Miscellaneous desk
< October 30	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 31

Oscars 1996

Hi. Is there by any chance a site or source, with all the Oscar winners with their votes? I'm interested in the 1996 ones, entry for Best Actor in a Leading Role. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.43.137.215 (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the votes are made public. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of fashion question

See also: Why haven’t traditional clothes made a comeback like other modern fashions?

I wasn't sure which refdesk to use, so if there's a more appropriate one for this question, let me know. To get right to the point: for a long time now, I've been obsessed with the idea of loungewear, or what is called casual wear, but not in the usual sense, but rather in the sense of how it can be transformed in terms of being comfortable and loose fitting in the context of formal wear. I know that there have been several attempts by fashion designers to do just this. Decades ago, I tried to investigate this theory by visiting both vintage clothes stores and more modern retail establishments. It turns out that designers have gone this way many times throughout history. Speaking in terms of the US, I found that there were many instances of this fashion trend in the 20th century, which have all but disappeared in the post-2000 era with the rise of synthetic tight-fitting fabrics. I discovered at least three examples of this casual-fitting, formal fitting fashion: in the 1930s and 1940s with the rise of the Zoot suit and similar styles, which were incredibly loose and casual and comfortable, but very formal; in the 1960s with the fashion of loose clothing like Native American-style, Indian, Neapalese, Tibetan, Asian (Shaolin Arhat Robe) and African styles like the dashiki, which were often worn to formal occasions; and finally, in the 1980s and early 1990s, which seemed to reach its zenith with the loosest, baggiest, almost Japanese-inspired shoulder-pad monstrosities, famously made fun of by David Byrne of the Talking Heads with his "Big Suit". To conclude: which designers are exploring the category of formal wear with loungewear aesthetics today, and what other ones have I missed in recent history? I would also like to learn about non-Western formal wear that has a more casual look and feel, as I know there's a lot out there. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of a good term makes this hard to search for, but Google Books searches for ["history of fashion" "comfortable"] and ["comfortable yet stylish" "fashion"] give a few possibly relevant hits. This seems not to have been researched as a topic on its own by fashion historians or theorists. --Lambiam 09:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give you an example of what I’m talking about: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan brought increased attention to loose fitting and comfortable, casual, yet formal wear like the shalwar kameez. Why do you think these and other variations have not caught on in western countries? The older answer to this question, is that formerly, industrialized countries that had workers employed in factories would steer clear of loose fitting garments to prevent workers from sustaining massive injuries due to the clothing getting caught in machinery. But that hasn’t been true for America for fifty years. So what could be holding this kind of thing back? There was a brief period of time in the late 1980s and early 1990s when surf designers were experimenting with similar styles. The closest I ever saw US fashion culture come to it was with surfer style pants and Mexican style pullovers, the combination of which almost had the same aesthetic of the shalwar kameez, minus the formality. One other thing: I recently read that loose and flowing white painter’s paints became a summer style of sorts on the east coast within the last ten years, sort of coming close to what I’m talking about, but unfortunately probably just riffing on the cargo pants craze that we all love to hate on. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, I was wondering yesterday how cargo pants got their name.[1] Probably nothing to do with cargo cults, though... MinorProphet (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

"So what could be holding this kind of thing back?"

Fashion ultimately boils down to what people want to wear, within certain constraints of what their culture currently finds acceptable (which of course forms a feedback loop within a broader context). Why do you assume that people (in Western culture, presumably) want to wear "loose fitting and comfortable, casual, yet formal wear"? Speaking personally (as an older male) I dislike wearing loose-fitting clothes in public, partly for reasons of practicality (it's draughty in an often cool and windy climate) and partly because it contradicts my cultural concept of 'formal wear' – I prefer to wear at least a sports jacket and tie, if not a suit, in a professional or a formal social setting – it makes me feel sartorially 'smarter' and bolsters a professional mental attitude. That's just me, but I doubt I am wildly divergent from a great many others in my (British) culture. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.64.163.219 (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the various collection of photographs from Swinging Sixties, and pay attention to the number of people wearing loose clothing. I think this was also a symptom of a looser, freer society that has been lost to time amid tightening social attitudes based on fear and worry. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But such photographs (themselves selected from a much larger 'pool' of contemporary photos) were often taken of a deliberately selected minority for a variety of motivations; sometimes on behalf of fashion designers or clothes retailers in order to promote their products, sometimes to positively (or negatively) portray what was always a small minority of the general population. Moreover, they are rarely portraying people in a 'formal' situation. They are not reliable evidence for your cultural hypotheses. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.64.163.219 (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the points made by the anon above me, I also think you are underestimating how many jobs would be problematic/dangerous in such clothing. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 10:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned it in my comment up above. Most of these jobs are becoming highly specialized and mecahnized, particularly with the emergence of agri-tech and other industries making increased use of robotics. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the things to consider is that high fashion is designed for the wealthy layabouts, not for people working and adding value to society. Working people's clothing has always been designed for practicality and comfort. Fashion is almost always your signal to the world that you don't get your hands dirty. No one is mining coal in a business suit. No one wears crinoline to run a cash register. High heels aren't worn by line cooks. Clothes are some of the most common ways that someone signals whether they are in the working class, or in the parasitic upper classes, or at the very least, that one aspires to that class. --Jayron 32 15:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think your reply represents the older, conventional wisdom about fashion in general, particularly when it comes to work and class. But that's not what I'm talking about, and I think a lot of those former conventions and rules have relaxed and disappeared outside of certain work places, trending towards more casual clothing choices. What I'm really discussing is clothing as a symbol of available choices at the level of the individual, and as a symbol of freedom at the larger level of society. Our choices seem to be limited and not as free as we might think, but this hasn't always been the case. There was a very small window in 1970s America when you could get away with wearing just about anything and fashion designers were talking incredible risks and experimenting with different styles, many of which just didn't work. What I'm talking about is the disappearance of this experimental atmosphere. Just last week, Ralph Lauren released his new men's collection. The highlight was a beautiful suit designed with a retro feel of 1920s and 1930s Americana. He wasn't taking any risks here with this retro style, as it had already been done. Most major fashion developments within the last fifty years have either come from streetwear, or from athletic and military fashion. The kind of experimentation I'm talking about, and the kind of freedom of choice I'm discussing, would be the reformulation of brick and mortar and online retail clothing stores as more of an international costume store, not based on a specific brand or style, but more like an all you can eat buffet, where you can pick and choose items for your outfit that aren't tied to any one specific culture or style. Essentially, I'm talking about turning fashion into jazz. Why hasn't this been done? Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Reference desk is not for soliciting and venturing opinions, and it may be hard to find referenced explanations. Still, I think it safe to posit that the trends in fashion reflect the Zeitgeist, which in the Western world was very different in the early 1970s from how it is now. For many people, the peer pressure of not being out of tune with one's surroundings – also in one's style of dress – is considerable, with a higher penalty on non-conformity than in the era of flower power, limiting the marketability of fashion experiments. --Lambiam 12:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great answer. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree on some of your points, Lambiam. I speak from the position of a person who dresses for utility and the moment, and everyone else can just look away if they disagree, but when it comes to fashion experiments I would say there is a lot of experimenting in fashion going on right now, to the extent that it's sometimes difficult to buy truly plain clothes that don't actually stand out from the background (for what it's worth). --Ouro (blah blah) 18:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not as smart as Lambiam, but I appreciate the compliment. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]