Rich Morris' Comics - YAFGC and The ComixBlog

Because someone asked for it. Clothing and fashions of history. Discuss.

Too generic, IMO. Clothing has varied a lot through ages and places, what exactly do you want to know?

Okay... I'll bite. Am I the only one who's intrigued by the way that armor had moved through fashions? Things like plate harness being made to look like puffed and slashed civilian clothing to sabbatons being pointy because pointy shoes were all the rage.

While we commonly think of armor as being the ultimate in utilitarian clothing, in practice, since it commonly worn by the aristocracy, it was often an expression of haute couture.

Hmmm... I rather tend to think of armor as essentially utilitarian, though, of course, there might be exceptions, specially ceremonial ones.

What I do recall is the anecdotal case of some West African king (can't recall who) who was gifted a full plate armor and spent all day dressed in such fashion under the tropical sun until he died... cooked in it.

Anyhow, on topic, the elite had their armors made up for the individual, so guess they could ask for whatever fancy they liked.

But otherwise it seems to me that the main goal of armor was pragmatical: to protect the person wearing it.

Personally I am more intrigued if anything for the changes in male clothes such as the vanishing of the "skirt" of shirts or pullovers (is that the culotte that the sans-culottes did not wear?), the development of pants (I believe a Celtic or Germanic fashion, also of practical use, specially for horsemen), or why did the horn-like headdress of Medieval Basque women vanish. Also, who invented the beret, how the early 19th century neck clothing evolved into the modern tie, why was fashionable then to wear wigs, why the Roman fashion of combing the hair forward disappeared, and about those horrible pointy shoes too...

What about early Modern "sliced" short pants? And the Renaissance custom of young women showing one breast?

Lots of stuff. Few answers.

Having recently published an article on the 'dictatorship of fashion' i was fascinated by this bit: at some point during medieval times a Muslim Spaniard invented the concept of changing fashions, and while the West loved the concept and began changing what they wore with increasing frequency, the Japanese and Chinese considered this a folly and were proud of the fact that their dress never changed -until the 19th century.
Just one of the very interesting facts that came up when i was assigned what i thought to be a somehow boring article.

Cite, please. I have a feeling you're thinking of the aristocratic trend of allegorical paintings, where it was fashionable to paint young ladies in a pose as a breastfeeding Madonna. As far as I know, this was not ever a street fashion, especially considering that female costume in the 'renaissance' almost invariably included some form of corsetry.

Example: Lucrezia Borgia by Bartolomeo Veneto.



For what I have read (in history forums, don't ask me for further sources), in that time (she lived in 1480-1519) it was fashionable (at least in Italy) for young women to show one of their breasts as sign of health and youth.

I imagine it was not a street fashion, of course. But a public indoor fashion seems to have been.

That's something interesting I did not know. I bet it happened during the first Taifa period (1031-1085) that is something like the Andalusi Renaissance, when all the minor realms, detached from the once powerful Caliphate, competed with each other in science and arts. It was an illustrated and tolerant period but they were weak in the military aspect, so they were forced to accept the intervention of the Almohads, who were like the Taliban of their time.



Seems that was rather not boring, right.

You are the expert then.

Anyhow, regarding old medieval fashions the one I find more curious is the headdress used by Basque women in the Middle Ages, which was something like this:



Not the best reconstruction I have ever seen but the one I could find...

It somehow vanished later on, replaced by a more simple covering.

The most intresting thing about clothes is the social changes they reflect. Ribbon decorated codpieces that exalted manhood as femininity was suppressed, the Spanish and French sumptuary laws that reflected the fears of the noble class that the middle classes were showing themselves to be more powerful than them and had to be stopped, the fact that the otherwise God-fearing, Inquisition programmed Spanish women revolted only when told they could not wear their clothes the way they liked them and got their way... and of course today's insanity that is too close to home to find fascinating -just a bit revolting.

Maju - that's exactly the kind of painting I'm talking about. It's an allegorical fantasy painting, of the kind usually done of courtesans. You're looking at a 16th century porn shoot.

From the museum in which the painting is housed:

"Traditionally regarded as a portrait of Lucrezia Borgia, the scandal-ridden daughter of Pope Alexander VI, this painting actually shows an unknown woman who had herself depicted as Flora, the ancient goddess of spring. This circumstance explains the flowers in her right hand and also accounts for her fantastic costume, which – with turban, wig, and one breast exposed – would not have been appropriate for the portrait of an honourable (married) woman. Educated courtesans, on the other hand, very popular figures especially in sixteenth-century Venice, often had themselves depicted in the erotic role of Flora. "

This is what Venetian women were actually wearing at that time:



Also see this engraving, from 1584 (Hendrik Goltzius):

Unless you were in ancient Crete, women did not go around bare breasted... but some of the cleavages are far more sensual than nudity would be.

Hey, Hilary - do you have any expertise in Far Eastern historical costuming (Chinese, especially)? I've had some interest in learning more about it, just based on some of the movies I've watched over the years...

I've read somehwere read that Celtic women did.



Never, IMO. I like thinks plain and simple: no makeup, no high heels and the less clothing the better. My tastes anyhow...

You have to be extraordinarily careful about the 'read somewhere's and 'but the re-enactors said...'s. There's very little contemporary evidence about anything real to do with 'the celts' (and by which I assume you mean the standard fallacy about the indigenous peoples of Ireland/Scotland?) The romans made up a huge number of stories about them based on rumour, and then the Victorians did the same thing for different political reasons more than a thousand years later. Most of what's taken for granted that we 'know' about the celts was invented wholesale in the 19th century ('clan tartans' and so on).

Apologies if formatting is funky - our net at home is down and the blackberry is not ideal for posting.

As far as far eastern costume goes, alas, I know very little. My eastward knowledge stops dead somewhere arod Constantinople.