Alfred Stevens, After the Ball. 1874
This painting, also known as Confidence, is one of several by Stevens to treat the theme of consolation. As in his other works from the 1870s, here the anecdotal content of a letter containing distressing news asserts itself in a glimpse of the life of fashionable Parisian women in their elegant interiors. Stevens's subject matter and his meticulous attention to contemporary dress and decor elicited analogies to seventeenth-century Dutch and Flemish art; in fact, one critic called him the Gerard ter Borch of France.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
217 notes
·
View notes
have you seen that annoying try guys video about corsets. why’re they tightlacing like it’s average wear?
Yeah, and it's just a lot of nonsense. Like all of those videos.
Why do they tightlace? Because that's what people want to see. Not everyone; a lot of people are genuinely interested in learning. But unfortunately, a loud minority wants to believe the easiest, least complicated, most sensational version of the past. And that loud minority votes with engagement. You CAN get clicks for saying the corsets were basically the bras of their day, and women's relationship with them was similarly complicated and individual, but they were not unilateral torture devices- look at the success of costube in recent years -but that takes effort. Why bother, when you can just play to the lowest denominator of historical clothing knowledge?
(On some level, I do understand where the impulse comes from- the eras where pairs of bodies/stays/corsets were commonplace were also times of intense systemic misogyny, so "women were forced into torturous undergarments" seems par for the course. And the pressure on women to look and dress a certain way is obviously wrapped up in misogyny, then and now, even though women were not suffocating themselves into 15" waists like pop history insists. It's a myth that makes sense given its context; that's how it's survived.)
(That and the fact that the women who wrote the most about corsets were the ones who hated them. Likely a minority compared to the vast numbers of women then alive in corset-intensive cultures, but their strong feelings compelled them to speak out in ways that the probable majority never did. Who sits down and writes "Dear diary, another uneventful day wearing an ultra-commonplace support garment that I'm fairly neutral about?")
(But if you absolutely loathe wearing something- due to sensory issues, perceived hassle of dressing, feeling like your needs aren't met or are impeded by the garment, etc. -and social pressure says You Must...yeah, you're going to have some Thoughts on that subject.)
131 notes
·
View notes
NEXTH Season 4: The best is yet to come.
[https://nexthchic.live/]
[https://nexth.city/runway]
LIFESTYLE - [NexthChic] 146. Lee Mathews: Unstructured femininity, effortlessly graceful.
Lee Mathews is a renowned Australian fashion label that emerged in 2001, originating from the vibrant city of Sydney. Founded by the visionary Lee Mathews, who had previously showcased her creative talents as an art director for the esteemed Vogue Australia, the brand embarked on a mission that extended beyond conventional clothing design. Mathews aimed to create pieces that resonated profoundly with women, instilling a confidence that transcended mere aesthetics.
At the core of Lee Mathews' philosophy lies the fusion of functional beauty and simplicity. The brand's design ethos revolves around the belief that garments should transcend the realm of mere fabric and stitching. They should embody the wearer's personality and amplify their essence. This ideology finds its embodiment in the brand's garments, which effortlessly radiate grace and effortlessness. Each piece is meticulously crafted to encapsulate femininity through an unstructured yet captivating approach.
An unmistakable hallmark of Lee Mathews' creations is their breezy nature. The garments drape around the wearer in an ethereal manner, projecting an aura of ease and comfort. This distinctive style reflects Mathews' aspiration to liberate women from the confines of traditional fashion, offering a wardrobe that not only exudes beauty but also delivers a liberating wearing experience. Her designs strike a harmonious balance between sophistication and comfort, allowing women to embrace their individual allure without sacrificing ease of movement.
The brand's influence has transcended geographical boundaries. While its inception was in Australia, Lee Mathews' global appeal swiftly became evident. Presently, her unique creations are no longer limited to her homeland. With a widespread presence, Lee Mathews garments are accessible in over 55 locations worldwide. This international recognition underscores the universality of her designs and the emotional connection they foster.
In a fashion landscape often characterized by fleeting trends and transient allure, Lee Mathews has carved a distinctive niche by adhering to timeless principles of elegance, functionality, and confidence. The brand stands as a guiding light for those seeking to surpass the ordinary, embracing a style that seamlessly merges sophistication and comfort. By blending artistic expression with wearable design, Lee Mathews has empowered women to authentically and confidently articulate themselves through their clothing choices. This legacy firmly establishes her as a pioneer in the realm of fashion, forever altering the way we perceive and interact with our attire.
0 notes
articles about the “wild new trend” of piercing from the late ‘50s and early ‘60s are fascinating to read. a selection of excerpts:
- one doctor cautioned that girls with pierced ears would be “required to constantly wear earrings to hide the holes in their heads” (or you could just not be weird about a tiny dot on someone else’s earlobe?)
- Genevieve Dariaux, then director of the Nina Ricci couture house, said in 1965 that “Pierced ears are unthinkable for an elegant woman, and even more dreadful for a young girl.” bear in mind that, as I’ve said, earrings that made your ears LOOK pierced were still common. what the difference was, nobody has yet made plain
- lots of evidence that going to a doctor was the preferred “safe” method for piercing at the time. but many doctors refused to do it, or said they would but that they strongly discouraged patients from having the procedure done. this checks out with my mother’s experience in 1965- her schoolmate’s anesthesiologist father did free piercing for all his daughter’s friends
- some teenagers around 1965 called clip and screwback earrings “chicken earrings” (implying that the wearers were too scared of pain to get their ears pierced, I think)
- one advice column, also from 1965, implied that pierced ears were just a passing fad. the previous several centuries of western history would like a word, Mx. Columnist...
- A GIRL WITH RESTRICTIVE PARENTS BRINGING UP THE ARGUMENT THAT HER GRANDMOTHER HAD PIERCED EARS. YES. FINALLY SOMEONE REALIZED THE LOGICAL FALLACIES HERE. the argument against that is, indeed, a sort of “that was the Bad Old Days and we know better now” deal as some other commenters have hypothesized
- one article mentions that the trend could be part of the Victorian revival that was just becoming popular in the mid-60s, which is a fascinating thought I’ve never considered before
- many doctors complaining that they were suddenly being called upon to pierce ears despite not really knowing how. this is interesting, because before the Great Ear-Piercing Taboo, jewelers offering piercing services were more like modern piercers than Claire’s employees (and doctors weren’t involved at all unless an infection set in). descriptions I’ve read of Victorian piercer-jewelers mention a lot of things we’re familiar with today- needles designed with a hollow for inserting the starter jewelry, for example, and even “freezing” solutions to numb the earlobe. so in those early resurgence days, going to a long-established jewelry store for your piercing might actually have been a better option than a doctor’s office
- two young women in a 1964 Canadian article (from Calgary) mention that they think screwback earrings look cheap and gaudy, and the pierced version is more conservative and tasteful, in an interesting reversal of mainstream thought
- a newspaper columnist saying pierced ears give him “the wim-wams,” so they are to be avoided. whatever the hell that means
- a LOT of people seem to think that ear piercing was popular in the Victorian era because wealthy women didn’t want to lose their expensive jewelry. sorry folks- my collection of Victorian costume earrings (all pierced) says otherwise
- much confusion as to why modern girls want to do something so old-fashioned
- one woman marvels at how comfortable it is to wear earrings in pierced ears, as opposed to clips and screwbacks. I feel infinitely blessed, as an earring-lover, to have been born when I could escape the scourge of ear-vises altogether
- apparently an eccentric elderly man on Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, literally bribed all the women of the community to pierce their ears because he liked the way it looked. one of them mentioned that she held out for $25- $244 CAD or $188 USD in today’s money. all because some rich Victwardian codger had a very specific fetish
- this absolutely incredible response of an Indian diplomat’s wife when asked, in New York, why she wore a diamond nose stud: “Because I feel [diamonds] become me more than rubies or emeralds.” QUEEN
- “when the fad changes, as it indubitably will-” are you certain of that, ma’am
11K notes
·
View notes