The Hem

Hello Readers, new and old alike. Call this my official return to blogging and expect a little more cohesive inspired post from me. Ahem, now... on with it.

There has been a new occurrence in my life that has forced more attention to the bigger world and its trends. I bought a pair of J.Crew Chino Shorts that tested the sensibility of those around me, as with the other "Sartorial Shoves" I provide for those who know me. These 9" length shorts hit above the knee and inspired people to ask me questions like: "Ya, shorts are supposed to be over the knee right?" This, I suppose, is a land locked response to this but got me thinking about hemlines in general.

In this, I question the tastes of the pantaloon lengths. Which of all of them suggest things about the wearer. This depression era topic is an interesting topic that can sometimes be dismissed as a matter of sexuality in our days. This becomes a facetious topic considering the rise and plateau of skinny jeans. However, recalling the likes of 1980s hemlines I want to explore this topic further.

Breeches, or Britches, were popular during the Roman times as they gained their name from Romans themselves. Rather indulgent in togas, the Romans labeled Germanic societies braccati in the spirit of distinction, deeming some Germany groups that name. The popularity of pants descended through time for men in firm solidarity in the 16th century. The earliest edition of "Who's Line Is It Anyway,"Commedia dell'arte showed in Rome around this time and a clever character by the name of Pantalones started a lasting trend: Pants. His wealthy character was among the wealthier likes and possibly set the stage for the French to establish this trend in the wealthier sectors. They distinguished themselves by identifying the poor as sansculottes (sans, without. culotte, pants) . During these times pants, more specifically the Breeches meant that you belonged to higher economic class. This is an interesting take on the way your clothes make social and economic distinctions. [thanks wikipedia]

Back to the cohesion and today, where I find that style choices have begun to take on different meanings and identities. I don't know quite how to put my finger on it, but dressing currently has become less of a linear concept and more of a mash-up of past and present. I like that it is more about trying to redefine and perpetuate change, though.

Details caught wind of the rise of hipsters, the variety that really have money, and identified their spending habits and their own special name: the "poorgeoisie." Think Stefano Pilati's YSL or Kate Moss, any given sunday. This presents a great exaggerated example of how a group of people can dress in opposing terms to where they are expected to dress. Something that you can't really say is happening in the wider spectrum, but more and more people seem to be taking on less of a cohesive overall look.

On the runway, you can't really say you can put your finger on a definitive look this millennium. Keane Etro still uses prints like the 70s never ended, Miuccia Prada identifies a specific Prada man to design for, and the general disregard for trend is spreading. If I would say anything about this I would say it is the newer way of dressing in the new millennium. This mash-up formation of identity is something that I will hope bring us all to a different place.