Portrait of a Man
What does it truly mean to "look like a man," and does that question even matter?
Hello everyone! You can breathe a sigh of relief—today’s newsletter is not another gift guide. Instead, we’re diving back into style with plenty of outfit ideas and inspiration, so you might want to open this in the app or view the full email to take it all in!
That said, if you’re still on the hunt for gifting ideas, I’ve got you covered. I’ve written guides featuring fashion and jewelry picks, one covering beauty, home, and a touch of travel, another all about secondhand treasures, and one highlights certain BF/CM deals . (Oh, and I even did one for The New York Times! :) )
As an extra gift for you all, I’m running a promotion on annual memberships (40% off)! Becoming a paid subscriber gives you access to the full newsletter archive, exclusive editions, and full episodes of Lunch Break (yes, the podcast is making a comeback—promise!). If you’ve been enjoying the newsletter and want to support the work that goes into creating it, now’s the perfect time to join.
Now enough with the logistics onto the meat and potatoes!
I’m going to break the fourth wall for a moment: when it came to writing this, I hit a bit of a wall (no pun intended, though I’ll admit, it’s fitting!). The initial concept for this piece revolved around my relationship with menswear and was intended to lead into a deeper exploration of a question I’ve been sitting with for quite some time: What does a man look like?
To find inspiration, I flipped through Armani’s Images of Man (which has practically become my fall bible), Versace’s Men Without Ties, and Richard Martin and Harold Koda’s Jocks and Nerds (incidentally, they also authored Images of Man). I also revisited a March 1995 Vogue article by Julia Reed titled Portrait of a Lady. In it, Reed discusses a dramatic shift in the design landscape of the time, as fashion moved away from the disheveled grunge aesthetic toward the polished elegance of the "ladies who lunch" crowd. She also touches on the growing desire of the era to not just be wealthy but to look the part as well.
Despite all my research and countless drafts, I kept circling back to something Nick said when I asked him, “What does a man look like?” His response was simple: “Isn’t that an archaic question?” We debated the topic for about 20 minutes. Even though I agreed with him, I hoped that debating him would shed more light on my idea. Instead, I arrived at the conclusion that, yes, the question does feel outdated.
As I tried to organize my thoughts, I found myself asking a different question: What was my intent in exploring this idea in the first place? Initially, I had planned to style looks inspired by the 12 archetypes discussed in Jocks and Nerds. And while traces of that concept can still be seen in a few outfits, the more I tried to adhere to those guidelines, the more it felt like I was putting on a costume rather than creating something authentic.
In Nicole Rudolph’s video “Fashion Doesn’t Matter (like it used to),” she discusses how fashion no longer functions as it once did: as a marker of wealth or a tool for signaling group identity. She attributes this shift to the overwhelming access we now have to clothing and styles, which has also rendered traditional trend cycles redundant—things move in and out of fashion too quickly to chart in the traditional sense (I would also add. in the disappearance of the subculture).
While I agree with much of Rudolph’s perspective, I slightly disagree with her point about clothing no longer being used to signal belonging to a group. If anything, the endless "-corification" of everything—the constant need to categorize identities and pair them with specific aesthetics—proves that we’re still drawn to labels and tribes. Perhaps, as a society, we rely on categorization because it feels easier than embracing the ambiguity of the gray areas.
For much of my life, I’ve felt my style was in conflict with my gender. While I've always identified as a man, the concept of dressing or presenting myself in a traditionally “masculine” way has never truly resonated with me. So when I found myself drawn to pieces often labeled as more "masculine"—like oxfords and tailored suits—I couldn’t help but worry that I was losing touch with my sense of self. This was another intent for this piece: to explore what the question of "the look of a man" truly means to me.
Thankfully, that fear was short-lived. As I styled these looks, I realized that the essence of "the look of a man" hasn’t really changed for me—despite my occasional preference for investing in a new blazer over a dress. Furthermore, after talking to a few people, I realized that these impulses weren’t a betrayal of my style but a natural evolution. Style, after all, is a living, breathing thing—it needs stimulation to grow and mature. To reject these instincts would have hindered my own growth.
Perhaps the most important thing any of us can do today is to craft a look—and a life—that feels authentically our own, even in a world still obsessed with appearances and labels. The real question isn’t just what we look like, but whether we have the courage to define ourselves on our own terms.
I’m interested to hear your thoughts! Let me know what you think in the comment section. Talk to you all soon!
XX
JJ
I may earn some commission if you make a purchase through one of the links above.
Follow me on Instagram here!
I agree with the reader above: thank you for not publishing a gift guide. I’m so sick of them already.
Jalil your outfits are absolutely stunning. I just look at them and admire how perfect each one is down to the tiniest detail.
This resonated for me: “Perhaps the most important thing any of us can do today is to craft a look—and a life—that feels authentically our own, even in a world still obsessed with appearances and labels.”
Here’s to another year of crafting impeccable luxe that are authentic and wonderful! 💜
I love these incredible and inspiring looks, and also your thoughtful probing of so many rich, big ideas. I’m so grateful for your work and point of view.