Are black-rimmed glasses really "arty"?

Stereotypes are kind of tricky things, aren't they? It's all well and good to be righteously outraged about them, but on the other hand, they really do speak volumes. It's interesting that in Faking It, the "experts" who attempted to convert Paul into a "real artist" placed high importance on his appearance. They gave him a haircut, bought him a new wardrobe, and even went so far as to get him some "arty" glasses.

Someone brought up in class that this importance on appearance probably had a great deal to do with Paul's own image of himself. They were almost playing on his own stereotype of an artist, in order to make him feel even more isolated and different from his usual house-painting self. I think this is a really good point, but I also think that these changes had practical implications for Paul's ability to squeak past the art critics. I think that Paul looking the part of a hip, up-and-coming artist (with short hair, black-rimmed glasses, and tight T-shirts) is less likely to arouse suspicion than Paul looking the part of a middle-aged house painter (big sturdy coat, long shaggy hair). I could see these art critics accepting him as an artist no questions asked in the former scenario, but I can see them being a little more suspicious of him in the latter.

I think Paul will be able to fool the experts. After all, just because he is new at this professional artist business doesn't mean he is a fake. His works are genuinely his, and he seems to be awfully proud of them. The only thing that he is really faking is the history of an artist. He "has a small vocabulary," as someone in the film stated. He doesn't know much about art in general, and he might have a hard time faking that in the presence of art critics.

I think as long as they don't ask him about art history questions, or contemporary artists, or basically anything that we've learned about in Art Theory so far, he will be able to fool the critics.