Lifestyle choices

Every Sunday morning, for as long as I have lived in LA, I have kept the same ritual: I wake up, get my coffee from Starbucks, and read the New York Times online. I always skip immediately to the Styles section, read every single article in it, and only then go back and look at what else might have made news that morning.

For the last year or so, I have started doing the same thing with the LA Times. I skip immediately to the Image section, read every single article, and then go back and read whatever else might catch my eye.

And I realized today that the names of these two sections exemplify an elusive difference between both cities I have always noticed but never quite nailed down.

From Dictionary.com:

Style - (noun) - a particular kind, sort, or type, as with reference to form, appearance, or character; a particular, distinctive, or characteristic mode of action or manner of acting; an elegant, fashionable, or luxurious mode of living; the way in which something is said, done, expressed, or performed.

Image - (noun) - a mental representation, idea, conception; the general or public perception of a company, public figure, etc., esp. as achieved by careful calculation aimed at creating widespread goodwill.

Style, while subjective, is concrete. You either have it or you don't. It's a tangible, physical thing, something that can be measured and judged. You know it when you see it. Most of us covet it.

Image is an imaginary thing, only in the mind. Anyone can create one, everyone has one, and therefore, we all look down on the idea of it.

People in New York are focused on style. People in LA are concerned about their image.

That's not to say that no one in LA has style, or thinks about style or cares about style. But they think of style in terms of how it relates to their image. What will style do for me?

And of course, plenty of New Yorkers are image-conscious. But its such an anonymous town, I don't think too many people leave the house as concerned about perception as what brand of shoes they are wearing. New Jimmy Choos or kicked-around Chuck Taylors, it doesn't matter, so long as there's a soul behind the sole.

Style, in LA, is manufactured by stylists, working hard to create just the right image. New York stylists are typically known for their editorial work, not creating an "image" as much of a story that's representative of something specific, a distinctive expression of the artist at hand

An image could vanish faster than it was built. Style, even when questionable, is habitual, a permanent stain.

And I'm not trying to imply that one is necessarily better than the other. I think the resounding argument would vote in favor of New York, that "style" is a legitimate and worthy thing to aspire to, whereas "image" is fleeting and shallow. New York is real, legitimately gritty; LA is a footprint, a composite of its environment, La La Land.

But, for someone who has always lacked an inherent style or at least the desire to conform to one, I think there is something kind of freeing about living in a city that doesn't dictate a sartorial standard and instead gives you some control over your inevitable interpretation.