Is it possible to describe who we are in just three words? Nothing is more satisfying and lucrative, according to a recent TikTok craze. According to the founders of TikTok, we should approach fashion as if we were inside a video game in order to reduce the amount of time spent shopping and eliminate any confusion throughout the decision-making process. Take “The Sims” as an example: during the creation stage, we select the primary personality traits after modeling the physical characteristics (maximum three). The computer will then recommend a number of pre-set costumes that match our character’s attitude based on our selections: an unrepentant romantic? A pink miniskirt and a floral blouse are shown here. Do you enjoy provoking others? Try sporting bralettes, stiletto heels, and this black leather nail. What if your level of laziness is at its highest? You should avoid wearing shoes and choose to wear a baggy polo shirt and a pair of Bermuda shorts.
And that’s the aim of fashion expert Allison Bornstein, who has just rediscoverd herself as a creator on TikTok, where she showcases advise and style recommendations based on this system. Bornstein has worked with celebrities like Camille Rowe and Katie Holems. By separating their favorite ensembles and designating them as “evergreen” in a set that encompasses all the clothing they cannot live without, Bornstein aims to characterize the style of anybody who comes to her using three symbolic adjectives, starting with celebrities. However, “labeling” is one of the easiest and fastest things we can do. For example, if we think of Lady Gaga, the first adjectives that come to mind are “spectacular,” “creative,” and “transformist.”
The “Three Words Method” might be the perfect method to avoid becoming lost in the whirlwind of the “-core” of the moment and to maintain firmly the stylistic identity that we have carefully developed over the years for ourselves in the era of erratic trends and last-minute fashions.
Additionally, it could inspire us to reframe modern trends in a fresh, personal way. If “sporty,” “colored,” and “fun” are the three aesthetic descriptors we’ve given ourselves, then our approach to the normcore trend might be enhanced by unique elements, such as choosing cartoon patterns over plain t-shirts or sweatpants over jeans. When you consider that what one person may perceive as “clever” or “lazy,” for another, it can take on entirely other folds, the chance of being trivial is minimized. Preppy sweaters might be considered “classic” or “childish,” leather jackets can be considered punk clothing while also having ties to the motorcycle community, and so on.
In actuality, the possibility of displaying a unique, custom-made look for us every day doesn’t sound all that bad. With only three words at our disposal, however, we run the risk of being constrained by a concept that changes its meaning with each fresh style suggestion that the fashion industry makes. We are constantly being inundated with new trends via social media, celebrities, and fashion events, which go far beyond the idea of sticking to one term.Because of this, there will always be women like Emily Ratajkowski, who are inextricably linked to the idea of sexiness for every outfit they choose to flaunt, as well as famous people like Brad Pitt, who can switch between various personas in the course of a single year, including dad ready for a fishing trip, wild bohemian, scruffy and disheveled rock star, elegant Hollywood actor, and unscrupulous cowboy to champion of genderless fashion.And it’s because of multifaceted personalities like his that we have been gradually doing away with fashion stereotypes for a few decades now, trying to accept the idea that everyone can dress however they like, even just according to their daily mood, without having to feel bound by a preconception that others – or themselves – are used to attributing to him. The “Three Words Method” can therefore appear to be the ideal way to organize our wardrobe at first, but it may eventually turn out to be “simplistic,” “superficial,” and “reductive.” And that’s not what we want, is it?