From: owner-h-costume-digest (H-Costume Digest) To: h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Subject: H-Costume Digest V4 #10 Reply-To: h-costume Sender: owner-h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Errors-To: owner-h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Precedence: bulk H-Costume Digest Thursday, January 11 1996 Volume 4, Number 10 Compilation copyright (C) 1995 Diane Barlow Close and Gretchen Miller Use in whole prohibited. Individual articles are the property of the author. Seek permission from that author before reprinting or quoting elsewhere. Important Addresses: Send submissions to: h-costume@lunch.engr.sgi.com (or reply to this message). Adds/drops/archives: majordomo@lunch.engr.sgi.com Real, live person: h-costume-request@andrew.cmu.edu Topics: Re: busks etc The Debate continues Re: Re: busks etc Authenticity & Sources authenticity and groups Re: waist lines Sources Auth/Fire hazards Authenticity Standards ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 10:21:50 -0500 (EST) From: Drea Leed Subject: Re: busks etc > > I am intrigued to know if you think this enhancement was > simply conforming to the accepted clothing fashion ? Or was > it that the busk, by making you physically erect implied you > were morally erect? Or was it that the corset and busk > emphasised your figure and made a statement about the > difficulty of physical access ? Or was it if you are very tightly > laced you are seen as a display item, not available for work ? It's an interesting question: "Which came first, the fashion or the morals?" Looking at it from a historical viewpoint, I believe that the corset was first fashionable and only then, once it was an accepted piece of middle- and upper-class armature, considered a mark of moral uprightness. The first corsets, worn in tudor and elizabethan times, were designed primarily to achieve the round, cylindrical torso that was considered the height of fashion in those times. This concept of fashionability arose, according to "The History of Costume: Late Gothic Europe 1400-1500", from earlier gothic standards of beauty. Anyway, the busk was essential for keeping the torso line smooth and unwrinkled and flat. Later, when the corset underwent its multiferous mutations and gained all sorts of strange and varied connotations, the busk was still there. Drea ******************************************* We've secretly replaced their dilithium crystals with new Folger's Crystals. Now let's watch them go to warp. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 03:38:15 -0500 From: kl94ag@badger.ac.BrockU.CA (Kathleen Leggat) Subject: The Debate continues Joining in on the Fran Gimble/Julie Adams debate: FG>>>I regard myself as an intelligent, educated person; I can and do do >>>research. > JA>Yet the worst mistakes I have seen made in our group has often been by >people such as yourself. The groups I am most active in have very specific >people who have authority to criticize, and are chosen for that role >because of their knowledge and tact. Usually someone with that authority >has done many years of very focused and detailed research and practical >costuming in a very narrow period locale. We have had a number of excellent >costumers who have studied other periods/ethnicities come in and make major >errors. Mostly because they deemed themselves above our experts and would >not use the resources available or get prior approval. Ack! I find this a bit close-minded. A couple of points: Who chose the first authorities? Really...who picked the first Laurels, for instance? How do we know they knew enough to make an educated decision on who was expert? No one is infallible, and no one should ever stop learning. To assume that these "experts" are above being questioned is, IMO, doing an injustice to individual researchers and to the "experts". This line of thinking leads to the great Myths. An example from my experience involves a young man who was despondent because he was told that his new cotehardie was the wrong colour...black. I was incredulous, so I started researching, and found several primary source examples of black cotehardies. I told him, but I'm not sure he believed me because the "experts" told him black was wrong. In the SCA there are several costuming Myths that are accepted as fact because of this erroneous practice of accepting the word of "experts" blindly. (Yes, even Laurels can make mistakes!) I believe in questioning *everything*, to encourage proving or disproving every piece of information through personal research. (Well, that's my *belief*...I don't always practice what I preach! :>) JA>But we do >expect and value people who are willing to research. So many people fall >into the trap of copying others instead of doing their own. > And yet, isn't that what you have suggested? That people rely on the research of the "experts"? Personally, I find more mistakes made by people who don't research. FG> I was taught to analyze every work (period or >modern) in depth, to question it, to actively think up arguments to pick it >apart, and to present and discuss these arguments with other students >(usually in small seminar classes) who had analyzed the same works. >Everyone was perfectly polite and respectful of the other students' >opinions--our instructors insisted that such respect was usual and necessary >in the academic world. They constantly told us that we should not accept >_their_ opinions, just because they were authority figures, and that we were >perfectly free to question and argue with them--which we did. It was a >wonderful experience. I could not have had a better training in how to do >research or how to think, and I'm sincerely grateful for it. > >On the other hand, in the reeactment world people seem eager to be >"authorities," and to do their best to make sure people don't disagree with >them. And what I really find surprising is that others _want_ authorities >to tell them what to do. Or possibly, they disagree privately but feel >conformity is necessary to be accepted in the group. Hear, hear! Kathleen (Catriona) (just an AOA...and likely to remain that way if I don't stop arguing with Laurels! ) "Teehee," quod she, and clapte the windowe to. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 11:37:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Dorothy Stein Subject: Re: Re: busks etc On Thu, 11 Jan 1996, Debbie wrote: > Well, there is the conspiracy theory which says that everything > women do is to enhance attraction. ( no flames, pleeeease !) I did not mean to join this conspiracy. Women are as complex and variable as other people, there is, as we all know, a great deal of social pressure on everyone not to look to bizarre, as appearance often indicates to other people how sane/insane, respectable/despicable you are. However, others (especially men) do often interpret the way women dress as intended for them, whether it is or not. (Some of my students used occasionally to run little surveys on this and similar topics.) It is also clearly not the exact kind of clothing worn, but its relationship to fashion and other cultural expectations that determine sexual attractiveness, and other expected reactions. > I am intrigued to know if you think this enhancement was > simply conforming to the accepted clothing fashion ? If you mean did women wear these things simply because they were fashionable, or that fashions were started and pushed along certain lines simply because they enhanced the wearer's sexual attractiveness, the answer to this is no, as implied above. > Or was it that the busk, by making you physically erect implied you > were morally erect? I never thought of it exactly like that, but certainly the posture of young girls is scrutinized according to the same criteria as their clothing. > Or was it that the corset and busk > emphasised your figure and made a statement about the > difficulty of physical access ? Yes, sort of. I think the straight line and small waist implied non-pregnancy, and, in young girls, virginity. As to difficulty of access, it reminds me of the practice of female genital mutilation in such places as Somalia, where the tightness of the sewing and smallness of the hole was meant to discourage intruders, to preserve virginity until marriage, and to make initial (and mostly subsequent) access very difficult and painful for the woman. (The husband was frequently expected to use a knife, so he had less difficulty.) > Or was it if you are very tightly laced you are seen as a display item, > not available for work ? Ah, Veblen. Freedom from work certainly encouraged all kinds of impractical fashion extremes, but of course they were (like footbinding and crinolines) adopted by or imposed on lots of women who who did have to work. Aesthetic values often evolve under the impetus of status emulation. Thought-provoking questions. Dorothy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 12:24:10 -0500 (EST) From: Sharron Fina Subject: Authenticity & Sources Friends I have "listened" to this authenticity rehash for the past year-plus, and it never seems to get solved. (bring in soapbox) I am in the SCA (no boo-hiss, please; flames through private email only). If I go to a Civil War reenactment, I expect to see authenticity in everything. If I visit a colonial village I expect to see authenticity in everything. In both these cases the people are paid to present an accurate account of their specific period. Ren Faires, to a point, do this also (you cannot include the paying crowd as part of the Faire). When I started in the SCA our little group couldn't get past a T-tunic. I can sew and design patterns. I have tried to help these people get more authentic in their garb, helping them choose styles, material and the like. But most of the people in our "shire" are under 30, just out of college with little or no money to purchase authentic materials; so I stress styling more than material for authenticity. If someone has something entirely out of whack, I try to find something absolutely correct about it before I mention what is wrong; tact is the main ingredient needed to effect change. (...yes, the Italians had come up with colors in velvet by then, but why don't you try to use velveteen? It's more washable and looks more like what they had then ...) I must be doing something right, for my sewing room is busy several nights a week with my "kids". We may use polyesters for linen, but at least it looks like linen! I have (kiddingly) been accused of trying to take over the shire through fashion. Although we may not be letter perfect, what we have in authenticity is enough for everyone to have a pleasant time, to forget about the bills and problems of everyday living when we gather. "We ain't got much money, but we got a whole hell of a lot of fun." Enough said. My apologies Diane, I have held that for several months. (Remove soapbox) What I do need is some assitance in a problem I have. My problem is in the definition of "primary sources" and "secondary sources". I have seen you list something as a primary source and 2 weeks later have someone else say that it was done with "artistic license" and therefore not acceptable. Can anyone give me a definition of primary source that will not be shot down by 6 other people? Thank you for the time and space. Flames welcome; we're under 30 inches of snow, with more in the forcast. Sharron Fina University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104 sfina@retina.anatomy.upenn.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 12:52:01 -0500 From: lrp@westol.com Subject: authenticity and groups Groups can and do serve as useful purpose. Someone who wants to become a re-enactor/SCA member/stick-jock/whatever term you want to use, may be coming in from the proverbial cold with litle or no background knowledge. A group can serve as a focal point for new members who want to learn and are capable of making decisions later about what they want to do and the direction they wish to go. A group is a composite of people, experiences, and can be a source of stockpiled knowledge about the subject or area of interest that a beginner may be interested in. With group dynamics, there are always going to be people who want to take the lead, and those who are content to be led. The "leaders" of a group may be elected, or simply take over through force of personality and being a dominant type. A good group with dynamic personalities can be a useful thing. A terible group led by one tyrant is probably not going to last for very long. We are able to make the choice to leave or stay, and no one holds any proverbial gun to anothers head. If you don't like a group, then fine, find another, or go it alone. Some of the discussions seem to be polarized with some very obvious "loners" and some who are willing and interested to be part of something larger...i.e., a group. If a person is capable of learning on their own, then fine. However, if they don't pass on what they have learned then in the end, it may have been a selfish waste of effort whereby no one else was able to benefit from what the "loner" may have learned. Frequently, loners who level criticism at a group and are unwilling to participate with the group are going to be rejected and rebuked. An attitude can quickly become a self-fullfilling prophecy. In essence the old adage of what goes around, comes around can be all too true. I for one enjoy people and exchanging ideas. By passing on what I've learned by self-study, or as part of a group, I feel that this makes a contribution. Groups may not be everyone's proverbial cup of tea, but they do serve a purpose. To reject them out of hand is to ask for rejection in turn. Les ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 96 12:35:10 PST From: ches@tristero.io.com Subject: Re: waist lines On Wed, 10 Jan 1996 19:18:54 -0700 Julie Adams wrote: >Ches, >Many dresses of that period were at the natural waistline with no point. >Some were even above the natural waist in Southern Europe. > >julie Yes but did this Artist represent the fashion of the period? I have often read that this artist or that artist did horrible things to the fashion of the time and then individuals that did not kow these facts erroneously copied the garment verbatim. So I guess the real question is did the artist do it right?? Ciao @}\ Ches @}----`--,-- http://www.io.com/~ches/ @}/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 11:54:03 -0800 From: erin1@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Erin Harvey Moody) Subject: Sources Sharron said: >What I do need is some assitance in a problem I have. My problem is in >the >definition of "primary sources" and "secondary sources". Primary sources are from original documents from the period being researched such as painting, drawing, sculpture, wood cuts, brass rubbings, texts, etc. A Pre-Raphaelite painting depicting a medievil maiden is not a primary source for medievil garb. The Bayeaux Tapestry is a primary source for 12thC Norman garb. The source must be original AND contemporary. That is not to say of course that you have to produce the actual document, a copy of the original book such as Dover puts out "counts". Shakespeare describing what the Merry Wives of Windsor (in 16thC England) wore is a primary (text) source. SHakespeare describing what Cleapatra wore (in Antony & CLeopatra) is not a primary source for ancient Egypt. It would be a primary source if you are depicting what a 16thC interpretation of ancient Egyptians wore. When I required 3 documented examples from primary sources for members of my group, that meant a photocopy of the source dipicting each TREATMENT they planned to make. For example, if they wanted to a make a particular hat they would find an original painting by Lucas Cranach preferably showing color, and perhaps 2 woodcuts showing the same/similar hat worn by the same type of person (i.e. soldier, noble, peasant). This procedure was followed for each sleeve, pouch, shoe, etc that they intended to re-create. All this documentation for each entire ensemble was kept in a folder under each member's file. We were very meticulous (maybe the German influence). Secondary sources are re-drawn from original sources or commentary, interpretations, analysis of periods written after contemporary period. For example, Theodora van Runkle (who won an Academy Award for costumes in 'Bonnie & Clyde') may write about how the film in the 1970s influenced fashion, that would be a primary source for 1970s America. Theodora van Runkle writing about what Bonnie & CLyde wore in the 1930s would be a secondary source. There are some very good secondary sources out there. I use them frequently for "inspiration" but not for documentation or if I am trying to acheive something historically accurate. I think where some confusion comes from are the books that are redrawn for original sources such as Wilcox's "Mode in Costume", Bucknell's "Evolution of Fashion", Braun & Schneider's "Historic Costume in Pictures". Almost all of the costumes depicted in these books are very good drawings of original sources, but they are still secondary sources since they are not contemporary originals. Whenever I find the original source of these books, I jot the note into the book "from 'Marriage of Arnolfini' by van Eyck 1492" or add a photocopy of the original behind the page of the drawing. This helps me cross reference the secondary source with a primary source. Erin Moody ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 96 16:24 EST From: kschenk@fast.net Subject: Auth/Fire hazards I'm very new to the internet and to this list, so if I do something very wrong, please forgive me and let me know *gently*. I just wanted to comment on what Julie Adams had to say about wool and fires. I belong to an 18th cent. re-enacting group. We cover military as well as civilian life. This includes working with open fires as well as black powder guns. We often get a lot of razzing because we insist on authentic clothing materials (100% linen & wool etc.) as well as patterns. This is not simply a strive for authenticity, but a saftey concern. One little spark can do a lot of damage on synthetic fibers. (Wether it comes from a flash in the pan, a lit candle or a cooking fire) Melting and bonding with the skin is one of the worst situations. Natural fibers don't melt and will usually smolder, giving warning, before bursting into flames. And that usually takes a while. :) Thanks for letting me voice my, what ever that was. I truly enjoy the postings here. Heather ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 15:14:05 -500 From: "Carol Kocian" Subject: Authenticity Standards It sounds like the biggest complaints about costume authenticity are really about the Costume Police types. Most people on the list have probably had an unpleasant experience with them. Though we hate to admit it, most people on the list have also probably *been* the Costume Police to someone else. We should not be throwing out the "baby" of standards for groups with the "bathwater" of the Costume Police. As for getting paid; museums, historic sites, etc. are currently having financial problems. The Jockey Hollow site in Morristown, NJ (a national park) used to have an encampment in mid March. They stopped doing it because they had insufficient funds to pay reenacment units and the extra staff needed to handle the crowds. It's harder to get into museum collections now because they have fewer staff members. Here in the DC area, the government shutdown has affected many of my friends. The Smithsonian Museums and the National Gallery of Art were closed. There are lots of situations where people volunteer under supervision, or following standards. They include volunteer firefighters, Boy and Girl Scout leaders, museum docents, tourguides, Big Sisters and Big Brothers. One organization collects and distributes business clothing to low-income women. They request donations to be clean, on hangers, and interview-appropriate, among other things. An organization that makes quilts may require that donated blocks be of a certain size and of particular fabrics. If I was a stagehand in community theatre, I would have to wear dark clothing and shoes that don't make noise. And what about those unpaid actors and actresses, bending to the unpaid costume designer's wishes? All these activities have different levels of being interesting, fun, or essential to the community from each other and from historic reenacting. The organizations have ways of correcting or dismissing people who do not conform to their standards. For donated clothing or quilt blocks, the organization has to re-donate or dispose of inappropriate items. Different types of events call for different standards. At a Renaissance Festival, the public is invited to attend in costume. At a battle reenactment, they are not. People in costume are seen, by the public, as representatives of the site. As Julie Adams pointed out, costume is related to safety around fires. Safety is also a big concern for event sites, as well as conduct of reenactors. No one wants a reenactor who is surly or abusive to the public, or dangerous with a gun. When appropriate, soldiers are expected to be in uniform; a costume standard. Back to the Costume Police. Erin Harvey Moody pointed out the problems with historic fashion shows. Generally they are not very well planned. I had an experience with one where I was wearing lower class clothing. The narrator (who I had just met) made fun of my "poverty", sprinkling her descriptions with comments about my husband not spending money on me. She should have saved her jokes for someone she knew better. Erin's narrator could have simply said the hairstyle was not appropriate to the era, or she could have asked Erin to change it ahead of time. (though I've also seen organizers running around backstage, demanding changes & stepping on toes!) Unless they are well-organized and/or rehearsed (and most are not), historic fashion shows are best avoided. At the 125th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, the organizers (including none other than Juanita Leisch) provided costume evaluation sessions. It was strictly voluntary. A committee member went through a checklist of elements with each individual. Ribbons were given to all participants with a special color ribbon to those with high scores. Those with high scores were also invited to a Sunday morning brunch. The evaluators gave tips on how to improve and also heaped much praise on each participant. I learned a lot from the evaluator at the event, as well as from other reenactors there. Other benefits of group standards vs. the Costume Police: If someone had a comment or complaint about my clothing, I could send her to the costume director who approved it. If I think another group is doing something wrong, I can ask their costume director about it. (I could correct a mistake, or I could learn something new myself!) Group standards are also a matter of sharing research. There are those reenactors who look down on those less authentic than themselves, but don't make any effort to share their vast knowledge. Researching, sharing, and setting group standards assures that each new person does not have to re-invent the wheel. -Carol Kocian ckocian@epe.org ------------------------------ End of H-Costume Digest V4 #10 ****************************** A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, send the command lines: unsubscribe h-costume-digest subscribe h-costume end in the body of a message to majordomo@lunch.engr.sgi.com. Thanks and enjoy the list!