On 04/06/2006, at1:27 AM, AlbertCat wrote:
My main point was that the machine, once completely accepted, which
took a
little time, changed the way clothes were cut. And even that doesn't
really hit
it fair and square. There is also the time it took to discover what a
clever
seamstress could actually do with a machine....the development of
machine
techniques. All these things are happening at once.
One thing I find utterly fascinating is the logic of pre-machine
clothes and
how it differs from post-machine clothes.
****************************
On 04/06/2006, at 2:01 AM, Lavolta Press wrote:
But by the
time we get to bustle, you really see the machine at work all over
the place.
My main point was that the machine, once completely accepted, which
took a little time, changed the way clothes were cut. A
My theory is this: Every time a machine was developed to make things
easier, people expended the same amount of time and effort, just with
a different emphasis. When industrial sewing and weaving became
common, so women didn't have to spend all that time spinning, they
started doing more fancy needlework and home dressmaking. After the
sewing machine became popular, they started to develop more
complicated cuts. After sewing machine attachments became
available--I don't know exactly when this happened, BTW, but I suspect
the very first models did not have them--they started adding a lot of
machined ruffling and so on.
Fran
Lavolta Press
*****************************
Yes, my personal textile specialty is lace-making, and the history of
lace is full of examples of how precious and exquisitely-used lace was
in the centuries when it could only be made by hand. Only the very
wealthiest people could afford to buy it -- sumptuary laws were just
about unnecessary for lace, except where nationalism played into
things. The use of lace just exploded for *all* classes of society
once machines could produce even a passable product --- and the
machines that were able to produce *superb* laces were, themselves,
only made for a very short time, as these things go, and as was pointed
out above. Newer-model machines were gradually "dumbed down" to
produce ever simpler, cheaper, flimsier, and poorly- or
repetitively-designed laces. (I can't tell you how thoroughly sick I am
of the endless copies of Alencon roses out there on the market!) The
older machines, used until very recently in many cases, have worn out,
and been cannibalized to repair old machines still working, until there
were none left to cannibalize.
Only a few years ago, I understand, the very last Nottingham lace
machines capable of producing what was called "22-count" or "22-gauge"
furnishing laces (lace curtains, mostly) broke down irretrievably.
Only two or three larger-gauge 18-count machines were still working,
and a French or Swiss concern bought them and shipped them to the
Continent. I don't know if they've ever been re-activated for
commercial use -- if anyone would do that, it would be the French or
Swiss, wouldn't it? :-) Although an un-verified source has since
claimed that the machines were actually sold on to Chinese factories!!
Speaking of the logic of machine-made versus hand-made clothes: I'm
continually impressed, the more I study pre-machine-age tailoring
methods, how little waste was allowed to occur. Even many of the most
elaborate Elizabethan gowns, full of tucks and pleats and ruffles,
slashing and pinking and embroidery and all, are constructed of so many
rectangular and near-rectangular pieces!! A standing ruff, made of
silk organza or similar, edged with lace and broidered with beads,
pearls, or spangles, and shaped to fit the neckline of the dress and
the proportions of the wearer, still started with a rectangle of silk
edged with a "straight" length of lace. The machine-age logic says cut
the silk to shape and discard the rest. Elizabethan logic made a
virtue of a design-feature out of the tucks used to achieve the
shaping.
I have to admit, I was nit-picking a little about the original posting,
because I just can't justify allowing some generalizations to stand
un-challenged --- but I actually do understand and agree with your
*main* points!
Beth S.
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
