How Would You Describe The Art Style Of The Fashion Design Illustrations? I Love The Antiquarian Looking

How would you describe the art style of the fashion design illustrations? I love the antiquarian looking style

hello my dear! 💖

what an interesting question! 💕💕 either fortunately or unfortunately, you asked either the best or worst person to talk about this lmao 😅😅 as an art history phd student, pretty much all I do is analyze images, so I definitely have some Thoughts™️

first, I'll say that style varies hugely based on time period and publication. even within decades, I've seen a wide variety of styles used, so if you had particular images in mind that you wanted me to talk about, feel free to let me know and I'd be thrilled to discuss those more specifically! ☺️☺️

because there is such a diverse range of stylistic approaches to illustrating fashion plates/images, I'm hesitant to make any sweeping generalizations here, but I will pick out a few themes that I've seen come up a lot:

2d medium vs. 3d object – one of the key features of fashion plates is that, ultimately, they are trying to sell you a garment/style. of course, clothing is three-dimensional, and especially when looking at things like bustled garments, they take up a lot of space in real life that is difficult to represent in a 2d medium. because of this "conflict" between the necessity of depicting the garment and the realities of the medium of drawing/print, we tend to see some odd positioning of the figures. they might be awkwardly bent or twisting in order to show off both a bodice and a bustle at the same time (the figure on the left here is a good example). we also see some "flattening" of the picture plane, wherein the placement of a normally voluminous feature (like a bustle) doesn't really make sense in a naturalistic space, but rather is almost parallel to the chest/bodice of the figure, when in real life it would project backwards rather than weirdly sideways (you can see this in almost any 1880s fashion plate featuring dresses, but this one is a nice example). [also please note that this is not a condemnation of these choices, but rather an analysis of why they're necessary in this medium]

ye olde photoshoppe – connecting to my first point, fashion plates are trying to sell you something, and therefore their artists have incentive to make that product look as attractive/appealing as possible. I do get comments from time to time about how "people don't look like that" or "that's not how bodies work," which, while true, also elide the fact that these artists are not necessarily trying to be naturalistic in their depiction of the human body – they're trying to show you the most marketable version of the human body as determined by the cultural values of their day. just as today we might see impossibly thin models on magazine covers or clearly fake thigh gaps in online retail, so too are the creators of these fashion plates embellishing and exaggerating the human form to make it as appealing as possible to consumers – they're selling a fantasy, not a reality

non-specificity – another thing that is fairly common across historical fashion plates is the non-specificity of facial features on the figures portrayed. if you feel so inclined, take a scroll through the blog and compare the faces of the figures in the illustrations (obviously this does not work in the same way for photographs). you'll likely find that you keep seeing the same face over and over again. what's more, that face has almost no distinctive features, and is almost doll-like in its perfection. given what we've already discussed, this isn't a surprise, since fashion plates are meant to sell garments, and therefore a portrait-like rendering of a specific model isn't really the goal. the figures in fashion plates essentially are dolls – they are meant to be "dressed" in whichever style is being sold, and visually appealing yet non-specific enough to potentially interest a large population of possible consumers

whew! okay I will wrap up my ramblings now, but I hope this was at least a little bit helpful or perhaps mildly interesting! ☺️☺️ as you can see, I love doing this kind of visual analysis, so (as I mentioned above) if you have specific images you wanted me to talk about stylistically, feel free to let me know!! ☺️💕 and thank you again for this great question! 💖💖

if you've made it to the end, thanks for reading my ramblings, and let me know what y'all think about the stylistic features of fashion plates if you have thoughts! 🥰🥰

IT IS [WEELVIL] WEDNESDAY MY DUDES

15 notes View Post

roebert

1 week ago

GrizzlyBryce

Tags

she’s beautiful

4 notes View Post

roebert

1 week ago

Dress

c. 1807-1810

DAR Museum

252 notes View Post

roebert

1 week ago

The post on that reading comprehension study is good (and reminded me of some of my complaints about GPT a couple years ago, although the LLMs have gotten much better since then).

But the thing that really stood out to me is that I feel much this same way about math instruction:

i have seen this repeatedly, too - actually i was particularly taken with how similar this is to the behavior of struggling readers at much younger ages - and would summarize the hypothesis i have forged over time as: struggling readers do not expect what they read to make sense. my hypothesis for why this is the case is that their reading deficits were not attended to or remediated adequately early enough, and so, in their formative years - the early to mid elementary grades - they spent a lot of time "reading" things that did not make sense to them - in fact they spent much more time doing this than they ever did reading things that did make sense to them - and so they did not internalize a meaningful subjective sense of what it feels like to actually read things.

One of the big problems I have primarily in Calculus 1 (which is the lowest-level course I've taught) is that students just don't expect math to make sense. There's a bunch of rules to follow, which you have to memorize, and then you look at an expression and use some rule that seems like you could use it.

But that's not how competent mathematicians (and I use that word in the broadest possible sense) interact with mathematics. Mathematical formulas mean things. They have syntax, and semantics, and you can break apart a computation and talk about what individual terms mean and are doing, and what manipulation you're doing and what that corresponds to.

(Sometimes, of course, that's easier than others. Calc 2, in particular, involves a lot of "tricks" where it's hard to explain the logic in the middle of using them. But that's why I'm focusing on Calc 1 here, which is mostly not like that but does have a lot of application-y problems where this semantic understanding is important.)

But if you've never worked through a math problem and felt like everything was meaningful, you don't expect meaning in what you're doing, and you don't expect your own work to make sense. And then, well, it won't, and you'll struggle and get lost in the middle of every problem.

441 notes View Post

roebert

1 week ago