Mary-Kate Olsen is very deserving of her style-icon status. Everything she wears oozes style. She is so chic it makes me jealous.
Cheryl Cole on the other-hand, the woman who is hailed as a style icon by most of Britain, is in my opinion far from it. I can accept that she may be a fashion icon, although personally I think the term trend-follower fits better, but comparing the photos of her to those of MK, the difference between style and fashion should (I hope) be apparent.
It does not matter that those photos of Mary-Kate are not recent, she looks amazing, and if we were to look at these photos 10 years down the line we would still think she would. On the contrary, Cheryl's look will be outdated as soon as next season. Colour blocking will come and go,body con for the most-part already has, and the jeans,top and aviator combo is so overdone.
Do you see where I'm going? Yes that's right, the key difference between style and fashion is that style is timeless. I also find that elegant is a very fitting description of style. You may not necessarily like the look, but you will not be able to deny that the person wearing it looks good and in 10 years time, upon seeing the same look again you will not cringe that someone dared to wear it, nor will it end up on the "what were you thinking" pages in Heat.
That is not to say that we shouldn't enjoy fashion, we most definitely should, but just because topshop are selling leather jackets with a black furry collar doesn't mean you won't live to regret the purchase. Trends are so last season, but that is another rant for another day, so for now i leave you with these excellent examples of timeless vs times gone by (or soon to be gone).
and the beautiful.