experience, glamour imbues an intangible "heaven-on-earth" to certain persons and products. By obscuring imperfections, it spurs us to continue pursuing perfectibility. This desire to cement a glamorous legacy is one of the most potent conduits for continued faith in a meaningful existence. - 6/25/15
Glamour's modern prominence as a prime mover of mankind coincides with growing secularism and materialism. Glamour can replace the soul as the inspirational intermediary between consciousness and our surroundings. When what we see becomes all that exists to experience, glamour imbues an intangible "heaven-on-earth" to certain persons and products. By obscuring imperfections, it spurs us to continue pursuing perfectibility. This desire to cement a glamorous legacy is one of the most potent conduits for continued faith in a meaningful existence. - 6/25/15
March 6, 2016
While I have deeply enjoyed all of Virginia Postrel's work, especially 'The Future and its Enemies', this book happened to catch me at a time when I was ready for it to provoke some creative thinking. The messages about how glamorous stories and images captivate people and can motivate them to change their behavior -- for good or ill -- will definitely affect some of my own thinking on how I communicate visions of humanity's possible futures in space. If you are interested in why and how ideas and products are marketed and why some forms of style endure, I highly recommend this book
August 15, 2014
I didn't see the point of this book. It's just a laundry list of examples of glamour, without any particularly interesting stories or insights. Everyone knows that beautiful images aren't real, and that's all she seemed to be saying here. Repeating it again and again in different contexts.
It might have been a mildly entertaining piece in a cultural studies periodical, but it's not worth a book, and certainly not one in hardcover. Extremely esoteric.
It might have been a mildly entertaining piece in a cultural studies periodical, but it's not worth a book, and certainly not one in hardcover. Extremely esoteric.
November 10, 2018
《魅力史：激发欲望与视觉征服的艺术》营造魅力，就是唤醒消费者的三种关键情感——对当下的逃离，对改变的渴望，对神秘未知世界的向往。 1.探寻魅力的本源：尽管魅力所呈现的形式不同，它所揭露的始终是我们最真实的情感。魅力挖掘了现存的不满情绪，展示了我们在现实生活中所缺乏的事物。比如：
名人的魅力源自对倾慕、崇拜和成为重要人士的渴望；
时尚的魅力唤醒了我们对于改变生活状态、改变自我的欲望；
奢华的魅力不仅来自物质享受的诱惑，也来自我们渴望优雅地融入这个阶层的愿景。
2.解析魅力的构成元素
魅力有三个重要要素：对当下的逃离，对改变的承诺以及神秘感。
对逃离和转型的向往是魅力的情感核心，让我们将自我投射到某种设定或身份认同中，以此来感知我们那些没有阐明的愿望。
神秘是魅力的感知品质。人们常说“熟悉的地方没有风景”——没有神秘感，就没有魅力的存在。
3.还原魅力的进化历程
本书不仅梳理了魅力史上的大事件（从希腊英雄形象阿喀琉斯到苏格兰精灵，从17世纪后期的江户到18世纪的伦敦和巴黎，再到19世纪的纽约和芝加哥），还对具体形象进行了深入的分析（从美国总统奥巴马到电影里的超级英雄，从电影《蒂凡尼的早餐》中的橱窗到风情无限的上海外滩），从而展现出魅力在不同情境中的意义。
4.启发魅力的商业运用
在商业运用上，弗吉尼娅•波斯特莱尔指出魅力能够引发社会性嫉妒情绪，以此来促进商品销售。诉诸魅力的魔法，让商品成为“通往希望与理想的桥梁”，正如你着迷于无印良品的本子或宜家的家具，这种有形的、商业性的“桥梁”本身就充满了魅力。
文化观察家：逃离现实的欲望（生活中没有的东西——嫉妒感——和人的比较优越感）
《魅力史》| 東西堂主解读
关于作者
弗吉尼娅·波斯特莱尔，美国著名文化观察家和社会思想家，在文化、历史、社会心理学等领域都有深入的研究。她曾通过 3D 技术扫描、还原了卢浮宫镇馆之宝——断臂维纳斯，推断维纳斯很可能不是所谓的“女神”，而是在等客时候用纺线解闷儿的妓女。由于长期以来对社会审美方面的独特研究，2004年应邀登上了 TED 讲台，为公众解读魅力的力量。
关于本书
作者通过对不同时代、不同领域的魅力现象进行剖析，用大量生动翔实的案例解构了魅力到底是怎么产生、怎么传播，又是怎么样激发人们欲望的。她把本来看不见摸不着的魅力拆解，为人们更好地理解魅力的本质、把握商业社会运行的机制以及认识自身提供了很大的帮助。
核心内容
从魅力的作用机制、表现形式、构成要素等方面，详细分解了魅力的本质和演变。
点击查看大图，保存到手机，也可以分享到朋友圈
一、魅力满足了人们逃离现实的欲望
在魅力的引导下，人们通常会暂时性地将自己想象成另外一个人，在另一种环境下生活。香槟酒让人感觉与众不同的，不仅是味道，还是所代表的异国情调的生活方式。这种生活方式，是在中国传统文化里找不到的。
“逃离感”，本来只是藏在潜意识里，因为看到了对应物品才被激发出来。欲望也不止是人们通常理解的爱与性，还包括财富、权力、名誉、自由、冒险等等。欲望的表现多种多样，因人而异，但共同点是：大多是生活中没有的或者缺少的。
魅力所做的，是把人看到的和头脑中设想的生活图景建立起隐性的关联，让人在这一刻产生愉悦感，甚至消费的冲动。
【案例】
硅谷位于美国加州的北部，是一条不足50公里的狭长谷地。在上个世纪30年代的大萧条时代，整个欧洲都笼罩在士气低落的阴影当中，大量人口逃离欧洲，涌入阳光明媚、生活轻松惬意的加州。进入80、90年代后，电脑和互联网产业的兴起，又给硅谷带来了新的繁荣。加州和硅谷的魅力，在它们繁荣以后转化成了无形价值。
法拉利推出过一款敞篷跑车，命名为“加利福尼亚”；很多造鞋的企业，也把自己生产的鞋和加州联系上；苹果产品在最醒目的标签上也通常会印着“设计于加州”……之所以这样做，就是希望人们在想到自己产品的时候，会自然而然地联想到加州的阳光明媚，给人一种希望，从而增强购买欲望。这些本质上都是对人内心“逃离欲望”的操控和利用。
二、魅力满足了人们拒绝平庸的欲望
主流和非主流、平庸与不平庸是两条线索。很多时候，人们因为现实因素不得不跟随主流，但潜意识里都有“反主流”的倾向。主流，是长期在社会规则下妥协的产物，很多时候也被当做“平庸”。
人在内心深处，总有一些尚未妥协的部分。这些部分，构成人天然存在的“反叛主流、拒绝平庸”的愿望。当愿望遇到恰当的时机和载体被表达出来，就构成了魅力。
拒绝平庸并不是年轻人的专利，中年以上也普遍存在。这种魅力在政治、娱乐领域的宣传包装中很常见。
【案例】
切·格瓦拉的头像，是流行文化中的重要符号。蓬乱的头发、镶嵌着五角星的贝雷帽和直视前方的目光，叛逆、硬朗，具有很强的穿透性，已经在世界各地的书籍、报刊甚至T恤衫上被印刷了几千万次，被称为“世界上最知名的照片”。
切·格瓦拉出生在阿根廷，本来是一位医学系的学生。年轻时凭着一股热情，骑着摩托车游历了整个拉丁美洲，亲眼目睹了无所不在的贫穷。游历过后，他坚定地认为，只有“世界性的革命”才是拯救不平等的唯一方法，因此弃医从武，投身到了拉丁美洲的革命大潮，辗转参与了危地马拉、古巴、玻利维亚等国的武装斗争。最后，他被美国中情局协助的玻利维亚军队逮捕、处决。
后世对切·格瓦拉的评价主要有两派：为改革而生的战士和鲁莽反抗者。但无论是哪一派，都不能否认，切·格瓦拉的一生，是不平庸的一生。正是这种不平庸，对当时反叛主流、追求新奇的年轻人构成了巨大魅力。对他们来说，穿上印着切·格瓦拉的T恤，就意味着自己“拒绝平庸”，是充满魅力的。
三、魅力满足了人类原始的嫉妒情绪
人们通常认为，魅力是一种正向吸引，给人的感觉总是正面的。但实际上，从社会心理学上看，具有魅力的事物往往让人产生嫉妒的负面情绪，只不过这种负面情绪通常停留在潜意识里，人们感知不到。
随着魅力的表现形式在社会上推而广之，当大家都被同一个事物吸引时，群众的向往就会慢慢与负面情绪中和，所以，人们看到的魅力通常只是结果，它其实是社会性嫉妒情绪经过大众消化后的产物。
如果没有魅力参照系，女性不会花那么大的力气去打扮自己，男性也不会那么在意展示男子气概。社会性嫉妒情绪在绝大多数情况下不是坏事，反而能引领人们不断改进自身，改善生活质量。
【案例】
上世纪50年代，奥黛丽·赫本曾经演过一个修女的角色，圣洁、崇高、与世无争，迷倒了很多西方女性。在她们看来，奥黛丽·赫本自身的气质连同修女的身份一起构造出一种魅力。
当时，正值两次大战结束以后的恢复期，整个西方一片狼藉。修女、修道院一样的超凡脱俗，正是社会上没有的，所以奥黛丽·赫本诠释的这个形象，恰恰填补了人们的心理空白。群体性的无奈和嫉妒，经过大众消化就演变成了对修女角色魅力的向往和对奥黛丽·赫本的欣赏。
四、魅力是对神秘感和想象空间的运用
魅力与“墨镜原理”相关。生活中的墨镜，除了遮阳以外，还是增加魅力的装饰。它隐藏了喜怒哀乐的情绪，又巧妙地放大了眼睛部位的吸引力，强调了脸型的轮廓。墨镜镜片是半透明的，在隐藏和强调之间达到了恰到好处的平衡，激发起好奇心，让人有欲罢不能的感觉，这就是对神秘感和想象空间的运用。
“墨镜原理”之所以管用，和人们的认知结构有关。研究表明，人们在了解一个事物的时候，并不是所有信息触点都会全面打开，而是倾向于首先接受那些容易被接受、让人身心感到愉悦的信息，也就是说，人的偏见是天生的。
塑造魅力，正是对这种偏见的运用，引导偏见朝着有利的方向发展。
【案例】
为什么几乎所有的明星，都要由专业的摄影师来拍照？
因为专业摄影师了解受众对明星魅力的诉求，懂得拿捏分寸。比如，有的明星脸型不是特别上镜，他们就采取侧脸拍摄；有的明星身材不是特别匀称，他们就换个角度避开这些部位。这和“墨镜原理”是一样的，充分运用了神秘感和想象空间。
很多公众人物会花费大量的精力，雇用专业团队，来筹划曝光和隐私之间的权衡。在通讯发达的时代，信息的披露通常也是具有选择性的，适当地拉开明星和粉丝的距离，又不切断联系，是营造神秘感的重要手段。
金句：
1. 欲望的表现多种多样，但有一个共同点：它们大多是人们生活中没有或者缺少的。
2. 其实，每个人在潜意识里都有“反主流”的倾向。
3. 具有魅力的事物，往往让人产生嫉妒这种负面情绪，只不过这种负面情绪通常停留在潜意识里，人们感知不到。
4. 半透明的魅力，在隐藏和强调之间达到了一种恰到好处的平衡。
5. 人的偏见是天生的。塑造魅力，正是对这种偏见的运��，引导偏见朝着有利的方向发展。
来自豆瓣App
May 7, 2024
Very insightful on aesthetics, wants and personal desires.
"In its blend of accessibility and distance, glamour is neither transparent nor opaque. It is translucent. It invites just enough familiarity to engage the imagination, allowing scope for the viewer’s own fantasies."
"Glamour takes many forms because both the objects that embody such longings and the longings themselves—the cladding and the armature—vary from person to person."
"The best and most enduring fashion is inspired by our longings for transcendence."
"The glamour of the balls includes not only fame, acclaim, and beauty but also fellowship and acceptance. “You go in there and you feel 100 percent right, being gay,” says the unnamed fan. “That’s not what it’s like in the world—it’s not what it’s like in the world. It should be like that in the world.”
"Grace is what makes glamour so dangerous and so alluring. By hiding anything that might break the spell, it renders our desires clear and accessible."
"The fastest way to look glamorous is to put on sunglasses. The right shades instantly associate even the most ordinary face with movie stars and jazz greats, ski resorts and beach vacations- Glamorous sunglasses, after all, highlight as well as veil. They call attention to the face, most of which remains visible, and even the darkest lenses allow a hint of eye to show every now and then, when the light is just right."
“Mystique is the lifeblood of key qualities such as glamour and cool"
“You can create instant glamour with candlelight, which covers up anything But the cover-up is not complete. Candlelight not only conceals but illuminates. It creates an enchanted circle, drawing guests closer. By highlighting some qualities and obscuring others, mystery creates a compellingly stylized version of reality that heightens grace and focuses desire."
"One way or another, all glamour follows the formula he laid out: “Bring out the best, conceal the worst, and leave something to the imagination."
"The allure of a cityscape at night lies in the alternative lives suggested, but not revealed, by all those glittering windows."
"In its blend of accessibility and distance, glamour is neither transparent nor opaque. It is translucent. It invites just enough familiarity to engage the imagination, allowing scope for the viewer’s own fantasies."
"Glamour takes many forms because both the objects that embody such longings and the longings themselves—the cladding and the armature—vary from person to person."
"The best and most enduring fashion is inspired by our longings for transcendence."
"The glamour of the balls includes not only fame, acclaim, and beauty but also fellowship and acceptance. “You go in there and you feel 100 percent right, being gay,” says the unnamed fan. “That’s not what it’s like in the world—it’s not what it’s like in the world. It should be like that in the world.”
"Grace is what makes glamour so dangerous and so alluring. By hiding anything that might break the spell, it renders our desires clear and accessible."
"The fastest way to look glamorous is to put on sunglasses. The right shades instantly associate even the most ordinary face with movie stars and jazz greats, ski resorts and beach vacations- Glamorous sunglasses, after all, highlight as well as veil. They call attention to the face, most of which remains visible, and even the darkest lenses allow a hint of eye to show every now and then, when the light is just right."
“Mystique is the lifeblood of key qualities such as glamour and cool"
“You can create instant glamour with candlelight, which covers up anything But the cover-up is not complete. Candlelight not only conceals but illuminates. It creates an enchanted circle, drawing guests closer. By highlighting some qualities and obscuring others, mystery creates a compellingly stylized version of reality that heightens grace and focuses desire."
"One way or another, all glamour follows the formula he laid out: “Bring out the best, conceal the worst, and leave something to the imagination."
"The allure of a cityscape at night lies in the alternative lives suggested, but not revealed, by all those glittering windows."
November 14, 2018
Glamour is one of the unique word that is spelt with ‘our’ even in American English (unlike armor and humor). Postrel has done a great job describing it.
So glamour is the aura that evoke a kind of longing that is known to be false but felt to be true. It is best felt from far away. Glamorous people would maintain their distance and silence on purpose, and glamorous photos were usually simplistic, allowing the audience to project their own imagination onto them. Glamour is apparently effortless grace, even if lots of efforts have been put in to develop Glamour is destroyed by familiarity. Charisma is totally different and gets better with time and best watched live in action.
Glamour is evoked when it is just slightly out of reach of the audience. Sunglasses, shadows, black-and-white photos all evoke glamour.
Theatrical glamour showed only the curated ideal, and darkroom glamour used Photoshop to beautify the subject.
A history of glamour was then given. Glamour changes with time and culture, but always need to be slightly different and unattainable.
I enjoyed this book a lot!
So glamour is the aura that evoke a kind of longing that is known to be false but felt to be true. It is best felt from far away. Glamorous people would maintain their distance and silence on purpose, and glamorous photos were usually simplistic, allowing the audience to project their own imagination onto them. Glamour is apparently effortless grace, even if lots of efforts have been put in to develop Glamour is destroyed by familiarity. Charisma is totally different and gets better with time and best watched live in action.
Glamour is evoked when it is just slightly out of reach of the audience. Sunglasses, shadows, black-and-white photos all evoke glamour.
Theatrical glamour showed only the curated ideal, and darkroom glamour used Photoshop to beautify the subject.
A history of glamour was then given. Glamour changes with time and culture, but always need to be slightly different and unattainable.
I enjoyed this book a lot!
January 29, 2025
I picked up this book because I’m interested in glamour magic. Of course, this book isn’t really about the occult practice, but it was the first book I could find that really dove into the concept of glamour. I admire Postrel’s ability to focus and bring together ideas, theories, and case studies about a topic this broad. It truly didn’t feel repetitive, as much as it felt like she was making connections and showing us how to think about glamour.
I picked up so many little gems: how/why glamour works, glamour vs romance, glamour vs charisma, histories of glamorous icons, quotes, and funny little words (milquetoast).
It was a slow and dense read at times. Sometimes, the writing read to me like a lecture transcribed. It was hard to follow ideas because maybe the sentence structure was klunky or ideas didn’t feel grounded. Sometimes, I wished she gave a plain thesis or neatly restated main ideas.
However, this topic interests me enough that I can recognize this book as a seminal text for my personal purposes and I will be picking up a copy for my home library.
I picked up so many little gems: how/why glamour works, glamour vs romance, glamour vs charisma, histories of glamorous icons, quotes, and funny little words (milquetoast).
It was a slow and dense read at times. Sometimes, the writing read to me like a lecture transcribed. It was hard to follow ideas because maybe the sentence structure was klunky or ideas didn’t feel grounded. Sometimes, I wished she gave a plain thesis or neatly restated main ideas.
However, this topic interests me enough that I can recognize this book as a seminal text for my personal purposes and I will be picking up a copy for my home library.
January 13, 2018
We are hypnotized by the glamour of the world much more than we consciously realize. Many great insights are found here in this analysis of how advertising and the like have a way of tapping into our deepest longings, tapping into our dreams - tapping into the greatest terrain of the human imagination. Some information also on how these glamorous campaigns leave out the 'details.' For example, how the woman who bought the dreamy shoes in the magazine ends up with bloodied feet while running to catch the bus. Or, how ideal home books leave out those pesky wires on any electrical equipment in the photographs. All the stuff that isn't a part of the FANTASY. Overall, we are unconsciously persuaded by visual images and are complete suckers. But then the art of life also taps into our own ideals of what we need to feel fulfilled and so ultimately, seen in a more positive light, the power of glamour gives us something to aspire towards.
June 28, 2020
An excellent and insightful book. It really gets to grips with what we mean by glamour - a subject that feels so hard to define and yet this books seems to have managed it. Very well illustrated, with plenty of references to support all the points made. It’s also clearly written and, frankly, a pleasure to read. More than just a coffee table book, it hides the knowledge of a textbook in its pages, while still managing to feel light and enjoyable. It offers plenty of food for thought and is a great introduction to a subject that feels so hard to pin down.
May 7, 2022
An entertaining look at the idea of glamour. Glamour - the mysterious and elusive phenomenon that makes you long and yearn and dream of a better life - is an overwhelming force in our culture, the author argues. I liked the sections where she meditates on the glamour of a particular theme, like aviators or Gibson Girls. This book invites the reader to examine the roll of fantasy and longing in her own life. Glamour always dissolves into real life in the end, but does its pursuit leave us better off than when we started?
March 7, 2025
Impactful and illuminating! This book is such a treasure trove! Immersing yourself in it is pure pleasure from page one! Substantially exceeded my expectations! It is a lot more deeper than what one might think when hearing the word glamour. I found myself reflecting on a lot of things and constantly highlighting fragments of the insightful text. It is really a powerful and evocative book! Among the very best I’ve ever read!
June 4, 2018
A beautiful book in every sense of the word. Virginia Postrel has me thinking about the mystery, the power, the persuasion of "glamour," those "illusions" that can reveal desire. Having read the book, I am much more aware of and intrigued by how my identity is tied to what I "want." From President Obama to my morning cup of coffee, commerce and culture and connected to glamour.
March 7, 2022
A bit of a think-piece, but it did philosophy right in its evaluation of how humanity gives value to the enigma that is "glamour". It became repetitive at times, but I powered through it during an overnight shift. My library copy is full of little metal booktabs for parts which I want to save for future contemplation.
June 16, 2018
Insanely intelligent look at the topic of Glamour. Once you settle in after the first chapter, it's mind-blowing what Virginia has to say. Quoting her in my thesis a bit too much?
Can't wait to read her next book!
Can't wait to read her next book!
January 25, 2019
A very thoughtful journey through the idea of “glamour” and cultural advertising. I would recommend this to anyone curious about the nature of escapism or anyone who wants to understand the psychological interplay of advertisements.
January 13, 2022
Intellectual but still readable, Postrel develops an understanding of glamour that transcends time or place. Well-chosen illustrations communicate her ideas. Extensive footnotes show a path to deeper study.
January 24, 2023
I was totally enchanted by this book, it talks about us and the relationship we have with glamour, and the power of it. It's a quick read and I really liked how the subject is analysed, how we literally use glamour to escape from our reality or aspire to a different life.
November 26, 2018
made me feel insane and/or psychopathic
and like i should be reading more berger and didion
and like i should be reading more berger and didion
October 20, 2021
I was expecting something more technical, like her book Fabric of Civilization.
January 7, 2023
Dense and self-referential, but interesting
May 5, 2025
Pretty pictures (get a hard copy) and interesting thesis. Read her fabric book first.
January 23, 2026
Virgina Postrel reminds me of Susan Sonteg in how she breaks down what glamour means, does, and manifests itself as. Loved it.
May 1, 2014
One of the duties of our public intellectuals is to mine the culture for fresh new ways of seeing and describing the world, bringing together seemingly disparate examples and finding regularities and order in what had only been vaguely understood before. Virginia Postrel has been at this for years, and her latest work is a wonderful read that will help anyone in design, advertising, photography, publicity, or any of the arts of persuasion understand at a deeper level how this dream-making works.
When I was living in Vancouver, I had a friend — Clark Candy, a cousin of John Candy’s — who had recently moved from Toronto after a career in advertising. A motorcycle accident had crushed his knee, and during the long rehab process he decided not to go back to work in advertising, which he felt had little meaning — persuading people to buy things they did not need by trickery and slick lies, eliding ugly realities. He later went on to help produce glamorous TV productions like Once Upon a Time, so he ended up doing much the same work as he did before; perhaps if he had read this book then he might have seen more meaning in his advertising work. Mad Men‘s Don Draper is a character who creates glamours for a living, and is himself a crafted image hiding a troubled soul; but without glamour and aspiration, life would be drained of the spur to progress and self-actualization of these imagined futures.
Glamour, she writes, exists between the viewer and the viewed. It is a subjective illusion of an effortless life, a higher and better self that you might become if only you could put yourself into the picture. A glamour is a spell, like a reverie or dream of your future created by images and ideas. She points out that glamour has always existed — Homer’s epics recited in ancient Greece produced yearnings for lives of heroism and unforced grace in listeners not dissimilar to today’s comic book heroes; artists were commissioned to create paintings of idealized existences to reinforce and inspire the real models, as well as present their favored image to others.
But the enormous increase in mass-produced imagery in the last century has given glamour a new importance, as more and more high-powered images are present in even the poorest people’s lives. Like any tool of persuasion, glamour can be used for good (inspiring young people to work toward careers they might otherwise have never achieved) or ill (politicians use glamour in propaganda — Nazis, Italian fascists, and the USSR, for example.)
With a wealth of examples, the reader is able to make generalizations and follow along as she lays out a new vocabulary for discussing glamour: "Sprezzatura", the effortless grace of achievement, a stylish performance without apparent sweat or concern (which of course conceals endless practice and polishing;) "theatrical grace", the kind of glamour produced by the artifice of hiding the effort to produce it behind the stage scenery; "darkroom grace", created by editing and eliding the flaws and selection of what to leave out (as of a photo) to produce an image with the emotional power to fuel a dream unencumbered by the details of its production.
She casts her net wide in the cultural landscape and brings in examples from every part of high and low culture: Hollywood, comic book heroes, cowboys, Gibson Girls, Star Trek, Princess Di, Che Guevara, Helen of Troy and Achilles, theater, industrial design, Mad Men, and Apple. The examples and photographs are delightful and consistently entertaining.
The hardcover itself is an example: perfectly laid out, a sensual pleasure to read and feel. I rarely read anything but ebooks these days, but for this work about a primarily visual phenomenon, the hardcover is the wise choice. It’s the ideal coffee table book.
When I was living in Vancouver, I had a friend — Clark Candy, a cousin of John Candy’s — who had recently moved from Toronto after a career in advertising. A motorcycle accident had crushed his knee, and during the long rehab process he decided not to go back to work in advertising, which he felt had little meaning — persuading people to buy things they did not need by trickery and slick lies, eliding ugly realities. He later went on to help produce glamorous TV productions like Once Upon a Time, so he ended up doing much the same work as he did before; perhaps if he had read this book then he might have seen more meaning in his advertising work. Mad Men‘s Don Draper is a character who creates glamours for a living, and is himself a crafted image hiding a troubled soul; but without glamour and aspiration, life would be drained of the spur to progress and self-actualization of these imagined futures.
Glamour, she writes, exists between the viewer and the viewed. It is a subjective illusion of an effortless life, a higher and better self that you might become if only you could put yourself into the picture. A glamour is a spell, like a reverie or dream of your future created by images and ideas. She points out that glamour has always existed — Homer’s epics recited in ancient Greece produced yearnings for lives of heroism and unforced grace in listeners not dissimilar to today’s comic book heroes; artists were commissioned to create paintings of idealized existences to reinforce and inspire the real models, as well as present their favored image to others.
But the enormous increase in mass-produced imagery in the last century has given glamour a new importance, as more and more high-powered images are present in even the poorest people’s lives. Like any tool of persuasion, glamour can be used for good (inspiring young people to work toward careers they might otherwise have never achieved) or ill (politicians use glamour in propaganda — Nazis, Italian fascists, and the USSR, for example.)
With a wealth of examples, the reader is able to make generalizations and follow along as she lays out a new vocabulary for discussing glamour: "Sprezzatura", the effortless grace of achievement, a stylish performance without apparent sweat or concern (which of course conceals endless practice and polishing;) "theatrical grace", the kind of glamour produced by the artifice of hiding the effort to produce it behind the stage scenery; "darkroom grace", created by editing and eliding the flaws and selection of what to leave out (as of a photo) to produce an image with the emotional power to fuel a dream unencumbered by the details of its production.
She casts her net wide in the cultural landscape and brings in examples from every part of high and low culture: Hollywood, comic book heroes, cowboys, Gibson Girls, Star Trek, Princess Di, Che Guevara, Helen of Troy and Achilles, theater, industrial design, Mad Men, and Apple. The examples and photographs are delightful and consistently entertaining.
The hardcover itself is an example: perfectly laid out, a sensual pleasure to read and feel. I rarely read anything but ebooks these days, but for this work about a primarily visual phenomenon, the hardcover is the wise choice. It’s the ideal coffee table book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews