motivation, or lack thereof
I got home from Chicago last night around midnight, but was so wired from too much caffeine that it was probably 1:30am before I made it to bed. I failed to communicate to Adam that he should reset the alarm clock this morning after heading out. Happily, my bosses don't really care if I email them at midnight to say that I'll be in at 9 the next morning because of late travel, then email at 9:30 to say that I overslept and am going to work from home.
I have a lot of things I want to do today, but I feel like I've been hit by a truck. Maybe I can work up the energy to pick out fabric for my next project and put it in the washing machine.
I have a decent start on an outline for a intro to Viking women's clothing class. I want it to be basic enough that a brand new person can leave with appropriate information on how to make a passable Viking outfit, but also want to include enough details to be useful to people who care about authenticity. Frankly, most new people don't want or need a perfectly authentic outfit. They want to hear about how to turn their t-tunic into something that's a bit cooler and a bit more authentic. I'm thinking a few simple pattern pieces or line drawings would get most people started. I have a ton of information on construction details from the classes I took at Pennsic and the books I've been reading, so I should have plenty of information to amuse the costuming geeks.
I've had people tell me outright that Vikings didn't do much shaping of fabric in making clothes. I've seen photographic or other archaeological evidence (some line drawings taking by researchers from the actual remnants, but mostly photos of the remnants) of pleating in the underdress and apron dress, fitted sleeves in underdress, taking in fabric along the construction seams to narrow the garment (probably for the waist), use of gores, etc. They knew how to do more than sew straight lines. :)
Thor Ewing is on crack. That, or he knows nothing about costume history. It just doesn't make sense for the progression of clothing in an area to go from more to less complicated over time. No one else wore shirts and separate belted skirts later in that region that I know of. Anyone ever hear of anything like that in Europe? Given how stylized the art in question is, it makes a lot more sense to interpret it as a long belted dress, which is consistent with clothing that came both before and after that period. The diagonal lines on the 'skirt' that he interprets as being of a different fabric seem to be how artists indicated that they were carving a chick in a dress rather than a dude in a long tunic. There IS a find where a woman was found wearing a short 'skirt' with a drawstring, but I have trouble believing that was her whole outfit unless she was a slave. It was found in the same general area as the longer Huldremose dress - could it have been an undergarment? I just have trouble with the 'blouse and skirt' argument for women in 1000 AD.
I have a lot of things I want to do today, but I feel like I've been hit by a truck. Maybe I can work up the energy to pick out fabric for my next project and put it in the washing machine.
I have a decent start on an outline for a intro to Viking women's clothing class. I want it to be basic enough that a brand new person can leave with appropriate information on how to make a passable Viking outfit, but also want to include enough details to be useful to people who care about authenticity. Frankly, most new people don't want or need a perfectly authentic outfit. They want to hear about how to turn their t-tunic into something that's a bit cooler and a bit more authentic. I'm thinking a few simple pattern pieces or line drawings would get most people started. I have a ton of information on construction details from the classes I took at Pennsic and the books I've been reading, so I should have plenty of information to amuse the costuming geeks.
I've had people tell me outright that Vikings didn't do much shaping of fabric in making clothes. I've seen photographic or other archaeological evidence (some line drawings taking by researchers from the actual remnants, but mostly photos of the remnants) of pleating in the underdress and apron dress, fitted sleeves in underdress, taking in fabric along the construction seams to narrow the garment (probably for the waist), use of gores, etc. They knew how to do more than sew straight lines. :)
Thor Ewing is on crack. That, or he knows nothing about costume history. It just doesn't make sense for the progression of clothing in an area to go from more to less complicated over time. No one else wore shirts and separate belted skirts later in that region that I know of. Anyone ever hear of anything like that in Europe? Given how stylized the art in question is, it makes a lot more sense to interpret it as a long belted dress, which is consistent with clothing that came both before and after that period. The diagonal lines on the 'skirt' that he interprets as being of a different fabric seem to be how artists indicated that they were carving a chick in a dress rather than a dude in a long tunic. There IS a find where a woman was found wearing a short 'skirt' with a drawstring, but I have trouble believing that was her whole outfit unless she was a slave. It was found in the same general area as the longer Huldremose dress - could it have been an undergarment? I just have trouble with the 'blouse and skirt' argument for women in 1000 AD.