What Do You Think Is The Best Era/Decade For Fashion?

[kiwigrape]

What do you think the best era is in fashion?
looking at the past. I think there were many memorable and iconic eras. but I love the 70's. how fun and creative clothes were. colors and textures. makeup and SHOES!
in those years freedom was born in society as in clothes and style.
for me, it's 70's.

 

[velvetandsilk]

RTW 70s for spontaneity, humor, diversity, breaking bourgeois norms, the best catwalks.
HC 30/40s Madame Gres - timelessness.

 

[gallianostan]

the interwar years are unrivaled; the 20s and 30s were magnificent. then come the 90s. i'd wager the 80s were decent but only because of experimental designers like yamamoto, miyake, westwood, galliano, kawakubo, etc. that airy, japanese punk romanticism was wonderful. everything since 2010 has been horrid.

 

[blueorchid]

I'm really partial to the mid-1960s to 1970s when prêt-à-porter really kicked off and the influence it had on the stuffy couture houses. Something about 1980s fashion, aside from a few designers, depresses me despite all the opulence.

 

[MulletProof]

^ I love that time in fashion, too... everyone looked amazing and liberated and the people who were deeply into fashion seemed so experimental and kind of wild.. they dared to wear and do things most people these days wouldn't dare wearing/doing now, and they did that around elders who were born in the late 19th century lol.

I find it hard to disconnect context from fashion because.. one informs the other, but strictly ignoring the conditions, especially the brutality (aka. the Inquisition), the lack of hygiene (!!) and just the limitations for all people, and just trying to focus exclusively on the amazing clothes, I looooove the late 16th/early 17th century among Spanish/French/English nobility. It's just so rich and opulent and elegant, and full of symbols (political, social, religious). Whenever I see clothes from back then I'm just in awe at the amount of details and materials and how everything had to enforce this idea of glory and majesty.. I usually end up staring at it for a long time and tend to look for more, the way I certainly don't do with clothes from the 20th century.

I mean..


[1-3. Alonso Sanchez Coello | 4. William Segar | 5, 7-9. François Clouet | 6. Juan Pantoja de la Cruz]

 

[Phuel]

^^^ LOL Absolutely more curious about the horsebaths of months-old BO x intense perfumes, since hygiene wasn’t exactly a priority back then...

The elephant in the room is that these beyond gorgeous, but extremely-ostentatious, overly-decadent walking OOAK jewels were only for the royalties and the mostest inner sanctums of such royal courts. And they’re preserved in only paintings to boot LOL I get that the context of pageantry only ever exists for the 1% at that time (because the marger peasant— no matter how hot he may be— and likely modelled for Michelangelo in the nude, wasn’t going to be immortalized in a portrait in his daily garb…), but in context of how fashion is represented, this would be the equivalent of people several hundreds years from now only referencing royalties and celebs as the fashions representation of our time: How gross is that LMFAO

I still watch those Cate Blanchett Elizabeth films more for their costume-designs than the stories… The Spanish court posse in all-black is striking, stunning and sublime.

In terms of the best fashion era…. I’m bias since the 90s was the era I came to experience high fashion and the feelings still poignantly and potently reverberate to this day. That period from the autumn of 1994 to sometime in the late-2000s was that golden age of creativity that spanned RTW, HC, fashion shows, publications, campaign and castings of the highest standard, taking all the past decades— and centuries) in fashion and conjuring this masterclass of modern fashion of its time, and has yet to be matched. That era remains an institution of higher (fashion) learning. Untouchable in the very best sense.

 

[MulletProof]

^ hell no lol, there's a limit on just how much I want to know about that. On the other hand, I think there's a higher tolerance for odor that your brain recognises that it's coming from 'your' people, like a tribal instinct, so how just bad it was must've escaped most people.. the way it still does even by region (people in the Americas being less tolerant in comparison to Europeans and all that..).

but in context of how fashion is represented, this would be the equivalent of people several hundreds years from now only referencing royalties and celebs as the fashions representation of our time: How gross is that LMFAO

Sort of. I mean, they also held the monopoly on the closest thing to 'fashion' back then.. this thing that has nothing to do with functionality or survival (covering yourself to face climate conditions or to transit safely through society) and that is mostly used and manipulated to assert your place in society by showcasing what the others cannot access easily or at all because.. no divine lineage. I do feel curious on the attire of more modest contemporaries (e.g. Artemisia Gentileschi's subjects) and I'm in awe by what they did with rather simple fabrics but to me, that extreme exclusivity on sartorial communication and all the often obscene displays of power and grandiosity that are easy on the eye, are also a pretty accurate representation of where their societies were back then, especially when you compare the Spanish vs. the English and how the Spanish at the time are holding on to Catholicism for dear life and the result is more sober, and pious, whereas the Tudors seem to be on a PR world tour of 'hey, we're not just pirates!' and it's all gold and god-like splendor.

I guess in short, they were the equivalent of fashion, not celebrities (but they were also the celebrities ) and yes, something unattainable like the propositions of a luxury brand are hardly representative of everyday life, I'm sure that in 500 years, the track jacket of a factory worker in Sri Lanka will represent this century far better than Miu Miu's layered underwear lol, but both still tell you something about different groups, different regions, their activities and needs to climb up the ladder.

 

[LadyJunon]

For me, it's a draw between the mid/late 60s/70s and the late 90s/early 00s. Those eras really represented fashion at its most dynamic and visually diverse.

As for the worst deacades, it has to be the 40s and the 80s. Those specific decades remind me of fashion today. Very loud and boisterous, but very static, homogenous and stuffy.

I'm sure that in 500 years, the track jacket of a factory worker in Sri Lanka will represent this century far better than Miu Miu's layered underwear lol, but both still tell you something about different groups, different regions, their activities and needs to climb up the ladder.

My best guess is that the Miu Miu panties will outlast the track jacket solely based on the types of historical garments that tend to be preserved (excluding the brand's own archiving and the precise video/photo documentation we have now).

On another note, it does make me wonder for how fashion will grdually change. Would brands like Louis Vuitton, Hermès and Chanel continue to reign forever? Would they be pushed out by other brands? Would a conglomorate like LVMH last forever or gradually split back into freestanding houses?

 

[Phuel]

We’re all referencing high fashion— but the OP may be referencing fashion in pop culture, fashion in general :shudders:fastfashion of the commoners:shudders:

Because as much as I’m convinced that that magical period of A/W 1994 sparked the catalyst of a high fashion renaissance that lasted for slightly over a decade of creative vision; from designers to publications and everything in between, the cold, stark reality was that fashion of the commoners, and that would include the trends of that era, were frankly, really gross: Boxy, oversized coats and jackets still dominated; frosted, overstyled, over-processed dry, spikey hair was still everywhere; that hideous exaggerated bootcut lowrider jean/pant that the likes of Brittany, Christina, guidos and guidettes made so popular; the revival of 1940s swingers aesthetic… And I can go on and on on the cringe that was 90s/2000s trashwear (common brands like Affliction, Ed Hardy, True Religion, Juicy Couture…)

That same reality may be slapped onto even idealized decades like the 1960s and 1970s. High fashion may have been brace and strong, but the reality is that the fastfashions of those times, like it is with any other times, were likely just as obnoxious when worn by the common people that just wanted to be on-trend. Even now, I can’t bare to watch certain show/films from the mid-90s to the mid-2000s— because, the fashions, the general aestthics are so horrendous, even when the highest of high fashion offerings were such a masterclass of construction to presentations in that same era.

Reality really does bite. And it’s why it truly has no place in high fashion.

 

[Nimsay]

Commoners are needed. I mean thats how we came up with stays instead of full on corsets. Commons are forced to be innovative.

The best fashion period was probably 1920s. The Egyptophile in me is constantly sated by Art Deco and Streamline. I never get tired of parallel length-increasing lines. Metallics. Things that look like they are moving. megalithic proportions.

 

[MulletProof]

but the OP may be referencing fashion in pop culture, fashion in general :shudders:fastfashion of the commoners:shudders:

He/she didn't specify! 'the past' sounds pretty broad to me but I guess you can only go back that far before it all gets diluted into ritualistic clothing vs. the actual, vapid, purposeless fashion that we know.

My best guess is that the Miu Miu panties will outlast the track jacket solely based on the types of historical garments that tend to be preserved (excluding the brand's own archiving and the precise video/photo documentation we have now).

On another note, it does make me wonder for how fashion will grdually change. Would brands like Louis Vuitton, Hermès and Chanel continue to reign forever? Would they be pushed out by other brands? Would a conglomorate like LVMH last forever or gradually split back into freestanding houses?

You're not wrong, people love revising history... even now you look at what people think embodied the early 00s and it's only a fraction of what was actually happening then. You had all the indie culture around bands like The Strokes but somehow the retrospective chooses to exclusively focus on the style straight out of an Usher video.

On the second paragraph, how far into the future are we thinking? 30 years? they'll probably be still around, in a shambles but still around, especially if whoever is 20 years now is 50 years old then. It only takes one particularly stubborn personality deciding to keep a tight grip on whatever was shiny and covetable in their youth to insist that it is still shiny and covetable and way better than anything 'newer'. But in 150 years? no way. These conglomerates are too aggressive and dominant and milking nostalgia like there's no tomorrow. There always comes a generation that is completely resistant to that type of indoctrination you see now.

 

[blueorchid]

Ah yes, complaints about the commoners... As a commoner myself, perhaps it is beyond my station to comment on such matters... but ugly fast fashion or not from the era *I* like mid-1960s to 1970s... I personally appreciate how many people just "loosened up" during that time period with regards to fashion. It was fun. People were having fun. Regardless of whether they were wearing dresses that looked like carpets or knock-off of knock-offs or the real deal from the new boutiques. I love the incredible amount of change year to year that I see in my (deranged, at this point) collection of Elle France from 1958 to 1975-ish.

 

[Phuel]

He/she didn't specify! 'the past' sounds pretty broad to me but I guess you can only go back that far before it all gets diluted into ritualistic clothing vs. the actual, vapid, purposeless fashion that we know.

LOL No the OP didn’t specifically state high fashion. Understandably for you— going back several hundred years in fashion is just as relevant to the discussion… And unfortunately for me, because it’s only instinctive now— due to professional experiences, has taught me to never assume that “fashion” equates to “high fashion”. …Of which I’m sure for someone like LadyJunon who’s still at the early stages of his fashion career (and I hope that he’ll be blessed to remain only in this rarified atmosphere of high fashion), instinctively only idealize the highest of fashion when “fashion” is put forth as a topic.

A collection like this, distilled to the essence of an understated refinement, and effortless in elegance, is that brand of modernity that crosses and transcends the lines of time, age and gender:

 

[Drusilla_]

^ why does the above post sound like it's 100 percent AI-generated by some content mill desperate for SEO hits and given a prompt about 1920s fashion? It's always these 2022-23 accounts that sound like it too, no human types like that.

Best decade for fashion that I personally lived through would have to be the 90s, both the street and high fashion were doing interesting things that decade, also the culture fuelled it in a way - grunge, Britpop, late 20th century goth, minimalism, 'new age' fashions, more sporty styles (which I'd say really started getting their momentum in the 80s), the beginnings of FRUiTS street style maximalism, it was all there. Also in high fashion what feels like half the great collections of that era just wouldn't be possible now because there wasn't yet that mentality of having to be all things to all people or please everyone. I mean, imagine JPG doing the Hasidic collection or McQueen's Highland r*pe at any time in the last 10 years?

 

[gallianostan]

yeah, all this pearl-clutching about “commoners” is just absurdly classist and also patently not true. some of our favourite designers are just that - our favourites - because of their ability to synthesise both high and low culture. john and lee both understood that only the cross-pollination of the streets and the salons could create truly revolutionary, boundary-pushing fashion.

also the 90s and early 2000s were brilliant for fashion and i wont hear otherwise. that being said, i’m sticking to the long 1920s as the greatest decade for fashion. that sh*t hit so f*cking hard.

 

[LadyJunon]

yeah, all this pearl-clutching about “commoners” is just absurdly classist and also patently not true. some of our favourite designers are just that - our favourites - because of their ability to synthesise both high and low culture. john and lee both understood that only the cross-pollination of the streets and the salons could create truly revolutionary, boundary-pushing fashion.

also the 90s and early 2000s were brilliant for fashion and i wont hear otherwise. that being said, i’m sticking to the long 1920s as the greatest decade for fashion. that sh*t hit so f*cking hard.

Some of my favourite designers are the ones who managed to seamlessly mix high fashion and popular/alternative culture throughout their work:
• Yves Saint Laurent introduced the "dark side" of womanhood (prostitution, drug use, queerness) in his work
• Martin Margiela pulled from the "banal, everyday woman" into a conceptual high fashion muse
• Ghesquière always had that otaku/gamer/nerd undertone in his collections (it's more overt at Louis Vuitton, but it was present at Balenciaga)

You don't see that level of nuance and care anymore. In today's industry a overwhelming share of its designers can too easily be categorised as a "Demna" (cool/shocking/low-culture) or a "Vaccarello" (chic/beautiful/high-culture) and the two sides think that they're too good to dare cross over, let alone look in either one's direction.

 

[lookatme]

Undoubtedly the very short period from 1936-1939. Take a quick -or better yet, a long- look in the vintage magazines forums and any issue from that period is bursting with the most incredible clothing. That period is so elegant, so mature, so sophisticated, so devastatingly gorgeous.

The wardrobe of a woman at that time was surprisingly limited in both scope and silhouette (day skirt/jacket suit, blouse, overcoat, evening gown), but that limitation actually created the incentive for designers to come up with some unbelievably inventive, clever, and truly gorgeous details, seaming, finishes, pockets, buttons, etc. Plus the fabrications of that time were unreal. 1930’s silks and velvets and wools are something else.

It’s interesting that the second 1940 hits, though, the seriousness of that late 30’s period starts to make way for something a bit more “pretty” and conventional, eventually making way for the cutesy and twee 1950’s (not my favorite era).

Aside from the late 30’s, it’s objectively true that the late 90’s and early 00’s will forever be remembered as possibly the greatest era of “fashion” - as in the whole idea of the industry. There were obviously incredible clothes coming out of that time period, but it really was more the entire industry being in top form more than just the clothes specifically being great. It was the models, the editors, the magazines, the designers, the photographers, etc. It was all the best of the absolute best doing their best, pushing each other to do even better.

 

[susseinmcswanny]

I've been thinking about this and I still need to think more ... lol it's not that serious. I wonder what my *real* answer would be, because so much of what I love is romanticized through paintings. Looking at some physical garments from back then read completely differently from how they do in paintings. On a canvas something so restricting can look effortless, but irl looks odd and kinda cringe? I have to hand it to those artists man. That's true talent.

Anyways, if anyone is into it there's a very cool website bloshka.info that has tons of fun examples of fashion throughout the years. It has sections on each decade as well as on specific garments and trends over the years. (Pretty much restricted to America/Europe tho btw).

 

[Phuel]

^^^ It’s really not that deep LOL

Can’t say I can speak from experience when it comes to painters from several centuries ago… but it’s not unreal to say that back then they were just skilled portraitures-- much like skilled engineers: Documenting an individual’s wealth and status, in the most flattering light and impression that their skills are capable of, because— their commission, and in some cases, their lives depended on. Nevermind the costumes that they wore for these sittings were likely not as impressive as they were depicted, but the wealthy, and royal subjects themselves were likely not as easy on the eyes as they were portrayed. If any of these portraitures depicted their clients the way that Chris Colls hilariously mangled Linda’s face with the horrendously amateur post in the Sunday Times Style magazine cover select, it’s a guarantee that they would never work again, along with being shunned by their society. But in 2023, hilariously messy post-production that doesn't even resemble the poor woman gets to be a cover LMFAO God, that Linda cover select is the photographic equivalent of that grandmother’s attempt at fixing Elias Garcia Martinez's Christ portrait…

 

[MulletProof]

Nevermind the costumes that they wore for these sittings were likely not as impressive as they were depicted

but they are!!! that's what makes this so fascinating! even when they're in poor shape, discolored and with 500 years on them, you just know that this is what precedes fashion and specifically haute couture, it's the equivalent for their time, but better, because it wasn't just opulence through money but through divine right and imperialism, and you had to convey that, too. I actually think the painters and illustrators don't do many of these garments justice, they were skilled and definitely assigned to enhance political and class superiority, but when you look at the actual pieces, and especially when you try to plug that into the context (everyone else pretty much in rags and still believing in religion, superstition, the paranormal), they're surreal. I mean..

Painting (yes, not a glorious portrait but you get the idea) vs. what's left of a similar piece.

[my pics]

and this isn't limited to Europe.. I remember seeing Samurai art since forever (a part of my extended family is Japanese and they would always gift ancient objects/imagery) and I remember thinking the way it was depicted must not have been as fantastic-looking or colorful in real life, and lo and behold..


[fineartamerica.com | my pic]
(I'm 80% sure both images are from the same period [edo/17th century?], please don't come for me @runner , but also please do! )

One can only imagine what Elizabeth I's wardrobe would've looked like..

I think that, in general, and perhaps until fashion became an industry, status clothes in real life used to surpass fantasy, for a bunch of reasons we can't replicate now (such as getting democracies and education for everyone lol) but focusing exclusively on the level of craftsmanship, aesthetic and social purposes, they're as valid as any other post-war era in fashion. The fashion industry is really only a temporary holder of sartorial expression, give it 150-200 years and it won't be an industry anymore, we'll have something else and that still won't change the great looks of the 1960s, the 90s, and all that.