It could be as simple as taking away options. No fashion police neccesary
OK, maybe not that poor.
The whole point is that it's one of those "if you know then you know" type things - only members of a specific cognoscenti will have any clue that the extraordinarily bland and shapeless item you are wearing cost tens of thousands of pounds.It doesn't even have a polo player on it to tell I can afford to splash out
I don't agree. Or I don't think it means society was generally smarter dressed - for one thing photos were a relatively rare occasion and so people got dressed up. Also people below a certain level of wealth probably never got photographed unless they were arrested or possibly recorded as part of some professor's study into whether it was the shape of their heads that had turned them into degenerate subhuman poor peopleIt is amazing how smart everyone looked, even poor people, in photos from a hundred-odd years ago.
But that footage of NYC from yesteryear includes everyone who happened to be ambling around.I don't agree. Or I don't think it means society was generally smarter dressed - for one thing photos were a relatively rare occasion and so people got dressed up. Also people below a certain level of wealth probably never got photographed unless they were arrested or possibly recorded as part of some professor's study into whether it was the shape of their heads that had turned them into degenerate subhuman poor people
You're very attached to these grey trackie bottoms - do you work for Gap?I think the formation of a fashion police force would be essential in the dystopia you are proposing - prohibition ( aka "taking away options" ) will only result in an underground economy trading in grey trackie bottoms, polyester trouser suits, etc.,
This is a different matter: the modern gripe is that people dress poorly through choice.
I didn't mean people who'd posed for a portrait, I mean when you see photos or video footage of people just walking around in a city. And "poor" was, er, a poor choice of word - I meant people doing manual trades, rather than actual tramps and street urchins. Go back beyond a certain point in the past and it was almost unthinkable for a man to be out in public without a hat, for example. (And even some of the boys in the photo @william_kent posted are wearing hats, come to think of it.)I don't agree. Or I don't think it means society was generally smarter dressed - for one thing photos were a relatively rare occasion and so people got dressed up. Also people below a certain level of wealth probably never got photographed unless they were arrested or possibly recorded as part of some professor's study into whether it was the shape of their heads that had turned them into degenerate subhuman poor people
i quite like the hat thing, and i wonder if it will make a comeback at some point in the (distant) future. it's definitely less hassle than having tidy hairI didn't mean people who'd posed for a portrait, I mean when you see photos or video footage of people just walking around in a city. And "poor" was, er, a poor choice of word - I meant people doing manual trades, rather than actual tramps and street urchins. Go back beyond a certain point in the past and it was almost unthinkable for a man to be out in public without a hat, for example. (And even some of the boys in the photo @william_kent posted are wearing hats, come to think of it.)
Main reason I wear a hat, tbh.Going
i quite like the hat thing, and i wonder if it will make a comeback at some point in the (distant) future. it's definitely less hassle than having tidy hair
that's the problem i think, maybe Mr Tea finds a way, but we're in a post-hat culture in the westwhat is a nice hat to wear though without looking like you're cosplaying?