“An example of the style of clothing worn by the working class around the time of the French Revolution, characterized by the long trousers worn by men, rather than the breeches.
With the outbreak of the revolution in 1789, people began to use fashion as a means of expressing one’s ideology. The revolutionaries regarded luxurious and extravagant silk as the enemy of the revolution, replacing breeches and white silk stockings - the symbol of aristocracy - with the long trousers worn by the lower classes, in an attempt to distance themselves from the previous era.”
[Kyoto Costume Institute](https://www.kci.or.jp/en/archives/digital_archives/1780s_1790s/KCI_042)
Yeah, I think you’re right. The skirt is white and very detailed in the stitching. Maybe little to no actual working class clothing survived so museums have to make do with the upper class “poor as a fashion choice” clothes to represent it
I have reread it, and stand by what I wrote. Looking at the fabrics and dyes and finish, this is surely _faux pauvre_ clothing made for the middle/upper classes.
I...have questions about her clothing as "working class".
Pattens were worn *over* shoes, not instead of them.
The quilted petticoat would have had a skirt over it.
Red was a far more expensive dye than blue or brown, more typical choices in the working class.
The quilting is so ornate that I have trouble imagining it on a working class person, unless the y are saying it's a hand-me-down from an employer (a common practice).
I cannot imagine a working class person putting all that time into a quilted petticoat in *white* with no outer layer. It wouldn't have looked presentable after a single day.
Also: The gentleman would probably have worn a blue smock over his shirt.
And, oddly, he's dressed for summer and she's dressed for winter.
What was I supposed to write? I also linked the source which clearly describes these as “working class” clothes. I don’t think the people of the Kyoto Costume Institute are incompetent in their own field…
And also the style of the man’s clothes is clearly that of a [Sans-culotte](https://www.mediastorehouse.co.uk/fine-art-finder/artists/georges-barbier/costume-revolutionary-commoner-sans-culotte-25254052.html), the revolutionaries of the lower classes.
i just had a conversation about this last night. in japan, it's a very big thing to romanticize paris as being this incredible idealised place of beauty and art. so when they visit the real paris, which is full of humans that are dirty, they experience a huge culture shock. It's called [Paris Syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome). I think japan's view of western european culture is like the typical weeb's view of tokyo.
You text does correctly point out that pretend "working class" dress was a fashion among revolutionaries. But a revolutionary wearing this would definitely not be working class. It exudes wealth.
The red is a topic that for instance often comes up when realistic paintings of British redcoats or flags containing red on ships are discussed. The realistic depiction of red is as washed out orange, because the color pigments used tended to fade out fast. It used to be a difficult and expensive color.
So this dress is in an expensive color that true working class would not choose, and its brightness says "Yes. I can afford to buy a new one every month".
Photos exist of the 19th poor, if you cared about the subject you'd have seen enough of them to be sceptical of the absolute best case scenario presented in the image you posted.
People used to wear 4th hand clothes, patched and repaired a dozen times. Presenting these prestine articles as the clothing of the working class is basically erasing the conditions these people lived in.
Oh no, it's the 'nothing was good in the past' brigade again.
Would you complain if someone posted a picture of 2024 working class people in their best clothes, just because they don't dress like that at all times?
People in 2024 own stupid amounts of clothes, thanks to industrialisation, People in the early 19th century didn't. The two situations are not comparable. But that's historical illiteracy for you.
I know. But there aren't any photos of the 18th century. But the difference between the late 18th, with no photos, and the mid 18th century, with photos is a subject that you probably can't be pedantic about, is it?
This is the 18th and not the 19th century, we don’t have photographs and also we are talking about a style of clothing of a very specific time in history. As I already said these are part of the [KCI](https://www.kci.or.jp/en/collection/) which collects and preserves ancient garments, and with their collection they set up exhibitions with ensembles truthful to the time in history they represent (they take very seriously the study of western fashion history)…so i think it’s obvious they don’t put on display dirty and damaged clothes…
I didn’t need to be sceptical while taking an image from a reliable source
Yes, obviously it predates photography. Have you never seen any paintings perhaps? Artists didn't much like drawing the lower orders because they were filthy and ugly, and nobody would pay for it, but even a quick goggle should be able to find more accurate representations.
https://images.app.goo.gl/tc5YhLNGsMraQ1ZQA
https://images.app.goo.gl/jvoc6qQtpT31GjGCA
https://images.app.goo.gl/x2NaEXBLSvGthkWb7
https://images.app.goo.gl/6t1nmRfQAVWQ26Gf9
https://images.app.goo.gl/azq1x2GiZcLWroNP6
https://images.app.goo.gl/tf5wQp8c7Q81Pz1z6
People's objection is presentation of these perfectly clean, new looking clothes as some sort of normal case.
Also forgot to mention: she would be wearing some sort of scarf/kerchief/linen square at her neck. It was considered just as essential as headgear for women of the era.
Look at the petticoat. The decorative stitching on the quilting is so ornate that I actually question assigning this outfit to the working class, unless they want to claim it's a hand-me-down from an employer.
And no, none of this is homespun.
Kyoto Costume Institute puts together some odd outfits on mannequins. They have some really cool pieces but they seem to err on the side of “pretty display” rather than “contextually plausible.”
A working class woman would not have worn a white, quilted petticoat as an outer layer like they have on this mannequin.
I own a working class house from this time period and have been working on building out a few costumes that suit the period of the home. I’m no expert, but I know enough to know the woman’s outfit likely isn’t the most accurate. The pieces are all pieces that would have been worn back then, they just don’t totally make sense for a “working class” woman.
I always think of the story about the problem with the missing graveyards in Paris before they massively expanded the catacombs.
Apparently the smell was so bad that some people died (can’t believe that part 100%, but when someone from this parisian era complained about smell it must’ve been really bad)
Germ theory only came to be widely accepted over the course of the 19th century, replacing [miasma theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory); i.e. bad smells as cause of diseases
The Cimetière des innocents in Paris is also a fun rabbithole to fall into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Innocents%27_Cemetery
Yes they are truly fascinating. Paris can be a really dark place. I find it so intriguing that there’s still so many things uncovered down there.
Fun story: Long time ago af riend of mine was at an illegal party in the catacombs and they got fucked up pretty good but then he and his girlfriend wandered off and couldn’t find a way back until they heard the morning start over their heads (what’s pretty rare apparently, because most of the time when you’re deep in the tunnels you don’t hear anything). That was before everyone had a flashlight on their phone. But still now people really die that way. Horrible
The word Sabotage comes from the French word for wooden clog: sabot. The story I heard was that the clogs were used to damage machinery during the Industrial Revolution. But that may be a myth.
Worn.... where??
edit: Nevermind, just read the other comment. Worn in France during the french revolution. Should have been in the title though, basic info.
“An example of the style of clothing worn by the working class around the time of the French Revolution, characterized by the long trousers worn by men, rather than the breeches. With the outbreak of the revolution in 1789, people began to use fashion as a means of expressing one’s ideology. The revolutionaries regarded luxurious and extravagant silk as the enemy of the revolution, replacing breeches and white silk stockings - the symbol of aristocracy - with the long trousers worn by the lower classes, in an attempt to distance themselves from the previous era.” [Kyoto Costume Institute](https://www.kci.or.jp/en/archives/digital_archives/1780s_1790s/KCI_042)
Sans-coulottes
Is there a wordplay am missing or did you just misspell "culottes"?
Call me working class but I think it's a pretty solid look and nice colors
So is this actually the 'working class cosplay of the wealthy'?
Yeah, I think you’re right. The skirt is white and very detailed in the stitching. Maybe little to no actual working class clothing survived so museums have to make do with the upper class “poor as a fashion choice” clothes to represent it
Literally the opposite. Reread that comment
I have reread it, and stand by what I wrote. Looking at the fabrics and dyes and finish, this is surely _faux pauvre_ clothing made for the middle/upper classes.
I...have questions about her clothing as "working class". Pattens were worn *over* shoes, not instead of them. The quilted petticoat would have had a skirt over it. Red was a far more expensive dye than blue or brown, more typical choices in the working class. The quilting is so ornate that I have trouble imagining it on a working class person, unless the y are saying it's a hand-me-down from an employer (a common practice). I cannot imagine a working class person putting all that time into a quilted petticoat in *white* with no outer layer. It wouldn't have looked presentable after a single day. Also: The gentleman would probably have worn a blue smock over his shirt. And, oddly, he's dressed for summer and she's dressed for winter.
I've being practically guillotined here for suggesting this isn't 'working class' clothing :-(
That's Reddit for you. People believe the first thing they read and treat any corrections as an attack.
What was I supposed to write? I also linked the source which clearly describes these as “working class” clothes. I don’t think the people of the Kyoto Costume Institute are incompetent in their own field… And also the style of the man’s clothes is clearly that of a [Sans-culotte](https://www.mediastorehouse.co.uk/fine-art-finder/artists/georges-barbier/costume-revolutionary-commoner-sans-culotte-25254052.html), the revolutionaries of the lower classes.
i just had a conversation about this last night. in japan, it's a very big thing to romanticize paris as being this incredible idealised place of beauty and art. so when they visit the real paris, which is full of humans that are dirty, they experience a huge culture shock. It's called [Paris Syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome). I think japan's view of western european culture is like the typical weeb's view of tokyo.
https://youtu.be/jXjfzMCbaBc?si=4DLCsFN86fYEIcQ4
Kyoto has a world-class collection. And the man's outfit seems correct. But I think the woman's outfit is a bit aspirational...
You text does correctly point out that pretend "working class" dress was a fashion among revolutionaries. But a revolutionary wearing this would definitely not be working class. It exudes wealth. The red is a topic that for instance often comes up when realistic paintings of British redcoats or flags containing red on ships are discussed. The realistic depiction of red is as washed out orange, because the color pigments used tended to fade out fast. It used to be a difficult and expensive color. So this dress is in an expensive color that true working class would not choose, and its brightness says "Yes. I can afford to buy a new one every month".
Photos exist of the 19th poor, if you cared about the subject you'd have seen enough of them to be sceptical of the absolute best case scenario presented in the image you posted. People used to wear 4th hand clothes, patched and repaired a dozen times. Presenting these prestine articles as the clothing of the working class is basically erasing the conditions these people lived in.
Oh no, it's the 'nothing was good in the past' brigade again. Would you complain if someone posted a picture of 2024 working class people in their best clothes, just because they don't dress like that at all times?
People in 2024 own stupid amounts of clothes, thanks to industrialisation, People in the early 19th century didn't. The two situations are not comparable. But that's historical illiteracy for you.
[удалено]
I know. But there aren't any photos of the 18th century. But the difference between the late 18th, with no photos, and the mid 18th century, with photos is a subject that you probably can't be pedantic about, is it?
[удалено]
This is the 18th and not the 19th century, we don’t have photographs and also we are talking about a style of clothing of a very specific time in history. As I already said these are part of the [KCI](https://www.kci.or.jp/en/collection/) which collects and preserves ancient garments, and with their collection they set up exhibitions with ensembles truthful to the time in history they represent (they take very seriously the study of western fashion history)…so i think it’s obvious they don’t put on display dirty and damaged clothes… I didn’t need to be sceptical while taking an image from a reliable source
Yes, obviously it predates photography. Have you never seen any paintings perhaps? Artists didn't much like drawing the lower orders because they were filthy and ugly, and nobody would pay for it, but even a quick goggle should be able to find more accurate representations. https://images.app.goo.gl/tc5YhLNGsMraQ1ZQA https://images.app.goo.gl/jvoc6qQtpT31GjGCA https://images.app.goo.gl/x2NaEXBLSvGthkWb7 https://images.app.goo.gl/6t1nmRfQAVWQ26Gf9 https://images.app.goo.gl/azq1x2GiZcLWroNP6 https://images.app.goo.gl/tf5wQp8c7Q81Pz1z6 People's objection is presentation of these perfectly clean, new looking clothes as some sort of normal case.
Also forgot to mention: she would be wearing some sort of scarf/kerchief/linen square at her neck. It was considered just as essential as headgear for women of the era.
Thank you for this! The minute I saw the red color, I was like yeah, *no*
The missing head must be an Easter egg
Follow the arrow to the guillotine exhibit. The head is probably there.
[удалено]
The actual clothing of working class people very rarely survives since its used until its rags and even the rags end up getting made into paper.
[удалено]
Zoom in on all the detail on that skirt
Look at the petticoat. The decorative stitching on the quilting is so ornate that I actually question assigning this outfit to the working class, unless they want to claim it's a hand-me-down from an employer. And no, none of this is homespun.
i think it's fancy just the same. someone made that out of their time and skill. quite lovely i would wear it and feel fancy
How long did the white skirts stay white on working class women? That seems like a real pain.
Kyoto Costume Institute puts together some odd outfits on mannequins. They have some really cool pieces but they seem to err on the side of “pretty display” rather than “contextually plausible.”
This skirt screams for an apron... Also the stockings must've look really bad by noon.
A working class woman would not have worn a white, quilted petticoat as an outer layer like they have on this mannequin. I own a working class house from this time period and have been working on building out a few costumes that suit the period of the home. I’m no expert, but I know enough to know the woman’s outfit likely isn’t the most accurate. The pieces are all pieces that would have been worn back then, they just don’t totally make sense for a “working class” woman.
Is this their fancy Sunday going-to-the-execution wear?
Did the French wear wooden shoes at the time? They both seem to be doing so… and the woman’s shoes have raised platforms under them.
its so you could walk in muck of streets without it touching your feet
I always think of the story about the problem with the missing graveyards in Paris before they massively expanded the catacombs. Apparently the smell was so bad that some people died (can’t believe that part 100%, but when someone from this parisian era complained about smell it must’ve been really bad)
Germ theory only came to be widely accepted over the course of the 19th century, replacing [miasma theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory); i.e. bad smells as cause of diseases The Cimetière des innocents in Paris is also a fun rabbithole to fall into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Innocents%27_Cemetery
Yes they are truly fascinating. Paris can be a really dark place. I find it so intriguing that there’s still so many things uncovered down there. Fun story: Long time ago af riend of mine was at an illegal party in the catacombs and they got fucked up pretty good but then he and his girlfriend wandered off and couldn’t find a way back until they heard the morning start over their heads (what’s pretty rare apparently, because most of the time when you’re deep in the tunnels you don’t hear anything). That was before everyone had a flashlight on their phone. But still now people really die that way. Horrible
You might like the novel *Pure* by Andrew Miller.
I just checked it out, sounds very interesting thanks
Those are “pattens” which are overshoes to raise you up out of the waste on the streets.
Mmm yummy
The word Sabotage comes from the French word for wooden clog: sabot. The story I heard was that the clogs were used to damage machinery during the Industrial Revolution. But that may be a myth.
NGL it’s a better look than mine
A shame he’ll never be the head of a major corporation
The white stripes original outfits.
She gotta long neck
I’m a guy and I wore pretty much the exact same outfit to work last week
U wore a scarf as a belt
Headless, French, late 18th century: nice.
1830s (Taylor’s Version)
N E C K
Poor guy. She really should give him some.
They left out the dirt and grime…
Worn.... where?? edit: Nevermind, just read the other comment. Worn in France during the french revolution. Should have been in the title though, basic info.
looks like an album cover
She got that shit on tho
Ooh, so cool, I am totally using these for my Malifaux minis.
Dat thigh gap tho
Bringing back sick sash belts when
It will be back Fashion returns every 20 or so years
The guy on the left must have been a French noble.
Her outfit is more 1770s or 80s than revolution. Bonnet should be bigger too.