Re: [h-cost] Ear-coverings and wimples
It almost looks as if the ear was added later, as it is much more red than her face. Sharon C. -Original Message- From: h-costume-boun...@indra.com [mailto:h-costume-boun...@indra.com] On Behalf Of Chris Laning Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 6:19 PM To: Historical Costume Subject: Re: [h-cost] Ear-coverings and wimples On Mar 23, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Maggie Halberg wrote: I think sometimes we try to apply too much they did this because to fashion. Can't something be worn because its thought to be becoming and fashionable in its time? Just look at how necklines go up and down. Why is it OK to have an open neckline in 1500 but not in 1600? Why do skirts go from being OK to show ankles in the 1830's to dresses being floor length again in the 1860's? Why wear tall cone shaped hats in the 1400's? Why the tall hairstyles in the 1700's? Why the large drum shape skirts in the 1600's and a bustle shape in the late 19th century. Its simply all because the fashions changed. People tweeked what was being worn until it got to the point where it looked like something else. Perhaps something was being done and the daring new fashion was to do it the opposite way. I agree. The human is a storytelling animal -- we have an instinctive drive to find patterns -- so it's easy to understand why such explanations are so popular. But human behavior does not always have logical reasons behind it. Sometimes something is fashionable just because everyone thinks it's fashionable. That said, it's also true that there are periods when you rarely see a woman's ears exposed. Some time periods seem to count covering a woman's ears as part of the cover your head imperative, other time periods seem to think a woman's head is respectably covered as long as all her hair is under wraps. I was particularly interested to find a painting of a veiled Virgin Mary where her veil is transparent enough that you can see her ears: http://paternosters.blogspot.com/2007/12/blessed-christmas.html (Sometimes it's amusing when I have made friends with someone at historical events, and then when I first see them in blue jeans and a T-shirt they look quite different because they have HAIR!! ;) OChris Laning clan...@igc.org - Davis, California + http://paternoster-row.org - http://paternosters.blogspot.com ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Ear-coverings and wimples
Small note: the cone shape was area specific, not across Europe and the British Isles. I understand your point though. -Original Message- Why wear tall cone shaped hats in the 1400's? ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Ear-coverings and wimples
Who is the artist and period? De -Original Message- I was particularly interested to find a painting of a veiled Virgin Mary where her veil is transparent enough that you can see her ears: http://paternosters.blogspot.com/2007/12/blessed-christmas.html ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Ear-coverings and wimples
On 4/4/2012 1:18 AM, Sharon Collier wrote: It almost looks as if the ear was added later, as it is much more red than her face. Well, it's covered with a veil, and the baby's ear is reddish too. But the Virgin's looks practically separate from her head, a bit too far to the left. I wonder if it *was* meant to evoke the idea of a sex organ! --Robin -Original Message- From: h-costume-boun...@indra.com [mailto:h-costume-boun...@indra.com] On Behalf Of Chris Laning Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 6:19 PM To: Historical Costume Subject: Re: [h-cost] Ear-coverings and wimples On Mar 23, 2012, at 5:20 PM, Maggie Halberg wrote: I think sometimes we try to apply too much they did this because to fashion. Can't something be worn because its thought to be becoming and fashionable in its time? Just look at how necklines go up and down. Why is it OK to have an open neckline in 1500 but not in 1600? Why do skirts go from being OK to show ankles in the 1830's to dresses being floor length again in the 1860's? Why wear tall cone shaped hats in the 1400's? Why the tall hairstyles in the 1700's? Why the large drum shape skirts in the 1600's and a bustle shape in the late 19th century. Its simply all because the fashions changed. People tweeked what was being worn until it got to the point where it looked like something else. Perhaps something was being done and the daring new fashion was to do it the opposite way. I agree. The human is a storytelling animal -- we have an instinctive drive to find patterns -- so it's easy to understand why such explanations are so popular. But human behavior does not always have logical reasons behind it. Sometimes something is fashionable just because everyone thinks it's fashionable. That said, it's also true that there are periods when you rarely see a woman's ears exposed. Some time periods seem to count covering a woman's ears as part of the cover your head imperative, other time periods seem to think a woman's head is respectably covered as long as all her hair is under wraps. I was particularly interested to find a painting of a veiled Virgin Mary where her veil is transparent enough that you can see her ears: http://paternosters.blogspot.com/2007/12/blessed-christmas.html (Sometimes it's amusing when I have made friends with someone at historical events, and then when I first see them in blue jeans and a T-shirt they look quite different because they have HAIR!! ;) OChris Laningclan...@igc.org - Davis, California + http://paternoster-row.org - http://paternosters.blogspot.com ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2114/4913 - Release Date: 04/03/12 -- Robin Netherton Editor at Large ro...@netherton.net voice: (314) 439-1222 Life is just a bowl of queries. ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
Re: [h-cost] Ear-coverings and wimples
On Apr 4, 2012, at 4:48 AM, Robin Netherton wrote: On 4/4/2012 1:18 AM, Sharon Collier wrote: It almost looks as if the ear was added later, as it is much more red than her face. Well, it's covered with a veil, and the baby's ear is reddish too. But the Virgin's looks practically separate from her head, a bit too far to the left. I wonder if it *was* meant to evoke the idea of a sex organ! Both versions of the painting are considered to be, e, somewhat less than masterpieces of painting, I think. ;) No one seems to have decided exactly who painted either of them, as I mention in the article. It may just be that no one has gotten around to researching these paintings specifically. As you might imagine, I'm always a sucker for paintings of the Virgin Mary and the Infant Jesus playing with beads ;) OChris Laning clan...@igc.org - Davis, California + http://paternoster-row.org - http://paternosters.blogspot.com ___ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
