Why must they be nasty arguements? While it's unfortunate some people react that way, if there are valid arguements to be made which can be supported through either research or even experience, and we can remain civil - isn't that what constitutes a good discussion?
Perhaps, if that topic is buried in the old archives, it would be worth reviving. After all, new research has been made, perhaps new technology. And there are new members on this list - that equals new viewpoints. Lastly, why would people unsubscribe just because others on the list are reviving a topic that not only is of interest to them, but is one of the key reasons this list exists? All they have to do is delete those emails if they don't want to participate. There have been several posts on here that either do not interest me, or are specific questions that I cannot add input on - so I read them, and archive or delete the email. Simple as that. And I think I might have to get my hands on a copy of that book! Michael On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Cin <cinbar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Carol, > We dont discuss the Great Authenticity Issue on this list anymore. > All the nasty arguments & bitter recriminations have been made. Find > the old fights in the archives. Discuss it & you'll see a wave of > unsubscribes. > --cin > Cynthia Barnes > cinbar...@gmail.com > > > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Carol Kocian <aqua...@patriot.net> wrote: > >> - Where do we draw the line between what is acceptable as historically > >> accurate vs historically authentic? > > > >> - With modern sewing skills and fads (such as zippers), where do we > >> encorporate those skills to aid in construction of period garments, or > do we > >> insist on using the period methods? > > > > Historic activities run the gamut from immersion reenactment to a town's > > "history days" event, with different expectations and requirements for > > different events. Sometimes someone will ask a discussion list if > something > > is OK, when really that decision is up to the event organizers or the > > leadership of a particular group. > > > > Where you draw the line is different than where I would draw it, and it > > could even be different for the garments in the same outfit. > > > > Absolute authenticity is a moving target, because the more we know, the > more > > details there are that are harder t0 reach. > > > > That leads into the next question — where to substitute modern skills. > When > > more labor-intensive methods are used, for example hand stitching, custom > > weaving, hand-knitting and the like, the potential for clients gets > smaller. > > Some of these methods become a labor of love, a desire to learn a > technique > > for its own sake. > > > > All costume, including the broader sense that all clothing is costume, is > a > > deliberate effort to communicate something to the rest of the world. > > Appearance is important, the outermost layer. Some groups have the > standard > > of hand stitching for visible seams, but machine sewn is ok for interior > > construction — for eras before the sewing machine was around. > Underpinnings > > do make a difference in how the costume looks from the outside, but how > much > > does it matter that the corset looks right, as long as it gives the right > > shaping. But once you have a reason to show the corset, its appearance > > becomes more important. > > > > Beyond that, as above, it starts to depend on personal interest in a > > particular technique or a desire to learn the techniques of a particular > > era. > > > > -Carol > > _______________________________________________ > > h-costume mailing list > > h-costume@mail.indra.com > > http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume > > > > _______________________________________________ > h-costume mailing list > h-costume@mail.indra.com > http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume > _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
