Why isn't there an "ethereal" a style root?

“Why isn’t there an ethereal style root?” is something I get asked constantly. The angelic essence was a revolutionary addition to McJimsey’s essence system by John Kitchener - so why not st

“Why isn’t there an ethereal style root?” is something I get asked constantly. The angelic essence was a revolutionary addition to McJimsey’s essence system by John Kitchener - it accurately captures this face type which is long but soft, something which had not yet been identified, and he noted how these suit angelic types such as long, draped fabric, shimmer, low contrast, s-shaped curves, braids and so on. Ethereal appears to be a more mature look at yin femininity - it’s ageless, wise and more subtle than your typical ingenue. I think it has a really important place in the essence system.

Route66 / Shutterstock.com

However, in terms of desire and what we want to wear, this is an aesthetic, not a root. It is true that a purely ethereal outfit looks very different to the stereotypical flower look: ruffled mini skirt, bow in hair, Peter Pan collar, ballet shoes. However, when you look at ethereal compared to - say - a mushroom x flower look - that difference is suddenly more blurred. This is because “ethereal” is not a core motivator of style, it is a set of outfit recommendations which help you to look more angelic. When we look at the motivations behind looking ethereal i.e. what kind of person might want to dress ethereal, you might use the following words:

• gentle

• mature

• thoughtful

• wise

• relaxed

But the list doesn’t go much further than that, it’s quite hard to think of other personality descriptors for an ethereal person. Furthermore, these ones I have managed to list are covered by other style roots. Those who value gentleness are most likely to be flower, those who like relaxed, natural-looking clothing are likely to have earth, those who like mature, low contrast styles are most likely to be mushroom.

Another case I have for ethereal being an aesthetic over a style root is that it can work for people with different style roots. This is common with various aesthetic where one outfit from dark academia, for example, might be worn by earth x mountain x mushroom whereas another might feel extremely flower x mountain x earth. Ethereal at its core is mushroom x flower x earth with a small, low contrast, light colour palette. You could also read it is as mushroom flower moon, mountain, flower, sun or moon flower sun and so on.

It can help to see style roots as values - someone with the sun style root might value the glitter of ethereal looks, someone with mushroom likes the simplicity of a plain white draped dress, someone with mountain might like a more elevated ethereal with long glittering earrings, someone with flower might like the silk midi skirts and floaty fabrics, someone with earth might like the long, braided hair and maxi skirts, someone with moon might like the celestial elements. The style of “ethereal” is not distinctive enough from the other style roots to stand alone. Yes, you can easily assign various materials to the concept of the ethereal, whether it be “crystal”, “star” etc but this isn’t enough to make it a distinct style root.

There was a time when I briefly considered making ethereal into a style root, but the more I thought about the more I realised it's less a distinct core underpinning of personal style, and more of a “look” you can aspire to.

What’s new

💭 YouTube

---

What did you think about today’s newsletter? Let me know in the comments below ⬇️

---

If you liked this post, you will like…