|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2009 5:27:44 GMT
Bixa here, introducing a new thread. My comments are appearing in Kerouac2's post since his was merged here after this one was created.
We have a red carpet thread that gives us free rein to gawk at and snark about fashion extremes and the celebrities strutting their stuff on the red carpet. But what about other fashion, something closer to home?
"Fashion" can be anything, from runway clothing that will eventually be toned down and become mainstream to something like punk that arises out of a time and its political/socio-economic mood. This of course covers not only what men and women wear, but how they wear it and how we think about it.
I suppose "fashion" can be other elements of culture, too -- ways of speaking, for instance. We'll just see where the discussion takes us.kerouac2 wrote:One of the most popular fashion accessories of the Middle Ages was the codpiece – a flap or pouch that attached to the front of the crotch of men's trousers and accentuated it in such a way as to emphasize or exaggerate the genitals. They were stuffed with sawdust or cloth and held closed by string ties, buttons, or other methods. The crotch was often extremely large or gave the idea of an erect penis. The word, codpiece, comes from the Middle English word, cod, which means scrotum. Another symbol of virility in fashion was a style of shoe called the poulaine. These were long, pointy-toed shoes, that were also meant to suggest the size of the wearer’s penis – the longer point, the more virile the man. Codpieces and poulaines are frequently seen in the paintings of the Dutch artist, Pieter Breugel. There is a portrait of Henry VIII, one of the great “fashion horses” of the later Middle Ages, wearing both. Understandably, the Church did not appreciate these articles of clothing, calling them “fashions of the devil.” Frankly I can really imagine this sort of thing coming back in fashion some day, but probably without sawdust.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Apr 23, 2009 20:40:39 GMT
I can't remember where I read this, but it was about bullfighters and their masculine display in their satin pants. Apparently a neophyte toreador was crestfallen because the more experienced bullfighters looked so much more manly in their suits of light. Finally one took pity and explained that they were all padded, with the further hint that a sanitary napkin provided the most realistic bulge.
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Apr 23, 2009 21:34:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jul 17, 2009 13:55:42 GMT
This is a wonderful look at the work of Lillian Bassman, who abandoned her fashion photography 40 years ago, only to reassess and rework it recently. Bassman herself is a fascinating figure.
|
|
|
Post by cigalechanta on Jul 17, 2009 18:53:36 GMT
there's an article about her in the Ny Times
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jul 17, 2009 22:59:27 GMT
Cigelachanta ~~ if you click on the words "wonderful look" in my post, you'll be taken to the NYTimes article and the slideshow.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Jul 27, 2009 12:26:33 GMT
Those are lovely and I'm glad the artist has salvaged her work, but I don't find her view of womanhood entirely admirable.
I'm decades younger than she are and for me, the social and cultural movements of the late 60s lifted stifling constrictions on women, including "armour" undergarments, deep inequality and many many other restraints. The "costume" was just a fad, but the impact has been lasting. No going back to a time when psychotherapy's aim is to convince doubting women to procreate like everyone else.
I found this comment insightful: 12. joannchartier Oregon July 17th, 2009 11:30 am Though she has 30 years on me, I too still work in my studio nearly every day pushing the boundaries of my art -- and THAT is what the "sexual revolution' of the 60s gave me -- not the hippie dippie excess of teenagers but the OPPORTUNITY to do my work my way. Bassman appears here as a woman who thinks, and stands on her own to present her picture of "femininity" for the rest of us to absorb. Thanks for the article but please expand your own vision of women and their work.
Some of the other commentors went overboard and don't allow for the exploration of beauty (male or female) in their feminist outlook - pity, that - but Joann Chartier, who is of my cohort, expressed the deep malaise this story makes me feel.
|
|
|
Post by cigalechanta on Jul 27, 2009 19:00:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Jul 27, 2009 19:50:49 GMT
Oh, I'd love to see that. There are also many worthwhile exhibits at the V&A in London.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jul 28, 2009 3:12:43 GMT
I have to disagree with the views of Lillian Bassman presented in Reply #3.
Based on the article, at least, she left fashion photography not because she objected to the changes of the times, but to the personality cult of the models.
This was a woman who made a career in what was a man's world when she started out. She took the commercial projects she was given and managed to make them into art. If you go to page one of the article and look at the image that starts the slide show -- the one of the woman's head reflected in the mirror -- it's obvious that any of her work can be viewed as photography for photography's sake. So, her feeling that the models of the mid-sixties were dictatorial prima donnas would preclude her using them strictly as artists' models, as she'd been doing earlier.
To have her abandoned work fetched forth by a fellow artist and to look at it again and see the artistic value there hardly brands her as a woman with a constricted view of femininity.
I find the comment by Joanne Chartier arrogant and short-sighted. Her harsh judgment of Ms. Bassman and parallel smug vision of herself as emancipated from the past displays a certain ignorance of 20th century history.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2009 18:57:29 GMT
I don't agree with everything listed here, but most of it is accurate. What styles do you think should never have been seen? (My main disagreement is with the Speedo. The name alone says why it exists, and weird morality problems concerning the human body on a certain continent seem to dictate what is wrong with it. The same people seem to have a problem with being naked at the beach.)
|
|
|
Post by livaco on Aug 12, 2009 20:54:04 GMT
There are certain things on that list that I can remember thinking were so cool back in the day that I really have a hard time not having a soft spot for in my mind. In that category would be the rat-tail and the rolled up blazers and even the mullet (think Bono in the early eighties).
Others, like hammer pants, always looked stupid imo...
I agree with k2 about Speedos. They're just practical for swimming.
I have very mixed feelings about socks with sandals. I do think they look stupid, especially white socks. But on a purely practical level I wish I could wear them out in public. I wear sandals a lot on summer days but when it gets to be evening or if I go into somewhere with cold air-conditioning I get cold feet! It sure would be practical to be able to carry a pair of socks to put on. (I'll admit I have done it when I am wearing long pants, or when I'm watching a movie in a cinema so noone will notice anyway.)
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Aug 12, 2009 22:07:26 GMT
Mullets at one time were simply a style - late 1970s, I think, and not all variations on the look are as trashy as the guy with the very short front and very long rear. We called them "hockey hair" or "coupe Longueuil" in French - they were popular among hockey players.
At least they didn't show the speedo on a guy with a huge beer-belly, as is usually done.
Tracksuits is a matter of wearing something out of place. And comb-overs have never been fashionable. But it is hard for guys to know how to style their hair when they are thinning on top. I don't like the current trend for anyone balding to shave all their hair off either - it can look very militaristic or even skinheadish.
|
|
|
Post by traveler63 on Aug 12, 2009 22:09:58 GMT
Oh, K2, yes I agree. None of the one listed were very good in my opinion. But then I am an old fogey I guess. I always thought Speedos were like leggins for women. NO!!! for the majority.
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Aug 13, 2009 1:47:08 GMT
Do you mean leggings alone, in lieu of trousers, or leggings under skirts?
I definitely wear the latter (bloody cold here, though it is about 33c as I write). I don't like leggings alone even on slim young girls, unless they are doing sport. It looks sort of cheap.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 13, 2009 3:30:10 GMT
I don't agree with lots of their comments. What's wrong with speedos or shorter shorts? Also, the kid they show with the neon clothes is just being young and having fun. He looks kind of cute in his loud togs.
And a couple of those things never made it into the mainstream as far as I know. I've never seen anything except ad hoc versions of what they're calling the "Canadian tuxedo", and emphatically have never seen strapless for men.
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Aug 13, 2009 3:48:29 GMT
I don't see anything wrong with turtlenecks either.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2009 10:48:07 GMT
I wear socks(never white) with sandals and long pants in cooler weather here,occasionally will roll up the sleeves of a linen or cotton blazer (not that far),and am very fond of turtlenecks although not those polyester looking rolled down looking ones. Short shorts can be pulled off just fine providing one has the body for them and in the right situation as shorts were originally intended. I agree with lagatta about the mullet being a poor representation and bixa about the neon wear for the youngster. Sweater vests of the button down style are fine by me as well. I can't believe they have comb overs even listed as a "style". Can you imagine telling someone with a comb over,"I like your new hair style". ? Whoops!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2009 17:05:59 GMT
I used to wear turtlenecks, but I absolutely cannot imagine ever wearing one again. That is perhaps because my body is perpetually overheated. I am the last person to wear a jacket when autumn arrives and the first person to take it off at the beginning of spring, causing general consternation in both instances.
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Aug 13, 2009 21:28:36 GMT
I disagree with turtlenecks. They do make me feel claustrophobic, but I like the look and it is classic for men or women. Not those cheap polyester ones in the photo.
A strapless dress can look devastatingly beautiful on the right body.
|
|
|
Post by bazfaz on Aug 13, 2009 21:38:28 GMT
Jazz, that strapless dress just doesn't suit me. I think it clashes with the socks I wear with my sandals.
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Aug 13, 2009 21:48:49 GMT
Baz, ;D....err, maybe just wear a longer dress? Study Grace,
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 13, 2009 23:04:48 GMT
I think the strapless no-no was to apply to the men's "fashions" at the end of the list.
Baz, don't you know you're supposed to use sock garters when in a strapless formal?
|
|
|
Post by Jazz on Aug 13, 2009 23:33:33 GMT
Oops, you're right. I scanned the photos too quickly! Strapless for men? NO.
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Aug 14, 2009 2:49:52 GMT
Jazz, that strapless dress just doesn't suit me. I think it clashes with the socks I wear with my sandals. Good one, Baz! I used to have just one turtleneck sweater at any given time, it was a thick- knit and I wore it instead of a jacket, it was that warm. I don't liketo wear the thin ones either though one made of lambswool worn under a sports coat can give you that intellectual look that is popular with young university students who spend too much time in jazz bars.
|
|
|
Post by tigronette on Aug 14, 2009 7:00:47 GMT
My most ridiculous style phase was inflicted on those around me when I was 1 4 or 15 was 'baggy' style (don't ask). To that effect, I had a purple paisley sweatshirt, a purple paisley shirt, lemon yellow baggy dungarees and very very baggy jeans (pastel coloured trainers and bowel cut to complete the look).
On a skinny, deathly pale shy adolescent girl this all looked just great...
(had i been born a few years earlier, I'd have been a goth and that might have been less pathetic)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2009 10:52:47 GMT
Even though cargo pants seem to have mostly disappeared from civilised areas, I have noticed that cargo shorts still seem to be a major summer affliction. How could people possibly need 18 pockets on a pair of shorts?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2009 11:13:12 GMT
They are great to garden in although, the one or two pairs I have don't have 18 pockets,more like 6.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Aug 14, 2009 15:41:38 GMT
I don't know if this should go in pet peeve or here, but I think putting pockets on women's blouses is grotesque. They're called "breast pockets", right? Okay for men, who can stick ball point pens, cigarette packs, etc. on their flat chests, but women have breasts under those breast pockets. I've even seen pockets on nightgowns and p.j.s. Maybe they're for people who smoke in bed.
|
|
|
Post by livaco on Aug 14, 2009 16:38:11 GMT
(pastel coloured trainers and bowel cut to complete the look). tigronette, I think you meant "bowl" cut, I can't imagine what a "bowel" cut would be !!??!!
|
|