On sartorial diversity

Image from : LURIE, Alison, The Language of clothes, United States (University of Michigan), Vintage Books, 1983,

Setting its foot in late Middle-Ages and early Renaissance, the idea of owning a lot of different garments as a display of fortune and power was at its peak in the Edwardian fashion, when not only owning a lot of clothing was important, but having a particular costume for different times of the day was expected; when you were of good society of course. The gentleman was expected to own at least 16 outfits to be considered to have a full wardrobe. Even the low-class man needed at least a couple of work clothes and his Sunday best.

As of now, this concept often seems a bit foreign, as if it didn’t age well. Changing outfit four times a day? Frivolous! But when we look more closely, we can find some sort of common ground. Look in any women magazine and you’ll find at least one page giving tips on how to transform an office outfit into a happy hour outfit… Then, if a more official evening will take place, the gal is expected to transfer into a more elegant gown and maybe more expensive jewelry. And the next day, shame on her if she would come back to work with the same outfit she was last seen wearing at the happy hour: she would be giving the impression to have spent the night maybe at a colleague, expressing lousy manners or no self control over alcohol.

So then, other than work outfits (which we assume we want to have at least five to not challenge our inner Wendy who has a Monday outfit, a Tuesday outfit, etc), what else are we expected to have in our wardrobe?

Some, like Marilyn Monroe, claim to sleep in nothing but Chanel #5 but the tradition of pajamas of nightwear is still alive, considering from the traditional 2 pieces, one-piece (!) or some more sexy forms or clothing. Then most likely a robe for colder morning and late tv nights, the equivalent of the chambrelouque (think Dracula's robe, or more contemporary, a long Hugh Hefner's coin-du-feu) from early 19^th century.

On top of that, we’ll also consider what we use to cover ourselves like coats, cloaks and other forms of outwears, and what we put underneath our costume, supporting or covering our intimate parts.

Then between 3 to 8 different everyday outfit (I already hear fashionistas yell: only 8!!), constituted of top and bottom that we can mix and match as we go. To that we can add different accessories (hats, jewelry, hosiery) to modify the said look. Most of these are expected to relate to the communication and psychological functions: to express who we are and what we believe to be esthetically pleasing. To those can be added work-related outfits, they may be extra casual, suit-looking, to uniforms or painting clothes and, as mentioned before, one or two ballroom-type outfits (or wedding outfits as ball seem more and more rare these days…)

One of the elements we keep from historic periods are sports related costumes: from the classic track suit (that is now creeping its way into the everyday outfit) to the tennis skirt, and the necessary wetsuit of surfers, bikinis and other contraptions.

Considering all of that, would you consider that we are much different than the Edwardian man with his 16 different outfits? Are our codes now less strict as to what to wear in a specific situation, but everyone expected to own a lot of different garments (in style!) to be considered well dressed? Do you think that the proliferation of cheap but trendy shops like Forever21 contributing to that phenomena?