There is always the question of personal taste and preferences in clothing choices, plus fashionable dress has long been seen as fickle, always changeable, and therefore questionable in guaranteeing established symbols of status. Using clothing and appearance as a key to identifying and understanding societies’ many profiles can be problematic. This allows an overview of the entire Atlantic seaboard, and in addition, these port cities were the principale points of exchange for fashion ideas and commercial goods with the mother country and other overseas ports. The geographic focus is on the major port cities of Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Charleston. The book is organized more or less chronologically and follows the dominant fashion trends beginning with the century’s early colonial society, through the growing political unrest, revolution, and into the early years of the American republic, concluding with the presidential election of 1800. By employing these broad brush strokes, fashion provides an effective link between diverse (but as Haulman demonstrates, related) discussions on commercialism, gender issues, and status at this volatile time. Haulman approaches ‘fashion’ comprehensively to look beyond the latest styles in dress and textiles, to consider as well the latest modes in hair dressing, manners, and the modes of presentation that identified societal status and connections. not to mention forget that thourgh the soldiers people across europe had the opportunity to see and copy french fashions.UgIn the introduction to The Politics of Fashion in Eighteenth-Century America author Kate Haulman puts forward the question ‘How was fashion political in eighteenth-century British North America?’ In addressing this, she uses fashion as a platform to explore the dynamics of gender relations, societal hierarchies and issues of trans-Atlantic commerce within the politics of 18th-century America, from colonies to republic. (Well, Murat still favoured longer hair, but it is well known that he wanted appeared as dashing as possible, so probabaly he wanted to show off his beautiful dark curls.) it is also interesting to note that most of these officers came from middle and working class families. All the others had short hair with sideburns. Take the portraits of Napoleon’s marshals and generals for example: only those thait at the end of the century were already in their 40es or more still have powdered or long hair.
Only some men in the army (like some hussards that wore one or two braids) and the elderly kept their hair long. Some supporters of the monarchy adopeted short hair to remember those who had their hair cut before being behaded. Supporters of the revolution rejected powder, wigs and long hair because they were used by the aristcracy and to imiteta roman republican heroes. I don’t know much obout england, but probably the fashion ended in the rest of Europe because of the influence of the french revolution. I noted your remarks concerning the more conservative professions, but I guess Im curious to know if there would be an instance where someone would just choose a hair style out of sheer preference? I am trying to get a sense of why this character would choose to keep his hair long and why he would want to cut it short. Was also curious to know if any feelings were expressed by men about long hair, if in its time of popularity it was considered a hallmark of masculinity, then later changed because of the desire to express an “upwardly mobile” intent? I ask this because I am developing a character who wears his hair in a long queue, but lives in the late Georgian era. the lower classes? I remember reading in Patrick O’Brian that those serving in the navy tended to hold on to the ‘older’ hairstyles (long hair held in a queue or braided). The question I’d like to ask is were these hairstyles of the ton, or did the general populace take on these styles as well i.e.
0 kommentar(er)
