screechingnightfury - Tumblr blog

screechingnightfury · 5 years ago

Text

It has been so long since I wrote a post and I apologize, I’ve had some sort of creative block and have attempted to write about many different topics but ended up deleting everything because I just didn’t like it. But now I’ve finally found some inspiration again! I started watching Z - The Beginning Of Everything today as The Great Gatsby is one of my favorite books of all times (it’s just so beautifully written!) and since the show takes place in 1918 (with pretty accurate costumes so far but I’m only on episode 3 so I can’t say too much about it) I’ve spotted some late Edwardian-ish dresses that have made me fall in love with the time period all over again. Obviously, Zelda is a very modern girl for her time so she wouldn’t be wearing them but some of the ladies around her were. But either way, I am not here to talk about the costumes on the show but rather about my plans to make something late Edwardian at some point!

As you may or may not know, I am actually not sure if I’ve ever mentioned it before, I’ve actually attempted making an Edwardian blouse before and failed miserably. The white georgette I was going to use now doubles as my fichu for the Robe à la Polonaise. So ever since then I’ve kind of set the plans aside to make anything Edwardian because there are so many details and after my failure I am terrified of using such dainty fabrics. But now that my cousin is engaged I’ve been wondering if I could slightly modernize an Edwardian dress and... wear it to the wedding?

I definitely love the idea of showing up in full 1910 attire but knowing myself I would feel very out of place and stick out like a sore thumb so I want to make something that works for me and for the occasion.

I don’t have a specific design in mind just yet, but I have gathered some inspiration on Pinterest.

Now, most of those stereotypical Edwardian gowns that I love so much are white, but wearing white to a wedding is not something I wanna do so I’m going to be opting for something pastel, maybe a light blue or green? I have to keep in mind that the event is going to be in more than a year’s time and I’ve recently dyed my hair red and I don’t know if I’m still going to have red hair, so I have to be prepared and wear something that matches everything. That rules out pink (which is giving me nightmares right now, I have so many pastel pink shirts in my closet that I can’t wear because it doesn’t look good anymore!!) but I love that champagne-y slightly rose color in the second picture.

I think I’d go for post 1914 for the length, so not floor length but ankle or mid calf. I especially love this as a potential layer:

I love the frills, the lace, the daintiness of Edwardian clothing so much I think it’s my favorite fashion time period. But there’s so much planning that has to go into it, especially since I’ve never successfully made anything Edwardian before and then it has to be modernized so I most certainly won’t find a pattern anywhere. But most importantly, how can I make it work without wearing a corset? (wedding meals... I know it’s possible but I’d rather not...). Maybe I can work my way around it with just a pouffy corset cover and some padding in the right places.

Maybe I’ll try to make a few sketches soon just to go through some ideas!

56 notes · View notes

screechingnightfury · 5 years ago

Text

Historical Accuracy of Costumes in Period TV Shows - Anne With An E

I was very surprised at how well my historical accuracy post about The Aeronauts did, so I decided to write about another one! This time I’ll be talking about the fashion in Anne with an E, but I’ll be mainly focusing on the kids’ clothing because kids’ period fashion is something that’s very rarely talked about and we know very little about.

First of all, if you haven’t seen Anne with an E, please do, it’s an amazing adaptation of Lucy Maud Montgomery’s Anne of Green Gables novels which I adored reading as a kid, but unfortunately I barely remember anything from the books so watching the show was kinda cool going into it without knowing what exactly was going to happen. But anyways, enough about the show, let’s get to the fashion. A little disclaimer: some of the fashion choices made by the department are very closely tied to the plot so I might be spoiling a little bit, but I won’t be talking about any big spoilers or plot points!

So, the story takes place from 1896 (season 1) to 1899 (season 2), so we’re in the late Victorian time period.

First up, we have this dress that Anne wears at the beginning of season 1. It’s obviously way too small, very simple and plain.

It was very typical for girls to wear aprons as an outer layer so they wouldn’t get their dresses dirty, we can see that all throughout the show with all characters. But here we have something that looks odd to someone who might not know the story and Anne’s upbringing. She’s an orphaned girl, this is the only dress she has and has had for years, hence why she grew out of it. It’s plain, simple, she’s a poor girl who goes from one family to another and has to work to earn her stay. In her surroundings, nobody would have given her a new dress, or even an older but fashionable one. I’m assuming she got it at some point just because she didn’t have anything to wear and "as long as it would do the job, it was good enough."

Now, let’s fast forward a little bit until Marilla decides to finally make Anne a new dress. She mentions having some fabric laying around, so she uses that to sew the new garment.

It’s still very plain and not fashionable for the time, but it’s a garment that fits her, which was Marilla’s top (and arguably only) priority at the time. Marilla is one of a kind, she’s the direct opposite of pretty much everyone else in Avonlea. I won’t get too deep into her characterization, but Anne’s fashion reflects Marilla’s mindset that I just have to mention how she’s a woman who lives in a classist society without really becoming a part of it. She’s old fashioned at first, sure, but her priorities are different from all the other families. While everyone else cares about how they present themselves to others and how they are viewed and their reputation, Marilla stays true to herself and doesn’t change for anyone. They’re not poor, meaning they could afford pretty clothing if they wanted to but to Marilla, this is clearly a waste of money and she values other things more in life. Okay, sorry about this little ramble about her but it’s important to know to understand why Anne doesn’t have the most fashionable dresses aside from the Cuthberts being “poorer” (despite still being middle class).

When Marilla announced she wanted to make a dress for Anne, Anne immediately requested puff sleeves, which is understandable considering they were very fashionable in 1896. Anne has never had puff sleeves before and all of her friends probably did, so it’s just natural for her to want her new dress to have them.

So, puff sleeves... Enter Matthew who has a soft spot for his daughter and doesn’t share the same strict world views as Marilla. He goes out to Charlottetown to get a dress custom made for Anne, which has... *drum roll* puff sleeves!

It’s this beautiful blue dress which Anne falls in love with and wears on every special occasion. With the lace and the frills it almost feels a little too much for a child, as girls’ dresses were usually similar to adults’ but less decorated and more simple. Anne does stand out a little when she wears it to school, but the dress was clearly not made for everyday wear, she was just too excited about it not to wear it.

Here’s a cast photo (I couldn’t find any other ones where you can properly see other girls’ dresses without the aprons) and you can see that they’re generally less embellished than adults’ clothing of that time and just a little frilly.

Unless I am missing something, this was the only puff sleeve dress that Anne owns up to the end of the show, and that is because puff sleeves suddenly aren’t as fashionable anymore in the following years. The dresses still have a wider sleeve at the top but nothing that comes close to a puff sleeve.

Let’s move on with my favorite Anne dress.

I love this dress so much because it’s quite simple but still has that elegance of the Victorian era. So maybe I’m biased but I’d say it’s absolutely accurate! I’ve definitely not been thinking about making a replica and wearing it just for the heck of it. It definitely seems child-appropriate and more like an everyday dress than the previous one.

I’d also love to talk about Diana’s dresses for a moment as she is the richest girl in town (I believe? It could be Josie I’m not sure) but her dresses are always on point and beautiful and just a prime example of rich girls’ dresses of that era. Here’s one of her and her sister Minnie May wearing the same white Sunday dress.

You had to be rich to give your kids white dresses with not even an apron. Sure, you wouldn’t wear an apron on a Sunday dress, but you had to be either rich enough so your kids were used to having the best manners and wouldn’t get dirty or you had to be able to afford to get a white dress dirty. The Barry’s are both of those things.

There are many more dresses that were shown in the show but if I mentioned all of them, I’d still be writing tomorrow! Maybe I’ll make a part 2 someday. However, I couldn’t finish this post without mentioning the iconic... Just see for yourself.

And... I have contemplated for a long time whether I should say this or not as all I’ve ever seen about this dress was pure adoration but from a personal point of view, I... don’t like it. I’m sorry. And that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not historically accurate, it’s just not my favorite personally. But I’ll get into the historical accuracy.

I had to rewatch almost the entire episode to see the dress in its full length, and after searching through a lot of fashion plates I have only found one that resembles it kind of.

But I’m still not 100% satisfied. The bodice almost feels a little outdated? If I had to guess I’d say this dress was more 1889 than 99. The skirt is historically accurate, though, as well as the sleeves. The blouse is laying a little too flat for 1899 and so is the bodice, it would have been more pigeon-breasted, just like the dresses you can see in this previous scene.

Granted, not all dresses in this scene have that silhouette and not all dresses in 1899 had that silhouette, but it just looks a little wrong with that particular style. A reason for that could be the fact that Marilla made it and maybe she just wasn’t completely up to date with the latest fashion trends and/or recycled an older dress, which is both something I could totally see her do. But then again, it could totally be something worn in 1899 and no one would bat an eyelash. Just because something isn’t common doesn’t mean it’s wrong! Actually, the more I look at it the more it looks right.

This brings me to another point I wanted to mention, which is the length of the kids’ skirts.

This is a photo I found in which they are approximately 14/15 years old.

According to a guideline I found from 1900 that I can’t include because of the 10 photos per post limitation but will link here, the hemline for that age should fall right above the uppper edge of the boot. The length we see them wear is appropriate for 4-8 year olds!

But that’s really the only thing I have to criticize. There’s not a lot of info we have on kids’ clothing so it’s hard to make a general statement but these are the things I noticed while watching the show and afterwards while doing research.

PS. The hats are all very cool and accurate! So many hats! After the lack of bonnets in some other movies seeing hats in a period film just make me happy 😊

165 notes · View notes

screechingnightfury · 5 years ago

Text

This is not an update on my AWAE dress, but don’t worry, I’m working on it! I started university again this week so that’s why I took a break for a few days but uni shouldn’t really impact how often I post, it’s not like I was posting constantly anyways. I might just throw in some fashion history anecdotes here and there if I can’t find the time to sew, but we’ll see how that works out.

Anyways, speaking of fashion history anecdotes, as I don’t have a sewing update just yet I’ll get into some history info on Regency Fashion for now.

Regency fashion is so pretty. It has such an elegance to it, yet it is so drastically different from its predecessor, Georgian Fashion. And I’m gonna tell you why.

(Warning: oversimplification of historic events happening)

It all started in the mid 1790s after the French Revolution, when the French had revolted against the aristocracy and gotten the King and Queen beheaded. The people hated the rich and didn’t want to be associated with them at all, so they reinvented fashion. The contrast was purposefully done to distance themselves from the aristocracy. And truly, these dresses couldn’t be more different from one another.

(1790 Robe à l’Anglaise vs 1795 Regency gown)

I like to think of it as a second renaissance - the reinvention of the fashion ideal in such a drastic manner within a very short period of time is one of a kind, and I don’t know of any other time/period when something even remotely similar happened. People went from the excessive luxuries and incredibly intricately decorated gowns to very simple dresses that almost resemble the togas of Ancient Greece - which, by the way, was a major inspiration for the Regency era.

We also see this inspiration come out in Classicism paintings that almost look too antique to have been made in the 19th century.

Simplicity was everything, at least up to the 1820s, when people grew tired of the rather plain dresses and started decorating them more and more until the 1830s happened, and we know what... just see for yourself.

But let’s stay in the Regency era. The dresses started off very simple and flowy in 1795, the hair was still very Georgian but the waist rose up right beneath the chest to create that typical Regency silhouette. The skirts were still a little wider but they decreased in width as time passed. Contrary to popular belief women did NOT stop wearing stays! But the stays were now often just corded and not boned, so they were softer and they also changed in shape and became a lot shorter.

Let’s move on to the 1800s. Little puff sleeves were fashionable and it is important to note that the dresses, while being rather plain compared to the Georgian style, weren’t always white. Sure, it was a popular color but having a colorful dress wasn’t any less common. We see in this fashion plate how the hair is now decorated less and in an updo similar to what we associate with Ancient Greek or Roman styles. Also, trains. At least sometimes.

No more trains in the 1810s, but we’re getting a little bit more decoration now. And women loved their short jackets that were inspired by male fashion! I especially love the sleeves. This is a picture I took at a fashion museum last year of a gown that I think should be from the second half of the decade:

But anyways, the waist dropped lower again in the second half of the decade and started moving lower from there.

Now, the 1820s were once again a transitional period between that typical simple regency fashion and the crazy 1830s. People were tired of their simple garments and wanted to get crazy and creative with it, so they just started decorating their dresses more, and the results are honestly stunning. The sleeves grew bigger as did the skirts. After 1825, the sleeve started moving lower on the shoulder to create that round shoulder shape we know from the 1830s. The waistline was much lower now, but not quite at the natural waist yet.

There’s a lot more to say but I don’t think I could think of it all right now. Anyways, I particularly love this era not because I find the fashion to be particularly beautiful, don’t get me wrong, the Regency gowns are gorgeous, but you know I love the Edwardian aesthetic so I’m partial. But I love Regency because it fascinates me how fashion and art can change so much in such a short amount of time.

117 notes · View notes

screechingnightfury · 5 years ago

Text

Historical Accuracy of Costumes in Period Films - Enola Holmes

Disclaimer: I will put no spoilers so you can still read if you haven’t seen the movie yet! This post is just me assessing the costumes and their historical accuracy.

First of all, since the movie came out I had already heard a lot about it in just those two days that I was very curious to see if it lived up to the hype and it truly did! It’s well-made with round characters and a gripping story line. But enough about the movie, let’s get on to the costumes.

The movie is set in 1884, and at first I thought she was born in 84 (because of the intro) so I did like a third of the movie thinking the costumes were outdated until I looked at a closeup of a newspaper and realized that it is set in 84, so yay for me. But anyways, here are the facts.

Enola is 16 years old, therefore considered a child/young woman in society and would be wearing children’s clothing but we’ll get to that later

There aren’t many examples of children’s clothing from that time so I’ll have to refer to the few fashion plates that I can find.

This blue dress from the beginning of the film has basically everything one would expect from the very end of the 19th century, but not necessarily the 1880s. The loose front is a very end-of-the-century, more so even Edwardian thing, and from the fashion plates and magazines I could find it seems that children’s clothing was heavily inspired by adult fashion. It has a very low waistline and is overall very straight. Enola’s dress looks more 1900 except for the fitted sleeves which are accurate for the period. And the collar looks completely out of place. But, of course there’s always a but, this is just taking mainstream fashion into account. The Aesthetic Dress movement took place in the 1880s and the dresses would have looked somewhat similar to this one, with a loosely fitted front but they also had puffier sleeves, so it’s like they took some details from different movements and also took some inspiration from the Edwardians and put them all together in a dress.

Another thing I would like to add, (hence the advert - I had to make collages to fit 10 pictures in this post) I am not sure as it doesn’t fit her character at all but she looks corseted in those pictures (I added the first one specifically because I think you’re able to see the outline of a corset? Faintly?). Depending on your age and status and your parents’ plans for you (aka if they wanted you to get married at 16), teens of that age would either wear a corset or not. But taking Enola’s upbringing into account and it was rather uncommon for a 16 year old to be wearing a corset, not unseen but uncommon, I’d say that if the costume department decided to put Millie in a corset in that particular scene is historically inaccurate. There were corsets for young women/teens, but they didn’t give you that extreme hourglass shape, they were straighter and didn’t give you a tiny waist, like the bottom right one in this corset advert. Unfortunately, I could not find out when it’s from but it should be somewhat close to the 1880s.

Next up, I would like to say that the length of the skirt they chose for Millie to wear is appropriate for a 16 year old! Unlike what we saw on Anne with an E…

At one point we get a look at her undergarments and they’re looking fine for the time! The chemise and the drawers, she’s obviously not wearing any petticoats as she’s being measured but we saw a glimpse of a petticoat when she was riding a bike in an earlier scene so yes, this part is accurate.

Next up, I’d like to talk about this lady and her dress is just amazing, fashion plate worthy and absolutely accurate, I have nothing bad to say about this.

What I noticed overall in the movie was that the bustles weren’t as extreme as I would have expected them to be, but it all had to do with personal preference so it’s not necessarily historically inaccurate to see more lowkey bustles. But I didn’t see one bustle that was just crazy in today’s eyes so maybe they could have improved on that but I’m just nitpicking at this point. Or maybe I’ve just gotten so used to seeing old clothes that nothing shocks me anymore.

Here we can see some crinolines being sold and judging from their width they are somewhat outdated.

They could pass as maybe early 1870s if not even 1860s.

Now Enola wants to become a lady, so she has to wear adult clothes! Here, she goes into a shop and puts on her clothing. We can see here how poorly fitted the corset is; the lacing gap should be parallel but you can see in the mirror how it gets smaller towards the bottom. Maybe it was done unintentionally but maybe it’s just supposed to show that ready-to-wear corsets just weren’t made for the person buying them. But in that same scene, we finally get a proper bustle! That’s historical accuracy right there!

Next up is her iconic red gown.

Now… I had a little bit of trouble with that one. The skirt is a little wide in my eyes, but the overall shape and cut is fine, with that layer draping over her underskirt. However, her neckline is something you wouldn’t typically see. You see other characters wear high necklines, so I don’t know why they chose to give this dress almost an evening wear look. V-necks did exist in evening wear, but then again they would be paired with frilly short sleeves and not tight fitting day wear sleeves. So all in all, yes, the dress is accurate but the neckline is uncommon.

Next, we have what is probably the most accurate one of her costumes – the mourning gown.

It’s slimmer than the red one and there are so many examples of extant garments on google pictures that look so similar to hers that I’m just gonna say, excellent job!

Next is my favorite despite the neckline problem. She just looks so pretty in it!

The neckline isn’t as low as on the red one but still quite uncommon. Another detail you can see in the second picture is that she seems to be wearing a bum pad instead of a bustle, which I think is acceptable. It’s slim, it has a layer that drapes over the underskirt in the front, and even the sleeves are a little bit gathered at the top which was very common.

And lastly, we have this white dress where she goes back to the style she wore at the beginning of the movie.

And once again, just like I said in the beginning, this is not something you’d really see being worn in that time unless we’re talking about the Aesthetic Dress and now the sleeves aren’t as fitted so it makes sense for the movement, plus it’s kept very simple.

Overall you can say they did a fairly good job at making everything historically accurate but took some artistic liberties here and there, just like you would expect from a movie.

1K notes · View notes

screechingnightfury · 5 years ago

Note

obvs feel free to keep this private, but I got recommended the UFH channel by a friend of mine, haven't gotten around to watching anything from it. I trust your judgement on the content, but my friend considers it her main resource 🙃 of course, since you only watched a few videos you might not be able to answer this, but was there any specific really bad/unacademic approaches I should keep my eye out for that my friend might have adopted? we work on a historical festival together so im concern

(I was going to answer this privately but then it got really long and turned into a post I want to post.)

Oh dear! Well, It appears that the lady behind that channel only cares about the 20th century, so maaybe she’s got good stuff on the 20th century at least? I don’t know, but the 2 videos that I saw were so incredibly awful that I’m highly suspicious of all her stuff.

The first bad thing about her channel is that her videos all have a one or two sentence caption and nothing else. (I clicked on a few more just to check) No sources listed, no links of any kind except to her merch store. I don’t recall her mentioning any particular sources for any of the things she said in the videos either, she just declared them very matter of factly.

Good historians cite sources! Bernadette Banners’ video on the history of PPE has so many source links she ran out of room in the description box and had to put the rest of them on a page on her website. (Oh poo, now I feel a bit bad because I love Karolina Zebrowska but she really needs to do better with leaving source links. But she does talk about doing research, talk in a more nuanced way, and doesn’t present herself as an expert or academic, unlike the UFH lady.)

Good historians also embrace nuance, and aren’t afraid to say “I don’t know” or “I was wrong”. Presenting things in a “this person did this one big thing, and then this happened, and that caused this” kind of way isn’t good because history is more like “all these things happened and as far as we can tell it appears to have influenced this, which was also connected to this other stuff that we don’t know all that much about”. History is foggy and complicated, no matter how much the general public wants it to be simple.

Her description of herself also seems a bit... misleading? In her about page on youtube it says “Amanda Hallay, a college professor specializing in fashion, costume, and cultural history.” but if you look at the CV linked on her website the only degrees she has are in creative writing and art history. I’m not saying a person can’t be really knowledgable about something without a degree, but her whole online presence is about being a “professor” who teaches this stuff so I find it weird.

And if the 1850′s-60s video is anything to go by, she presents things in a shockingly unprofessional way. She starts off by saying she thinks these fashions are ugly and ridiculous and that she has some “theories of her own” on them. @marzipanandminutiae has a post with a lot more about what was wrong with that video, and a few others I haven’t seen. She claims that hoop skirts were oppressive cages when in reality they were a liberating garment that allowed women to achieve full skirts without the heavy layered petticoats they wore previously.

She posts a photo of a naked lady and says “Now lets start with a beautiful naked lady and cover her up with ugly and unflattering clothes. Now this sexy naked lady isn’t so sexy” I wish I was making this up but that’s almost word for word what she said. Along with a whole lot of untrue or exaggerated stuff about Victorian modesty. She says dresses with layered flounces were called “pagoda dresses”, which isn’t a term that anyone has ever used for those dresses. She says this is cut down from a longer video she uses for teaching class, and I find the thought of this being presented in a classroom quite appalling.

After spending about 95% of the video talking about womens fashion in an extremely condescending and disdainful tone of voice, she posts what appear to be the 5 biggest and most extreme examples of 19th century moustaches she could find, presenting them as if they were what every man looked like.

This part really grinds my gears, because she says “I haven’t said anything about menswear because there’s really not much to say.” She posts photos of suits from 5 different decades and says they’re basically all the same, and also basically the same as a modern suit. Excuse you, there is A LOT of difference between menswear of the 1850′s and the 1890′s. Yes the changes over the decades are more subtle, and the colours are often more subdued than in centuries past, but it is absolutely not (as she claims) “the century when men stopped doing fashion”. I personally am not hugely interested in 19th century mens fashion, and can tentatively date things in the first few decades but after the middle of the century I can’t. But people who are interested and who study that era can tell the decades apart. Because they’re different. And there is SO MUCH to talk about! Suits for different levels of formality, accessories, waistcoats, sportswear, sleepwear, knitwear, swimsuits, loungewear, underwear, etc. are all extremely different from their modern equivalents.

It’s perfectly fine to only study womens fashion if that’s what you’re interested in, but it is not okay to then declare that the history of mens fashion is worthless and nonexistent. Simply not being interested in a thing is no excuse for publicly shitting all over it. (I’ve seen people do this more than once. We already have so few men who do historical fashion stuff! Stop putting off newcomers who might be interested!!)

The fact that her online presence is so closed off is also highly unusual. Comments are turned off for her videos, and the only social media link she has is to a private facebook group. (There is also a link to a fb page, but it appears to have been deleted.) Turning off comments is of course the personal choice of the one posting the videos, but the fashion history side of youtube usually tends towards pretty decent comment threads, and people often have nice little discussions and learn stuff in them. Here it looks like she doesn’t want discussion, doesn’t want to be contradicted or asked for sources, doesn’t want to learn new things.

I had never even heard of this channel until I saw @marzipanandminutiae mention it, nor have I ever heard any of the many historical costumers/youtubers I follow mention it, yet somehow it has 55k followers? I don’t know the demographics that watch it (especially not with the comments turned off!) but I’d wager that videos like the 1850′s-60′s one I suffered through are mainly watched by people who like hearing things trash talked, rather than people who actually want to learn about fashion history. The same sort of people who loved that Beau Brummell twitter thread, which was also full of lies and unsourced garbage. People like to believe the past was way worse and grosser than it was because it makes them feel like we’re smarter and better now.

Lastly, the whole premise of the channel is just bad. Calling any one thing “The Ultimate Fashion History” is a bad idea. Her channel trailer says “Youtube’s number one channel for original fashion history content” “we’ve got it all, fifty thousand years of fashion history”. You can’t have one channel that’s the ultimate resource for ALL of fashion history! It’s a huge, HUGE subject, and even if she did do actual good research she’d barely be able to scratch the surface of fifty thousand years. That’s like saying one channel is the ultimate source for all of science, or all of music, or all of cooking. No one thing can come close to covering all of it. I will deign to admit that she’s at least right to call it “original”, because she has some very original lies I haven’t found anywhere else.

Most people who study fashion history/historical sewing have one or several eras they like best and find most interesting, perhaps with occasional jaunts into other eras. This way we can focus and get a much better understanding of the eras that we find most interesting, rather than just a vague notion of everything.

For example: I’m most interested in 18th century menswear, and so far have mainly researched and sewn 1785-95 stuff, and more recently some 1730′s. I usually focus on fashionable civilian clothing, so I don’t know as much about working class clothes, and next to nothing about military and other occupational dress. Even with this narrow area of interest, which I’ve been obsessed with for many years, I still have so much to learn! I could never make anything claiming to be the ultimate source for 18th century menswear, because I’m just one person focusing on some aspects, and there are other people out there who research other aspects of it and their work is just as important. It’s all so big and so much, even if you narrow it down to one era.

Amanda Hallay is basically holding up a bucket of saltwater and calling it the ocean.

I haven’t watched any of her 20th century videos, so maybe they’re better than the older ones I watched. I don’t know. (But even if they’re actually good they still don’t have source links.) Edit: okay, nope, turns out they’re just as bad! They appear to make up the vast majority of her videos, so if she’s most interested in the 20th century then maybe she should just... make her channel more clearly 20th century focused instead of trying to paint it as a channel for all eras?

TL;DR, the main bad things about that channel are:

Lying and making ridiculous claims, not citing ANY sources. Spouting easily debunked myths.

Stating things matter of factly without any nuance, even though history is foggy and complicated.

Being extremely judgemental about historical fashions and talking about how much she hates them and thinks they’re ugly, which really isn’t appropriate for a fashion history teacher. You can hear the disgust in her voice and it’s awful and I hate it.

Comments turned off on all her videos, leaving no way to communicate or have public discussions. Unknowing viewers are left to accept her statements as fact without any outside opinions.

Claiming one channel is the ultimate channel for an incalculably enormous subject. Says it covers 50,000 years of fashion history when it’s mostly just the 20th century.

I would like to add that I am not what I would consider an expert either, and have no formal education in fashion history beyond the one college class that was part of my 2 year sewing course. I have learned mainly from books and the internet, and as I said earlier I still have a huge amount to learn. I’m sure a more knowledgable historian could put things better than I have.

But I’m confident in stating that primary sources are needed to back up a claim! Sometimes even widely accepted beliefs turn out to be entirely unfounded myths, like that one about doctors using vibrators to treat “hysteria”. Total nonsense someone made up in 1999.

Wow this post got way longer than intended. Anyways, yes, I do not like condescending slideshow lady.

565 notes · View notes