Talk:1550–1600 in European fashion

"Italian" clarification needed

Italy didn't exist as an entity in this period. There were a bunch of city states where it now exists, and their fashions varied. Looking at images from the period, Florentine and Venetian fashions are distinctly different, so the generalization that "Italian dresses kept the open front bodice with parallel laces" is making me cringe. That's Venetian. Florentine women wore doublets not unlike the English. I'm about to update the image galleries to say what part of Italy they're from instead of just "Italian," but the paragraphs need some help too. I can pull out "Mode a Firenze: Lo Stilo de Eleonora di Toledo" and start citing from there for Florentine, but I don't have any books on Venetian fashion in my collection. Macoafi (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still to come

More on hats and hairstyles. German, French, and Spanish images. More on sleeve styles. Images of blackwork collars and cuffs. Either the Pelican or Phoenix portaits of Elizabeth for the partlets and chemises (but this is still Anglo-centric as it is). Work work work!

Added French, Spanish, and Swedish images, the Pelican portrait, hats and hairstyles, more links. Unless I take the leap and address middle-class clothing, I am pretty much done. Will probably hold comment on Puritan styles and "sadd colors" for 1600-1650 in fashion. PKM 21:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries

Added image galleries. Thoughts? Better? Worse? PKM 18:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Gflores ^Talk 02:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! PKM 05:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to compare description details with the images, as they are essentially in two separate places. If the descriptions were to immediately follow each image, this would eliminate the problem. Thanks 2001:5B0:2711:5068:395B:C29C:2AD3:6976 (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to General Trends

I have deleted this sentence:

The gradual change in fashion could be attributed to the renewal of England and the acceptance of new thinking and ideas to influence society.

Fashion change wasn't particularly gradual in this era compared to the periods before and after, and I don't think this adds anything of use to the reader. - PKM 02:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was recategorized in 2006 in accordance with a scheme for organizing articles in Category:History of clothing.

That effort has been superseded by WikiProject Fashion.

Please join that project or see its talk page for further discussion.

- PKM 03:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I have reverted back to what I think is the last complete good version after a series of vandalisms and partial corrections. I have have deleted any legitimate corrections I do apologize. - PKM 07:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

Someone taggeed this "no footnotes" and someone else removed the tag, but I agree footnotes would be good and I will add some. - PKM 03:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question on elizabethan fashion

I need help on Elizabethan fashion; i want to know the different types of clothes people would have worn in different weather?

it is hot and cold warm and hot cold and warm LD from Nad

Please!

Please answer me! this is really important! i need 2 know now! nad

Undo move?

This article was recently retitled "1550-1600 in Western European fashion", which makes sense out of context; however, this is part of a uniform series that covers fashion from the middle ages to the 20th century. Articles from the 18th century forward specifically include American (and Canadian) fashions where those are appropriate.

I would suggest that "fashion" itself is a western European concept that has now become global.

Retitling one article in the series makes no sense, and determining when the topic ceases to be exclusively European (somewhere between 1620 and 1776?) is difficult; long wrangling by editors last year essentially revolved around this topic.

Rather than simply undo the move, I want to open this for comment. How do others feel? Should we move back to "1550-1600 in fashion".- PKM (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say move back. There is material at fashion that explains why the concept itself is not applicable to other parts of the world at this date (or for some time afterwards). Johnbod (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that everyone undestands, I did realize that this was part of a series of articles, and I do believe that they should all be the same. But my hope was to spark a discussion, which appears to be starting. I thank User:PKM for choosing to discuss intead of immediately undoing the move. Oh, and incidentally, I claim no expertise in this area, either historically or contemporarily. It just seemed to me to be a misnamed article. Unschool (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading User:Johnbod's post, I looked at the article, and found the following sentences which I am guessing are the basis for his above comments:

The habit of people continually changing the style of clothing worn, which is now worldwide, at least among urban populations, is a distinctively Western one. Though there are signs from earlier. In 8th century Cordoba (Spain), Ziryab, a famous musician and stylist migrant from Baghdad, introduced the first germ of fashion in Europe.

First of all, I find that these two statements do not appear to be in harmony. The first sentence does indeed support Johnbod's comments. But then the passage goes on to give credit to a Baghdad native for introducing fashion to Western Europe. I suppose that this raises a number of issues. First of all, did 8th century Islamic culture constitute a part of Western European civilization—or even "Western" civilization more generally? I don't think of it as such, but I'm sure some would argue otherwise. And of course, even if this is not the case, I suppose one could argue that a Muslim in Umayyad Spain could come up with the concept of "fashion" without reference to his life as a member of Islamic culture, but that seems to be stretching things a bit, to me, at least. So on its face, in my humble opinion, based upon what I have read thus far, this notion that fashion is a European construct seems a bit fabricated.

Secondly, I also feel constrained to point out that the above passage is without citation, unless one assumes that the source first listed later in the paragraph is the support. And what is that source? A book, entitled, Muslim Heritage in Our World, written by coauthors al-Hassani, Woodcok and Saoud.

I'm just not very comfortable with this notion that we white folks invented fashion. There were many, many cultures around before us, and I have little trouble imagining the existence of fashion—if not universally, at least amongst the privileged classes—prior to the Europeans. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying that I need to see more evidence. As I said above, I have no expertise in this area. I'm just asking questions. Unschool (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both Blanche Payne and James Laver state that fashion arose in Europe between the 12th and 14th centuries. They are authorities in their field, and their comments are cited in the earlier articles in this series. I accept no responsibility for the accuracy of the material cited in the article on Fashion since I generally avoid working there. If you aren't "comfortable" with the notion that "we white folks" invented fashion, then please do some reseach to support a thesis otherwise.

In 30 years of (admittedly avocational) research on fashion, I have found no suggestion that fashion as we know began anywhere other than among the upper classes of medieval Europe (and frankly, I find the idea that perfectly functional and attractive clothing should be discarded because it is "out of fashion" is a mark of cultural inferiority rather than reverse).

If you wanted to start a discussion, I would have preferred that you tag the article for a possible move or bring the topic up in the Fashion Project discussion area, make your case, and get consensus before making the move. But it's nothing that can't be reverted in 5 minutes even with subsequent editing of content, and it's certainly not worth a edit war over. - PKM (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I hadn't noticed the Muslim Spain stuff, which is all interpolated. It doesn't really sound like fashion - ie rapidly changing styles of dress - to me, & the sources are not specilist. The "musician & stylist" doesn't have an article & I've not seen his name before. Byzantine dress is really too slow moving to have fashion. I also would point out that "Western European" means the "Western part" of Europe - a rather difficult concept at this date, but not really what the article covers. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is Ziryab, currently edit-protected over his origin - Persian/Kurd/Arab, which hardly mentions his "stylist" side in any of the versions I've seen. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments from Unschool in reply

As you can imagine, given my professed ignorance on this topic, I have no idea who Payne and Laver are. And neither is the subject of a Wikipedia article. That their work is cited in the earlier articles is nice, but that is not where I was directed to look.
I certainly do not expect you (or anyone else) to take "responsibility" for the Fashion article. As I just stated, I merely made comments on it as it had been a suggested source of the information needed to understand the point under discussion. It would probably be a good idea for someone with a greater level of knowledge than mine to add that to the Fashion article. While you may not enjoy frequenting Fashion, I suggest you are better equipped than I to make the addition.
If I indicate a doubt about the possibility that fashion is not necessarily a European creation, why am I expected to first do research on the topic? I have been in countless discussions on Wikipedia over the past two years where I have willingly provided information and direction on topics with which I am well-acquainted to those who are not. I have never responded to someone else's inquiry with a "go fish" directive. Do you think that my question was stupid? Is it not a reasonable question to ask? Was there absolutely zero chance that the undocumented statement to which I was directed as evidence, was at least partially an ethnocentristic blurb?
The suggestion that I first broach the subject on the relevant Project page seems reasonable enough. However, I am largely unacquainted with the "backstage" areas of Wikipedia. I never know where to look, and, even when I find what looks relevant, it's not always clear where to place such a discussion. Sure, I could commit to learning the ropes backstage, but in how many areas? Does my lack of knowledge in this area mean that I cannot have observations, comments, and suggestions for change? Another thing: the people that frequent Project pages is likely a small subset of the people that look at the pages concerned—I prefer to have a wider level of participation in discussions, rather than limit it to the (admitedly more knowledgable) cabal that hangs out on Project pages.
Another editor and I recently sought advice on a project page. Our request was posted on October 27 and has still received zero responses. Only one instance, I grant you, but it doesn't speak well for the process.
I see that, other than Johnbod's acknowledgement that he had never apparently noticed the stuff on Muslim Spain, that my questions were totally ignored. The fashion article currently credits a person from the Middle East as introducing fashion to western Europe. So am I supposed to just dummy up and pretend that I didn't read this?

Look, I've acknowledged my ignorance. But I don't acknowledge stupidity. I submit that a fair-minded person would recognize that I have broached some reasonably well-considered questions that deserve more than a "we know better than you" response, which is what I feel has occurred thus far. I will acknowledge that I should have tagged the article for a proposed name change first—that I did not do so was rather gauche, and I apologize. I have no problem with the move being undone immediately, as long as this discussion continues without what is coming across as a slightly patronizing tone. Of course, internet communications being what they are, I could of course be misreading that. Let us all assume good faith. Unschool (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I sounded patronizing. The comment on not being responsible for the fashion article should have had a bemused smiley attached to it; many people seem to have Agendas with that topic. (insert bemused smiley here)

I, too, have asked for advice on an otherwise active project page and gotten no response (trying to identify a saint by her iconography; not my strong suit).

Thanks for your civility, and for your conditional support on the rename. - PKM (talk) 02:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the stuff about fashion being a Western thing is referenced to Fernand Braudel who does have an article, if that is any help. Much of the stuff about Ziryab is copied from a website (now noted on that talk page) that also has a quote from a more professional sounding historian saying his role is somewhat of a legend as far as fashion goes (but not music, where he is clearly a major figure). There is in fact good evidence that Arab clothing was as static in style as everywhere else, which is not to say changes never happened, especially at times of great political or cultural upheavals. But you don't get the steady changes all the time that, at an ever-increasing rate, mark the West, and are what we call fashion. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below (and above). -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get consensus?

And in the spirit of following a civilized process, I recommend that we move this article back to its prior name 1550-1600 in fashion for the reasons stated above under "Undo move". Please indicate your support or opposition. - PKM (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my comments above. Johnbod (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, conditionally, per my comments above. Unschool (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected (ha!), despite the assurance from History that the rename edit can be undone, it cannot. Since the old title now exists as a REDIR, I expect it will take an admin to put this back. I will request that. - PKM (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the trouble. Unschool (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. In hindsight the move should have been proposed and discussed first, and would not then have occurred IMO. But we're all students here. Good recovery, guys. There'll be no problem getting a sysop to do the move assuming the consensus holds, best to now be patient for the few days the process requires. Andrewa (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Misdated picture

I've uploaded a new version of this image (below right) with the correct title. The painting was done in about 1571 (the sitter was born in 1553), and so it may be in the wrong section. See image notes. qp10qp (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Moved and replaced with a 1557 image I uploaded this week. -PKM (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Infanta

I going to tweak and tighten this entry:

Infanta Catalina Micaela wears an entirely black dress with lace collar and cuffs, inner sleeves of golden white and white ribbons. A double string of pearls, a necklace, worked golden buttons and a belt are her rich jewelry. As in other court portraits, she rests her hand on an armchair in allusion to her high birth, while the other holds a feminine object, in this case her gloves.

That's the description in Wikimedia Commons, but there are problems: Her sleeves are not made of ribbons, but have bands of gold embroidery or applied braid. And gloves aren't "a feminine object": both men and women hold gloves in many (most?) Elizabethan portraits. And that's a table, not a chair (though neither is relevant to this article).

Great picture, though. - PKM (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doublet sleeves

I have changed the doublet description to simply read "with sleeves" until I can get the research to properly cite the sleeve attachments.

I have removed this comment "with attached sleeves. (separate sleeves tied or laced was born out of necessity in the theatre & perpetuated by the Renaissance Faire circuit)." The parenthetical comment doesn't belong in the text of an encyclopedic article - no need to refute what is not there in the text. Ii someone can find a scholarly citation to support that statement, it should be in a footnote as a comment on the "popular notion" of tied-on sleeves. I am sure I have an photo of lacing holes to attach sleeves - I just have to remember where.

No question that tied-on sleeves with three or four ties at the shoulder as we all wore at the Faires back in the day is a bit off. - PKM (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://modehistorique.com/elizabethan/farthingales.html
- In 1550–1600 in fashion on 2011-05-23 03:35:12, 404 Not Found
- In 1550–1600 in fashion on 2011-06-20 05:24:34, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative source that replaces the above link can be found here:

http://www.cutegirlshairstyles.com/hairstyles/the-roots-of-american-hairstyles-how-western-european-fashion-set-the-stage-for-american-beauty/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcoug (talk • contribs) 18:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed change to referencing style

This edit has made undiscussed changes to the referencing style, contrary to WP:CITE. Normally I would revert on sight, but it it was a bit scrappy before. Are we happy with this? I think I'm neutral. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very Euro-centric (or Anglo-centric)

Shouldn't the title of this (and other similar pages) be "1550–1600 in fashion (Europe)" or maybe even "1550–1600 in fashion (England)"? Right now the title doesn't at all reflect the narrowness of scope of the article. Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 13:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly too Anglocentric, and I think contains some pretty dubious stuff, but this series is indeed about just Western fashion, partly because the fast-moving turnover of styles really does seem to have been a uniquely European phenomenon at this period, always commented on unfavourably by visitors from the East - see Fashion. Johnbod (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A great deal of English-specific material has been added to this article. Much of it is sourced to this website, which is not an acceptable source per WP:USERGENERATED. That content should be removed or replaced with content cited from reliable sources (see WP:RELIABLESOURCES). - PKM (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a lot of dubious and redundant information which is unencyclopedic, cites unreliable sources such as elementary school websites, and with the best of good faith and good intentions in ultimately based on very out-of-date interpretations of Elizabethan clothing. This material should all be cleaned up and corrected for tone. I'll be working on this as time permits, and welcome help from other editors with access to contemporary, scholarly sources.

I am currently working on "Underwear". - PKM (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More changes needed

The section on dyeing is a bit off for this period. Saffron is used to dye yellow, but it was always very expensive and the more common yellow dye was weld. Two important dyes in this period were woad and madder. I could add all of this, but it's moving pretty far off topic - and little of it is specific to this 50-year period, or significant in distinguishing this period from those before and after. I am thinking a link through to natural dye and mention of kermes red and Spanish black is sufficient. Thoughts? - PKM (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

As I go, I am removing unencyclopedic and unsourced statements of opinion like "Wearing a matching partlet and sleeve set created a single silhouette to compliment the beauty of the dress/garment," "These adorned pieces were attached to the doublet to create the broad shoulder fashion that the ladies fancied," and "Apart from being fashionable, the partlet was essentially used as an undergarment to keep warm in the winter and prevent sunburn in the summer." - PKM (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ihr seit alle pisser

ihr dreckigen hurensöhne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.215.129.7 (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:1550–1600 in European fashion/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I am doing a report on Sofonisba Anguissola for my Intro to Art History class, and came across this page because it contains the painting Portrait of the Artist's Sisters and Brother by said artist. However, it is incorrectly dated here as being 1570, when Gardener's Art Through the Ages cites it as being ca. 1555. This book is readily available in any college bookstore or library and is pretty much an authority on art.

Substituted at 01:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

+***********15 103.214.178.26 (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+*********** 103.214.178.26 (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]