51–60 of 156 posts
Bright colors used to be a sign of quality, everything expensive had tons of colors. Industrial revolution changed that, now bright colors are associated with cheap toys instead because they are used to cover deficiencies in the production process. So it makes sense that people who care about quality moved away from colorful things.
I wonder how much of it had to do with the rise in pollution due to coal dust and soot?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are we though? I sure as heck can't afford to pay a staff of servants.
Most people couldn't afford to pay a staff of servants. ... But you can stay at a Holiday Inn tonight.
Also can't be stressed enough how large the servant staff could be. It often has a management hierarcy of sorts.
Bright colors used to be a sign of quality, everything expensive had tons of colors. Industrial revolution changed that, now bright colors are associated with cheap toys instead because they are used to cover deficiencies in the production process. So it makes sense that people who care about quality moved away from colorful things.
This was well before the invention of rip-proof or stain-proof fabrics.
Also the royal courts of Europe started becoming much less active, as the professional bureaucracy started forming which took care of routine decision making.
So the young noble man just back from his travels would have had far less opportunity to show off in formal settings to boot.
So I went to the Wikipedia article, and from there ended up at
> The Men's Dress Reform Party (MDRP) was a reform movement in interwar Britain.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_Dress_Reform_Party
which
> saw [the everyday man's] clothes as "depressing"[2] and lacking in creativity
and which was affiliated with the Sunlight Leage. But:
> Then, in 1940, the Sunlight League also dissipated after a bomb destroyed their offices and the death of its founder, Dr. Saleeby.
Emphasis: "a bomb destroyed their offices". What?
This just raises more questions.
...
Also, I wonder if this has any relation to a story by D. H. Lawrence called Sun. Hm.
Bright colors used to be a sign of quality, everything expensive had tons of colors. Industrial revolution changed that, now bright colors are associated with cheap toys instead because they are used to cover deficiencies in the production process. So it makes sense that people who care about quality moved away from colorful things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A relevant quote about the change of affordability of certain things from the late Agatha Christie looking back at her early years - "I couldn’t imagine being too poor to afford servants, nor so rich as to be able to afford a car." With respect to material culture - so also with respect to what clothing styles and fashions are possible - anybody who can afford a car is far richer than people who had servants a hundre…
Cars were an arguably overvalued novelty at the time. The more fundamental question should be something like, do you need to work to put food on your table. If yes, then you are not wealthy.
For the larger bottles, just four per day would equal the income of a pre-industrial farmhand.
From the links, it's really interesting how the Men's Dress Reform Party seem to be the Great Male Renunciation antithesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_Dress_Reform_Party
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the modern era everyone is rich to their standards.
Are we though? I sure as heck can't afford to pay a staff of servants.
Bright colors used to be a sign of quality, everything expensive had tons of colors. Industrial revolution changed that, now bright colors are associated with cheap toys instead because they are used to cover deficiencies in the production process. So it makes sense that people who care about quality moved away from colorful things.
It could also just be that color attracts attention. With birds, it's often the male that's more colorful. See peafowl.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A relevant quote about the change of affordability of certain things from the late Agatha Christie looking back at her early years - "I couldn’t imagine being too poor to afford servants, nor so rich as to be able to afford a car." With respect to material culture - so also with respect to what clothing styles and fashions are possible - anybody who can afford a car is far richer than people who had servants a hundre…
Cars were an arguably overvalued novelty at the time. The more fundamental question should be something like, do you need to work to put food on your table. If yes, then you are not wealthy.