Maybe it's my historian-nerd coming out, just like it pains me when
watching so-called 'period' movies when they get the details of how
people spoke, what they wore, what technology would be available so so
wrong, and don't even seem to care.
Laura, THAT I can identify with. Good analogy. I admit there's not any particular trend I have personal, emotional attachment to. But I am very annoyed when trends or garments recur and are called new, or worse, are promoted as being a callback to something significant in history and get it wrong.
Women's trousers were not a triumph of wartime innovation and women's
lib; they'd been around since the 1920s, following a fascinating
progression from avante garde "pajamas" for beach and hostess wear to
adoption for casual and practical active wear.
(There's centuries of history of women's clothing adopting men's styles; it's not something that 20th century women can congratulate themselves on.) Platform shoes aren't a 1970s innovation, they're 1940s; the 1970s just re-discovered them. There was a huge "retro" movement back to the 1930s in the late 60s and early 70s (think to Bonnie & Clyde); so many catalogs and patterns show the long skirts and classy tailored jackets that throw back to the mid-1930s. A lot of the fussy, frilly looks of the 1940s were adopted from the fascination with c. 1900s styles - think Judy Garland. The early 1960s re-invented the so-called 1920s "flapper" and thereby adopted/justified the mini skirt! I love the history of fashion; it's not monolithic, very VERY few single people had significant influence (not even Chanel), and there's tons of borrowing and re-inventing that goes back pretty much forever.
Not angry, but passionate for history and truth.
