Cin, I remember, I've been on the list since the 90s. I think it is
possible to discuss authenticity issues without arguments. It does
not have to go in that direction.
So far everyone seems to be in agreement that it will vary. I enjoy
stories like Lisa's about her great grandmother's dress. I disagree
with Kathleen only in that I think Bjarne is subject to the same
compromises and decisions as anyone else. ;-)
With such broad interests included in the scope of the list, it's
important to give some context to the question... or the reply. Some
questions are best asked of a particular group or event management.
Some groups actively work to improve the level of authenticity of
their membership, so that is a definite possibility, too.
One experience of mine that might be closer to Michael's intended
discussion: I was learning about mid-18thC French women's clothing,
particularly the "corset" which is more like English jumps: a shaping
upper-body garment not as firm as stays. The information was that
paper was used as an inner layer, but the instructor recommended
heavy weight Pellon. I decided to try paper, using a card-weight
parchment. It held the shape ok, but crinkled a bit. I don't know if
there are extant corsets where you can see the type of paper used.
Sometimes experiments are necessary to understand the process.
-Carol
On Mar 13, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Cin 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
