There comes a time in every child's life when it is appropriate (and the child is mature enough) to sit down and have an open, honest, frank discussion. That's right. I am going to talk about: Industrialization Colonialism or Imperialism and Nationalism I know, I know, it's awkward and uncomfortable for everyone and if you have questions you should totally take them to your parents. But I feel it's important to talk about these ideas, especially since they came of age during the Victorian Era and they are still impacting us today. The Victorian Era, or the years 1837 to 1901, is my least favorite time period in fashion. Ever. I would rather write two more lectures on codpieces than explain the Victorians because I feel they were tacky stratified know-it-alls. However, there really isn't anything (good) to say about codpieces and a LOT happened in the 64 years Vicky reigned so I'd better just knuckle down and get to it. Also, the fact that you might have been uncomfortable because you thought I was going to talk about sex is another little cultural gift from the Victorians. "You're welcome." Now, you might have been reluctant to click the hyperlinks above and read about these things. It would behoove you to do that so let's pretend you actually did and now go to a video about the Industrial Revolution (because I'm fairly sure you didn't read anything.) That wasn't so bad, right? Thanks to cheap coal, now the British have a massive technological edge on the rest of the world. Let's see what they do with it: Yes, it's a bit silly. British Imperialism, or colonialism was mostly driven by the East India Company's desire for trade (i.e. money) and for the demand for awesome stuff in England (i.e. sugar, cotton, tea, tobacco) to buy with their high wages. Slavery was abolished in England in 1772 (BEFORE the U.S. declared independance in 1776) but for all those other countries who have slaves and make/have stuff we totally want, it's totally okay, right? I mean it's not like they are BRITISH, right? England fought three civil wars and killed a monarch over the right to Liberty so they are big fans of the concept but when you are talking about tea... or sugar... (or diamonds or cotton or gold or basically anything anywhere that anyone wants) well, the ethics go all squishy. Which leads us to nationalism. I know, that seems like we are getting ahead of ourselves and it's NOT about England. I mainly picked that video because it is less than two minutes long and I thought yall might be getting tired of watching videos. I also didn't pick this video: because I didn't want to put TWO videos in by the Crash Course guys. (However, if you do watch it, you can think about his argument for public school at the end of the video and I will provide space in the test for you to leave your ideas/questions/concerns.) Now, how does nationalism relate to slavery, Susan? Well, if nationalism is pride in a group of people who are like me and who live in the same place and sets up cultural and social walls around this idea, then people who are NOT like me, or who live in a DIFFERENT place, aren't on my "team", right? "You can totally join MY team, sailor!" Up until this time in history, the world was pretty feudal. There were dukes and lords and princes and daimyo and sheiks and everything that wasn't farmland was kind of a city-state. Sure, we had Kings to be loyal to (or to kill) but most folks lived in small communities and didn't think of themselves as "British" or "French" or "American" but as a Londoner or a Corsican or a Virginian. Nationalism made the Us vs Them mentality a MUCH bigger thing. And it is hard to care a lot about a bunch of "Them" when you only know a lot of "Us" and all the "Us"-es are saying it's a great idea to go fight a war with China because they want us to actually pay for our tea. Or start giving support and munitions to guys who want to overthrow the local leaders in India so you can make some serious money when everything gets chaotic. Why am I telling you this? I bring it up because it is still happening today. Our industrialization is accelerating and now we have amazing stuff like smartphones and light up sneakers. I've been blinded by Science!! Every time you buy a shirt made in Bangladesh, you are contributing to what is essentially the enslavement of a group of "Thems" for a cheap product. I totally got a killer deal on that shirt, though... And whenever you ask someone a quiet question about how our country works and they immediately yell "WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA???" then you are dealing with nationalism. Because the best liberty is the freedom from critical thought and honest dialog. That's gotta be in the 270th amendment or something... Now let's look at some clothes. Or, more accurately, let's look at some sillouettes of clothing. I found this awesome graphic on the Pinterest. In case you were wondering, there are a LOT of people on Pinterest who love to collect photos of Victorian dresses. Some of them are historical re-enactors and the photographs are for research purposes. Others collect them because they think the clothing of this era is just really really pretty. This dress is somehow made out of bathmat ruffles. Their argument is invalid. But, I digress. The awesome thing about the graphic above, (not the bath mat dress), is that it shows (among other things) the difference in skirt volume between 1847 and 1852. What happened between those years is the crinoline. Prior to this time, when a lady wanted an enormous skirt, she wore lots and lots of startched ruffled skirts made out of horsehair & linen. "Albert, I know it's just Buckinham palace, but would you be a dear and pick up all the dead animals off the carpet? I'm wearing ten petticoats and am liable to trip over them (or the child) and break our royal neck." It was bulky and heavy and only the wealthy could afford to have super puffy skirts. Well, in America there was an industrial revolution going on and people were inventing things all the time. (One new invention was the idea that "home" and "work" were two totally separate places. Before this time work was the farm outside your door or the bakery you lived above or whatever. Only with the development of factories and mercantilsm could this idea evolve. Victorian houses got darker and more closed-in over time, with middle- and upper-class women hanging out hidden in a house all day while the men left for "work". Of course, their tight-laced corsets and ten petticoats made it hard to do anything else.) Though they totally made time for covering their entire house with as much junk as they could possibly find. Anyway, in 1846 a David Hough, Jr patented the hoop skirt. In 1858 a W.S. Thompson patented the cage crinoline that had fabric tapes suspending metal hoops. This was pretty awesome because the crinoline was light, flexable, easy to walk in, mass-produced, and everyone could have the enormous puffy skirt look without having a million dollars. Naturally the upper classes were scornful of them but the Americans LOVED them. They did have some downsides though. Because they were super light they tended to swing around in the breeze and fly up. Women actually had to start wearing long drawers (remember, underwear wasn't a popular thing. It was considered to be too "masculine") because it was very probable that you could flash the world. Also, sitting was kind of a trick and if you weren't careful the whole thing would flip or puff up and look silly. Naturally inventors got right on that. Anyway, the styles got really ridiculously large for the extremely fashionable but they didn't last because they were silly and because ANYONE could have an enormous skirt. The cool thing was to get new crinolines in new cool shapes. Let's go back to our sillouette graphic. Look at the shapes and see if you can trace when these new crinolines became popular. This leads me to another random point. Sandy sent me a link to a dressmakers book from 1921. Here are a few pages from this book that I want you to see. This is the simplest explanation I have ever seen of how one studies fashion. So, let's try it. Look at just the waistlines of the below image. Then the skirts. Then the bustlines. Notice anything? It's cool, huh? And you are probably wondering what's up with 1902 there. Well, that is Edwardian so that will be covered next time but good job spotting it. The whole system of looking at one thing, finding similarities, moving on to other things, then classifying everything you have seen is an excellent one. I'm pretty sure it would be a useful tool in assessing all kinds of stuff, not just clothing. However, it's pretty great for fashion, too. So, what else was new and exciting in this time? Photography! Queen Victoria was the first monarch to ever be photographed. We are used to formal royal photographs but it wasn't long until photographers managed to catch images which were little slices of life. I'm sure Victoria hated this photo Photography was also developed just in time to document the American Civil War. Yup, we are there already but you should have guessed that from the southern belle skirts. Let's look at some photographs (of people, not of the war.) Mary Todd Lincoln Mrs. U.S. Grant Mrs William Brace and daughter Seamstress posing with her livelihood Look at the amazing use of pin tucks and fabric orienting on this dress. She has done an amazing job with that simple striped cotton. siblings Union officer Some women of Fredricksburg Family portrait (Brother is looking SASSY!) EVERYONE wore a corset. Victorians thought you would become "deformed" if you didn't "MORE photos??" Just this one because she's so lovely. :) Ah! I could look at photos all day! Okay. ONE more because they're just so CUTE! This posting is too long already and I haven't even started talking about corsets or dyes or Victorian culture (not that I actually want to). So, for more photos of people and dresses, how about you just go HERE. That is the page where I keep everything I think I might possibly use for this class but end up only using 10% of it. It's super cool so feel free to browse through because I can't possibly post it all, even though totally I want to. Alright, I'm going to have to stop today in the mid-1860's. So, let's talk about color. In 1860 everyone is in the Second Industrial Revolution, which means steel (and railroads) and all sorts of new dyes. The Victorians LOVED these new colors. They were so excited about the new arsnic green This color that they painted their walls with it. Of course, it leaked arsenic into the air and so they were slowly poisioning themselves but it looked AMAZING so whatever. Let's look at more intense colors. I don't even know what to call these two colors. But this is totally arsenic green These are "promenade clothes" which means you'd slip this on when you went for a walk. I'm guessing the risk of being run down by a carriage is pretty low in colors this intense. The tartan evening gown above is in acid green and cobalt blue and it's one of the few things I love about the 1860's. Plaid dresses. I don't know why I like them so much but they are all pretty great, and EVERYONE had one. Even pregnant ladies (this is a maternity dress.) "Those sure are some snappy-looking dresses!" Basically, after the pastels of the Empire period, loud colors and LOTS of fussy ornamentation was considered totally awesome. even when it got a little out of control. Fringe, lots of it, was also a new and exciting thing during this time. It normally was made from the strings at the edges of loomed cloth but with new manufacturing techniques, this incredibly time-/labor-intensive item could be purchased and stitched everywhere! Whoo-hoo! I think it makes everyone look like they are wearing a curtain. Alright, corsets next time and maybe I'll think about talking about men. Here's your test: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1oWJglFGpAUoXyU1XS8nPNfoPCpcJQzHIp6DM3AB6KMU/viewform

Women hunting deer in dresses. Like you do. Hello friends! Welcome to the High Middle Ages! The weather was nice! People started having babies! Folks started clearing land! Governments stabilized! Universities were formed! Spain was called Al-Andalus, Germany was known as the Holy Roman Empire (though neither holy, Roman, or an empire), and all the Scandinavians were now Christian. Generally speaking, it wasn't a bad time to be alive. Sure, there were a few crusades, war and death, but there was FOOD. And, usually, not starving to death makes folks more cheerful. Also, when there's plenty of excess food, your community can do things like let artists paint and sculptors sculpt and scholars study. And, important to fashion development, it let inventors make stuff. Cool stuff. Fashion stuff. Before, everyone had always woven fabric on vertical looms. Like this: You begin to see why they never wanted to cut the fabric. But, some clever woman or man figured out how to make horizontal looms with foot shuttles. This, as you might imagine, GREATLY improved the speed and quality of fabric available. Oh, and I forgot to mention the conversion from distaffs: Which, admittedly, looks pretty glamorous.. to spinning wheels. Sure, spinning wheels are far less relaxing than distaffs, but the quantity and quality of thread which could be spun was massively improved. Which means it was possible, if you were rich, to have really NICE clothes, clothes which were brightly colored and felt good, clothes which you got to impress the neighbors with. Clothes which looked like this: Quick! Look at their faces and tell me which one is the girl. Hard to say, right? Well, I found this quote: "Men’s clothes were generally shorter, but the body shape that the clothes emphasized, and also partially created, was the same. In addition, the beauty ideal appears to be virtually identical for both sexes, something that also can be seen in mediaeval literature where a young man frequently is mistaken for a young woman. This confusion is possible because the concept of human beauty was the same irrespective of sex; a beautiful young man was expected to look the same as a beautiful young woman. This can be tied to what historian Thomas Laqueur termed “the one-sex model” or “the Aristotelian model”. This is the medical and scientific view of sex as a difference in degree of development and not as a difference in nature. The degree of masculinity and femininity was determined by the balance of the different humours that were thought to govern the body. According to this view, that which today is seen as primary and stable, biological sex, was seen as mutable. The basis for what was perceived as masculine and feminine was instead men’s and women’s social roles and the hierarchy between them. This was also the starting point when the body was interpreted; woman was not inferior to man because her body was weaker, but her body was weaker because she was inferior to him. This fact explains several phenomena in mediaeval dress. That the cut and appearance of most garments were largely identical is a natural consequence of a common ideal of appearance and beauty for both men and women, based on the one-sex model. It also explains much of the critique directed at fashionable dress. When it was branded as indecent that a woman wore a belt on her hips, as happened in the second half of the fourteenth century, it had nothing to do with exposure of or emphasizing of sexed body parts, or with sexuality. Instead it was the symbolic value of a belt worn at the hips, the traditional placement of the sword-belt, with its implications of knighthood and masculinity that made it unseemly for a woman." Source: Developments in dress history” at Brighton University December 8th-10th 2011 Eva I Andersson PhD Q: Is this a man and two women, three women, or three men? A: Yes! Crazy, right? Anyway, the guys who worked in the field still wore the same stuff they had pretty much always worn since forever: "I've been workin on the wheat farm, all the live long day.." This means a tunic, leggings, and some linen underpants. Though, these items might also be called a blouse, trousers, and braies. Peasant women wore an undertunic (or chemise, or chainse, or smock) made of linen, and then one or more ankle-length tunics (or gowns or kirtles.) "Peace out, homies!" Later on women started wearing surcoats. I'm including this medieval glamour shot cause I think it's kind of funny. Surcoats were basically long tunics with no sleeves. Eventually men started wearing them, too. Hawt So, what's different about this stuff compared to the Dark Ages? Well, the hats are new, right? "What about our hats?" "You mean these old things?" Pretty exciting, huh? Well, not only are the hats kind of ridiculous, they tell everyone looking at them that the wearer of such a hat is IMPORTANT!!! The High Middle Ages was when Sumptuory Laws were first invented. These laws, passed by kings and lords, basically said that only certain (rich or noble) people could wear certain kinds of fabric (silk, gold, brocade, velvet) or certain colors (purple, red, gold.) This is brocade. The idea of weaving this WITHOUT a horizontal loom makes me want to cry. There were also rules about how married women did their hair vs unmarried women, and what court officials wore vs what rich tradesmen could wear, and even what color cloak scholars could wear. (Red. Scholars wore red.) There were even rules about how short a man's tunic could be, with only noblemen allowed to have a tunic so short it showed his bottom. The crusades happened at this time, which means stuff like turbans and silks came to Europe. Obviously there had to be rules because if everyone was in a turban then chaos would ensue, right? (Oh, and watch this video about the crusades because it's super cool: http://youtu.be/X0zudTQelzI ) Really, what this means is, no matter where you were or what you were doing, EVERYONE knew EXACTLY who you were JUST by the clothes on your body. "Just me, a rich unmarried woman, hanging out with my two math teachers and a couple of guards being watched by a crowd of creepy praying guys." Kinda interesting, huh? But, they also had to invent sumptuory laws because something else was invented in the high middle ages, and it's the reason we are here. That's right. They invented FASHION. "Because we are FABULOUS!" Now, fashion in the high mids didn't change every few months or every few years, like it does now. Clothing still took a long time to make. Fashion, instead changed every generation. That's right, the kids didn't want to look like their parents, so they changed stuff. Sleeves got really long. "You kids today with your long sleeves and uncovered hair...!" Dresses got tight in the waist. "You kids today with your long sleeves and tight dresses...!" And, some unmarried girls even went so far as to wear ONLY ONE TUNIC. "You knew I looked scandalous, you just didn't know why.." For men, the skirts just kept getting shorter and shorter with fancy socks until eventually, the mens' hemlines were back at Greek levels of naked. (Though, they were totally wearing tights underneath so maybe it wasn't AS naked.) "Hey baby..." And, yes, you caught me. I cheated with the above picture because it's a fashion from the 1400s, which is later than what we are discussing today. However, it shows the evolution. You may also have noticed the lack of cross gartering. This is because folks figured out how to keep their socks up by tying them to their underwear. I totally wasn't kidding. Amazing. I believe that's enough for now about the High Middle Ages, a time of food and plenty, war and strife, and some fabulous new inventions. Now go take your test! https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1qkxKNI-CuKBJffm6Uqo9CNUZP-hFtYnT2YMrGfVJlpg/viewform

I have taken a long time to write this next lecture because the menswear of the entire eighteenth century can be summed up with the phrase "Their pants got tighter." Sure, there are surface details like fabrics, embroidery, and subtilty of cut, but the static nature of the styles seems almost impossible considering the staggering amount of change that happened in this century. How is it possible that men's clothing didn't reflect this? Well, I saw this video: https://vimeo.com/25380454 And it proposed that progress is sometimes the inevitable result of existing technologies and ideas. Perhaps revolutionary ideas about freedom and representational government and science and God and the rights of man can only grow strong in petri dishes of social stability. Or maybe culture was a pressure cooker of stagnation. Perhaps the pants tightened up and the cuts became more refined until change HAS to come in a large and dramatic way, an unloosing of current strictures and standards. Either that or they just longed for the invention of Spandex. Maybe the entire history of scientific exploration might have simply been a search for the perfect pair of stretchy pants. Spandex - the moon landing of fashion Well, as fun as groundless speculation is, how about we look at the fussy details of menswear in the 1700's. Coats and Waistcoats The popular coat at the beginning of the 1700's was this one Justacorps The justacorps was very full in the skirt area and might have been favored because men could get the full-hipped sillouette without actually having to wear petticoat breeches. This shape was so important that the justacorps had wire sewn into the hem so it would stick out. HOWEVER, when the volume of women's dresses began to balloon outward the importance of the big-bottomed look for men quickly waned, probably because there wasn't enough below-the-waist room for everyone to walk around. As much fun as it is to look like a giant bell there was no way to even begin to compete with the women so that style was over. So, men's jackets quickly became less full. That didn't keep them from being fancy. This is some insanely amazing embroidery, FYI The coat and waistcoat you see here are long (as long as his breeches). You can see how this coat evolved from a justacorps. The lines aren't all that different and his breeches aren't really a separate element but just hidden beneath the long coat and waistcoat. Here's another look: Around the 1770's, the coats became tighter and they cut away from the front. The waistcoats shortened to around the waist and now the breeches are very much visible. So that's cool and it leads us to talk about Breeches Breeches were knee length and the major development in them during this century was the drop-front fastening. On the left you see the button-fly style of breeches. On the right is the drop-front style. The drop front became VERY popular and continues well into the 1800's. Here are some more images in case you are confused. Button-fly Drop-front. And, by the end of the century, there was the exciting development of machine-knitted silk drop-front breeches. SO CLOSE to Spandex but not quite.... I would also like to point out here that breeches ride a lot higher on the waist than trousers do these days. The natural waist, again, is at the narrowest part of the torso so men wore their breeches up to that point. HIGH-waisted breeches. Never low-rise. Wigs Wigs exhaust me because there are so many many variations. At the beginning of the 1700's they were long and parted in the middle and fluffy. They were made from yak hair, horsehair, or human hair. Obviously human hair was the most expensive. In fact, wigs were outlandishly expensive, and the cost of an entire fancy court outfit would still be less than the cost of one wig, especially since the wig had to be groomed and maintained by a barber/wigmaker. In 1715, the popular color of wigs was white, or light. Since bleaching destroyed the hair, powder made from starch (yay potatoes!) was used to lighten the hair. Powder eventually would be scented with lavender or orange or orris root and tinted blue or purple or pink or yellow. But, white was mostly preferred. Because tradesmen and anyone not super rich had trouble affording these huge wigs with their curls and power, the bob wig became used and by the 1720s became the most popular. This is the style you are probably most familiar with but there were variations. Also, what job you had determined what style of wig you favored. Here is an interesting article about this: http://boston1775.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-wigs-said-about-professions.html I also found out that soldiers didn't wear wigs because it would be very impractical and too expensive for their salaries to cover. Instead they just pulled their hair back into a que (ponytail) and powdered the whole thing like crazy. Powdered hair was actually written into the uniform requirements at the time. Wigs with the two curls above the ears and a que in back were common but like anything, there were other styles: One interesting variation was worn by a set of young men known as "Macaronis". These guys were English gentlemen who had taken the "Grand Tour" of Europe and brought home the extreme fashions of Italy. They were mocked a lot and are the reason the word macaroni shows up in the lyrics of "Yankee Doodle." The joke is, Yankees are so backward they think to be a super fancy dandy you just have to put a feather on your hat. Macaronis were such dedicated followers of their own type of fashion that this idea is ridiculous. Today's equavalent would be to brush your teeth and then say "Look at me! I'm metrosexual!" But, in the spirit of Macaronis, I will share with you this video. Then we will talk about textiles. Fabric and Color Choices As you have seen, men in this century wern't afraid to wear silk, satin, prints, embroidery, lace, or pastels. "What? Pink is my favorite.." The decadence and brilliance of color and ornamentation was necessary to compete in royal courts. In England the preference for hunting and riding and generally being outdoors influenced them to wear less fancy clothing, stuff one could wander the moors in. In the States, decadent fabrics and colors were seen as part of the oppessive systems of aristocracy and so rugged tougher fabrics were prefered. "Hey" It didn't mean that American men eschewed powdered wigs, though. Our first five presidents, from Washington to Monroe wore powdered wigs. But, it did herald the beginning of a sea change in fashion, a change which looked like this: So, this is what fashion was in the 1700's and through the American Revolution. Styles didn't really change till the French Revolution in the late 1790s. Today, menswear is much the same as it was in the 1920's, which is one hundred years ago now. A LOT of things have happened and been developed in the past one hundred years and pants are getting tighter and tighter. I look at what is happening in Turkey right now and I hope it isn't a coincidence. The world and how we communicate is changing. I can't wait to see what it looks like. Though hopefully not like this.... Here's your test: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1k3NVLZS9-Etds2QLXdhAxipZOwGZdbmtCLfM1aJ1YU0/viewform

I have taken a long time to write this next lecture because the menswear of the entire eighteenth century can be summed up with the phrase "Their pants got tighter." Sure, there are surface details like fabrics, embroidery, and subtilty of cut, but the static nature of the styles seems almost impossible considering the staggering amount of change that happened in this century. How is it possible that men's clothing didn't reflect this? Well, I saw this video: https://vimeo.com/25380454 And it proposed that progress is sometimes the inevitable result of existing technologies and ideas. Perhaps revolutionary ideas about freedom and representational government and science and God and the rights of man can only grow strong in petri dishes of social stability. Or maybe culture was a pressure cooker of stagnation. Perhaps the pants tightened up and the cuts became more refined until change HAS to come in a large and dramatic way, an unloosing of current strictures and standards. Either that or they just longed for the invention of Spandex. Maybe the entire history of scientific exploration might have simply been a search for the perfect pair of stretchy pants. Spandex - the moon landing of fashion Well, as fun as groundless speculation is, how about we look at the fussy details of menswear in the 1700's. Coats and Waistcoats The popular coat at the beginning of the 1700's was this one Justacorps The justacorps was very full in the skirt area and might have been favored because men could get the full-hipped sillouette without actually having to wear petticoat breeches. This shape was so important that the justacorps had wire sewn into the hem so it would stick out. HOWEVER, when the volume of women's dresses began to balloon outward the importance of the big-bottomed look for men quickly waned, probably because there wasn't enough below-the-waist room for everyone to walk around. As much fun as it is to look like a giant bell there was no way to even begin to compete with the women so that style was over. So, men's jackets quickly became less full. That didn't keep them from being fancy. This is some insanely amazing embroidery, FYI The coat and waistcoat you see here are long (as long as his breeches). You can see how this coat evolved from a justacorps. The lines aren't all that different and his breeches aren't really a separate element but just hidden beneath the long coat and waistcoat. Here's another look: Around the 1770's, the coats became tighter and they cut away from the front. The waistcoats shortened to around the waist and now the breeches are very much visible. So that's cool and it leads us to talk about Breeches Breeches were knee length and the major development in them during this century was the drop-front fastening. On the left you see the button-fly style of breeches. On the right is the drop-front style. The drop front became VERY popular and continues well into the 1800's. Here are some more images in case you are confused. Button-fly Drop-front. And, by the end of the century, there was the exciting development of machine-knitted silk drop-front breeches. SO CLOSE to Spandex but not quite.... I would also like to point out here that breeches ride a lot higher on the waist than trousers do these days. The natural waist, again, is at the narrowest part of the torso so men wore their breeches up to that point. HIGH-waisted breeches. Never low-rise. Wigs Wigs exhaust me because there are so many many variations. At the beginning of the 1700's they were long and parted in the middle and fluffy. They were made from yak hair, horsehair, or human hair. Obviously human hair was the most expensive. In fact, wigs were outlandishly expensive, and the cost of an entire fancy court outfit would still be less than the cost of one wig, especially since the wig had to be groomed and maintained by a barber/wigmaker. In 1715, the popular color of wigs was white, or light. Since bleaching destroyed the hair, powder made from starch (yay potatoes!) was used to lighten the hair. Powder eventually would be scented with lavender or orange or orris root and tinted blue or purple or pink or yellow. But, white was mostly preferred. Because tradesmen and anyone not super rich had trouble affording these huge wigs with their curls and power, the bob wig became used and by the 1720s became the most popular. This is the style you are probably most familiar with but there were variations. Also, what job you had determined what style of wig you favored. Here is an interesting article about this: http://boston1775.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-wigs-said-about-professions.html I also found out that soldiers didn't wear wigs because it would be very impractical and too expensive for their salaries to cover. Instead they just pulled their hair back into a que (ponytail) and powdered the whole thing like crazy. Powdered hair was actually written into the uniform requirements at the time. Wigs with the two curls above the ears and a que in back were common but like anything, there were other styles: One interesting variation was worn by a set of young men known as "Macaronis". These guys were English gentlemen who had taken the "Grand Tour" of Europe and brought home the extreme fashions of Italy. They were mocked a lot and are the reason the word macaroni shows up in the lyrics of "Yankee Doodle." The joke is, Yankees are so backward they think to be a super fancy dandy you just have to put a feather on your hat. Macaronis were such dedicated followers of their own type of fashion that this idea is ridiculous. Today's equavalent would be to brush your teeth and then say "Look at me! I'm metrosexual!" But, in the spirit of Macaronis, I will share with you this video. Then we will talk about textiles. Fabric and Color Choices As you have seen, men in this century wern't afraid to wear silk, satin, prints, embroidery, lace, or pastels. "What? Pink is my favorite.." The decadence and brilliance of color and ornamentation was necessary to compete in royal courts. In England the preference for hunting and riding and generally being outdoors influenced them to wear less fancy clothing, stuff one could wander the moors in. In the States, decadent fabrics and colors were seen as part of the oppessive systems of aristocracy and so rugged tougher fabrics were prefered. "Hey" It didn't mean that American men eschewed powdered wigs, though. Our first five presidents, from Washington to Monroe wore powdered wigs. But, it did herald the beginning of a sea change in fashion, a change which looked like this: So, this is what fashion was in the 1700's and through the American Revolution. Styles didn't really change till the French Revolution in the late 1790s. Today, menswear is much the same as it was in the 1920's, which is one hundred years ago now. A LOT of things have happened and been developed in the past one hundred years and pants are getting tighter and tighter. I look at what is happening in Turkey right now and I hope it isn't a coincidence. The world and how we communicate is changing. I can't wait to see what it looks like. Though hopefully not like this.... Here's your test: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1k3NVLZS9-Etds2QLXdhAxipZOwGZdbmtCLfM1aJ1YU0/viewform

Sheets for costume design: historical and folk costumes by Franz Lipperheide, 1876-1887. Catalogue of Lipperheide'sche Costume Library.

The first records of clothing come from the third millennium before Christ. Since then, many ancient civilizations perfected the art of dress.

I have taken a long time to write this next lecture because the menswear of the entire eighteenth century can be summed up with the phrase "Their pants got tighter." Sure, there are surface details like fabrics, embroidery, and subtilty of cut, but the static nature of the styles seems almost impossible considering the staggering amount of change that happened in this century. How is it possible that men's clothing didn't reflect this? Well, I saw this video: https://vimeo.com/25380454 And it proposed that progress is sometimes the inevitable result of existing technologies and ideas. Perhaps revolutionary ideas about freedom and representational government and science and God and the rights of man can only grow strong in petri dishes of social stability. Or maybe culture was a pressure cooker of stagnation. Perhaps the pants tightened up and the cuts became more refined until change HAS to come in a large and dramatic way, an unloosing of current strictures and standards. Either that or they just longed for the invention of Spandex. Maybe the entire history of scientific exploration might have simply been a search for the perfect pair of stretchy pants. Spandex - the moon landing of fashion Well, as fun as groundless speculation is, how about we look at the fussy details of menswear in the 1700's. Coats and Waistcoats The popular coat at the beginning of the 1700's was this one Justacorps The justacorps was very full in the skirt area and might have been favored because men could get the full-hipped sillouette without actually having to wear petticoat breeches. This shape was so important that the justacorps had wire sewn into the hem so it would stick out. HOWEVER, when the volume of women's dresses began to balloon outward the importance of the big-bottomed look for men quickly waned, probably because there wasn't enough below-the-waist room for everyone to walk around. As much fun as it is to look like a giant bell there was no way to even begin to compete with the women so that style was over. So, men's jackets quickly became less full. That didn't keep them from being fancy. This is some insanely amazing embroidery, FYI The coat and waistcoat you see here are long (as long as his breeches). You can see how this coat evolved from a justacorps. The lines aren't all that different and his breeches aren't really a separate element but just hidden beneath the long coat and waistcoat. Here's another look: Around the 1770's, the coats became tighter and they cut away from the front. The waistcoats shortened to around the waist and now the breeches are very much visible. So that's cool and it leads us to talk about Breeches Breeches were knee length and the major development in them during this century was the drop-front fastening. On the left you see the button-fly style of breeches. On the right is the drop-front style. The drop front became VERY popular and continues well into the 1800's. Here are some more images in case you are confused. Button-fly Drop-front. And, by the end of the century, there was the exciting development of machine-knitted silk drop-front breeches. SO CLOSE to Spandex but not quite.... I would also like to point out here that breeches ride a lot higher on the waist than trousers do these days. The natural waist, again, is at the narrowest part of the torso so men wore their breeches up to that point. HIGH-waisted breeches. Never low-rise. Wigs Wigs exhaust me because there are so many many variations. At the beginning of the 1700's they were long and parted in the middle and fluffy. They were made from yak hair, horsehair, or human hair. Obviously human hair was the most expensive. In fact, wigs were outlandishly expensive, and the cost of an entire fancy court outfit would still be less than the cost of one wig, especially since the wig had to be groomed and maintained by a barber/wigmaker. In 1715, the popular color of wigs was white, or light. Since bleaching destroyed the hair, powder made from starch (yay potatoes!) was used to lighten the hair. Powder eventually would be scented with lavender or orange or orris root and tinted blue or purple or pink or yellow. But, white was mostly preferred. Because tradesmen and anyone not super rich had trouble affording these huge wigs with their curls and power, the bob wig became used and by the 1720s became the most popular. This is the style you are probably most familiar with but there were variations. Also, what job you had determined what style of wig you favored. Here is an interesting article about this: http://boston1775.blogspot.com/2007/01/what-wigs-said-about-professions.html I also found out that soldiers didn't wear wigs because it would be very impractical and too expensive for their salaries to cover. Instead they just pulled their hair back into a que (ponytail) and powdered the whole thing like crazy. Powdered hair was actually written into the uniform requirements at the time. Wigs with the two curls above the ears and a que in back were common but like anything, there were other styles: One interesting variation was worn by a set of young men known as "Macaronis". These guys were English gentlemen who had taken the "Grand Tour" of Europe and brought home the extreme fashions of Italy. They were mocked a lot and are the reason the word macaroni shows up in the lyrics of "Yankee Doodle." The joke is, Yankees are so backward they think to be a super fancy dandy you just have to put a feather on your hat. Macaronis were such dedicated followers of their own type of fashion that this idea is ridiculous. Today's equavalent would be to brush your teeth and then say "Look at me! I'm metrosexual!" But, in the spirit of Macaronis, I will share with you this video. Then we will talk about textiles. Fabric and Color Choices As you have seen, men in this century wern't afraid to wear silk, satin, prints, embroidery, lace, or pastels. "What? Pink is my favorite.." The decadence and brilliance of color and ornamentation was necessary to compete in royal courts. In England the preference for hunting and riding and generally being outdoors influenced them to wear less fancy clothing, stuff one could wander the moors in. In the States, decadent fabrics and colors were seen as part of the oppessive systems of aristocracy and so rugged tougher fabrics were prefered. "Hey" It didn't mean that American men eschewed powdered wigs, though. Our first five presidents, from Washington to Monroe wore powdered wigs. But, it did herald the beginning of a sea change in fashion, a change which looked like this: So, this is what fashion was in the 1700's and through the American Revolution. Styles didn't really change till the French Revolution in the late 1790s. Today, menswear is much the same as it was in the 1920's, which is one hundred years ago now. A LOT of things have happened and been developed in the past one hundred years and pants are getting tighter and tighter. I look at what is happening in Turkey right now and I hope it isn't a coincidence. The world and how we communicate is changing. I can't wait to see what it looks like. Though hopefully not like this.... Here's your test: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1k3NVLZS9-Etds2QLXdhAxipZOwGZdbmtCLfM1aJ1YU0/viewform

Women hunting deer in dresses. Like you do. Hello friends! Welcome to the High Middle Ages! The weather was nice! People started having babies! Folks started clearing land! Governments stabilized! Universities were formed! Spain was called Al-Andalus, Germany was known as the Holy Roman Empire (though neither holy, Roman, or an empire), and all the Scandinavians were now Christian. Generally speaking, it wasn't a bad time to be alive. Sure, there were a few crusades, war and death, but there was FOOD. And, usually, not starving to death makes folks more cheerful. Also, when there's plenty of excess food, your community can do things like let artists paint and sculptors sculpt and scholars study. And, important to fashion development, it let inventors make stuff. Cool stuff. Fashion stuff. Before, everyone had always woven fabric on vertical looms. Like this: You begin to see why they never wanted to cut the fabric. But, some clever woman or man figured out how to make horizontal looms with foot shuttles. This, as you might imagine, GREATLY improved the speed and quality of fabric available. Oh, and I forgot to mention the conversion from distaffs: Which, admittedly, looks pretty glamorous.. to spinning wheels. Sure, spinning wheels are far less relaxing than distaffs, but the quantity and quality of thread which could be spun was massively improved. Which means it was possible, if you were rich, to have really NICE clothes, clothes which were brightly colored and felt good, clothes which you got to impress the neighbors with. Clothes which looked like this: Quick! Look at their faces and tell me which one is the girl. Hard to say, right? Well, I found this quote: "Men’s clothes were generally shorter, but the body shape that the clothes emphasized, and also partially created, was the same. In addition, the beauty ideal appears to be virtually identical for both sexes, something that also can be seen in mediaeval literature where a young man frequently is mistaken for a young woman. This confusion is possible because the concept of human beauty was the same irrespective of sex; a beautiful young man was expected to look the same as a beautiful young woman. This can be tied to what historian Thomas Laqueur termed “the one-sex model” or “the Aristotelian model”. This is the medical and scientific view of sex as a difference in degree of development and not as a difference in nature. The degree of masculinity and femininity was determined by the balance of the different humours that were thought to govern the body. According to this view, that which today is seen as primary and stable, biological sex, was seen as mutable. The basis for what was perceived as masculine and feminine was instead men’s and women’s social roles and the hierarchy between them. This was also the starting point when the body was interpreted; woman was not inferior to man because her body was weaker, but her body was weaker because she was inferior to him. This fact explains several phenomena in mediaeval dress. That the cut and appearance of most garments were largely identical is a natural consequence of a common ideal of appearance and beauty for both men and women, based on the one-sex model. It also explains much of the critique directed at fashionable dress. When it was branded as indecent that a woman wore a belt on her hips, as happened in the second half of the fourteenth century, it had nothing to do with exposure of or emphasizing of sexed body parts, or with sexuality. Instead it was the symbolic value of a belt worn at the hips, the traditional placement of the sword-belt, with its implications of knighthood and masculinity that made it unseemly for a woman." Source: Developments in dress history” at Brighton University December 8th-10th 2011 Eva I Andersson PhD Q: Is this a man and two women, three women, or three men? A: Yes! Crazy, right? Anyway, the guys who worked in the field still wore the same stuff they had pretty much always worn since forever: "I've been workin on the wheat farm, all the live long day.." This means a tunic, leggings, and some linen underpants. Though, these items might also be called a blouse, trousers, and braies. Peasant women wore an undertunic (or chemise, or chainse, or smock) made of linen, and then one or more ankle-length tunics (or gowns or kirtles.) "Peace out, homies!" Later on women started wearing surcoats. I'm including this medieval glamour shot cause I think it's kind of funny. Surcoats were basically long tunics with no sleeves. Eventually men started wearing them, too. Hawt So, what's different about this stuff compared to the Dark Ages? Well, the hats are new, right? "What about our hats?" "You mean these old things?" Pretty exciting, huh? Well, not only are the hats kind of ridiculous, they tell everyone looking at them that the wearer of such a hat is IMPORTANT!!! The High Middle Ages was when Sumptuory Laws were first invented. These laws, passed by kings and lords, basically said that only certain (rich or noble) people could wear certain kinds of fabric (silk, gold, brocade, velvet) or certain colors (purple, red, gold.) This is brocade. The idea of weaving this WITHOUT a horizontal loom makes me want to cry. There were also rules about how married women did their hair vs unmarried women, and what court officials wore vs what rich tradesmen could wear, and even what color cloak scholars could wear. (Red. Scholars wore red.) There were even rules about how short a man's tunic could be, with only noblemen allowed to have a tunic so short it showed his bottom. The crusades happened at this time, which means stuff like turbans and silks came to Europe. Obviously there had to be rules because if everyone was in a turban then chaos would ensue, right? (Oh, and watch this video about the crusades because it's super cool: http://youtu.be/X0zudTQelzI ) Really, what this means is, no matter where you were or what you were doing, EVERYONE knew EXACTLY who you were JUST by the clothes on your body. "Just me, a rich unmarried woman, hanging out with my two math teachers and a couple of guards being watched by a crowd of creepy praying guys." Kinda interesting, huh? But, they also had to invent sumptuory laws because something else was invented in the high middle ages, and it's the reason we are here. That's right. They invented FASHION. "Because we are FABULOUS!" Now, fashion in the high mids didn't change every few months or every few years, like it does now. Clothing still took a long time to make. Fashion, instead changed every generation. That's right, the kids didn't want to look like their parents, so they changed stuff. Sleeves got really long. "You kids today with your long sleeves and uncovered hair...!" Dresses got tight in the waist. "You kids today with your long sleeves and tight dresses...!" And, some unmarried girls even went so far as to wear ONLY ONE TUNIC. "You knew I looked scandalous, you just didn't know why.." For men, the skirts just kept getting shorter and shorter with fancy socks until eventually, the mens' hemlines were back at Greek levels of naked. (Though, they were totally wearing tights underneath so maybe it wasn't AS naked.) "Hey baby..." And, yes, you caught me. I cheated with the above picture because it's a fashion from the 1400s, which is later than what we are discussing today. However, it shows the evolution. You may also have noticed the lack of cross gartering. This is because folks figured out how to keep their socks up by tying them to their underwear. I totally wasn't kidding. Amazing. I believe that's enough for now about the High Middle Ages, a time of food and plenty, war and strife, and some fabulous new inventions. Now go take your test! https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1qkxKNI-CuKBJffm6Uqo9CNUZP-hFtYnT2YMrGfVJlpg/viewform

Vogue speaks with costume designer Phoebe De Gaye—the BAFTA winner behind “Killing Eve”—about dressing Emily Blunt and Chaske Spencer for “The English.”

Hillbilly Westerns 1940's Western performing parade outfit for a cowgirl. Shirt features snap button fastenings along the front and on the cuffs, gabardine fabric with a fringed leather trim and an embroidered western design at the front and back. Gaucho pants have a fringed hem with a side zipper and button fastening, and two slip pockets at the waist. Top has a very faint mark on the left collar and also a light spot at the waist of the gaucho pants. Minor area of missing fringe at the back of the shirt. Overall very good condition. Measurements: bust 38'', sleeves 26'', shoulder to shoulder 16'', length 25'' waist 26'', hips 36'', inseam 23'', rise 9'', length 33''