I think there are a couple of important things missing from this article. One is that until relatively recently clothing served a very different function to that of today.
In Europe, in our grandparents’ or even parents’ childhoods - as late even as the 1970s - housing and transport was very different to how it is now. Clothing was largely purpose-specific; people had far fewer clothes than today but those clothes had more specific purposes. For men that mean different weights of woollen suits for spring and autumn versus winter, and linen suits for summer.
Houses weren’t so well insulated or heated so you dressed to stay warm. With cars less common, you dressed for the outdoors. Hats weren’t fashion statements: they were to help keep you dry and warm.
Go back 100+ years and roads were much worse, people travelled by horse.
Capes, gloves, boots: things like this were all a defence against mud and rain and weather. If you were riding a horse you needed something like a cape with a high collar to stop your back and face getting splattered with mud thrown up by the horse’s hooves.
But more importantly, at the wealthy end of society, dressing was an indication of status and leisure. The clothes in the first picture are clearly somewhat impractical, but that doesn’t matter if your only task for the day is to sit and talk or stroll gently. If you have a team of people to dress you and look after your clothing you can wear impractical layers of clothing that seem ridiculous today. Those layers were still designed to serve a purpose - largely keeping warm - but the application and design of that purpose became exaggerated as purpose took a subsidiary role to status.
Many countries also had “sumptuary laws” which forbid lower classes of people from using certain fabrics or colours or dressing in particular ways. This meant that clothing for the higher classes was an articulation of power and status: in the 17th century you could tell instantly from someone’s style of dress whether they were a peasant, farmer, merchant, or aristocrat. That articulation of status - for the highest classes - meant that clothing was designed to show off the elements of dress that were reserved to that class of people.
> Those layers were still designed to serve a purpose - largely keeping warm
Yes and no.
Something that people often take for granted is doing laundry. The invention of the automatic clothes washer and dryer changed things dramatically.
Before automation, laundry day for a household of 4 was a huge, laborious, and often multi-day task.
Not only did garments need to be washed by hand, but there was a lot of attention to how to clean certain types of garments and fabrics effectively. A woman's summer dress with grass stains on the bottom hems, for example, needed different treatment than a man's 3 piece grey suit (which, by the way, were constructed very differently than they are today).
Since you needed your stove-top to heat water, most laundry was done in the kitchen which meant that you also needed to plan in advance what your family was going to eat that day and have things prepared.
I own a recreation Edwardian era 3 piece suit. It has no zippers and it is unlined (I recently wore this to a funeral here in Canada and it was COLD despite the layers that I was wearing).
The reason that the suit is unlined is because, as you say, it was common at the time to wear layers. So the thing is shockingly breathable and light compared to a modern, lined formal suit (which is also made out of different suiting wool so the texture is different too, an Edwardian suit "feels" less formal than a modern suit).
But the reason people wore those layers was not always necessarily to stay warm. In fact, the layers were worn in the summer in hot climates as well as during winter in cold climates.
Today people often assume that full body undergarments were born out of a prudish sense of modesty (a la "magic Mormon underwear"). This is a myth. The reality is that they:
a) kept the outer garment clean for longer by avoiding direct contact with the skin (and thus sweat etc.) and
b) they gave everyone in the family roughly the same general style of undergarment (in terms of colour and fabric) so that you could batch-wash what needs to be washed most often all together in a single pot on the stove
Here's a good YouTube video that really puts into perspective why laundry was so different pre-automation, and it was one major factor (though not the only one) that informed how people dressed:
Ask anyone in New Orleans and they'll tell you that Mondays are for red beans. This is because it was laundry day, and one of the easiest, heartiest, and least labor intensive things that you could cook for a long time with minimal supervision is a pot of beans that only got better the longer it cooked.
I wonder how much this relates to the placement of a washing machine and/or dryer.
It's typically in the kitchen in a British household, unless you have a house with a utility room or an old outdoor toilet (growing up, my house had an external downstairs toilet but it was just used for storage and the washing machine).
When I moved abroad though it wasn't unusual to see the washer/dryer in the bathroom.
> But the reason people wore those layers was not always necessarily to stay warm. In fact, the layers were worn in the summer in hot climates as well as during winter in cold climates.
This still holds up today. Can't speak for anywhere else but in the UK people will go out in 30ºC weather in an anorak or puffer jacket with a hoodie and tee underneath. The exact opposite of us northern British types who go out in winter wearing just one light layer at 5ºC (tee + jeans, top + skirt).
In a world dominated by animal-powered transport, especially in cities, boots weren't optional, and they were high to keep the muck from soiling your trousers / dress hems. (As I'd recently commented in another thread: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42326115>.)
(Women if at all possible didn't walk streets, though of course that was a privilege largely restricted to the wealthy.)
Well you can make the case that people don't have to dress a certain way because we are much better insulated (metaphorically and literally) from the environment. And there are of course no sumptuary laws.
So clothing can be more fun, if people want to of course - look at how music subcultures have incredibly varied ways of expression through clothing - metalheads, hiphopheads, punks etc.
I think you hit gold there, todays lack of interesting clothes is in my eyes related to two things:
- market logic made work clothes boring (think about guild clothing, the only interesting thing I see from time to time is the chimney sweeper)
- less people are inclined to feel part of a subculture and/or express that in their fashion choices
As someone who was a teenager in the 2000s, back then I had at least 6 different outwardly recognizable subcultures in my school class (Metalhead, Punk, Hiphop, Emo, Raver, Goth) and that was more or less normal within my generation.
My small brother and nieces were teenagers during the mid 2010s and in their class all people looked the same. Not only did they look the same, they felt the pressure to all look the same and get similar brands and so on. It just appears that it is a more conforming generation, maybe due tonthe role social media started to play for them. When I grew up social media existed but in a class of 25 maybe half would use it (maximum). And all social media algorithms were strictly chronological.
>look at how music subcultures have incredibly varied ways of expression through clothing - metalheads, hiphopheads, punks etc.
Metalheads? Huh? I like metal, but metal fans are some of the most boring dressers I've ever seen. Go to any metal show and you'll just see a bunch of guys wearing jeans and black T-shirts from their favorite bands' prior concert tours. Some of the musicians used to dress pretty flamboyantly back in the hair-metal days of the 1980s, but those days are long past; the musicians these days are in their 60s and dress rather casually and plainly.
> Hats weren’t fashion statements: they were to help keep you dry and warm.
And my understand I'd they also kept you safe. While a bowler hat may seem posh now, I believe it was a working class hat which was favored for its hard-hat like properties.
I bet you'd find a lot more variety in a random sample of 100 people today than you would in, say, the 17th century. I think the way he's framing this is weird. He's comparing drawings of aristocratic costumes that were notable enough to archive for posterity, as well as pictures of people's ceremonial garb (and best going-to-meeting clothes) with an unevidenced claim that people today all dress alike (do they?). To make an apples-to-apples comparison, compare those historical clothes with NY Fashion Week, or Cosplayers. Or, compare the surviving wool trousers and tunics of a medieval peasant with a picture of what people today are wearing in the average subway car or grocery store.
I think that the difference might be that today's aristocratic costumes and ceremonial garb is largely boring. In both cases they are largely just suits or cocktail dresses. Even the more unique ceremonial garb that does exist (e.g. robes in high church congregations and academic robes) are worn very infrequently today.
The industrial revolution gave us clothing for cheaper, and much more importantly, gave us a lot of other more interesting things to spend our time and energy on!
Which is a reasonable explanation in its own right. Before office-going was common, getting dressed up to display yourself in public was a special occasion. Even in the early days of offices people dressed in fairly elaborate dress. But when you're doing the same thing day in, day out, the novelty of putting yourself on display wears off.
Why did clothes ever become NOT boring in the first place?
Clothes are above all something that warms/protects/hides us from the world. Aesthetic contemplations are really just an afterthought. Also, "fashion" is one of the stupidest things ever, like oh hey, you should now replace your perfectly good clothes every season because someone says so??
Your argument could be read as beauty not mattering. For a different POV, countless animals will risk their life to look fabulous/make themselves stand from the pack to leave a legacy.
Arguably fashion could be one of the most important thing to people.
PS: on a side note, even in technical circles where we could expect more detachment from appearances in general, a lot of comment will revolve around "X looks dumb". As in "I'd look dumb taking a photo with an iPad" or "who would wear VR googles around people and look like an idiot". People are social animals, and they care about how they look.
However, we should use our intelligence to find ways to curb the extent to which clothing has become an obsession, becaue the clothing industry is unsustainable and creates enormous amounts of waste and pollution. With our big brains, surely we can find ways to differetiate and display our styles without so much waste? Or perhaps we should just go back to trying to make AI think like us...
I don't think clothing is any more boring than computers or photography or painting or drawing or running or cooking or martial arts or reading or woodworking or cars or makeup or any other hobby. Which is not to say all of those interest me, but is to say any field is going to be interesting to some but not to all.
For my case, for most of my life I hated thinking about clothes, hated anything other than big hoodies/jeans/jackets, saw it as purely utilitarian. Eventually after some soul searching and realizations/some new medication, I have discovered that I quite like using my clothing to express myself, my mood, what I'm doing, and so on.
Fast fashion is very dumb though in my opinion. No reason to be wasteful and throw things away, but there's a middle space that can be very rewarding to explore - the first time I put on a skirt was quite literally life changing.
> Also, "fashion" is one of the stupidest things ever, like oh hey, you should now replace your perfectly good clothes every season because someone says so??
Have you ever encountered the world of javascript frameworks?
You might be mistaking modern "fast fashion" with more traditional understandings of "fashion". There is nothing about fashion that requires clothing to be replaced every season. In fact, much of what we now think of as fashion was actually a form of recycling. All of those fancy ribbons, collars, and smocking we associate with Victorian fashion? Those existed to cover up repairs, allow worn out parts to be replaced, and to allow clothing sizes to be adjusted when it was handed down.
More generally, fashion is a powerful form of self expression that allows someone to project to the world how one wants to be perceived. Eliminating fashion because it's impractical would be like eliminating art as impractical.
> Clothes are above all something that warms/protects/hides us from the world.
Not sure that follows. Most places have a climate that would allow us to get by without clothes if we so desired (at least for part of the year), but few do. On the other hand, farmers and their families used to use flour sacks to make clothing, and when the flour companies realized this they started making patterned sacks. Flour companies didn't do this for fun, it was a desirable feature that increased sales.
> Also, "fashion" is one of the stupidest things ever, like oh hey, you should now replace your perfectly good clothes every season because someone says so??
Agreed, but nothing stops us from keeping fashionable clothes around for a long time. "Sunday best," for instance.
Note that the "wearing flour sacks" was not some perennial tradition of farming families: it was a necessity of the times, i.e. the Great Depression / dust bowl, where many many farmers were forced into destitution.
Personal tastes and preferences and opinions aside, clothing is a pretty important aspect of communicating. Easy reference point is Mean Girls: On Wednesdays, we wear pink. In that scenario its simply a means of communicating conformity and support for the group. Seasonal tastes change because tastemakers set them, and people who want to be in the zeitgeist follow suit.
And even in sub-cultures where one is just trying to communicate their distaste in fashion, there are usually unofficial dress codes. At nerdier conventions I typically see screen t-shirts riddled with pop culture references, or standard issue polos + khakis that communicate a sort of "I'm professional and I don't want to overthink my wardrobe". They're also the only place I see utility kilts, which definitely communicates something.
Einstein famously had several copies of the same outfit, because he didn't want to think about dressing, but he found one that worked for him. And I've seen several engineers copy this approach - communicating efficiency and I'd argue at least some desire to emulate an Einstein.
> Is your type, dating wise, someone who is warm and dry?
My type is someone who has enough excess wealth to support my kids. Of course what this means is different for different animals, and in the case of humans different styles of raising kids, and different genders. In our modern world we don't think like this, but in 1700 a man could rape a woman and she would have no choice but to bare the child (if one happens), and then society would raise the child (in some cases she could drop the child off with the shakers or similar) - the important point is in this case the man only minimal cost to the child but there are a lot of costs on the woman. Thus women generally need signals that this man will stick around to feed her an can afford, that while the man needs to know the women's body will result in a baby being (as opposed to all too common dies at birth).
Warm and dry is the very minimum you can ask in a potential mate - anything else will die before the child is born and thus you don't pass those genes on. However if you can find someone who has enough free time to not only be warm and dry but also well decorated that implies they have plenty of excess time making warm and dry clothing for the child who then won't freeze to death. Of course different climates have different warmth and dry needs.
Clothes are an important part of how we communicate with each other. It's an important part of the human experience, right up there with art and music.
By having this opinion (and I assume dressing plainly) you are sending your own message to people about what's important to you.
> Clothes are above all something that warms/protects/hides us from the world. Aesthetic contemplations are really just an afterthought.
I think it’s the exact opposite. Would seem like the transition our species had made to require clothes in the areas we live came after we had the clothes needed to migrate to those regions. The first humans to strap leaves to themselves likely did so for athestic reasons not for warmth, that would have come later.
Though I’m no historian so this is just speculation.
Fashion was a major driver (possibly the main one) of the Industrial Revolution. The economics of it kicked off the modern tech-based society we live in today.
I find it weird that he shows those immigrant clothes at end the as an expression of individuality. If you were to go back to the origin towns of those immigrants, almost everyone would wear the same thing! It's the same with all traditional clothes, they are quite close to uniforms. They show the exact opposite of individuality, they show membership of a certain group. And taking too many liberties with that outfit would be frowned upon in the community.
First off the historical record in clothing is dominated by the wealthy, and in particular the notable clothing of wealthy. You would need to compare this to haute couture of the present.
Now examples are dominated by average people, wearing inexpensive fashion that is mass produced.
> You get the idea. From São Paulo to Riga to Seoul, people in the 2020s pretty much dress the same way.
This is incorrect. Even within the US there are differences between cities, people in Miami dress differently than people in Seattle.
People in Tokyo dress different than in LA, and people in London dress differently than in Mexico City.
Is there a rich tapestry of local clothes? Well, no, but people also don't dress the same by any means.
There is a lot of homogenization for sure, but people who travel a lot and pay even a little bit of attention can easily spot the differences between cities.
Readit News
In Europe, in our grandparents’ or even parents’ childhoods - as late even as the 1970s - housing and transport was very different to how it is now. Clothing was largely purpose-specific; people had far fewer clothes than today but those clothes had more specific purposes. For men that mean different weights of woollen suits for spring and autumn versus winter, and linen suits for summer.
Houses weren’t so well insulated or heated so you dressed to stay warm. With cars less common, you dressed for the outdoors. Hats weren’t fashion statements: they were to help keep you dry and warm.
Go back 100+ years and roads were much worse, people travelled by horse.
Capes, gloves, boots: things like this were all a defence against mud and rain and weather. If you were riding a horse you needed something like a cape with a high collar to stop your back and face getting splattered with mud thrown up by the horse’s hooves.
But more importantly, at the wealthy end of society, dressing was an indication of status and leisure. The clothes in the first picture are clearly somewhat impractical, but that doesn’t matter if your only task for the day is to sit and talk or stroll gently. If you have a team of people to dress you and look after your clothing you can wear impractical layers of clothing that seem ridiculous today. Those layers were still designed to serve a purpose - largely keeping warm - but the application and design of that purpose became exaggerated as purpose took a subsidiary role to status.
Many countries also had “sumptuary laws” which forbid lower classes of people from using certain fabrics or colours or dressing in particular ways. This meant that clothing for the higher classes was an articulation of power and status: in the 17th century you could tell instantly from someone’s style of dress whether they were a peasant, farmer, merchant, or aristocrat. That articulation of status - for the highest classes - meant that clothing was designed to show off the elements of dress that were reserved to that class of people.
Yes and no.
Something that people often take for granted is doing laundry. The invention of the automatic clothes washer and dryer changed things dramatically.
Before automation, laundry day for a household of 4 was a huge, laborious, and often multi-day task.
Not only did garments need to be washed by hand, but there was a lot of attention to how to clean certain types of garments and fabrics effectively. A woman's summer dress with grass stains on the bottom hems, for example, needed different treatment than a man's 3 piece grey suit (which, by the way, were constructed very differently than they are today).
Since you needed your stove-top to heat water, most laundry was done in the kitchen which meant that you also needed to plan in advance what your family was going to eat that day and have things prepared.
I own a recreation Edwardian era 3 piece suit. It has no zippers and it is unlined (I recently wore this to a funeral here in Canada and it was COLD despite the layers that I was wearing).
The reason that the suit is unlined is because, as you say, it was common at the time to wear layers. So the thing is shockingly breathable and light compared to a modern, lined formal suit (which is also made out of different suiting wool so the texture is different too, an Edwardian suit "feels" less formal than a modern suit).
But the reason people wore those layers was not always necessarily to stay warm. In fact, the layers were worn in the summer in hot climates as well as during winter in cold climates.
Today people often assume that full body undergarments were born out of a prudish sense of modesty (a la "magic Mormon underwear"). This is a myth. The reality is that they:
a) kept the outer garment clean for longer by avoiding direct contact with the skin (and thus sweat etc.) and
b) they gave everyone in the family roughly the same general style of undergarment (in terms of colour and fabric) so that you could batch-wash what needs to be washed most often all together in a single pot on the stove
Here's a good YouTube video that really puts into perspective why laundry was so different pre-automation, and it was one major factor (though not the only one) that informed how people dressed:
https://youtu.be/88Wv0xZBSTI?si=c-YEogtMyy8pAFlA
It's typically in the kitchen in a British household, unless you have a house with a utility room or an old outdoor toilet (growing up, my house had an external downstairs toilet but it was just used for storage and the washing machine).
When I moved abroad though it wasn't unusual to see the washer/dryer in the bathroom.
> But the reason people wore those layers was not always necessarily to stay warm. In fact, the layers were worn in the summer in hot climates as well as during winter in cold climates.
This still holds up today. Can't speak for anywhere else but in the UK people will go out in 30ºC weather in an anorak or puffer jacket with a hoodie and tee underneath. The exact opposite of us northern British types who go out in winter wearing just one light layer at 5ºC (tee + jeans, top + skirt).
(okay, I'll be careful not to let it take up so much time my wife notices, but it could get that far if I'm not careful)
In a world dominated by animal-powered transport, especially in cities, boots weren't optional, and they were high to keep the muck from soiling your trousers / dress hems. (As I'd recently commented in another thread: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42326115>.)
(Women if at all possible didn't walk streets, though of course that was a privilege largely restricted to the wealthy.)
So clothing can be more fun, if people want to of course - look at how music subcultures have incredibly varied ways of expression through clothing - metalheads, hiphopheads, punks etc.
- market logic made work clothes boring (think about guild clothing, the only interesting thing I see from time to time is the chimney sweeper)
- less people are inclined to feel part of a subculture and/or express that in their fashion choices
As someone who was a teenager in the 2000s, back then I had at least 6 different outwardly recognizable subcultures in my school class (Metalhead, Punk, Hiphop, Emo, Raver, Goth) and that was more or less normal within my generation.
My small brother and nieces were teenagers during the mid 2010s and in their class all people looked the same. Not only did they look the same, they felt the pressure to all look the same and get similar brands and so on. It just appears that it is a more conforming generation, maybe due tonthe role social media started to play for them. When I grew up social media existed but in a class of 25 maybe half would use it (maximum). And all social media algorithms were strictly chronological.
Metalheads? Huh? I like metal, but metal fans are some of the most boring dressers I've ever seen. Go to any metal show and you'll just see a bunch of guys wearing jeans and black T-shirts from their favorite bands' prior concert tours. Some of the musicians used to dress pretty flamboyantly back in the hair-metal days of the 1980s, but those days are long past; the musicians these days are in their 60s and dress rather casually and plainly.
And my understand I'd they also kept you safe. While a bowler hat may seem posh now, I believe it was a working class hat which was favored for its hard-hat like properties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A1kti
Arguably fashion could be one of the most important thing to people.
PS: on a side note, even in technical circles where we could expect more detachment from appearances in general, a lot of comment will revolve around "X looks dumb". As in "I'd look dumb taking a photo with an iPad" or "who would wear VR googles around people and look like an idiot". People are social animals, and they care about how they look.
that would explain the drop in extreme fashion's popularity also as people become educated.
For my case, for most of my life I hated thinking about clothes, hated anything other than big hoodies/jeans/jackets, saw it as purely utilitarian. Eventually after some soul searching and realizations/some new medication, I have discovered that I quite like using my clothing to express myself, my mood, what I'm doing, and so on.
Fast fashion is very dumb though in my opinion. No reason to be wasteful and throw things away, but there's a middle space that can be very rewarding to explore - the first time I put on a skirt was quite literally life changing.
Have you ever encountered the world of javascript frameworks?
More generally, fashion is a powerful form of self expression that allows someone to project to the world how one wants to be perceived. Eliminating fashion because it's impractical would be like eliminating art as impractical.
Not sure that follows. Most places have a climate that would allow us to get by without clothes if we so desired (at least for part of the year), but few do. On the other hand, farmers and their families used to use flour sacks to make clothing, and when the flour companies realized this they started making patterned sacks. Flour companies didn't do this for fun, it was a desirable feature that increased sales.
> Also, "fashion" is one of the stupidest things ever, like oh hey, you should now replace your perfectly good clothes every season because someone says so??
Agreed, but nothing stops us from keeping fashionable clothes around for a long time. "Sunday best," for instance.
And even in sub-cultures where one is just trying to communicate their distaste in fashion, there are usually unofficial dress codes. At nerdier conventions I typically see screen t-shirts riddled with pop culture references, or standard issue polos + khakis that communicate a sort of "I'm professional and I don't want to overthink my wardrobe". They're also the only place I see utility kilts, which definitely communicates something.
Einstein famously had several copies of the same outfit, because he didn't want to think about dressing, but he found one that worked for him. And I've seen several engineers copy this approach - communicating efficiency and I'd argue at least some desire to emulate an Einstein.
Is your type, dating wise, someone who is warm and dry?
My type is someone who has enough excess wealth to support my kids. Of course what this means is different for different animals, and in the case of humans different styles of raising kids, and different genders. In our modern world we don't think like this, but in 1700 a man could rape a woman and she would have no choice but to bare the child (if one happens), and then society would raise the child (in some cases she could drop the child off with the shakers or similar) - the important point is in this case the man only minimal cost to the child but there are a lot of costs on the woman. Thus women generally need signals that this man will stick around to feed her an can afford, that while the man needs to know the women's body will result in a baby being (as opposed to all too common dies at birth).
Warm and dry is the very minimum you can ask in a potential mate - anything else will die before the child is born and thus you don't pass those genes on. However if you can find someone who has enough free time to not only be warm and dry but also well decorated that implies they have plenty of excess time making warm and dry clothing for the child who then won't freeze to death. Of course different climates have different warmth and dry needs.
By having this opinion (and I assume dressing plainly) you are sending your own message to people about what's important to you.
Aesthetic contemplations are never an afterthought.
I think it’s the exact opposite. Would seem like the transition our species had made to require clothes in the areas we live came after we had the clothes needed to migrate to those regions. The first humans to strap leaves to themselves likely did so for athestic reasons not for warmth, that would have come later.
Though I’m no historian so this is just speculation.
Is that what you do?
If not, then that's a bold move setting up a strawman as you try to start a flamewar.
Clothes, as with many things in life, can be a form of artistic expression. What's so wrong with that?
https://craig-green.com/https://couture.balenciaga.com/https://isseymiyake.comhttps://www.jilsander.com/en-us/men/ready-to-wear/view-all-r...https://www.rickowens.eu/en/US/t/designers/drkshdwhttps://www.comme-des-garcons.com/junyawatanabe.html
Now examples are dominated by average people, wearing inexpensive fashion that is mass produced.
This is incorrect. Even within the US there are differences between cities, people in Miami dress differently than people in Seattle.
People in Tokyo dress different than in LA, and people in London dress differently than in Mexico City.
Is there a rich tapestry of local clothes? Well, no, but people also don't dress the same by any means.
There is a lot of homogenization for sure, but people who travel a lot and pay even a little bit of attention can easily spot the differences between cities.