Re: [h-cost] fiber arts and making vs buying clothes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Never was a goth myself, but had lots of goth friends (and still have a few!). Most of them wouldn't be caught dead making their own clothes - adapting maybe, but not actually making. Here in Northern California there were and are groups and mailing lists for Goths who are making and adapting clothing. There's no stigma accruing to those who make their own. Someone who can make cool Gothwear is appreciated. Lilinah ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: Subject: Re: [h-cost] fiber arts and making vs buying clothes
Thanks Debs. I was about to say, maybe it's a difference between US and UK - there is so much less sewing done here overall. I still boggle at the memory of finding fabric by the yard in WalMart in Connecticut! Adapting and decorating I can believe, making accessories from scratch, but for most people actual dressmaking is so ... girly! Jean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote Never was a goth myself, but had lots of goth friends (and still have a few!). Most of them wouldn't be caught dead making their own clothes - adapting maybe, but not actually making. There was a healthy band of good cheap 'alternative' clothing shops in Newcastle and the surrounding area, and a few in Leeds, near where I went to college. That said I always made my own clothes - and occasionally bits for friends - largely cos I couldn't afford to buy new clothes. Adapting stuff from charity shops was always popular though! ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume -- Jean Waddie ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] fiber arts and making vs buying clothes
Re the time period of store bought clothing etc., I think that the availability of items will be better dated by the long history of mail-order companies which begins in the last quarter of the 19th C, and some items were available before this. The effect of the Industrial Revolution on mainstream life in general is probably the starting point. Kathleen - Original Message - From: Dawn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2005 10:11 AM Subject: Re: [h-cost] fiber arts and making vs buying clothes Carolyn Kayta Barrows wrote: When did off the rack clothes become THE WAY to go, as opposed to just being what people who couldn't afford to have clothes made for them wore? Probably as soon as they became plentiful and cheap. Store bought clothing and household goods became a sign of affluence after the Depression, and again after WW2. People hid quilts under Sears bedspreads and only wore flour sack underwear to school on days they didn't have to change for gym. The 60's and 70's hippie movement spawned re-interest in those old crafts, and by the 80's it was being called art. Dawn ___ 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
Re: [h-cost] fiber arts and making vs buying clothes
Somehow I can't imagine most Goths, as I know them, sitting down doing anything as domesticated and constructive as making clothes. Making jewellery, possibly embellishing clothes, yes, but actual dressmaking? You can build up a pretty wide wardrobe by just buying things that are available in black, and while they might take a bit more searching out in smaller places, in Edinburgh there are plenty of shops where you can buy the crushed velvet dresses and other specialist items. Jean Lavolta Press [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote I'd agree with your definition, except that I associate the term fiber art with textile arts other than sewing. Whereas, to me wearable art covers sewing, weaving, spinning, knitting, crochet, embroidery, the whole spectrum. Oh, except a hanging or sculpture is fiber art, but not wearable. As for Goths, who I supect may be a rather large DIY crowd, I've never been tempted to become one because, as far as I can tell from the historic costumers I know who are also Goths, they hang out in clubs and listen to modern music. I can't stand modern music. Also, I look awful in black. But some of the ideas on the net I've seen are really creative. The Gothic Lolitas seem far too sweet and innocent to be real Goths though. While, as far as I know, none of my passing Goth acquaintances actually drink blood, they seem pretty sophisticated. Fran Lavolta Press http://www.lavoltapress What I call wearable art and what Michael's craft stores call wearable art are rather different. They call things like craft-decorated t-shirts by that name, when they're selling supplies for making same. I have a little more highbrow definition, and would go with the more avant guarde and arty look. Upscale art and wine festivals have more what I would call wearable art. I also call it fiber art, which the craft stores pretty much don't. ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume -- Jean Waddie ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Subject: Re: [h-cost] fiber arts and making vs buying clothes
Never was a goth myself, but had lots of goth friends (and still have a few!). Most of them wouldn't be caught dead making their own clothes - adapting maybe, but not actually making. There was a healthy band of good cheap 'alternative' clothing shops in Newcastle and the surrounding area, and a few in Leeds, near where I went to college. That said I always made my own clothes - and occasionally bits for friends - largely cos I couldn't afford to buy new clothes. Adapting stuff from charity shops was always popular though! ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
[h-cost] fiber arts and making vs buying clothes
Fran wrote: The whole modern wearable art movement is an outgrowth of DIY hippie crafts. I'm hoping to see the DIY aspects, the loving-hands-at-home experiments, revived as a foundation for a new generation of fiber artists. I reply: Huh. My first encounters with fiber-arts came with my grandmother (now 79); I doubt she'd enjoy being called a hippie (but i won't tell) ;-) Good to know that's where/when/how working with textiles and fiber went from something one did if you were too poor to buy you clothes to something one did as an artform :-) When did off the rack clothes become THE WAY to go, as opposed to just being what people who couldn't afford to have clothes made for them wore? Stephanie __ Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] fiber arts and making vs buying clothes
Carolyn Kayta Barrows wrote: When did off the rack clothes become THE WAY to go, as opposed to just being what people who couldn't afford to have clothes made for them wore? Probably as soon as they became plentiful and cheap. Store bought clothing and household goods became a sign of affluence after the Depression, and again after WW2. People hid quilts under Sears bedspreads and only wore flour sack underwear to school on days they didn't have to change for gym. The 60's and 70's hippie movement spawned re-interest in those old crafts, and by the 80's it was being called art. Dawn ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] fiber arts and making vs buying clothes
Off-the-rack clothes became THE WAY to go in the 1920s. Problem was, during the depression of the 1930s and the war rationing and shortages of the 1940s, a great many people had to home sew, restyle clothing, and think up ways to use things like flour sacks just to get something to wear. While home dressmaking was associated with economy even in the 19th century--the small amount one would spend on a low-end dressmaker was still worth saving if you had a small clothes budget--economy became its primary association. 1950s dressmaking manuals told women they could make clothes that would look just like RTW, so they didn't have to admit they home sewed. Then, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a counterculture reaction against things manufactured by the establishment, including clothing, food, and many other things. People took up not only home sewing (see _The Illustrated Hassle-Free Make Your Own Clothes Book_), but bread baking (see the _Tassajara Bread Book_), organic gardening, candle making, and lots of other crafts. The emphasis was not only on doing it yourself, but on _not_ imitating plastic ready-made clothes, supermarket food, etc. Many completely inexperienced people were experimenting with various crafts; and inexperience, as well as a go with the flow attitude, led to many original approaches. And by the 1980s, some people had become very skilled, in fact professional, at patchwork, free-form crochet, and lots of other things. (The Tassajara bakery morphed into the very expensive, sophisticated, gourmet vegetarian restaurant Greens.) They published and taught about new approaches and techniques they'd developed. Companies like Folkwear were founded. Banks bought enormous fiber art hangings for their lobbies. It was very hip to study fiber arts in college (not usually sewing, but weaving, spinning, crochet, embroidery, and such). The modern reenactment movement (I'm excluding things like Victorian costume balls and jousts when I say modern) also, I believe, got its start as part of the counterculture. The SCA started as a bunch of hippies who enjoyed dressing in colorful clothes and evolved into a much larger organization with much more complicated goals. While I'm greatly enjoying the modern boho revival (especially gypsy skirts; I've accumulated a largish collection), as far as I can tell it focuses on people buying styles, not making them. Yes, in the 1960s and 1970s the RTW industry eagerly jumped on the counterculture bandwagon, manufacturing and selling hippie clothes. Still, there was a lot of DIY, which I don't think I'm seeing currently as a mainstream movement. Fran Lavolta Press Books on Historic Costuming http://www.lavoltapress.com Good to know that's where/when/how working with textiles and fiber went from something one did if you were too poor to buy you clothes to something one did as an artform :-) When did off the rack clothes become THE WAY to go, as opposed to just being what people who couldn't afford to have clothes made for them wore? Stephanie __ Yahoo! Mail for Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail ___ 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
Re: [h-cost] fiber arts and making vs buying clothes
1950s dressmaking manuals told women they could make clothes that would
look just like RTW, so they didn't have to admit they home sewed.
It was a big day in my brother's life when he stopped letting my mother sew
his shirts for him. That was about 1964.
Then, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a counterculture
reaction against things manufactured by the establishment, including
clothing, food, and many other things. People took up not only home
sewing (see _The Illustrated Hassle-Free Make Your Own Clothes Book_), but
bread baking (see the _Tassajara Bread Book_), organic gardening, candle
making, and lots of other crafts. The emphasis was not only on doing it
yourself, but on _not_ imitating plastic ready-made clothes, supermarket
food, etc. Many completely inexperienced people were experimenting with
various crafts; and inexperience, as well as a go with the flow
attitude, led to many original approaches.
That's when Hippies started embroidering their blue jeans and wearing
ethnic garments.
And by the 1980s, some people had become very skilled, in fact
professional, at patchwork, free-form crochet, and lots of other
things. (The Tassajara bakery morphed into the very expensive,
sophisticated, gourmet vegetarian restaurant Greens.) They published and
taught about new approaches and techniques they'd developed. Companies
like Folkwear were founded. Banks bought enormous fiber art hangings for
their lobbies. It was very hip to study fiber arts in college (not
usually sewing, but weaving, spinning, crochet, embroidery, and such).
You must live in Northern CA.
The modern reenactment movement (I'm excluding things like Victorian
costume balls and jousts when I say modern) also, I believe, got its
start as part of the counterculture. The SCA started as a bunch of
hippies who enjoyed dressing in colorful clothes and evolved into a much
larger organization with much more complicated goals.
Ren. Faires started in the early 1960s, and their founder coined the term
living history.
Still, there was a lot of DIY, which I don't think I'm seeing currently as
a mainstream movement.
Wearable art, while not being exactly mainstream is at least
common. Places like Michael's craft stores carry supplies for making
wearable art, and a few kits for the same.
CarolynKayta Barrows
dollmaker, fibre artist, textillian
www.FunStuft.com
\\\
-@@\\\
7 )))
(((
) ((
/\ /---\))
___
h-costume mailing list
h-costume@mail.indra.com
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] fiber arts and making vs buying clothes
Ren. Faires started in the early 1960s, and their founder coined the term living history. Wasn't there some early connection with the SCA? Still, there was a lot of DIY, which I don't think I'm seeing currently as a mainstream movement. Wearable art, while not being exactly mainstream is at least common. Places like Michael's craft stores carry supplies for making wearable art, and a few kits for the same. But what do you call wearable art? I'd say it's something more avant-garde, or arty, than a nice but mainstream hand-knitted sweater. Fran Lavolta Press http://www.lavoltapress.com ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] fiber arts and making vs buying clothes
I would agree. Define wearable art. The DIY movement is VERY strong and VERY mainstream. In particular among teenage girls. Just take a look at Etsy and you'll see the demographics. http://www.etsy.com/ The most popular thing to make right now in the reconstruct part of DIY is t-shirts recounstructed to look like corsets. Some are really nice. B. Wearable art, while not being exactly mainstream is at least common. Places like Michael's craft stores carry supplies for making wearable art, and a few kits for the same. But what do you call wearable art? I'd say it's something more avant-garde, or arty, than a nice but mainstream hand-knitted sweater. Fran Lavolta Press http://www.lavoltapress.com ___ 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
Re: [h-cost] fiber arts and making vs buying clothes
It's pretty easy to put lace-up trimming down the front of a tank top. BTW, that was a hippie style too. It's certainly heavily done in ready-to-wear for the American junior market. In shopping malls and online catalogs, I've seen a lot of ready-to-wear decorated T shirts and tank tops. They're often quite charming. I would guess Goths have to make most of their Goth clothes, although I've seen Goth clothing for sale on the net. In fact I bought some skirts that I found out are by a Goth ready-to-wear manufacturer, at www.artfulwears.com. Something else about wearable art--to my mind it has a kind of wild and wooly aspect. It's not a well-made but conservative hand-knitted sweater. I love hand-knitted sweaters, but I don't think they're all wearable art. It's not a commercial T-shirt with some lace trim and/or appliques sewn on. Those can be very cute, but I don't think they're wearable art either. It's also not ticky-tacky-craftsy, kits-and-kitsch. Wearable art may or may not be related to current fashion, but it's experimental, and different. That's what makes it art. I agree that sewing an embroidered patch on your blue jeans, as many people did in the late 60s and early 70s, is not wearable art either. But some people went further, and were more arty. I should add that the modern vintage clothing market, or rather the modern perception of it, also dates from the hippie movement. To the generation before that, buying used clothing was something you avoided if possible, for its connotations of not being able to afford new, and even catching parasites or diseases from the previous owner. The hippie movement siezed on vintage clothing (reconstructed or not) as a way to both find different styles and to benefit the environment by recycling. Fran Lavolta Press http://www.lavoltapress.com Jacqueline Johnson wrote: I would agree. Define wearable art. The DIY movement is VERY strong and VERY mainstream. In particular among teenage girls. Just take a look at Etsy and you'll see the demographics. http://www.etsy.com/ The most popular thing to make right now in the reconstruct part of DIY is t-shirts recounstructed to look like corsets. Some are really nice. B. Wearable art, while not being exactly mainstream is at least common. Places like Michael's craft stores carry supplies for making wearable art, and a few kits for the same. But what do you call wearable art? I'd say it's something more avant-garde, or arty, than a nice but mainstream hand-knitted sweater. Fran Lavolta Press http://www.lavoltapress.com ___ 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
Re: [h-cost] fiber arts and making vs buying clothes
I'm unsure if you've seen the corset t-shirts but what they are is essentially the body of the t-shirt intact with pieces of fabric added either on the front or back with grommets in. Then you lace just like a corset. Some are really wild others are the basic style. Also the old add a skirt to the bottom of a t-shirt is still standard. Heck I was doing that in HS (I was born in 72 if it says much) . Depending on what facet of goth you are doing you have a few great choices for clothing. If you do LBG or Lolita Rose and Thorn is amazing. http://www.angelfire.com/ab6/roseandthorn/ If you like cyber goth Lip Service has some nice pieces although I'm not real keen on the method of making them or their lastability. The Gothic Lolita Bible is a must for anyone who studies modern costume or is in the Lolita or FrUiTs movement of clothing. Blue Period hosts scans of the book: http://www.blue-period.fsnet.co.uk/egl.html Goth Fashion Info gives simple circle skirt instruction: http://gothfashion.info/circlepixie.html I like Morbid Outlook's explanation of Japanese Lolita: http://www.morbidoutlook.com/fashion/articles/2002_07_gothiclolita.html Metamorphose Temps des Filles sells great clothes for those into GL: http://www.metamorphose.gr.jp/english/index.html I have more links of course. If anyone wants them just ask. To my mind if you've made it chances are its wearable art. Its handmade and its OOAK. You aren't going to run into Hot Topic or Kmart and grab it off the rack. B~ On 9/3/05, Lavolta Press [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's pretty easy to put lace-up trimming down the front of a tank top. BTW, that was a hippie style too. It's certainly heavily done in ready-to-wear for the American junior market. In shopping malls and online catalogs, I've seen a lot of ready-to-wear decorated T shirts and tank tops. They're often quite charming. I would guess Goths have to make most of their Goth clothes, although I've seen Goth clothing for sale on the net. In fact I bought some skirts that I found out are by a Goth ready-to-wear manufacturer, at www.artfulwears.com http://www.artfulwears.com. Something else about wearable art--to my mind it has a kind of wild and wooly aspect. It's not a well-made but conservative hand-knitted sweater. I love hand-knitted sweaters, but I don't think they're all wearable art. It's not a commercial T-shirt with some lace trim and/or appliques sewn on. Those can be very cute, but I don't think they're wearable art either. It's also not ticky-tacky-craftsy, kits-and-kitsch. Wearable art may or may not be related to current fashion, but it's experimental, and different. That's what makes it art. I agree that sewing an embroidered patch on your blue jeans, as many people did in the late 60s and early 70s, is not wearable art either. But some people went further, and were more arty. I should add that the modern vintage clothing market, or rather the modern perception of it, also dates from the hippie movement. To the generation before that, buying used clothing was something you avoided if possible, for its connotations of not being able to afford new, and even catching parasites or diseases from the previous owner. The hippie movement siezed on vintage clothing (reconstructed or not) as a way to both find different styles and to benefit the environment by recycling. Fran Lavolta Press http://www.lavoltapress.com ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] fiber arts and making vs buying clothes
I'd agree with your definition, except that I associate the term fiber art with textile arts other than sewing. Whereas, to me wearable art covers sewing, weaving, spinning, knitting, crochet, embroidery, the whole spectrum. Oh, except a hanging or sculpture is fiber art, but not wearable. As for Goths, who I supect may be a rather large DIY crowd, I've never been tempted to become one because, as far as I can tell from the historic costumers I know who are also Goths, they hang out in clubs and listen to modern music. I can't stand modern music. Also, I look awful in black. But some of the ideas on the net I've seen are really creative. The Gothic Lolitas seem far too sweet and innocent to be real Goths though. While, as far as I know, none of my passing Goth acquaintances actually drink blood, they seem pretty sophisticated. Fran Lavolta Press http://www.lavoltapress What I call wearable art and what Michael's craft stores call wearable art are rather different. They call things like craft-decorated t-shirts by that name, when they're selling supplies for making same. I have a little more highbrow definition, and would go with the more avant guarde and arty look. Upscale art and wine festivals have more what I would call wearable art. I also call it fiber art, which the craft stores pretty much don't. ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] fiber arts and making vs buying clothes
I'm guessing you've never encountered the perky goth subset of goth then. A google search should give you more than a few areas to look. As for the Lolita's looking innocent and sweet that's the whole idea. Sweet evil and innocent *looking*. Then you have the harajuku girls of Gwen Stefani fame. Yet another division in the Goth clothing movement. gothicauctions.comhttp://gothicauctions.comwill show a number of DIYers who sell to others. I see a lot of square dance dresses adapted to Lolita (that's what I use for my clothes anyhow) and bustle skirts in any fabric is popular. Past Patterns #904 the polonaise dress is HUGE for Goth DIYers. I've made one version in PVC in fact. Right now I'm working on a black lolita nun dress. B On 9/3/05, Lavolta Press [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip As for Goths, who I supect may be a rather large DIY crowd, I've never been tempted to become one because, as far as I can tell from the historic costumers I know who are also Goths, they hang out in clubs and listen to modern music. I can't stand modern music. Also, I look awful in black. But some of the ideas on the net I've seen are really creative. The Gothic Lolitas seem far too sweet and innocent to be real Goths though. While, as far as I know, none of my passing Goth acquaintances actually drink blood, they seem pretty sophisticated. Fran Lavolta Press ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] fiber arts and making vs buying clothes
BTW, some jewelry is like wearable sculpture, and is made of metal, stone, etc. True, and there is also fiber jewelry. I would call that wearable art too. Then there are cross-over folks like Arlene Fisch who, in the 1970s, was making knitted silver wire jewelry. And the chain-mail-bikini crowd - wearable, but is it art? Dunno. There's a sense in which, the first time someone makes it, it's art; but if a bunch of other people make pretty much the same thing, is it art anymore? Fran Lavolta Press http://www.lavoltapress.com ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] fiber arts and making vs buying clothes
Good question. This brings to mind the question of whether or not a recreation of, say, a Worth gown is art. Certainly it was art the first time, but is what we're doing also art? I'm not sure it was even art the first time. Worth actually had a fairly large concern and churned out numbers of very similar garments. I don't see that couture is necessarily art. And are we in the wrong century to be calling our work art if we're creating a gown of a new design in a decades-old, or centuries-old, style? Interesting point you brought up. If it's an attempt at an exact reproduction, I think not. It may be beautiful, it may be well made, but that doesn't make it art. It's really an effort not to be original. When I was studying weaving and other texile arts (in parallel with studying clothing design in another department of the same university, and history in yet another department), the other students sneered at anything they called yardage. Making garments was not hip. I was at variance with the general opinion because I've always wanted everything I made to be useful. For example, my crochet class was taught by a visiting instructor, a fiber artist well known at the time. We were all encouraged to attend an exhibit of her work. I went, and was puzzled by her current phase, which consisted of enormous, much larger than life kimonos with crocheted pictures. They were beautiful, but there was quite enough room on an ordinary-sized kimono for the same pictures at smaller scale. But, she said, if they were wearable they wouldn't really be art. Huh? There was one student who presented, for a weaving class critique, a beautiful curtain, or as she called it a window hanging, in leno weave (which some people call lace weave even though it is not technically lace). She said she planned to hang it in her living room window. She received a lot of praise, which emboldened her to say that she actually had three windows in her living room and already had her loom strung to make two more hangings. Immediately the praise turned to condemnation. Oh, that would be _yardage_. I thought that was silly; if one piece is art is it really degraded by her making a mere two others? On the other hand, I have to say that if she'd churned them out by the hundreds I might stop calling it art. Fran Lavolta Press http://www.lavoltapress.com ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
