This infographic came across my feed today and I started reading from "Democratic Socialist" and by the time of the third point, I was thinking, "Are they trying to tell me this is FDR?" They were and when I looked at the photo I noticed two things. I did notice the face, but mostly I saw the fashion. That's 1930s fashion. We know what FDR looked like in the thirties, as that's when he was first elected to the presidency. There's no way, just based on the fashion, that this person is who the infographic claims it to be. I say I mostly judged by the fashion, because if I didn't know fashion, one might think, "Well, I don't really know what FDR looked like younger, so I guess this is him." I don't know what FDR looked like younger, but I'm thinking he'd look like a younger version of the photos that were always circulated around during his presidency. A more narrow face through the middle and slightly bent. An online search gives us just that. I younger photo of FDR with his narrow face through the middle that's bent at a slight angle (as in by the middle of his face, everything seems to lean towards the left of the photo, or the right side of his face).
The first photo is of a man whose face does not make a slight V and whose nose is certainly not narrow. But just looking at the fashion of this photo here, that high collar is a dead giveaway to fashion from the early 1900s - 1910's, as in 1909 - 1915?, which would be when FDR was a young man. The initial photo above, after searching, is of his son, FDR Jr., who would have been in his twenties in the 1930s. And there you have it. The point of this post really is the fashion. For some reason I've always had this natural ability with fashion; historical fashion, I should say. I remember being three and four watching something on the telly and saying, "This is the 1800s" or "this is the 1700s". My parents would ask me why I thought that, "because of the clothes." Later in my childhood when I had more words I would give a general area (the early or late part of a century) and still later by the time I was about 8, I could give you a decade. I remember watching those same films at a later age, in my teens, and thinking how right I was. Because by this time I actually had started researching and learning about fashion. And it was blowing my mind to actually know that I was correct. Oh, as a child I knew with certainty that I was correct, I wasn't merely just guessing or trying to impress my parents, I really believed what I was saying. But knowing and believing as a small child isn't always correct. I could believe or know that the moon is made of cheese at that age, but that doesn't make it so once I research it at a later age. From my earlier years to about eleven, I didn't read books or have people tell me about historical fashion. I've no doubt that somewhere in my grammar school education there was a lady dressed in some form of eighteenth century dress, but it was always in reference to the entirety of the century we'd be learning about. By that time I already just knew which decade or span of time her dress hailed from. I don't know why I've just always sort of instinctively known this. Is there a reason for knowing this? I've not met anyone else who knows this and sometimes I remember my parents slightly arguing with me because they thought that the film was set say in the late 1800s when it was the early 1800s (so 1870s for them and I'm saying 1830s) and they felt they should know better than me, or what could a five year old possibly know compared to a thirty five year old. And you know what? That film was set in the 1830s. I still research just to know specific details, but I always know how to search for things when I'm rendering an illustration of historical fashion. It may be 1829, but I know that the dress I'm looking for is somewhere in the Romantique era which spans the mid-late 1820's until the early-mid 1840s. It's the coal shuttle hats and the quirky feminine hair styles of half folded pony tails stuck up in the air in some elaborate updo with low slung necklines and low poofy sleeves with a full skirt that's slightly short. It's set squarely in the middle of the Empirical/Jane Austin time period of Grecian dresses with high waists and slim skirts, and the more volumonous skirts and less quirky up do's of the early Victorian era. Knowing also that she reigned so long as to have three styles of fashion fall under her; which are subdivided into early, middle, and late Victorian, where as the Prince Regent only ruled in his ailing fathers stead for a small portion of time and it is he who brought back the classical era with an early 1800s twist that you love in all of your Jane Austin films. Obviously I've had to learn all of that, but I did know decades and I knew about when fashion changed from an early age without anyone teaching me. Which is still weird for me to wrap my head around. Is it past lives? Because why would I know these things? What is it good for in this life? Simply debunking infographics like the one I opened this post with? As some sort of party trick to accurately guess the time period of the film, when no one else can? So that I am drawn to do illustrations of this nature and not have to search years for what I know I'm looking for? I have no idea. Does it fall into the category of a stupid human trick? Again, who knows. But it's an oddity with me, and today it made me think on it, so you get a post about it. We you, also really good with historical fashion at a young age? Perhaps you just had some other innate talent or skill and you don't know how you know it? Go ahead and share what it is!
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorA girl from South Mississippi who finds herself in exploration. Archives
November 2019
Categories |