Style Theoretics

I picked up this odd little book called 'Style in Costume' by the famous costume historian James Laver, written in 1949.  He proposes a very loose proposition (as opposed to theory and firm argument) about the parallells between fashion and environment.  i.e. Styles of architecture, interior and furniture are reflected in the fashion of the times.  There may well be truth in his very shaky proposal  However, how would such a theory work in this day and age since we don't seem to have defined a particular shape of our era.  A multitude of architecture and furniture styles equals a multitude of styles of dressing perhaps? 

Lady of 1780 and Plumed Bed in the style of Louis XVI. 

Lady of 1895 and Ruffled Fan Lamp

Lady of 1902 and Art Nouveau Fireplace

Lady of 1928 and Skyscraper (I think it's the Empire State Building but the book just calls it 'Modern Skyscraper')

Another piece of Laver wisdom is this curious table of Laver's Law, dictating the decorum of an era of dress.

Laver's Law
Indecent	10 years before its time
Shameless	5 years before its time
Daring	1 year before its time
Smart	----------
Dowdy	1 year after its time
Hideous	10 years after its time
Ridiculous	20 years after its time
Amusing	30 years after its time
Quaint	50 years after its time
Charming	70 years after its time
Romantic	100 years after its time
Beautiful	150 years after its time

So for example, me wearing a thirties gown is charming or I could look beautiful in a mid 19th century crinoline puff dress (I personally highly doubt this).  A nineties shell suit is hideous. An Alaia body-conscious piece is ridiculous even though i'm strangely attracted to this aesthetic at the moment.  Sixties/seventies aka the most referenced decades of them all are classified as amusing which I suppose is true when I see people rocking these decades very literally. 

It's always good to take some fashion brain food but me thinks Laver may have been a little too astute in his propositions.      

Comments

[Ambika B]

The book sounds fascinating, if only to get another angle on costume and interior design. I'll be adding this to my wishlist.

[Sasha]

I guess his observations were accurate at the time... time shifts truth. The idea of a universal truth is superficial, according to most modern philosophers. (Sorry - I've been reading/writing about philosophy for the past 4 hours...) The whole process of clothing maufacturing is so fast now that trends resurface much more quickly. Hence, the resurgence of 90s sexy silhouettes.

And yes, that is most definitely the Empire State building. Maybe he should have chosen a more anonymous "skyscraper"...

[Juliet]

How coincedental, Laver's Law was in my fashion theory lecture last week! But the lecturer was saying, it still kind of applies nowdays but in a more condensed version, ie, the 1990's are amusing now instead of the 1970's.

[Meg]

His comments are architecture v. fashion are most certainly true, at least a on superficial level. I think sort of beginning of minimalism is a more recent comparison. thanks for that susie

[Ruth singer]

I have the same book! its hilarious isn't it?

[lotusgreen]

how fascinating! and those illustrations are priceless!! thanks!

[Ulla]

Oh this is wonderful!!! I love the chart, and those photos... wish I could wear a bed so well...

that chart is too funny. i didn't know i was so "amusing".....:)

[sprigged]

Thank you for these great scans...his theories were more correct at one time, I think....costume did reflect interior design and archtecture in the past, and say, in 1900 the time scale was more accurate, if not a overly confining.

[Blue Floppy Hat]

James Laver is awesome on the subject of design; I have one of his books on costume through the ages, which belonged to my Dad and which I used to keep referring to when I read Anne of Green Gables, to get an idea of what Anne's clothes looked like. Beautifully researched, too.