How do we 'read' appearances?

The process of how we deconstruct the appearances of others has always fascinated me. A few months ago, I came across a wonderful quote which likened the process of reading a book to that of reading the physical appearance of a person.

"[Woolf] explores the way reading - whether the reading of texts or the semiotic reading of other people from their appearance - involves bridging or otherwise negotiating gaps in information, reconstructing from hints, 'not exactly what is said, nor yet entirely what is done' (Jacob's Room 24) to create something of greater consistency, of greater constancy, in the process of 'making a whole'" Reading Virginia Woolf, Julia Briggs

Briggs states that Woolf was often concerned 'to pursue analogies between the process of "reading people" and reading texts'. Language comes in a variety of forms, and clothing is indeed one of them. As Frances Corner, Head of London College of Fashion and author of Why Fashion Matters outlines in her introduction, "Fashion matters. To the economy, to society, and to each of us personally. Faster than anything else, what we wear tells the story of who we are - or who we want to be. Fashion is the most immediate and intimate form of self-expression."

It is this immediacy that is significant and largely responsible for our relentless enchantment with fashion as a society. We communicate who we are through two forms of communication - verbal and visual. The first takes time and can sometimes be ineffectual in expressing what we really mean. Communicating who we are as a person through what we wear may take time, too, but is often much faster and more expressive than anything we choose to say. 

The main reason for the different consequences of these opposing types of communication lies in the spheres in which they inhabit. Our thoughts, ideas and words are very much concealed - they reside in the private sphere. By contrast, what we wear and how we present ourselves to society is very much a public matter. When we talk to people, we are letting them into our personal space to enter a dialogue, a conversation with them; we maintain some element of control over this. Getting dressed in the morning becomes more than a simple act of putting on clothes, however. We knowingly construct our appearances with the awareness that the final product, that is the self that we create, will be at the mercy of public consumption. The gazes and glances of others are intrusive and cannot be controlled. The boundaries are imperceptible, perhaps even non-existent. It is almost as if we are in a relentless, silent conversation with those around us, regardless of whether we actively enter a verbal exchange of speech with them.

Returning to Brigg's quote of the semiotic reading of other people from their appearance, Woolf's statement of 'not exactly what is said, nor yet entirely what is done' (Jacob's Room 24) in relation to clothing highlights an analogy I've been considering more and more recently. The cliche of a 'statement piece of clothing' or outfit itself is bandied about a lot, but there is more truth to this than meets the eye. Each item of clothing we wear is like a silent, unspoken word. Verbally or vocally, it says nothing; but visually, it conveys all manner of meaning.

Several questions still whirl around my mind, unanswered.

• How do we give meaning to these visual cues? 
• What is the effect of sewing on how both meaning and integrity are infused in the finished garment?
•  Is it possible to communicate a visually authentic representation of yourself if you are simply consuming given articles of clothing in their whole and complete form?
• Where does the process of creative input begin when deciding on an outfit - in the act of creating and constructing each individual piece of clothing, or by the consumption and co-ordination of different garments in their finished form? 

And finally... am I simply over-thinking things? Should I just let clothes be clothes?!