It's difficult to translate cost across decades (though I acknowledge the effort some respondents have made in trying) because patterns of consumption have changed so much. But the underlying point is that many people would dress better if they focus on dressing in a more systematic way. Consumption patterns has moved from a farming/harvesting model to a hunter-gatherer model. In Waugh's time, it made sense to invest time in an ongoing relationship with a set of tailors, whereas today it's much easier for the average undiscerning person to go to their local department store and grab whatever they want off the rack. This may not apply to SF readers, but is an important change in the mindset of the average consumer. I suspect these changing patterns are what actually prompted the need for the article in the first place, as the change began in earnest around the 30s. On another note, I agree with Sator that Style can find expression through Fashion, with the concept of permanent style being fairly illusory. I wrote about this recently, suggesting that it would be worthwhile to conceptualise Style, Elegance, and Dressing Well as independent but potentially co-existing variables, with relative expression dependent on how an individual chooses to dress. If style is defined as a clearly expressed mode of dressing, it most definitely can be found in fashion. However, I would disagree with his implied suggestion that it is best expressed in fashion. Perhaps I am incorrectly inferring that from his post, though.
post #31 of 54
3/6/11 at 3:52pm