#11 1600 - 1620 c.e.

Good Queen Bess when she was FINALLY old
enough to stop wearing her red-haired wigs.

In 1600 Elizabeth was still queen though she was pretty old.   She died in 1603.   I could talk about her all day but I'm really trying not to. Instead you can read a neat article about her influence on fashion:

http://www.elizabethancostume.net/influence.html

Another cool thing to think about is the development of second hand clothing stores.   People living in London didn't have sheep to shear for wool or the room to keep their own looms so everyone bought their clothing.   Here is a really nice little article about that:

http://www.extremecostuming.com/articles/secondhandclothes.html

Another change was the evolution of the French Farthingale, or bum roll

this

into the wheel farthingale.

From this

to this.

When I see this I immediately think about this:

Tutu!

but that's probably because I worked for the Ft.Worth/Dallas Ballet, and ran costumes for small dance companies in Salt Lake.  I looked it up and ballet did began to become more popular/prevalent in the 1560's.  Of course it was only for the rich and royal, and the dancing style was unique to each country, but here is what some dancers looked like:

Tutus for everyone!

So, that's fun but I can't find any proof that the classical tutu today is in any way related to the wheel farthingale of 1600.   These people here say that the classical tutu has it's shape "So the dancers cannot see their legs, which makes their technical work very difficult, a kind of “self inflicted degree of impossibility.”"

This is a better reason than the one I made up while working in ballet.  I always joked that tutus were so large and disk-shaped in order to discourage the dancers in performance from absent-mindedly doing this:

If you've ever spent a substantial amount of time leaping and bending while wearing a leotard, that particular maneuver will not be unknown to you.

Anyway, if you want to look at tutus, here's a bunch of photos.

http://www.pettipond.com/swan/history.htm

Right.  Now back to the wheel farthingale.  The Elizabethian era marks the beginning of the arms race that is fashion.   And when it came to farthingales or ruffs, the mantra became "Anything you can do, I can do bigger!"

Big

Bigger

Biggest!

 Ruffs were sort of the same way.

Fluffy

Fluffier

Fluffiest!

 In fact, ruffs got so silly that some royalty had spoons with 2' handles made so they could eat their soup.   Since this is ridiculous, some women, particullarly unmarried ladies, opened up the ruff though obviously the same competition was in effect.

This lady was Queen Elizabeth's first/best/most favored lady in waiting.
Count the brooches in her hair, on her ruff, and on her dress and write it down. It will
be on the test.  

 It would be easy to think poorly of all these people for spending so much time and effort on competing with each other.  And, in fact, Puritan ministers DID think poorly of it and told everyone. There's quite a lot to read so I will give you the link and you can check it out.

http://www.covenanter.org/Attire/perkinsapparel.htm

Some of what William Perkins says there is fine but he keeps throwing in the idea Fourthly, it (clothing) must be answerable to our estate and dignity, for distinction of order and degree in the societies of men. This use of attire stands by the very ordinance of God; who, as he hath not sorted all men to all places, so he will have men to fit themselves and their attire, to the quality of their proper places, to put a difference between themselves and others.

By this logic, kings, nobility, and upper-class merchants are doing exactly what God wants them to do - make sure everyone knows that they are better than everyone else.

"Really?"

Yeah....  Basically, the Puritan ethos was of simplicity and comeliness but that didn't mean they wore black all the time (black dye is really expensive) or that they didn't wear patterns or embroidery.   They wore a lot of the same stuff everyone else did, they just didn't cover themselves with pearls and gold trim.    All of this is fine.  Humans have been human throughout history and even today we make a lot of unfortunate fashion decisions based on competetion.

So, what were the men wearing?  Well, here is a painting of Sir Walter Raleigh and his son from 1602.

Here Sir Walter is wearing a white doublet, a ruff, a gold embroidered jerkin, paned trunk hose, stockings, and cannions, which are basically knee wraps bewween the end of his pants and the beginning of his socks.   His son is wearing pants which are called "loose slops" and a folded collar which is THE up and coming fashion.   This distinction between old school and new in a very obvious generational presentation is why I love this painting.  We are approching an era known as the Cavalier or the Baroque which I like.  Probably because the stupid fake codpiece has finally fallen out of fashion.

But, more on Cavalier next week.   To finish up this week I want to talk about waistlines.   With a little thought one can tell what era a lady's dress is from simply by where her waist is.   But, to be able to track this, you have to actually know what a waist is.  Here's a chart.

The waist is the narrowest part of the body between the bottom of the rib cage and the top of the hip bone.   This is termed the "natural waist" and it never moves.   The waistline in clothing, however, fluxuates quite a bit between the ribcage and the hip and is determined by what is in fashion.   A clear example of this is the Empire style of the 1800's

where the "waistline" is right under the bust and the Flapper syle of the 1920's

where the "waistline" is somewhere around the hips.

I mention this because I hope you will start noticing the waistlines as we move on and begin to create a mental catalogue of where they are in each era.  Then, when you see a painting or photo from any era, you will be able to know when it was made just by where the dress sits on the body.

Quiz time!

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1alSJftviibttgyaDxDUF4SwA5ARIpLC-pgFwLh3mrIs/viewform

#10 - Some Basic Concepts

In my defense, this dress is kind of mesmerizing. Just look at
all the STUFF!!

This post is late because:

1. I was obsessing over a different project
2. I was reluctant to stop talking about Queen Elizabeth since I think she's super cool, and
3. I couldn't figure out why fashion in this era had changed so much and what it meant.


So, really, I don't have an excuse at all.  But, with all the thinking and obsessing I did, I realized that I haven't covered some abstract ideas which might be very helpful in thinking about fashion, history, and the people who make all of it.  That is what we will be discussing today.   Since it's a late post, there will be a test but there won't be any assignments so just read and think and we will get back to the work next week.






I want to discuss is what exactly fashion/clothing IS.   I mean, yes, it's things you put on your body, but why does it look like anything other than this?

"Flexable, comfortable, adaptable, and it matches my
hair!  Perfect!"

Or, if you need sleeves, this:

I'm pretty sure this photo is sillier than the other one.  I also
think this man might have done steriods at some point in his life.

Or, honestly, why aren't we all wearing this?

Really, what's the point of all this fashion stuff?  I mean, it's just clothes.  Why are we even talking about it?

Well, there is a duality to clothing which combines to make a very interesting visual language.  First of all, clothing is something people MAKE.  And humans, when they make stuff, tend to express themselves in the act of creation.  That's what art is, basically.  Creation which communicates.

No, really, that's what art is.  I promise.
Painting by James W. Johnson

People make clothes and in the act of creating them they tell us what they think the body should look like, what they think is interesting, what they value, and whether or not there is such a thing as too many rhinestones.

That answer to that question apparently  is "no".

So, a lot of high fashion (i.e. the stuff you see on fashion runways) is for sale the same way paintings or sculptures are for sale.  It's a piece of art which happens to be wearable.  Here is some art:

Any of that stuff look familiar?   This is from the Fall 2013 Ready To Wear Collection by Alexander McQueen.  I know you can't see it very closely, but all the white designs on the black dresses are made by individually stitched pearls.  There is an INSANE amound of detail and work put into making dresses which look a lot like Elizabeth I.

Now, obviously you aren't going to pick up some milk at Smiths wearing a dress like this.  Head baskets will not be the new fashion trend of the fall.  Ruffs won't make a sudden and surprising burst into everyone's daily beauty routine.  Viewing these garments as just stuff to wear means you are missing the art of them, and the beauty.  To really appreciate them one should just look at them like you would a painting, or a movie.   Just listen to what your internal response to them is.  Think about how the shapes remind you of other stuff.   Look at how the different lines and curves are composed.  Notice what historical or social ideas you bring with you when seeing the clothing.  See if you can tell what the values of the object are, and if they bump against or meet up with yours.  Then, when you've done all that, just look at it again 'cause this stuff is PRETTY!

All that Battenburg lace is made by hand.

ALL of it

And every single pearl is stiched onto leather by hand

So, that's your art apprciation for the day.  Make sure you take a minute and really look because I will ask you questions about this on your quiz.

I said fashion is dualistic in nature.  If the first part is individual expression, the second part is social signaling.  Social signaling is the part of fashion we normally think of first.  It's the reason we have shows like "What Not To Wear", feel comfortable criticizing other people's fashion choices, and worry about what other people will think of us when we get dressed.  (Well, some people worry.  You may not.)

"I, too, am not worried about what others think
because if they do think, they know I am AWESOME!"

When we wear clothes, we visually tell others about ourselves.  I use the word "signal" because clothing can be like a giant flashing light at a railroad stop, or like a little blue LED light on your phone.  All of it means something but some stuff won't be noticed unless you pay attention.

So, sometimes people wear clothing to get attention.

"This is what Google Glasses SHOULD have looked like"

"I paid a lot for this blanket so make sure you see that it's a Louis Vitton!"

"We make poor choices"

I see London, I see France..

"This is my "tough guy" disguise. Is it working??"

 This is okay.  The orange sweatshirt above tells us that that this woman isn't afraid to wear loud colors, likes being looked at, is comfortable paying $200+ dollars for a sweatshirt that says KINZO on it, likes chunky pseudo-ethnic matching accessories, and probably thinks it's slightly funny/cool/ironic to be wearing an expensive sweatshirt which mimics something old ladies buy at Wal-Mart.

You know, like this.

Hipsters wandering the streets during New York Fashion Week aren't the only people who do this, obviously.  Folks have done this for a long long time.

"what?"

Showing off and getting attention is a valid use of clothing.  Everyone needs attention and social approval.  Clothing is a way to get that.  Also, sometimes, it can get you a boyfriend/girlfriend.  Or so I've been told. 

Clothing also displays status.  By choosing what we wear we show how important we think we are or how much money we have.  This guy looks rich.

This guy does not.

Both of the above outfits are from designers and both are expensive. The shape of the clothing we associate with status and power is stronger, culturally, for the guy in the sport jacket than for the dude in the headband, so the actual material used or cost doesn't hit us unless we look closely.  Well, and the painty hands might also affect your judgement a bit...

But, we already knew that clothing communicates status and wealth.  There wouldn't have been sumptuary laws invented in the past if folks in power didn't want to be visably different from those persons poorer or "lower" than them.

What about people who aren't giant peacocks?  What about people who just wear clothing they like, are comfortable in, or think looks nice?

Well, that's where (1) the personal artistic expression of the clothing designer combines with (2)social signaling and turns into (3)personal expression by the person WEARING the clothes.  So if you choose to wear something, you are really choosing to support a certain set of values, emphasize specific physical features, demonstrate your status within the culture you live in, express your preferences for colors or fabrics, and living within the movement constraints the clothing may or may not have.  [If you design/make your own clothing you kind of blend items (1) and (3) together.  But item (1) is only completely removed if you actually design/make your own fabric too.]

All of that seems like a lot but we do it without thinking.  It's kind of like breathing.  It's only complex if we stop to think about it.

I think this is a good place to stop.  Remind me to discuss sillouette and waistlines later.  But, for now,
your test!

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1fNmK23yvxKw3rOnW5PRQGFgTWuLcTREI6-C97Vf4clM/viewform