WTF?

[frualeydis]

I must share this absurd quote from Fashion and fiction. Dress in art and literature in Stuart England by Aileen Ribeiro:

"Anyone familiar with examining clothing from the early modern period is aware of the contrast between the quality of the fabrics and the poor tailoring and dressmaking in evidence. This is why many artists, especially in the early Stuart period, concentrate on decorative aspects of fashion rather than on the construction - and perhaps why such artists as van Dyck and Peter Lely felt the need to generalize and even to invent styles of dress. Clothing did not fit well, for garments were not made to size (vague estimates of 'smalnesse' and 'bignesse' of the constituent parts of the body, as recorded in letters and diaries by tailors and dressmakers seem unhelpful), and dress was of necessity pulled and pinned together by laces, pins and buttons until it assumed the shape of the wearer"

Please tell me that she was drunk when she wrote this. Or suffers from dementia.

Comments

[estela-dufrayse.livejournal.com]

Wow! I can't imagine why she actually said that!

She must have been drunk, or a student wrote that part...

[kass-rants.livejournal.com]

She had to have been high. Or someone edited the passage so that it doesn't resemble what she originally wrote. She can't have meant this. It's the opposite of the truth!

Didn't Aileen Ribeiro work for the V&A at one point? If so what I have seen of Stuart tailoring in their collection cannot hold a candle to what she has seen. And what I have seen has infinitesimal, careful stitches and gorgeous tailoring.

There was a fashion in the early 17th century of having one's portrait painted in the dress of another era. This is why Lely and van Dyck painted people in vaguely Greco-Roman drapery and other things that look like fancy dress costume. Strangely enough, I think I first learned this in a book also by Ribeiro called "Art in Dress". :/

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

I know, that's the really annoying part about 17th century portraiture, that so much is "allegorical", "classical" or fantastcial. Annoying from a costume historian's prespective I mean, from other poitns of view their idea of "classical drapery" is really amusing.

/Eva

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

That would be the only explanation, but she stresses the quality of the fabrics. And there is very little non-noble clothing preserved from the 17th century anyway.

/Eva

[sneprinsesse.livejournal.com]

That's odd. I haven't read the book in question, but I recently got Dress in Eighteenth-century Europe, 1715-1789 by the same author. Now I am unsure if either book is any good. At least the pictures are beautiful.

One thing I have heard though, is that modern eyes find the insides of old clothing ugly, with rough edges etc, but that doesn't have anything to do with fit.

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

She's a professor of art and dress history at Cortauld Institute and should know what she's writing about. I think Dress in 18th centuyr Europe is good, though a little old-fashioned when it comes to the theoretical perspectives.

/Eva

[sarahbellem.livejournal.com]

Is this the same author who wrote about "Renaissance Elbow"? myladyswardrobe? I can't remember... But Bess was reading a history of Elizabethan fashion a little while back that was explaining why people drafted a curve in sleeves as evidence that there was some condition called "Renaissance Elbow" that disfigured everyone with arms that wouldn't straighten out completely. And the author was dead serious about it.

Apparently she'd never looked at a man's suit before...

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

I have no idea. Sounds intriguing though. Especially since Charles de Blois pourpoint from the 14th century also has a (different) construction that gives curved sleeve.

/Eva

[myladyswardrobe.livejournal.com]

Not sure - I think it was <lj user="valina_anne" who had that book. I can ask her tonight as we are meeting up. Perhaps both that author and Ms Ribeiro were on the high at the same time???

Absurd

[valina-anne.livejournal.com]

Yes - it was Susan Vincent's 'Dressing the Elite' that mentions renaissance elbow. Her research is very good - but she feels the need to interpret it for us in strange ways. I think to satisfy some academic audience who believe research is less important than waffling inanely.

As for our drunk Aileen, I thought she was trained and worked at the Cortauld Institute too. I have seen her quoted (not that particular quote thankfully) in other books, who see her as a costuming authority. I will approach her with caution now.

[tattycat.livejournal.com]

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

*snerk*

I have to find some way to work that into every day conversation now.

[dame-eleanor.livejournal.com]

Mmm..okay!! All righty then... The lady is obviously high on crack.

[love3angle.livejournal.com]

Wow! That's good to know, so when I make and early Stewart dress I won't have to work that hard at it... AND I can do it ON CRACK!

This is looking like a better project all the time... *snerk*

[pearl]

Could she be confusing the 17-18th centuries for the 19th century? Maybe she was having a bit of a blurry-vision problem (from too much alcohol, naturally) and misread the 9 as a 8?

Then again, from her description, this is the first thing that comes to my mind. Which is so-non-Stuart it's not funny.