more thoughts on narrowness...
Posted by P. Bingham on August 27, 1998 at 15:37:29:
In response to Tat link was uncomfortable!, written by P. Bingham on August 27, 1998 at 01:13:12
I was being harassed by my children when I wrote that last post and I don't think I expressed my thoughts very well!
On the lines of relativity, I am thinking that, essentially, the Edwardians had nearly a century for their society to adjust themselves to such a tight fit, if you know what I mean.
For the early Eighteenth-century ladies, for instance, the dress came above the feet, which was considered risque; the sleeves came off the shoulders which was considered naked; the arms themselves were exposed (for half-dress or full-dress) which too was considered practically naked; The thiness of the dress (combined with the narrowness) at times suggested the lines of the limbs which encouraged much of that "naked" and "transparent" talk we are left to filter through today. This was all relative to those women and men of the early nineteenth century.
We look back now, knowing that the skirt has come up to the upper thighs, widths have narrowed to show the line of panties, shoulder sleeves have completely disappeared and, as far as transparency, we are thankful that that look has really never been widely accepted but for on Dior's run way.
So it is difficult for us to consider their hem short, their shoulders naked and their thiness indiscrete. And as far a narrowness, as I mentioned before, the Edwardians had almost a century to adjust themselves to an extreme that would never have been possible 100 years or so before.
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.