A lot of photographs and portraits from this era show women wearing the
fashionable silhouette, whether it flattered them or not, in our eyes.
Yes--although the standard 19th-century fashion advice, in magazines and
beauty books, was to wear what _was_ appropriate to the individual's
figure, complexion, social position, budget, and the occasion.
Fortunately, modern reenactors, and people going to period-themed social
events, are very often not restricted to wearing an extremely narrow
range of styles or colors. They can even often choose among the styles
of an entire decade, or even a longer period. (Sometimes several
centuries, as in the case of many SCA members.)
Most modern people spending a lot of time and often, a fair amount of
money making a historic outfit, want it to be something that looks good
on them. So, if someone has a free choice of a period ranging over some
years of the 1870s or early 1880s (which is what has been under
discussion), it would be silly for them to choose an unflattering style,
or one they disliked, just because some people "in period" did so--when
a flattering style the modern person liked would be equally appropriate
and suitable for the modern occasion.
But even in the 18th century, whether drawn on the imaginary ideal or a
painted portrait, artists tailored their work to an ideal that few women
could meet. And until the latter part of the 20th century, with the
advent of diets, plastic surgery, and just the rare draw of the right
DNA, very very few women did.
Sure. I suspect most people on this list know all that. In fact, most
people still don't look like the (modern) fashionable ideal.
Proper drape and scale of fabric in
both weight and design is critical for both dolls and short persons like
me(below 5')Keeping to a single color tone is best on the short
I'm not quite sure what your point is, but I'll say: I'm 4'9" tall, and
I've probably read most of the standard modern wardrobe-planning advice
for petite women. Yes, part of the hackneyed modern advice (though the
1870s and 1880s, the period that was under discussion, were periods when
multiple-color dresses were very fashionable) is that short women should
always wear one color, or at best, different shades of the same color.
I've never paid the slightest attention to that "rule," nor to a lot of
the other modern fashion advice for short women. And I have studied
fashion and pattern design, formally. So I have known, for many years,
all about how horizontal lines add width, and vertical lines add length,
and how details should be proportioned to the body.
My take is: Height (barring extremes caused by medical problems) is not
any kind of health or figure flaw. It's not something that should be
concealed and in fact, it's not something that can be concealed. It's
also not something that can be changed. Barring any onset of medical
problems, it's going to be the same for your entire adult life. No
amount of diet, exercise, or as far as I know even surgery, is ever
going to change your height. The most you can in terms of real, if
temporary, increase or decrease is change your shoes.
So I see no point in deciding that my height is a "figure flaw," just
because some fashion books say so. Yes, for every person there are some
styles and colors that look truly unfortunate, and I certainly avoid my
set of same. But, I think going through an entire lifetime--of
hopefully, 90 years or so given modern medicine--wearing one-color
outfits just because some wardrobe-planning books say that makes you
look "taller"--when everyone around you can't help realizing you're
short anyway--is absurd.
Besides, on me at least, one-color outfits look incredibly dowdy. There
is nothing duller on me than one of those "ideal" one-piece sheath
dresses. Even when I faithfully followed the standard advice on
"dressing them up" with accessories.
So I almost _always_ wear contrasting blouses and skirts (I prefer
separates to dresses). I look great in wide off-the-shoulder
necklines--I've bought some modern knit tops like that, just so I can
wear that silhouette in the daytime. I even have a couple with
sort-of-Edwardian-bertha-things. I always wear long skirts--which used
to be considered good for short women, as having a long line, but have
recently been declared non-PC. I love big bulky hand-knit sweaters. I
like big jewelry.
In period outfits, I look fantastic in big mid-1890s sleeves, big
mid-1880s bustles, hoopskirts, and wide-brimmed hats.
I wear lots of things I'm not "supposed" to wear. I look good, and I
feel good about them.
It does help to study line, color, etc. to learn how to tweak the rules.
For example, the modern T-shirts and dresses with big scoop necklines.
I have trouble with those, because the neckline is too low in proportion
to my waist level. It's not that I look short, but I look like I'm
wearing someone else's T-shirt. But, I've discovered that if I wear
_another_, higher-necked T-shirt underneath, often I can then wear a
garment that looks too low-necked on its own.
Right now I'm wearing a brown XCVI Wearables "urban pixie dress"
intended to be mid-calf, but which falls near my ankles. The neckline is
so low on me, that I'd hesitate to wear this dress on the street with
nothing under it. But I wear it over T-shirts as a jumper. Right now I'm
wearing an "old rose" color horizontally-necked 3/4 sleeve T-shirt under
it (San Francisco can be cold in July; I haven't seen the sun all day),
and it looks great!
Fran
Lavolta Press
http://www.lavoltapress.com
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
