I was going to quit talking about fashion for a while but Jenny Lerew challenged me to defend my proposition that late teens and early twenties fashions sucked and I couldn't resist taking her up on it. Here's the evidence, culled from period sources.
Everybody thinks of the 1920s as the flapper decade, forgetting that before the short-skirted flapper was the long-skirted, shapeless, deco, melting dowager style. In the teens there was a transitional stage to deco which attempted to keep the older, Gibson Girl style and modify it to fit the new sensibility. You can see this transitional style in the 1917 newsreel above.
Eventually the modified Gibson dress was thrown out in favor of the entirely new, but even worse deco style. It's hard to imagine that royalty (above) could have had such bad taste. The dress adds 20 years to the age of the poor princess wearing it.
The top of this dress (above) is plain but not horrible, but what about the corn husk bottom?
The loose, shapeless dress above is made even worse by the low waist line.
Here (above) is woman as a kind of long candy bar or TV remote.
Here's (white dress, above) a "Dr. Giggles"-style nurses uniform adapted to street wear.
Here's (above) a Margaret Dumont-style dress emphasizing the flat chest. Bras were a new invention in those days and they were used for flattening, not uplifting. As the 20s wore on the flappers would keep the flat chest, shorten the hem and give women German army helmets but that's a post for another day.
37 comments:
I like all this stuff! It just depends on who wears it- plus you're on purposely not showing the good stuff!
Here's some:
Good stuff.
More cute!
How demure!
HOT!!!
SUPER HOT!!!
ULTRA HOT!!!
OH MY!
Kali: LOL! You're linking to flapper styles. That was the later 20s. I'm talking about the pre-flapper period from 1916-1922, more or less. I don't have any problem with flapper dresses and I definitely don't have a problem with Louise Brooks.
There was cute stuff in that time period! Just watch any Arbuckle short or early Buster flick!
kali: "I like all this stuff! It just depends on who wears it- plus you're on purposely not showing the good stuff!"
AMEN sister!
Maybe after WWI everyone hated life so much that they wanted to look horrible all the time?
But still. I think I'd choose these clothes over a 1981 ladies ensemble any day.
I'm with you on this one, Uncle Eddie! The fashion around that time did nothing to flatter a woman's figure.
The only figure type that could get away with this kind of cut, as well as the flapper cuts of the late 20s, is the "boyish" (no hips, no boobs, no bum), stick-thin, ruler shape. If a woman has any curves, the cut makes the woman look dumpy, like in the picture of the future Queen Mum that you posted.
I remember reading somewhere that the reason for that fashion was to celebrate the woman's new independence - around that time, women were allowed to vote in the US, the UK and some European countries, and in the US, they were no longer viewed by the law as a person's property or "dependent citizens".
Fashions by "Marks Bros."? This film clip could have used a cameo of Harpo Marx just to liven things up.
Brilliantpants: what do you mean? The 1920's was a great time in American history. Everybody was having such a great time they didn't realise the economy was about to collapse.
Oh dear!
Selective disparagement!! Tsk! Thank you Kali.
I'll attend to you, sir, when I get a minute. Now I've got to get to work.
; )
For once, I hesitate to agree with Eddie. Mainly because there are a few images that have always been paradigms of female beauty to me, like this picture of Una Call Custer, which I am pretty sure are from that period. (After a public scandal that was also one of the great love stories of the twentieth century, she married the poet Robinson Jeffers and lived happily ever after.)
Jennifer: True, you had to be Twiggy to look good in those clothes.
I wish someone would do an article on which fashions had a permanent influence and were enduring like Levis. Calvin Klein strikes me as someone whose name will be remembered. He had good taste and good taste doesn't age.
Lester: Wow! A great picture! Can't see much of what she's wearing but what I can see looks good on her.
I'm just disappointed to see eddie uses "LOL"
It's hard to imagine that royalty (above) could have had such bad taste. The dress adds 20 years to the age of the poor princess wearing it.
Since when are the royals (especially the Brits) known for their fashion sense?!
Exhibit A:
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/02/11/officialcharlescam.jpg
B:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/health/about_us/Images/queen_mother_portrait2.jpg
C:
http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/061204/061204_queenElizabeth_vmed_10a.widec.jpg
I'm pretty sure Queen Victoria was responsible for the frumpwear. She was quite the beast, and didn't want anybody looking better than she did:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Queenvictoria.jpg/262px-Queenvictoria.jpg
Which, as you can see, would be a skate.
"Melting dowager"..hahaha!
I think we are definately looking at a transitional period here...and definately a very unexplored era in women's clothing..but it seems to be hinting that "freedom is near"..as far as the bustles being gone and ankles being exposed...this was right before the women's right to vote came in...then after that, hemlines shot up. I always thought that there was a connection between fashion and the social/economic climate. Think of all the very business like soldier -esque wear of the 1940's war era..women were dressed in fahsions that were simular to more formal military wear..practical skirts..pointed shoulders..so I am thinking we are looking at a "pre freedom" design with the pre-flappers. And yes, this style is more suited towards the Olivy Oyl built women...the belt hanging down over the crotch..yes, more definately.
I'd like to see you do an expose on *today's* styles..like super low rise jeans on women and the baggy pants on men that droop down under their butt...
PS Forgot to sign my name
Cynthia
I HAVE to get an account on Blogger. Sheesh.
June Marlowe (Miss Crabtree from the earlier Our Gang shorts '30-'32) would have looked beautiful in any of those clothes.
I looked for pictures of her from up to '22, but she didn't start acting til '23.
Just look at that face:
http://www.dspears.com/bio/bio_02a.jpg?IctQual=100
Perfect for that era. :)
Una Call Custer had riveting, compelling eyes, which tended to make her look good regardless of garb.
Unfortunately, not everyone looked as good as Louise Brooks in that Moe Howard haircut.
Here, you can see how slender June Marlowe was:
http://www.dspears.com/junepix/s_06a.jpg?IctQual=100
http://www.dspears.com/junepix/s_02a.jpg?IctQual=100
Another nice headshot:
http://www.dspears.com/junepix/annex/wampas2.jpg?IctQual=100
She would have been nice looking in any 1916 to '22 clothing styles, I think.
That film looks like outtakes from Eraserhead.
The trend of obscuring the female form was not a generally flattering one, even if some women could make it look good. It's as if designers decided that women were now out of style and should be replaced by wooden planks.
This was more fashionable to me. Probably less comfortable.
idrc("i don't really care"?), that Buster Brown era-1902-7 or so--is actually very comfortable to wear, much more so than the earlier victorian styles generally were. That's one of my favorite looks.
I think the flappers were the equivalent of hotpants wearing hookers today. If you were a flapper you were basically a drinking smoking opium doing dancing party ho. It was not the fashion of dignified ladies.
Anonymous, you're mistaken. That myth about "loose" women=flappers is taken for granted today, but while certain of the so-called flapper dresses were indeed for YOUNG women to wear rather than their mothers, by the late 1920s all but a late middle aged woman wore more or less the same styles.
When after WW1 the chic modern style(started by Chanel I believe in Paris, or at least partly)began it was rare that women adopted the whole look. It's one thing to buy a shorter dress--another to: wear heavy lipstick, bob your hair(F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote a great short story on this entire subject)--a HUGE deal until about '27 or so--or roll your stockings, SMOKE, drink, etc. Even by 1925 hems were just somehwat below the knee already for ALL women except grandma.
By the time most women in america dressed like Clara Bow it was totally "safe" to do so-no opium-smokers need apply(and incidentally I never heard it was thought of as THAT bad), and the "shocking" aura had long left the building.
UGGGGHHHHHH!!!
Both the styles Eddie posted and the Flapper styles were SO UGLY. Women that looked like boys. Gross.
Give me this anyday.
Maybe those 50s fashions were a little conserbative, and that bustline could be opened up somewhat and maybe that frilly dress isn't practical but it sure looks pretty.
By the way, I should point out I have a personal bias against short hair, anorexia, DUI, hair dye, smoking, drug use, copious amounts of make-up, feminism, whores, and the counterculture.
Actually, The 1920s were the golden age of Feminism, and it was one of the best things that ever happened in the Western World. That's the wave of feminism I can really get behind.
Anon, Jenny: I don't know much about the period but it strikes me as plausible that the first girls to wear the flapper style were the kind of girls you wouldn't want your daughter to be.
Jenny must be right about the long run because even conservative ladies dressed that way eventually, but the first flappers...I bet they were kind of messed up.
On another subject, I think the way to understand the past is to look for the parts that don't make sense to us and try to figure them out. Why was a novel nobody reads now so popular in the 1890s("Gormanshanst")? Why did the public go bananas over a film nobody cares about now ("Easy Rider")? Why was a singer like Perry Como so immensely popular or a song like "Sentimental Journey"? Why was Jung so popular in the 60s and now is hardly read, except for his test on personality types?
Eddie, your mention of Jung reminds me of something your comment on Jung's Aryan supremacy leanings made me remember. I read that when Jung analyzed Hitler's handwriting in the 30s he wrote, "Behind this handwriting I recognize the typical characteristics of a man with essentially feminine instincts"
Why was Jung so popular in the 60s and now is hardly read, except for his test on personality types?
The heart of the temperament theory was first known to be theorized by Hippocrates over twenty-four hundred years ago. Jung just changed names and added his ideas to the theory. Others have modified/tweaked it since then.
The theory will probably always be around in some form.
Hippocrates was wrong about the humors just as Jung was about so many things. Still the heart of the temperament theories started with Hippocrates' ideas about humors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism
Setting aside Jung for a moment--
I spent a few minutes and gathered a half dozen examples of 1914-1918 dresses that I think disprove the negative impressions Uncle E. has acquired about women's attire of the time(I think!).
Here's the link: Pretty vintage dresses from the WW1 era
The main points I think is that all of these dresses have waists and fitted busts and lower necklines, and imho they are all very pretty, even alluring (on the right person of course).
They aren't shapeless tubes or TV remotes.
They aren't dowdy.
They are also not the modern silhouette, thank God, so one has to think as a person of that era would if you can.
Also to be fair keep in mind that the years 1914-18 were consumed with a horrible war, and fine materials like silks were not available for anyone. It was a time of austerity and a lot of mourning. Women's clothes took on popular "uniform" details: epaulettes, sailor collars, more buckles, a certain sort of lapel. These worked better on some clothes than others. The colors were generally more "drab" than usual during the Great War, again for obvious reasons.
But white was sill a popular option, and dresses for young women and those under a "matronly" age could often have very deep v necks(also in the back, which was sexy), sheer materials--and while there were longer hems than they would be starting around '23 or so, they were cut in layers that moved around the body and draped around the bust and hips.
Women did not look like burritos, in othe words.
Hope you like the small selection I culled plenty quick!
Jenny: Wow! The samples you put up were terrific! They're all great! The negligee was the sexiest one I've ever seen!
Was that you wearing the jacket? It doesn't look like you but maybe it was and the camera just caught you at an odd angle.
I still think the evidence points to lots of bad design work in that era but you convinced me that that there was lots of good stuff too. Thanks for putting those up!
I'm glad you don't mind my single-minded mania on the clothes, Eddie--thoug wait! It was YOU made a post of it! Ah, well--it's all fun! I just now added another photo to my Flickr set...I'll try and keep it updated. If you are in the mood for vintage, then there it will be. ; )
Funnily enough(or perhaps not so), we actually agree on a certain style of dress after all: I too have never liked the mid-late twenties ultra-drop-waist-look...I would never buy such a grament for my collection, though some of them are beautifully designed as art pieces and yeah, Louise Brooks could wear anything or nothing and look lovely.
And finally-no, that's not me wearing the coat. As I do have that coat, maybe I should re-photograph it. I only wish it were cool enough to put on!
Setting aside Jung for a moment-
I wouldn't have said anything in this thread about it if Edward hadn't mentioned him. Apparently he just wanted to get his Jung shots in without a two-sided discussion.
I won't make any more comments about anything. Thanks for the "friendly" atmosphere.
"I won't make any more comments about anything. Thanks for the "friendly" atmosphere."
My goodness!
I certainly meant no disrespect, or certainly unfriendliness with my meant-to-be-100%-innocuous remark! I honestly can't see even now how it's so offensive to you but it clearly was, and I'm sorry about that. I love Jung and all discussions of philosophy. What you wrote of Hippocrates was very interesting. Please don't be offended by an offhanded sentence that was simply trying to post a comment for Eddie regarding this post of his without totally ignoring that the previous several comments were about something else completely. No worries!
Brian: Holy Cow! You're over-reacting! Your comments are always much appreciated here and I, for one, always go to the links you put up.
I didn't answer what you said about Jung and the humours because I wanted to think about it before answering. That's probably not a good practice because I sometimes forget to answer. Sorry about that.
Okay, Eddie(and Kali): I just found a few more images to add to my vintage clothing set(that link, above). Now there are actually a few things from the real--gasp--flapper era...although as I said it's not my absolute favorite I think you'll like the things I found.
Enjoy all that black lace!
Last comment about it. Whew! ; D
Jenny: Wow! Very beautiful! I wonder if the high-end clothing of that era costs as much to buy now, in real dollars, as they did when they were new. If that's true then you could say that a good set of threads retains its value like gold. They say you can still buy a good suit for a twenty dollar gold piece.
BTW, I can't help thinking of Agatha Christie when I see dresses like this.
Apologies accepted.
I'm sorry if I over-reacted.
Post a Comment