Re: playing in period societies? Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
At 11:26 AM 9/22/2005, you wrote: Or, if not, if there's a group that focuses on the Irish/Celtic/Welsh (I think they are all different and distinct groups) history, language and costuming, I'd also love to know about them, too. Elena/Gia I don't know about your area, but in my area we have a local Celtic Society that I used to be semi-involved with. We used to do Scottish country dancing and we often were asked to either dance at Scottish caellies (sp?)), work the local Highland games, or dance with the Irish dance groups on St. Paddy's day, or give talks on costumes of the 16th c. Irish Scots. They also tried to promote Breton, Welsh, and Cornish history as well, although those weren't as popular. They are still around and are involved with a new Irish pub we have in town. Perhaps you can find something similar that may be associated with a pub in your area, or maybe listed in your news paper events page. And if you do, please let me know as well. My best friend and former dance mistress lives and works in your area, and she's commented that she hasn't found much to do up there like she did around here for re-enactment or even dancing opportunities. She even sent me her old box of faire stuff because she didn't know what else to do with them (that almost broke my heart for all the fond memories we had.) Kimiko ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
I totally agree. Since I am trieing to set up my own buisines in making fantasy and gothic clothing and weddingdresses I don't have time to do much research. And I quit the SCA and don't have reasons to wear my 16th century stuf aneymore I am now more in to 18th and 19th century clothing. It takes me the same amount of time in making them but less time in researching them. I have a huge library of pictures collekted. And I find more reasons to wear them. Once I wore my red 1860's dress to a X mas party and most people saw it as a very nice evening dress. Last year I wore a 18th century polonaise. And this year I hope to wear a black bustle gown like the red one in Moulin Rouge or in Van Helsing. But I would never wear my 16th century clothing to a modern party. It is also less frustrating. There is so much unknown about the cloting before the 18th century. And somehow I really don't like the 17th century. And the fabrics are cheaper. I can use cotton. I like linnen and silks more but can't afford the silks anymore since the Euro. In a lot of stores here where you can hire clothing and you ask for medieval you get 18th century. I like to make fantasy and gothic versions of 18th and 19th century clothing. And since there are more party's now where people can wear them I hope that they will buy them. Because I haven't seen anyone who makes historical based fantasy and gothic clothing here in the Netherlands. And if they do it is almost alway's Carnaval stuf. Very cheap and over the top. well OK, maybe making them is equally difficult but there is a great deal of difference in _researching_ them. If I want to make an 1860s morning dress I have thousands of fashion plates, contemporary patterns and instructions, photos of real people in real clothes (not an artist's slightly idealised version of what a member of the aristocracy was wearing on a formal occasion) and a few hundred extant garments to copy (obviously a lot of those are in private collections and therefore inaccessible to most members of the general public but you get the point). Snip ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
'Mary of Hungary gown' is 14th century isn't it?) and a whole lot of educated guesswork or trial and error. 1520s. The thing is when you know so much about an era you then start getting pickier about other details, so it's not just a question of oh there's more info so it's easier. In later periods you are also looking a larger population and indeed some rather more subtle differences in clothing by region, month of the year and indeed time of the day and occasion. Also age appropriate. It's still quite difficult for me to work out why a garment is considered more appropriate for an older woman than a younger. It's often not about colour, though darker and duller shades are often listed as more seemly, not is it always about ornamentation (sometimes plainer is too severe..) . On another discussion list (message board) someone queried the use of a bustle in 1880-81. The answer is not as simple as yes, wear a little one. The answer was not as simple at the time either. While there is more information, there are also more decisions to be made because the rate of fashion changes really do increase to the point you have seasonal fashions in the mid-late 19thC especially. Also while there is more opportunity to directly copy, there is ever so much more to research if you want to know why and how. One of my favourite eras covers the years from 1875-1885 and there certainly is a lot of photographic evidence, but a lot of of it is undated and it can be very tricky getting a good date because like now people cling on to older fashions and use local fashions that may not appear in the usual books. The usual rule to find the latest fashion and date from there doesn't always work either, because that can either be a completely random item that is ahead of its time or still be worn a few years before the image was taken. So more information doesn't always mean an easier task;) I recreate and create costume from many historical and media sources. The only easy way for any of them is to just start creating immediately without doing the reasearch, or at least saying enough! my brain will explode if I take up any more information!;) There is always more to learn. I started going mad with my Valois because of the amount of information I could look at (weaving types, stitch types where the cloth was woven.) michaela de bruce http://costumes.glittersweet.com -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005 ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
Following on from what Jean said, what I find interesting is this. (Background for anybody who doesn't re-enact in the UK...) There are several American Civil War groups here, varying in size. There is also a group portraying the Spanish Civil War. Lots of British men fought in both of these wars. Anyway, the thing I find interesting is that everybody understands why Bitish people want to remember the Spanish CW, but very few get why the ACW. To get more back to the original question (ish) - I'm not sure of the where's and why's, but there aren't very many 18th century re-enactors in the UK either. Medieval is by far the largest period re-enacted here at the moment (although it's taken over from the English Civil Wars). ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
Not exactly answering the question that was asked but... I find it interesting what people choose to portray in different countries. In the UK, most people do something linked with where they are, or where they grew up, or perhaps a more distant family link. But the Americans and Australians I have met are more prepared to portray history from somewhere else entirely, doing Byzantine and Bulgarian medieval and all sorts. It seems that, because they don't have the [European] history of that time in their own country, they feel more free to just pick something they fancy. Jean Bjarne og Leif Drews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote Sorry sorry folks, drinks on me! I ment why so much renaissance fairs and renaissance reenactors and not so many 18th century? - Original Message - From: Bjarne og Leif Drews [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 4:06 PM Subject: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century? -- Jean Waddie ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
Gold rush it is§ :-) I like silk the better! - Original Message - From: Deredere Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 1:28 PM Subject: Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century? M... Gold rush? I think they just love the colour of gold. And there is a lot more gold in 16th century dresses than in 18 thcentury dresses. :-) :-D ;-) :-P Bjarne og Leif Drews wrote: Why is it that America has such a great market for 18th century reenacters and not so many of 18th century? I have no clues, could anybody enlighten me? Bjarne Leif og Bjarne Drews www.my-drewscostumes.dk http://home0.inet.tele.dk/drewscph/ ___ 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] why renaissance and not 18th century?
Oh yes Karen, I think you have a point there, Things in a new country so far from civilisation 3 or 4months away I give up! Its just like i hate another list ia m on called 18th century womens list, and they dont care about fashion at all But i am sure you are righ Good weekend to youIn denmark we say - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 4:41 PM Subject: Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century? I think that it depends on where in the US you are. We've got a big country here. In the Eastern/Midwestern part of the US, Revolutionary War re-enactment is relatively big. I got my start with the NorthWest Territory Alliance (NWTA) back in the 1970's when the Bicentennial was happening. 25 years later it's still going strong although I participate only occasionally. There's also a pretty big Voyageur (French traders and explorers associated with canoes) reenactment contingent as well as general 'Fur Trade' reenactment with black powder weapons being their focus. Unlike the European 18th century, much of North America was a frontier so we don't tend to do the beautiful, elegant costumes such as you make, Bjarne. I'm not saying that they didn't exist, but our reeneactments tend to focus on a much rougher segment of the population. Karen Seamstrix -- Cynthia Virtue [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bjarne og Leif Drews wrote: Sorry sorry folks, drinks on me! I ment why so much renaissance fairs and renaissance reenactors and not so many 18th century? The American RenFaires are mostly very fluffy. Lots of flashy clothes, stage magic, selling of pretty things, and not so much history. They make a fair amount of money for the organizers, and the few historic elements are often provided by really dedicated volunteers who get paid nothing, and who are not a big part of the experience for most of the attendees. It's an experience of its own, really, not related to re-enactment. I expect the 18th century is too close in time to be myth'ed up like that and sell well to the general public. cv ___ 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] why renaissance and not 18th century?
In a message dated 9/22/2005 10:30:32 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The American RenFaires are mostly very fluffy. Lots of flashy clothes, stage magic, selling of pretty things, and not so much history. ** Yes the Renn thing is not historical...though of course we over here do have a Renn history. I live in NC where the 1st English colony landedand then disappeared [the Lost Colony]. Sir Walter Raleigh's little adventure, which is why the capital of NC is named Raleigh. And there are tons of Colonial towns and battlefields on the East Coast because of the Revolutionary War so there is actually more 18th century reenacting than you might think. But that is HISTORY and politics...Founding Fathers and allso naturally it is kinda rejected by American culture because you might actually learn something! The 19th century on the other hand... Whoa! The Civil War [in the south east]and the Gold Rush [out west] are extensively coveredeven if it is history. I suspect the Gold Rush is alluring because it embodies that pioneer spirit mixed with greed we Americans seem to revere. The Civil War is practically re-fought every year because there are those in the South still trying to win it :P ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
18th century for us is recent history. :) to get in touch with our roots, we have to go back to the Old World. arlys in oregon, where the first town was founded around 1860 or so On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:18:21 +0200 Bjarne og Leif Drews [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Sorry sorry folks, drinks on me! I ment why so much renaissance fairs and renaissance reenactors and not so many 18th century? ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
I think we in the U.S. may also have an actual TRADITION of Ren faires, whereas reenactments of our own country's history are a more recent phenomenon. According to James D. Hart's THE POPULAR BOOK: A HISTORY OF AMERICA'S LITERARY TASTE (University of California Press, 1950), the novels of Sir Walter Scott were wildly popular with American readers. They were adapted into plays (Ivanhoe in 1820 and within the next twelve years six more of his novels and two of his poems), and the Gothic settings of his novels influenced architecture and landscape design especially in the American South. According to Hart, Although only four or five of Scott's novels dealth with the Middle Ages, the South thought of him as the romancer of chivalry. When he died the Louisiana Courier asked sadly, 'Who shall now depict the feudal castle--the time worn turret--the feats of warrior knights--the conflicts of the tournaments--the battles against the infidels?'... the Southern patricians enjoyed a kind of juvenile imitation of [these events] in the tournaments they instituted in the 1840s. Nothing quite like their tilting with lances at a suspended! ring was to be found in Scott's pages but the spirit of the contest was his. A South Carolina newspaper announced one as copying 'closely in dresses and arrangements...those that Ivanhoe withnessed'; contestants frequently took such titles as Waverly, Ivanhoe, The Disinherited Knight, and Peveril of the Peak...and the affairs were furbished with Queens of Honour, pseudo-medieval costume, and all the other trappings of romance identified with a Scott tourneyScott was influential because his fiction was in accord with the region's general attitude of mind And since the medieval world was heavily fantasized in Scott's novels, it's easy to see how those tournaments would be celebrations of Days of Yore rather than historical reenactments! I suspect that Americans in general secretly wish for the trappings of royalty even if they don't want an actual king! We do have some wonderful reenactment groups and places (in the East, Plimouth Plantation, Colonial Williamsburg, Mystic Seaport, for instance) that do Colonial (1640s to 1770s), Revolutionary, and 19th century, and (to judge from this list) some serious Renaissance groups as well, but the Ren fairs seem to be a different phenomenon altogether, and what Hart has to say suggests that this is the older and deeper attachment. --Ruth Anne Baumgartner scholar gypsy and amateur costumer -Original Message- From: Bjarne og Leif Drews [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sep 22, 2005 9:33 AM To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century? Gold rush it is§ :-) I like silk the better! - Original Message - From: Deredere Galbraith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 1:28 PM Subject: Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century? M... Gold rush? I think they just love the colour of gold. And there is a lot more gold in 16th century dresses than in 18 thcentury dresses. :-) :-D ;-) :-P Bjarne og Leif Drews wrote: Why is it that America has such a great market for 18th century reenacters and not so many of 18th century? I have no clues, could anybody enlighten me? Bjarne Leif og Bjarne Drews www.my-drewscostumes.dk http://home0.inet.tele.dk/drewscph/ ___ 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 ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
Nah, to most Americans the 18th century is the remote past. As for mythed up, you apparently weren't in my grade school American history classes. True and false, we had the larger-than-life Founding Fathers (even a few mothers), history told as stories. Washington and the cherry tree. Washington and Valley Forge. Betsy Ross and the flag. (I knew one of her descendents in high school, named . .. Betsy Ross. And her cousins were named Betsy. The family was still attaching the name to every female infant possible.) Paul Revere and his ride. The Boston Tea Party. In the part of the country I originally came from, everything was named for Washington. Towns, streets, schools, you name it. There was hardly an 18th-century house or inn around that Washington didn't supposedly sleep in. He was Our Father, larger than life. Fran Lavolta Press http://www.lavoltapress.com It's an experience of its own, really, not related to re-enactment. I expect the 18th century is too close in time to be myth'ed up like that and sell well to the general public. cv ___ ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
I actually don't understand it either. True, most of the current US was, in the 18th century, not a place for silks and satins. But, as people are commenting, the SCA does all kinds of eras and places remote from US history. So, why not have more groups that do the fancy 18th century, even in parts of the US where that part of history didn't happen to speak of? Granted, there won't be the existing organizations, the historic houses and such, to build it around. But the SCA has done very well in the absence of medieval castles . . . . Fran Lavolta Press http://www.lavoltapress.com Bjarne og Leif Drews wrote: Why is it that America has such a great market for 18th century reenacters and not so many of 18th century? I have no clues, could anybody enlighten me? Bjarne ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
Bjarne, I'm on the 18cWoman list and we are interested and do talk about fashion, as well as many other topics. If you hate it, then unsubscribe. Oh yes Karen, I think you have a point there, Things in a new country so far from civilisation 3 or 4months away I give up! Its just like i hate another list ia m on called 18th century womens list, and they dont care about fashion at all But i am sure you are righ Good weekend to youIn denmark we say ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
playing in period societies? Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
Personally, I play in the SCA because I can dress up alot... What I'd prefer to do is to play dress up for several periods, and (I'm sorry) for brevity let's just say from 1650 through 1900. I love each of the different fashions that evolved and exploring each development and their fabrics, textiles, accessories and social graces would be exquisite. If there are 'Societies' in the USA (Seattle, Washington area) that I could begin playing in I'd love to know about them. Or, if not, if there's a group that focuses on the Irish/Celtic/Welsh (I think they are all different and distinct groups) history, language and costuming, I'd also love to know about them, too. Elena/Gia Bjarne og Leif Drews wrote: Sorry sorry folks, drinks on me! I ment why so much renaissance fairs and renaissance reenactors and not so many 18th century? The American RenFaires are mostly very fluffy. Lots of flashy clothes, stage magic, selling of pretty things, and not so much history. They make a fair amount of money for the organizers, and the few historic elements are often provided by really dedicated volunteers who get paid nothing, and who are not a big part of the experience for most of the attendees. It's an experience of its own, really, not related to re-enactment. I expect the 18th century is too close in time to be myth'ed up like that and sell well to the general public. cv ___ 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] why renaissance and not 18th century?
Bjarne, why not start your own discussion group about the 18th century, focusing on clothes? I'll bet plenty of us here would love to join. Michelle ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
O yeah Chris G. Michelle Plumb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bjarne, why not start your own discussion group about the 18th century, focusing on clothes? I'll bet plenty of us here would love to join. Michelle ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume - Yahoo! for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
Lavolta Press wrote: Nah, to most Americans the 18th century is the remote past. As for mythed up, you apparently weren't in my grade school American history classes. Oh, yeah, I've had those, but it's not all fairies and magic dust, bizarre speech patterns, and bosoms. And some of those myths can at least be found to have roots in real events (although, apparently, not the 'Betsy Ross made the flag' one, last I heard.) -- Cynthia Virtue and/or Cynthia du Pre Argent Such virtue hath my pen -Shakespeare, Sonnet 81 I knew this wasn't _my_ pen! --Cynthia Virtue ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
The bosoms are for a somewhat older crowd. . . . Some medieval myths, such as King Arthur, probably have some roots in real events. We just don't know for sure what those are. But my point is, we _do_ have American historical myths and they have a powerful effect on Americans. This may not be the body of myth that most affects you emotionally, but it definitely exists, and it's definitely only partly in accordance with historical fact. Fran Lavolta Press http://www.lavoltapress.com Cynthia Virtue wrote: Lavolta Press wrote: Nah, to most Americans the 18th century is the remote past. As for mythed up, you apparently weren't in my grade school American history classes. Oh, yeah, I've had those, but it's not all fairies and magic dust, bizarre speech patterns, and bosoms. And some of those myths can at least be found to have roots in real events (although, apparently, not the 'Betsy Ross made the flag' one, last I heard.) ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
Here is another different take on the subject: I think what periods of history that have been chosen by North Americans to re-create have been heavily influenced by movies, popular fiction and television. Take the SCA for example, one of the founding members is a very popular Fantasy writer. Both Ren-faires and the SCA began during a period of Fantasy fiction popularity, so to my mind there is no real surprise that the time periods chosen to re-create are more Medieval in flavour. Also hugely popular is the 'Western'. Western movies, books, TV programs abound, so no real surprise that some folks would love the chance to play Cowboy, ride a horse and wear a 6 shooter. Same to be said of the Civil war. It's all a very romanticised part of local history. As a youngster, I could tell you that guys with swords and armour were from the Middle Ages, King Arthur was cool, I had piles of books of stories about that. There were movies and tv shows too. Tell me there is a group that dresses up and does Medieval things, fantastic, sign me up. Where's my horse and my sword? :-) The TV show Gunsmoke and my Grandpa's Louis L'Amour western novels were responsible for my (obviously shaky) grasp of American Western history. Tell me there is a group that gets to run around outside with tomahawks, black powder guns and horses, sign me up! Ask me anything about the 1700's and I would draw a total blank. There were no tv shows about that. First movie I ever saw on the subject at all was Dangerous Liasons, and the subject matter of the movie wouldn't have been much of an encouragement to find a group to recreate the period. :-) To make a long post short, we start with what we know, then expand as we learn. What drew us to these groups in the first place was a very idealized romantic notion of 'history', whatever we had seen up to that point we got from Pop culture. Now we know better. :-) Sheridan (I also think that some history we are still too close to, my home province of Alberta just celebrated its 100th anniversary of being part of Canada. My family has lived here for just over 90 years. Europe's history always seemed far more interesting to me in comparison, because it's Old.) ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
Bjarne og Leif Drews wrote: Sorry sorry folks, drinks on me! I ment why so much renaissance fairs and renaissance reenactors and not so many 18th century? Aside from the fact that I don't know of any 18th century groups near me... I just plain like the clothing from the 16th century better. Not so fond of the 18th century stuff, it just never appealed to me. Dianne ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
I don't think there is a firm dividing line between pop culture, and, well, the rest of our culture. The Great Myths consist of a vast soup of old historical stories; fairy tales; religious myths; cultural dreams/goals; and modern novels, films, and TV shows. It's not like late-night TV versus solid academic historical research. The reason a lot of pop culture resonates with people is that it consciously or unconsciously draws from, or has evolved from, established mythic elements. And I don't think it's like, we should give up, or even can give up, the Great Myths the way kids give up playing with dolls because they're too old. You just need to recognize them for what they are, and also recognize that they may be partly true, that they may contain actual historical facts. Fran Lavolta Press http://www.lavoltapress.com Shane Sheridan wrote: Here is another different take on the subject: I think what periods of history that have been chosen by North Americans to re-create have been heavily influenced by movies, popular fiction and television. To make a long post short, we start with what we know, then expand as we learn. What drew us to these groups in the first place was a very idealized romantic notion of 'history', whatever we had seen up to that point we got from Pop culture. Now we know better. :-) Sheridan ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
In a message dated 9/22/2005 5:07:17 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't think there is a firm dividing line between pop culture, and, well, the rest of our culture. Indeed. But especially today, pop culture is disposable. Real culture endures. And pop culture is a lot...LOT of the time just plain wrong. Look at the notion of the flapper in her fringed dress, stocking rolled down and doing the Charleston . Yes, there's a basis for it but the REAL range of attitudes and clothes [and dances] from the 1920s is much more interesting and better. Even closer to home is the hippy. I saw a bit of Milos Forman's [dreadful] film of Hair recently. The hippies had elements of hippy-dom, but I don't remember seeing any of them dressed quite like that. And the film is all flower power and free love, whereas the real Hairand real hippy movement was very much more: down with the establishment, man...protest...f-you...aggressive. I remember. Pop culture skims the surface. Real culture digs deep. And is always more interesting. ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
Cynthia said, Oh, yeah, I've had those, but it's not all fairies and magic dust, bizarre speech patterns, and bosoms. I've heard eough bizarre speech patterns at 18thC events, and there are definitely bosoms! It seems like for both 18thC and Ren Faires, many people want to show more bosom than was fashionable at the time. Fran said, True, most of the current US was, in the 18th century, not a place for silks and satins. But, as people are commenting, the SCA does all kinds of eras and places remote from US history. So, why not have more groups that do the fancy 18th century, even in parts of the US where that part of history didn't happen to speak of? Granted, there won't be the existing organizations, the historic houses and such, to build it around. But the SCA has done very well in the absence of medieval castles . . . . Isn't that what PEERS does? I'm not on the west coast, but I thought they had balls of various periods, beyond the eras when California was well-populated. There are places in the States where silks satins are appropriate - Williamsburg, Alexandria, Philadelphia and Boston come to mind. For those who could afford it, fashion was no more than a couple months behind London, as long as it takes a ship to cross with the latest Lady's Magazine. As I understand it, there were no masqued balls, really huge court panniers, or the extreme make-up that was seen in Europe. But there are still fine silk gowns and velvet coats, minuets and parties. I know Gadsby's Tavern museum in Alexandria holds a ball every year, sometimes several in a year. Because they want to be open to the museum members, dress is 18th century or 21stC formalwear. There are other events, sometimes private parties and sometimes as part of a larger reenactment, where people dress in very fine clothes. Perhaps it seems like upper class 18thC activities do not exist in the US because people know about them through word of mouth or other reenactments. If it weren't for the Lumieres list (a Yahoo group), I would not know it was happening in Europe, either. -Carol ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
. Indeed. But especially today, pop culture is disposable. Real culture endures. The works of Homer and Shakespeare (if they were even single authors, which is another issue entirely) were pop culture in their day. So was most of what literature students earnestly study, at the time it was first published. What people declare to be high art is not necessarily better. Are Zeus myths really much more complicated or edifying than Superman comics? And also, high art is not necessarily more influential on our culture as a whole. And pop culture is a lot...LOT of the time just plain wrong. Look at the notion of the flapper in her fringed dress, stocking rolled down and doing the Charleston . Yes, there's a basis for it but the REAL range of attitudes and clothes [and dances] from the 1920s is much more interesting and better. What I said was, that the myths we form of (and from) historic periods have a powerful influence on our culture. I also said that real history is considerably more complex; so you and I agree there. But to ignore or despise the effect that these myths have, is to ignore a significant portion of human motivations. Including our own. . Pop culture skims the surface. Real culture digs deep. And is always more interesting. There we disagree, because I think this is an artificial distinction. It's basically a marketing distinction. Like real literature getting reviewed in the _New York Times Book Review_, and trashy--but bestselling--novels getting reviewed in a great many less pretentious venues. Having worked in the book world, I could position lot of novels as either one or the other merely by writing a few paragraphs of back cover copy and sending review copies to a certain group of publications. And definitions evolve. Opera used to be popular entertainment. The high-class spectators got box seats because they were above, therefore out of the line of fire of, people criticizing the performance by throwing things at the actors. Now opera is high art--expensive to attend, and deemed a rather obscure, cultured, taste. Science fiction used to be low art; now it's becoming respectable. But whether high or low art, there are many working scientists who not only say they were inspired to their career paths by reading science fiction, but who are not ashamed to still read it. I'm not saying all novels, or films, or other art forms are equally good in my own estimation. But the fact remains that many people love and get value from things I don't think are good, and from things our current marketing trend has declared pop culture. 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] why renaissance and not 18th century?
Isn't that what PEERS does? I'm not on the west coast, but I thought they had balls of various periods, beyond the eras when California was well-populated. Yes, but not every reenactment event is a ball. There are other things people like to do. The Greater Bay Area Costumer's Guild has a range of non-dance events. Neither is ongoing in the sense of one era, though. That is, if you want to dress 18th century you have to wait for the one or two times a year there is an event for it. There are places in the States where silks satins are appropriate - Williamsburg, Alexandria, Philadelphia and Boston come to mind. Yes, but for much of the current US, they weren't. For those who could afford it, fashion was no more than a couple months behind London, as long as it takes a ship to cross with the latest Lady's Magazine. True. Perhaps it seems like upper class 18thC activities do not exist in the US because people know about them through word of mouth or other reenactments. If it weren't for the Lumieres list (a Yahoo group), I would not know it was happening in Europe, either. In California you are more likely to find a Gold Rush event than an 18th-century one. It's not that people (aside from the SCA, which seems to be everywhere) never reenact things that didn't happen in that part of the country. It's just that there are generally a lot fewer such events. Someone who was used to attending 18th-century events on a frequent basis Back East, would find them few and far between in most parts of California. Of course, many people have a taste for reenactment, per se. If there is no group for their favorite era in a place they move to, they just attend the events for the era popular in their new home. 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] why renaissance and not 18th century?
In a message dated 9/22/2005 7:06:50 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The works of Homer and Shakespeare (if they were even single authors, which is another issue entirely) were pop culture in their day. Yes yes yesbut so were a bunch of playwrights and poets, who were probably MORE popular, that we will never [thank goodness] hear of. Time weeds out pop culture for you so only the real culture remains. Remember, Bach was considered old fashion and Euripides lost the play contests. ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
[h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
I like so many different periods. I especially think the men look HOT in 18th 19th century clothes. What was that Hugh Jackman and Meg Ryan movie? YUM. But for me, it's easier to sew the earlier period costumes. Julie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just plain like the clothing from the 16th century better. Not so fond of the 18th century stuff, it just never appealed to me. Isn't taste interesting? There's really no period I hate, but I LOVE the 18th century...generally of course. Things look different depending on the decade...but the coat [justicorps or frock] waistcoat and pants [breeches] on men are the best. Especially IMHO at the end of the century. The open robe developed for women is a wonderful canvas to try all kinds of decorations on. The conical corset, layered skirts and open necklines look good on just about every type [even large women look great!] and can be very sexy. But I could go on about the 17th century's fabulous hats, wonderful off the shoulder rigid bodices [like in the 1660s] and wigsand of course all those 18th century things I like START in the late 17th century. And of course the 16th century men in leather doublets, short hair and beards look fantastic too. The women look good but not in a very feminine way to me. It's more ceremonial and elegant. Then there's the 19th century. As far as making any of the periods...they all equal out. Different difficulties in each, but just as many. ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
Julie wrote: What was that Hugh Jackman and Meg Ryan movie? YUM. Kate Leopold. I second the YUM. -Helen/Aidan ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
[h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
Isn't that what PEERS does? I'm not on the west coast, but I thought they had balls of various periods, beyond the eras when California was well-populated. PEERS is a dance group with a costume addiction. grin PEERS doesnt stick with history or California either. There have been Gilbert and Sullivan Balls, Shanghai Swing Ball, The Black Ops Ball, Vampyres, Romeo Julliet (any RJ from any production strongly encouraged... I did West Side Story). Kathleen commented to me once long ago that the best part about the Sci-Fi ball PEERS does every year was the excuse to dance any dance from any place and from any time frame. Six centuries of dances are suddenly fair game. If they call some English or Italian Rennaissance thing the Centari Court Ritual Galliarde it becomes Centari. Aint nuthin wrong with that... but an SF ball isnt much in the way of historical, either. I love the crossover costumers, re-enactors and fandom. Bring on the Victorian Klingons! --cin ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
My town didn't have Washington sleep in it--but he did have breakfast there once, or so I was told during the Bicentennial (of the revolution). It's even possible, as the town was between actual troup concentrations in larger towns on either side, but don't ask me which; possibly Wethersfield was one. I think Rochambeau all the usual dramatis personae (just the personal staff, but still) surrounding Washington were also supposed to have been there. Truth? I know I heard some things from the whole cloth on that tour of Worthington Ridge, which is where my town was founded. fwiw Ann in CT --- Lavolta Press [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nah, to most Americans the 18th century is the remote past. As for mythed up, you apparently weren't in my grade school American history classes. True and false, we had the larger-than-life Founding Fathers (even a few mothers), history told as stories. There was hardly an 18th-century house or inn around that Washington didn't supposedly sleep in. He was Our Father, larger than life. Fran __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
- Original Message - From: Lavolta Press [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Historical Costume [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 7:06 PM Subject: Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century? There we disagree, because I think this is an artificial distinction. It's basically a marketing distinction. Like real literature getting reviewed in the _New York Times Book Review_, and trashy--but bestselling--novels getting reviewed in a great many less pretentious venues. Having worked in the book world, I could position lot of novels as either one or the other merely by writing a few paragraphs of back cover copy and sending review copies to a certain group of publications. I'd still rather read Pride and Prejudice or The Pickwick Papers than the latest Diana Gabaldon novel. Which I think brings back the point that we are too close to the twentieth century yet to look at it objectively. Pickwick and Oliver Twist were serial novels, hardly considered literature in their time. Shakespeare was just a playwright. But how many other novelists and playwrights from those eras do we still read? What will be the contribution the twentieth century made that will still influence the world a hundred years from now? Four hundred years from now? Will people still be wearing blue jeans? I'm talking culture, not scientific, though science certainly has made a HUGE impact on our culture. Just please tell me not everyone will speak in internet shorthand.. Dianne ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] why renaissance and not 18th century?
I'd still rather read Pride and Prejudice or The Pickwick Papers than the latest Diana Gabaldon novel. Which I think brings back the point that we are too close to the twentieth century yet to look at it objectively. Pickwick and Oliver Twist were serial novels, hardly considered literature in their time. Shakespeare was just a playwright. But how many other novelists and playwrights from those eras do we still read? It depends on who we are. If you're an English Lit student, or have similar tastes, you read many more Elizabethan poets and playwrights than Shakespeare (the novel was not an established form then) and many more Victorian novelists than Dickens. Most of whom are considered literary greats, but many of whom were just hacking out popular culture that sold when they wrote the stuff. The thing about the 20th century is, that so much more has been published, that it's much harder for the works of any fiction writer to emerge from the sea of other stuff as even existing, let alone great or not. I'll tell you who I think the greatest 20th century writer is so far: Gene Wolfe. Fran Lavolta Press http://www.lavoltapress.com ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
