From: owner-h-costume-digest (H-Costume Digest) To: h-costume-digest@lunch.engr.sgi.com Subject: H-Costume Digest V4 #14 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 Sunday, January 14 1996 Volume 4, Number 14 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: waist lines Re: nit-picking & fabric choices Re: The Debate continues Re: More on authenticity Re: nit-picking & fabric choices Re: nit-picking & fabric choices ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 00:45:50 -0700 From: savaskan@electriciti.com (Julie Adams) 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?? Ches, the natural straight across waistline can be seen in so many sources for that period (early 16th century) I would say Yes, the artist got it right. I would always recommend looking at a variety of sources for a period, even if one is copying a garment exactly from a particular painting. And its even good to try to find the painting shown in several books which were published at several time intervals. Many times prints showing the paintings are taken prior to restoration in some books, or the color is different in some prints of the paintings (unless of course, you are lucky enough to have access to the original). Also some of the paintings in the 15th and 16th century are actually HUGE in real life. They just loose so much detail in some prints it's good to make comparisons. The art in the late 15th and throughout the 16th century is usually very realistic. If you can cross reference a style by looking at drawings and paintings by different artists, statues or relief work, and prints of the time period, such as woodcuts, etchings, drypoints, then you have a good idea as to the artistic license taken by the artist. The hardest thing to determine in art of the 16th century is when looking at religious or allegorical art. Portrait art of that period is usually pretty accurate to some fashion of the times, but as soon as you get into allegory or religious work it is very gray. Many really odd looking styles or treatments which I initially only found in religious art (such as a painting depicting a Saint) I have later been able to document as a treatment real people wore (based on finding several non-religious art depictions), but with difficulty. The only clear odd ones are usually when the artist chooses to paint people in "Biblical" dress, which is sometimes a wierd mix of current fashion and what the artist thinks of as "old". But usually most of the background people in Renaissance religious art are dressed in common fashion. Anyway, if you are really concerned about a treatment, try other sources. There was a lady I know who decided to make an "exact replica" of a dress from a popular early 16th century portrait. She was convinced she had made an exact replica and was very vocal at promoting this, but she had only really looked at that particular portrait from one costume book. Unfortunately her print of the painting was not good enough to show that there was an embroidered motto on the headdress, which she missed entirely, and the detail of the beadwork, which she did not do even close to the painting. If she had not had help from a friend who was an embroidery expert, who identified (from a better copy of the painting) and showed her how to do the particular drawn work, she would not have done the partlet correctly. She chose to use a very lightweight shiny red satin damasque, rather than the heavy rich red velvet that was shown in the painting. The particular dress she chose did not show anything below a few inches below the waist, so she "created" her impression of the dress below that point, which was interesting, but she had no existing period examples for her treatment. If she had just looked through alternate sources, she could have found several examples which would have at least given her some ideas as to the most likely treatment of the skirt. Topping the whole thing off she chose a jewelry piece which was not in the original painting and was not even really a style used in that period (or any period other than 1970s fashion jewelry). While the dress itself was definitely not a disaster by any means, she ended up quite far off from her advertised and loudly proclaimed goal of duplicating the dress in the painting and making a "perfect and exact copy" like no one had ever done before... With just a little extra looking she could have been so much closer to the mark and had a lot more credibility. (Actually no one would have given a hoot about the differences, except for her loud self-aggrandizement....) Just thought an anecdote would help describe how useful multiple sources can be. Julie Adams ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 08:30:29 -0500 From: kl94ag@badger.ac.BrockU.CA (Kathleen Leggat) Subject: Re: nit-picking & fabric choices I'm so glad I decided to ask Julie about her post...there is some great information there! Which brings me to my next request. (challenge?) The cost of materials and the time spent away from my schoolwork mean I can create one or two new gowns a year. (Since each gown takes me one step further, it will take years before I create anything exceptional...but that's beside the point) Money modifies my fabric purchases, and therefore my standards of authenticity. Creating the look is more important than creating the feel. I don't wear my dress gowns around campfires (I tend to think fire and farthingales don't mix...or mix too well!) and I'm very careful around candles and lanterns. I know that there are a lot of similar costumers out there...at least among the Scadians. Using a particular dollar value...say $10 a meter/yard...and basic availability...say Fabricland or Joann Fabrics in Anytown, or mail order...what are the best choices for period-looking fabrics and trims? My personal bias is for 16th century, but we could do it by century. The choices I have been making are usually from the upholstery section...plain velvets, curtain damasks and "tapestries" (so labelled by the store, but fitting the colour rules described by Julie) I have also made gowns from coat lining satin and on-sale taffeta (no fiber identification). My reasoning for these choices include stiffness (I do 16th century) and light-reflection. (for example, the upholstery velvets are short and dense so don't reflect light, unlike modern garment velvet...it seemed to recreate the look) For partlets etc. I have stepped up from broadcloth to what the U.S. stores describe as muslin...rather like a batiste. I get old fur coats from charity stores to cut up for trim. I've given up on flea market curtains, since they are usually more trouble than they are worth. I'm hoping this request will generate a list of realistic but appropriate fabric choices, and a list of great bargains through mail order. I'm also hoping the list will be practical. "Look for pure linen" is somewhat useful, but "Cheapo Fabrics has hankerchief linen for $10 a meter by mail order" is far more useful. Anyone care to pick up the gauntlet? Kathleen (Catriona) "Teehee," quod she, and clapte the windowe to. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 00:46:05 -0700 From: savaskan@electriciti.com (Julie Adams) Subject: Re: The Debate continues Kathleen Leggat wrote: >Joining in on the Fran Gimble/Julie Adams debate: >JA> 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. Groups don't always require prior approval, but its a good way to prevent people from making COSTLY and preventable mistakes. In the cases I was talking about, the persons involved made it very clear to a number of people that they felt that discussing their plans with any authority figure was beneath them. They never asked for or read the group's existing research (made the costumes before the costume directors knew they were even planning to join), never asked any questions of the "experts", and never participated in any dialog about their costumes (in fact refused to when suggested by others). Using minimal secondary and non-applicable sources (such as using examples 50 years later and in a different country than our focus), they created costumes which were really and truly inappropriate (fabric choice, design/patterning, and decorative treatments). While they were not immediately asked to strip down, leave the event, or publicly criticized, suggestions on how to make the next costumes were made privately, as well as encouraged to replace the costumes. Copies of the group research and guidelines were provided to them immediately. When they finally did read the information and do the research for themselves, the group's information/research was not in question. > 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? I believe Erin Moody described a very specific and real scenario about developing a new group and research processes. In most cases a group chooses its own first authority, or the person starting the group chooses an authority. Usually that person is known as someone who knows the most about the period and is doing the most research, but no one in the group assumes that that person(s) knows it all (or usually the group does not seem to last.) > 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". Again and again and again...Just because a group has costume standards does not mean that the group does not allow individual thought or that the costume director/s know it all or are above question. I certainly did not say that. > 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! :>) Great! Good for you. But having costuming standards does not at all discourage research. In fact many reenactors I know were once in the SCA, (though are often now in groups with costuming standards). Of the ones who no longer participate in the SCA, they often quit because of those same SCA Great Myths combined with nasty public criticism (some were chastised for being too authentic!) In most SCA cultures I know, unasked for comments or criticism about peoples costumes are seriously discouraged, yet certain local groups have a serious costume police problem. And yet the SCA has no "standards" of the type we are discussing here. I just believe that these types of problems are often due to individual egos, not group policies. >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"? When I refered to copying others, I was referring to copying other's finished costumes, not their research. Sharing research is of the utmost importance to continuing to upgrade and improve a group. The existing research then becomes available as an existing body of knowledge which is a good starting point and provides common ground for conversations and questions. Copying costume's or treatments _assuming_ that another person has done research is where problems often start. It becomes sort of like the "gossip" game we played as children, each mistake morphing into something different (and also copied). We can get whole themes which then take off in wierd directions. A local SCA household jokingly made some of the print Folkwear Afgani dresses as "christmas-ganis" out of clearly modern Christmas print fabric. The funny thing is they looked too close to the others that were being made and were then copied as real examples...Christmas prints are on sale right now :-) You too could start a trend. > Personally, I find more mistakes made by people who don't research. Exactly.....No one said or implied that research is not a good thing. In fact, I am in complete agreement with you. But in my experience, having a standard has, if anything, increased the amount of research done by members, not inhibited it, and has provided a way for those people interested in other aspects of living history to focus on their particular interests. Julie Adams ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 00:45:57 -0700 From: savaskan@electriciti.com (Julie Adams) Subject: Re: More on authenticity Fran wrote: >Re Julie's message: > >>Actually, comparison of professional theater actors' costumes >with reenactment ones is still not meaningful. The costume designer >may have a vision. But the actors who must wear the costumes are not >required to make them, pay for them, or assume any responsibility for how they >look. Actually there are groups do provide costumes for their members. I know several groups which do. The money they earn also supplies costumes for those member who need them. In those cases, owning ones own costume is optional. Some groups are old enough that new members usually borrow a costume or wear hand-me-downs until they have a costume of their own. There are many different types of reenactment groups with vastly different internal cultures, policies and procedures. > a professional activity is one the employees get paid for. And >paid a significant amount of money over and above the group's or the >person's expenses. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the words "profession", "professional" and "professionalism" in much broader terms. Usually profession refers to specialized training and study, or a body of qualified persons. The definitions for profession include "conforming to standards of a profession", "receiving pay", and a person "showing great skill", or an "an expert". The definition of professionalism includes "professional status, methods, character, or standards." Not once did it refer to a "significant amount" of monetary gain (which is subjective at best). IMHO, certain level of professional behavior is required when any group is dealing with the public in a business transaction. Whether or not there are _costume_ standards have nothing to do with that part of the organization. All groups need to deal with sponsors or site owners and it often includes written contracts and some exchange of money, either way. Amateur groups require different levels and types of professionalism depending on their focus and purpose. Sometimes this includes some type of costuming or material culture standards. >As for responsibility to the public, if event sponsors are >concerned about this they should pay performing groups enough to meet the >required standards and still pay the individual performers. Some are paid quite well for their time. Some are not. But thats a different subject. > If the amateur costumer wishes, he or she >can choose to invest a great deal of money and time. But the >same costumer also has the freedom to invest the money in his/her dental bills >and the time in meeting a schedule crunch at his/her paying job. And has the freedom to be able to spend their free time joining the group that he or she feels is the most comfortable for them, or to just visit some of the many groups/events which do not require formal membership to play. >A salary is what gives an employer the right to tell employees >what to do. > I think there are many volunteer organizations (not necessarily costume related) which would directly violate your premise. Take for example my hobby of showing/breeding dogs. There are rules of the show (i.e. be there on time or you will be disqualified), rules of the grounds (i.e. no unentered dogs on grounds, all dogs on leash), and unwritten rules (a judge will not place a filthy dog, don't let your dog walk up and sniff other dogs). In almost any volunteer organization or activity, and any hobby, I can come up with some rules which apply when groups of people get together. Its just how humans do things. Very few rules you must follow in life include pay to do so. In the SCA, while there are virtually no standards or guidelines for general dress, there are standards of costume/dress required for performing specific activities, such as fencing and heavy weapons fighting. There are even some interesting costuming rules for SCA fighting in the kingdom of Caid which are not even specific to safety: (i.e. cover up all hockey/modern sports equipment, no tennis shoes or blue jeans on the field). And I can attest that these last rules have made a huge difference in historical look on the tourney field, especially in comparison with kingdoms without these restrictions. There were initially a few gripes, but more and more people started looking for alternatives to make themselves look more authentic. They started out to comply with the rules, but eventually many became hooked on having authentic looking armor. >I feel the kind of close supervision Julie describes is appropriate >only for a professional costume shop with paid employees. Personally, >in my profession as a writer, I wouldn't work for an employer who micromanaged >me like that. As someone who has numerous management duties in my profession, which is a senior systems and software design engineer and lead in the defense industry, I know for a fact that the group I was describing provides/imposes very little supervision on its members and nothing close to micromanagement. Instead of thinking "control" or "supervision", insert "guidance" and "support" and you would be far closer to the truth. Anyone starting up a group or volunteering for organizational duties knows how many rules need to be in place and followed. Costume rules are sometimes the least important on the list. Anyone who has been a volunteer manager/coordinator/autocrat knows how much effort there is to organizing group activities and events. Some of which might effect what you can or cannot wear (i.e. you may not be able to wear a gun or live steel blade, due to site or local laws.) There are often complex issues and rules which may not be obvious to the individuals whose only responsibility is to just show up and play. Without rules there often is no game. >But that's not the point. The point is, the purpose of our studies >was not to memorize facts, but to learn research techniques. It is unfortunate, but not all educational programs teach good research techniques. You were very lucky to be able to participate in a good one. Not all programs are equal. >One of the mostimportant was not to automatically accept information handed >down by an authority figure. I believe my former post pointed out specifically how important individual research is to any group. Any member who wishes to challenge our current standards or research can do so from day one. The standards are to provide guidance and help, rather than have everyone start from scratch each time, or learn bits and pieces by word of mouth. At least in the groups I have participated with the most, standards were a starting point for discussion, not an ending point. But every group is going to have a different culture regarding this. >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. In regards to your original problem dealing with unasked for criticism of costumes and "costume police", I feel that some of this is due to the culture of a group, the limits of acceptable behavior accepted by a group, and the individual personalities of members. Most of the time when I hear this is a problem, it is in groups with little or no consolidated standards/director/vision. Many times these people are critical of people not even in their group (such as the CW event Erin mentioned), or critical when there aren't any strict standards or authority to do so (such as sometimes happens in the SCA or Mountain Men groups). Some people are just rude. I have participated/participate in/with a number of reenactment and recreational history groups now. Some have costuming standards and some do not. Each one has a different focus and flavor. IMHO, they each have different qualities and faults, but the respective rudeness/friendliness of people in each group does not seem to be related to whether or not a costuming standard is in place. I just don't think there is a correlation. My ideal group would be a place where costume criticisms were not used by insecure egos to belittle others. Julie Adams ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 16:57:55 -0500 From: Sanni1@aol.com Subject: Re: nit-picking & fabric choices OK, I'll take up the challenge --- JoAnn had a linen/cotton blend in nice greyed colors for about 8.95 a yard. Fabric Warehouse (Hancock Fabrics/Minnesota Fabrics) and JoAnn often have silk noil or shantung on sale for $10 or less. I've always had good luck with antique curtains, but I can understand that a lot of people don't like them. As for trim, I think that modern woven trims look terrible! I do use the tarnished-looking plain gold and silver braids/laces, but metallic trims with patterns in them just look like the costumer didn't want to put any work into embroidery. Even a double row of gold braid with pearls sewn between is better than a cheap-looking trim. Another important thing is to make sure that the width of the band of trim is appropriate to the period of the garment -- study period paintings for this. Many "Renaissance" costumes have trim that is too narrow. I have had good luck with antique trims, especially the really old ecclesiastical ones. Good luck! Sanni ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Jan 1996 15:10:16 -0700 From: savaskan@electriciti.com (Julie Adams) Subject: Re: nit-picking & fabric choices > I'm hoping this request will generate a list of realistic but >appropriate fabric choices, and a list of great bargains through mail order. >I'm also hoping the list will be practical. "Look for pure linen" is >somewhat useful, but "Cheapo Fabrics has hankerchief linen for $10 a meter >by mail order" is far more useful. > > Anyone care to pick up the gauntlet? > > Kathleen (Catriona) Just wanted to remind you that my original response to fabric selections were to give some _very simple_ rules for a Ren. Faire, so that newcomers (most of which will be peasants) can have some simple guidelines to follow and to still give a good theatrical impression of the period. For example, while we know that there were some prints in the renaissance, if a group of newcomer peasants went to standard local fabric stores and picked out some prints they thought were pretty, it would be unlikely that they would choose a Renaissance period print, and would be very likely to pick something which would be modern and jarring to the period eye. There are of course a much broader range of period fabrics, totally dependent on the period and country of the costume, which do include fabrics I would recommend against for a simple Ren. Faire guide book. I totally agree with careful use of synthetic or fabrics of different fibers than the originals when they are better replicas of the original fabric than is currently available. I don't use modern silk velvets for this reason. The modern silk velvets I have found are not woven with as thick of a nap, so I feel that cotton velvets are really a better representation for the Renaissance period. I have also had a very difficult time finding real fine sheer "handkerchief linen". Usually what is labeled that is really a much heavier linen, so I find sheer cottons are sometimes a better representation. With that said, I have used old linen tablecloths (which dye pretty well) to make linen underdresses, chemises, and drawers. Because they have usually been washed a lot, they are hard to lay out, but very comfy. You can always starch them to help stiffen the fabric during cutting. Thrift stores, flea markets, and garage sales are a good place to look for these. Right now is a good time to buy woolens and Christmas trims. I bought a beautiful trim at 60% off a few weeks ago to make a belt for a houpelande. It was a Europa trim imported from Germany with a really nice gold oak leaf pattern. Originally 12.99 yd! But at 60% off it was reasonable. Most of our local stores have woolens from 40%-60% off as well. I try to budget during this time of year and stock up. Some of my expensive fabrics have been in my closet for a long time, just waiting for the right costume:-) I actually found some wool flannel to match some I had in storage for my 12th night houpelande for almost 15 years! But even though the new fabric was originally 16.98, the sale price knocked it down to about $10 a yard. (I decided I might need about two more yards and I did need some of it. Just for reference, it took about 8 1/2 yards of 60" wide fabric each, lining and outer layer, to make a houpelande with small, slightly scooped sleeves and a hat, which was made mostly from the cabbage, and I am only 5'2". For a taller person with the big sleeves I would recommend planning on 10-12 yds for one with large sleeves.) Unfortunately the nicer cotton and matinee' velvets (50% cotton) almost never go on sale around here. Sometimes I find remnants though at 1/2 price to use as trims. Occasionally I have found cotton velvets and velveteens on sale in the L.A. garment district or local stores, but it is a hit or miss proposition. Unfortunately the places with "deals" change constantly as well as their stock. One way to cut trim costs is to find an apholstery fabric with an interesting pattern and cut your trim out of that in strips. Often, Renaissance costumes were decorated using strips or bands of different and often contrasting fabrics anyway. Or couch/overlay wool yard instead of buying more expensive cording. (This can look great on middle eastern and early period costumes as well.) The thing that amazes me is how expensive most synthetic fabrics are! If you walk into to some of the commercial stores around here, non-sale poly/rayon linen looks are usually around 7.98 a yard or more. Poly/cottons seem to be the same price as cottons. Usually I don't find that making costumes out of more period or period-looking fabrics actually costs any more, but it does take more research and planning. Mostly I choose natural fiber fabrics when possible because, IMHO: - they wear with more patina - they are more comfortable in various weather conditions - they last longer - they are safer around open flames Julie Adams ------------------------------ End of H-Costume Digest V4 #14 ****************************** 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!