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

[LadyJunon]

Interesting prediction. I feel like Hermès and Chanel will probably continue to exist for the next 100-200 years, mostly on the grounds that. As for the conglomerates (LVMH, Richemont Puig, Kering, OTB) I see them splintering off into smaller groups and single-brand operations.

 

[MulletProof]

^ Why Hermès and Chanel? are they 'purer' in their business models? I honestly don't know (I don't keep track of this side of fashion).

 

[lookatme]

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.

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..

(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.

^^100%.

The craftsmanship of these garments are unbelievable. As you mentioned, in a lot of ways, that era was the foundation of Haute Couture - the techniques that were developed, the undergarment structures for support and stylistic body shaping, the embroideries and fabric treatments, the fabrics themselves, etc. etc.

The Renaissance, in particular, was the era of artisans. You think about the culture and system of guilds - where men and women were not traditionally "educated" in schools, but instead apprenticed and became true MASTERS of craft, whether it was paper making, printing, sculpting, woodworking, masonry, ironworking and, yes, fabric milling, sewing, tailoring, embroidery, etc.

Mullet is right...oftentimes these pieces are MORE incredible than depicted. We're trained a lot of times to believe that nostalgia somehow clouds all of our perception of history and that it must have all been actually, truly terrible! Eye-roll. Not so...

In fact, the more you realize how advanced and sophisticated the past really was, it gets you wondering about how and why we've fallen so far!

 

[LadyJunon]

^ Why Hermès and Chanel? are they 'purer' in their business models? I honestly don't know (I don't keep track of this side of fashion).

Less moving pieces, which allows them to be more "agile" with their businesses. Conglomerates have to prioritise the health of the entire group over individual brands, which is Kering is in the situation it's in.

 

[MulletProof]

The Renaissance, in particular, was the era of artisans. You think about the culture and system of guilds - where men and women were not traditionally "educated" in schools, but instead apprenticed and became true MASTERS of craft, whether it was paper making, printing, sculpting, woodworking, masonry, ironworking and, yes, fabric milling, sewing, tailoring, embroidery, etc.

Mullet is right...oftentimes these pieces are MORE incredible than depicted. We're trained a lot of times to believe that nostalgia somehow clouds all of our perception of history and that it must have all been actually, truly terrible! Eye-roll. Not so...

In fact, the more you realize how advanced and sophisticated the past really was, it gets you wondering about how and why we've fallen so far!

I think it's our attachment to comfort as we know it (electricity, hot water, toilet). We like to believe we have it better now and it is true for the most part, but frankly, for every abominable thing then, there was some luxury we could only dream of now. Terrible things and great things have always coexisted, it's a big world. I do find that duality kind of fascinating though, when diving into the past.. especially with something as major as the Inquisition, it just kind of looms over everything, from music to clothes.

And yes to the era of artisans! that's why I think fashion will abandon the industry format, not by choice, just like forming it wasn't an active choice either, it's just rolling with our economic system, and that reaches different stages of development. If we don't have the same model of 1923, why would we have it in 2123? @LadyJunon that's why I really don't think Chanel or Hermes will make it by 2153 lol. I think there could be potential in not moving at all and holding on to the one thing you do best through the ups and downs (think Ede & Ravenscroft) but these two are too deep into the system and live off the same obsession as the others: selling what happened 70 years ago packaged and repackaged in a hundred ways. In a few generations, that just won't work, especially when coupled with an economic shift..

 

[Phuel]

^^^Chanel will absolutely be the last brand standing when and once fashion brands become irrelevant— maybe not in 2153, but the brand will the survive the apocalypse, and outlast hacks like Jacquemus/Off-White/Alyx etc etc. Not because of anything remotely associated with purity, integrity or ingenuity of design LOL But because Chanel has passed beyond a fashion brand into global pop culture, and has become a universal household name that still remains unaccessible to the masses. Hermes isn’t quite the household name as Chanel, although it may be in some parts of the world: When remote regions in China became prosperous quickly, many of the nouveau-riche denizens copped Hermes, so maybe the Appalachian don’t know Hermes, but the nouveau-riche of some small remote Chinese village absolutely does.

As far as fashion antiquity, I should have posted that I just don’t care how well made these relics are LOL I’m sure these royal costumes are beyond well engineered and impeccably constructed, not to mention just beautiful. The dressmaker’s life would depend on it if he’s dressing royalty and warriors, I suppose. And that these contraptions require a small team of servants to dress the wearer as well LOL …The armoury is just beyond resplendent pageantry far as I’m concerned. But these are all costume contraptions, and as masterfully engineered and produced, and even as gorgeous as they may be, it’s all as relevant to the modern designerwear as a beautifully crafted chariot is to gearheads talking about cars. Masterful couture and bespoke suiting in this century, this era, need to be able to seamlessly, effortlessly, flawlessly enhance the wearer to slip on and off in a few minutes, without aid. That’s what the best of fashion has evolved, progressed and matured to in the modern age. These fashion days are dreadful of course, but I’m just not nostalgic for days gone by either, in this lifetime nor of a few centuries ago. I’d never want to return to the 90s nor the 2000s, as much as they were the golden era of fashion. This is why when I see any creatives ripping off those eras wholesale— successfully or not, it’s all reductive and in 2023, rather pointless. …If I were studying fashion design, and it was mandatory to study and learn fashion techniques from a few centuries ago, I’d be so pissed (...as pissed as when I had to boil rabbit skin to make gesso in art school, when a store-purchased bottle was just as good and none would be the wiser for it LOL).

(And expanding further: Did the wearers look as idealistically proportioned, elegant and effortless IRL as they were rendered ideally in the portraits and paintings…??? Likely not (real samurai look like the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in their armour). The impression that such ornate, restricting heaviness on the mere mortal body— and royalty throughout the ages have always been on the mediocre side in terms of physicality, would look more cumbersome, more awkward than they were portrayed in their ideal. The best comparison would be a McQueen gown shown on the runway and in shoots on a 20yo Gisele— then it’s co-opted on some celeb like Kim K IRL, and it somehow doesn’t look as magical and a plaything of the fashion gods anymore…)

At this point in my life, and as much as I’m still drawn to fashion, I’m not impressed/excited/inspired by anything from this industry nowadays. There are some solid offerings from time to time, of course: Nick Knight’s coverstory for Italian Bazaar is supremely gorgeous. But, he’s already done it before; Olivier Theyskens’ is still plugging away admirably. But, he’s offered stronger; Annemarieke van Drimmelen is a strong new talent that’s leagues above the current hyped generation of mediocrity. But, Lindbergh and Weber did it all so much better. And for that, reaching back into the past— like, way way way past as you’ve done, is understandably an exciting discovery of artisanal ways in these days of overly-corporate merch and hyped greed. But, I still prefer clothing I can effortlessly move in and will only take me 2 minutes to put on and take off— and on my own.

 

[MulletProof]

^ in my case, it's not out of frustration with the current offering, traditional clothing was my first love and never-ending object of fascination since I was a kid, way before fashion. I didn't travel and no internet, and I remember looking at my geography books when I was like 7 and people with coins hanging around their foreheads, or a bunch of rings on their necks and being like 'WHAT..' lol, and going to my grandma's book collection and finding one book that had 'world attires' (something like that) and my mind was.. blown. I even scanned some of that book and posted it here when I was younger.. so it's not really nostalgia, more like.. my love for world gossip runs deep and will not discriminate place nor year! 🤣.. I also think that if you're a bit of a history buff and get really into something, you find out it's all part of a chain of events so you need to know what happened before that, and before that, and it just keeps going, and it gets worse when it's connected to the neighbors (and it always is!) so you need to also know what was happening simultaneously.

We're still in the embarrassing 4-wheel stage! so I'd assume if you get really into cars, you'll either start or eventually get curious about the freakin' chariot! you don't have to go through e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g, I'm sure there's no need for someone studying law to go through every time Europeans took pigs and roosters to animal trial or judged mosquitoes in absentia, but you will take the foundation that supports what we have today. It's wild to me that someone into fashion would look at sleeves or necklines and the sleeves and necklines of people 700 years ago, looking the exact same, and have no questions.

I don't know about idealistically proportioned.. most people from centuries ago look pretty chubby to me, Genghis Khan certainly asked for no favors! lol. I have noticed people were more compact, judging from those costumes.. like 🤏 vertically, horizontally.

..as pissed as when I had to boil rabbit skin to make gesso in art school

whyyy! that sounds like it wasn't in the program!

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ 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..).


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.

I actually think this isn't true, or it depends what you mean by your people. If you mean your SO, I agree; family, not necessarily. Remember Michelle Obama talking about how their daughters think their father is stinky? I have also found that to be true. To my knowledge, science hasn't fully figured this out, but I imagine you've noticed that (like Napoleon) the natural odors of your SO don't bother you, or on the other end of the scale, may be attractive.

 

[fashionista-ta]

Less moving pieces, which allows them to be more "agile" with their businesses. Conglomerates have to prioritise the health of the entire group over individual brands, which is Kering is in the situation it's in.

They're also both quite healthy, and they each promote artisanal work ... something I certainly want to see in the future

Hermes is definitely not fossilized, they adapt quite well ... and are also good at forcing their customers to adapt to them

 

[MulletProof]

^ I need to pull the odor study for you! it’s so interesting.. I think it wasn’t so much genetics but cultural factors because people were less tolerant to foreign/unfamiliar smells (as in.. people from other cultures, migrants), but there was also this part on how mothers register less levels of intolerance if they know the poop smell is coming from their baby. I read this some 3-4 years ago and need to find it again because I might be mixing up/distorting the language used!

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ Yes, that about mothers I have no trouble believing. It might be true for pets as well. Oxytocin related??

 

[LadyJunon]

They're also both quite healthy, and they each promote artisanal work ... something I certainly want to see in the future

Hermes is definitely not fossilized, they adapt quite well ... and are also good at forcing their customers to adapt to them

Yes, that vertical aspect that Hermès proudly displays in their brand identity really separates them from the rest of France's other big houses (Louis Vuitton, Dior, Saint Laurent). That artisanal focus feels gives the brand an almost Italian edge at times.

Chanel is similar in how they have gradually grown a stable of French Couture ateliers and openly celebrate them with their annual Métier d'Art collections. While it could be questionable that Chanel has a monopoly on Couture production, I rather that monopoly belong to Chanel than LVMH.

Alaïa has a similar appeal too. Despite being part of the second largest luxury group, Richemont, it's the sort of operation most designers could only dream about having. They just seem to exist and thrive by making beautiful clothes in their small, but respectable atelier, only appearing twice a year to show what they've done.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ And I love how everyone eats good food together at lunch everyday ... so Italian

 

[fashionista-ta]

I really thought everything was quite beautiful (at least at my favorite houses) right before the Global Financial Crisis (in 2008). It feels like fashion has never truly recovered

 

[philophile]

I'm probably in the minority here, but my favorite fashion decade used to be late 90s/early 2000s (yeah, Y2k, but the timeless aspect in it, not the Baby Phat tracksuits and the midwaist pants). I remember being a late teenager/young adult at the time and fashion being so simple, elegant, yet timeless, unlike previous decades. I still love all those mules and shoes created in the time, the knee-length skirts, the asymmetrical tops, etc. As a child, I remember cringing at my mother's 80s clothes, even more later on as a teenager. And while I did embrace 70s fashion for a period in my life and while I do appreciate it, it was not timeless at all. And god knows we need timeless in the current state of the world.

However, my favorite fashion decade is the 2010s, because it was an improvement of that 90s minimalism that I loved so much back in the day. It was less avant-garde and more wearable, more structured, more architectural, whilst still not losing that artistic and subversive touch. It's not just Phoebe Philo's Céline amongst others, but I can't remember looking at a more beautiful collection in my entire life than Ghesquière's final collection at Balenciaga. It was Cristobal's vision of fashion in the future. Yeah, I love futurism, that's why I rarely look back. I think fashion is an ever-evolving form of art and it adjusts to our current needs, to our political and economic circumstances, not to mention the need for change in order to combat global warming. Simplicity is the future, just make it fun (simplicity doesn't equal boring at all, nor does it mean it is simple to achieve). We need to become cleverer at upcycling and recycling, it's the only future we have, plus supporting true artisanal work.

 

[kasper!]

19th century, everything was bespoke or custom-made. No fashion or little fashion. Fashion is making me tired.

 

[mellowgloom]

This is going to sound pretentious, but I specifically gravitate toward the working/middle class fashion worn from the Edwardian period to the Interwar period. There is an aesthetic there that I very much enjoy, the distance of time rendering things as mundane as sock garters and suspenders somewhat exotic and erotic for their antiquity, the waistcoat and sleeveless vest doing much to shape the male waist (I love a man with a nipped waist. It brings with it a sense of gender symmetry—as expectations for women have been a tiny waist throughout history—but if turned over on its head, can also be reinterpreted as an avenue echoing a universal femininity within the masculine, an idea abhorrent to modern-day chauvinists that also hail this era as ‘when times were good’)

It was out of necessity and scarcity as well as practicality in how they were put together.

While the middle class dictated and overrepresented fashion trends, it is the working class in my eyes who always represent the true heart of a society. I recognize that class, finances, heritage, technology, and even faith will influence priorities and protocols for how, what, when, and why things are worn, which is why the ultra rich will wear things that the working class will think frivolous, and the working class will wear things that the rich find unrefined. The middle class for its part chases upper class trends out of existential dread of tumbling into the muck where their less fortunate brethren reside.

 

[svpernova]

I loved the Golden Age of Haute Couture, starting with Dior's New Look show until his death. Prêt à porter boomed mostly in the 60s and it was a time when the huge ready to wear industrialization hadn't hit. Slow shows, models looked healthy, they were simply reserved for the rich people.

I also find the 80s pretty fascinating, that's the time when ready to wear shows started becoming popular and when models became celebrities. Also the editorials really looked different, the models' faces as well, they were more glamorous, more commercial a type of beauty I can appreciate. Last but not least, the 90s or to be more precise the late 90s, which were in my opinion the last time when couture truly peaked. The shows also had a balance between exposure in the media and privacy for the clients. After that it went downhills. I personally dislike the 2000s fashion, there are some memorable collections here and there but nothing mindblowing.