Modes and manners, the eternal work of undermining
Burkini?The 2016 summer scandal.Like the bikini, which was also deprived of beaches by decree ago seventy years ago.The Baggys?They are prohibited in several American cities because, not happy to be a tribute pants to prisoners who carry one -waisted Frocs in prison without a belt, they reveal boxers or underpants.Lacerated jeans (or t-shirts) are hardly better tolerated.As for the hoodies (hooded sweatshirts), which came close to the ban in public space in Oklahoma in early 2015, they are doing "bad gender" ... that stories for cloths, too long or too short,too large or too molded, too naked or too hidden.
Only here, the cloth is a garment, and the garment is a code.And who says code, says rules of decency.Not to mention this damn "know-how" that we still have to respect today, under penalty of attracting "you are badly attributed", "you are dressed as the spike"And others "you look like a mop".
User, this confiscation of clothing Freedom.Recent?The case has lasted for ages.And that is what shows and brilliantly dismantles the expo "detecting required!"When the clothing is scandalous ”, at the Museum of Decorative Arts in Paris (1).As a opening, a painting by Cranach the former representative Adam and Eve.Why they?"Adam and Eve, who lived naked and happy in earthly paradise, received a garment to hide their nudity when they were excluded," explains the historian and curator of the Expo Bruna.Consequently, "in Judeo-Christian culture, the garment is intimately linked to the original fault".It is the very symbol of the fall of humanity.Thus were castigated for centuries (by the Fathers of the Church, the moralists, the chroniclers) "the extravagance clothing, seen as sins of pride, impudicity and superfluity".Is any resemblance to our time excluded?Of course not.Demonstration, by drawing among the approximately 300 pieces, From the Middle Ages to today, including the famous Cécile Duflot flower dress which had some reactive deputies whistled in 2012, or the Mao collar jacket (signed Thierry Mugler) excluding the portof the tie which earned in 1985 to Jack Lang Moult Sarcasmes in the National Assembly.
Lacerous is sin ...
The parades with torn apart, here jeans in New York in 2016, are "close to scenes of" decadence "and" morbid madness "," explains César Imbert, fashion historian.Photo Jason Rowe
On October 21, 2010, Claire Chazal presents her news and made a sacrilege.She slipped into a holey jeans (for design, gets along).It's bronca. Signe d'usure, le déchiré-troué fut longtemps l'attribut principal des pauvres, avant que, au XIIe siècle, l'aristocratie européenne ne s'entiche de «découpures»», qui devinrent «déchirures ornementales»» (ou «crevées»», ou «taillades»») à la fin du XVe siècle.And ?Symbols of waste at a period when the fabrics cost expensive and of a certain moral ruin, as explained in the catalog of the exhibition the historian of the César Imbert fashion (2), they shed the spikes of manymoralists.To the point that in 1633 a royal declaration "defense to carry any cutters" was brought together "."It must be said that these were beautiful tears: craftsmen gave razor shots along the sleeves," says Denis Bruna.The hole then disappears until the emergence of the punk movement and a Johnny Rotten (Sex Pistols) which makes it the sign of poverty of a whole generation in revolt in the face of a lack of future.A peak is reached with the Anarchy in the UK T-shirt by Vivienne Westwood which, in 1976, represents a British flag badly lacéré. La suite ? Lors de leurs premiers défilés parisiens, au début des années 80, Yohji Yamamoto et Rei Kawakubo refont des déchirures des ornements, comme le furent les taillades du XVIe siècle.But, decidedly, the torn has a bad press.In line with biblical and medieval texts, these parades, explains César Imbert, are "brought together with" decadence "and" morbid madness "scenes".
In your sex, you will stay
“A woman will not take a man's clothes, and a man will not take a woman's dress;Because the one who does it is abominable before God.»»It is an understatement to say that this biblical prohibition makes the travesty a highly condemnable sin.Women have particularly paid the price."During the trial of Jeanne d'Arc, the fourth accusation was that of the port of men's clothing," notes Denis Bruna. Depuis ce travestissement de Jeanne jusqu'à la mode unisexe des années 60 (avec les revendications d'égalité des sexes), les femmes se sont, malgré l'opprobre, fait un malin plaisir d'emprunter des pièces à la garde-robe des hommes : chapeau, veste, pantalon… Aristocrates anglaises du XVIIIe, garçonnes et autres figures des années 20 (ne pas louper le somptueux smoking de Marlene Dietrich dans Cœurs brûlés), puis Coco Chanel furent loin de bouder le masculin.Finished, the transgression that has long been associated with it?Not so fast.It was not until a 2013 decree repealing a law of 1800 that women were officially authorized to wear the pants in all circumstances."We were aFraid that, through the pants, women take power," tackles Denis Bruna.Note in passing that it was not until 1972 that women could enter the hemicycle in pants.That year, Michèle Alliot-Marie, then adviser to the Minister of Social Affairs Edgar Faure, was refused entry.She would then have pronounced this famous sentence: "If my pants bother you, I remove it as soon as possible.»»
Especially no excess
In the rules of decorum and Christian civility, published in 1702 by the ecclesiastical Jean-Baptiste de la Salle, we learn "that nothing is more uncomfortable than a garment that is not suitable for the size of the personwho wears it;It disfigures a whole man, especially when he is too large ”».Like the Baggys?Perfectly.New ?Any too wide clothing has always been deemed suspicious because they are hiding and hampering.This was the case of the Hauts-de-Chaussies, these puffy pants hiding the body of the knee belt, prized by the English aristocracy between 1560 and 1620;The case also of the Oxford Bags, these pants whose bottom of the legs could reach 60 cm of circumference wooded by Oxford students in the 1920s. Enfin, dans la France des années 40, les futes excessivement bouffants des jeunes mordus de jazz, baptisés les zazous, furent vite dans le collimateur de Vichy et de son «comité d'organisation du vêtement»» qui bannit les vestons longs et les pantalons larges.
Please not hide
"Put your hood (or your hood).»»Uh, really?The hood, according to Denis Bruna, has still not come out of six centuries of prejudice.As early as 1399, a Charles VI prescription prohibited the wearing of "false faces"».Either chaperons (these ancient hairstyles wrapping the head and neck to the shoulders) with a cap almost entirely concealing the face ... criminals. Les manteaux aux amples capuches que portèrent les femmes au début du XVIIIe furent aussi dans le collimateur de la (bonne) morale, accusés de ne servir qu'à planquer des larcins, une grossesse et, pire, le visage.The hoodie of today (and, in another register, the veil) is not better off.In February 2012, in Sanford in Florida, Trayvon Martin, a 17 -year -old black American, was shot dead by George Zimmerman, in charge of neighborhood surveillance.The latter said he saw a black man, head covered by his hoodie, seeming suspect.Comment From the presenter of the Fox News channel a few days later: “The Hoodie is as much responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin as George Zimmerman.»»No comment.
(1) Until April 23, www.Les ArtsDecoratives.Fr.
(2) Correct outfit required, when the garment causes scandal, 216 pp., 49 €.
