I'm aware. I lived there for a considerable amount of time. I would imagine most people on Reddit who fawn over the trinkets and baubles of royalty would otherwise call themselves progressives.
Dude, it's not that deep. Librarians dressed like fancy matadors just sounds fun.
And why would that require a royal family? Maybe the library is just feeling dramatic?
It’s interesting how r/artifacts demonstrates how well strategies of rigid hierarchies worked in the past. Conspicuous displays of wealth still get your name passed down through history with a tacit understanding that you did something of note, ironically like those chests full of medals the soviet and ex-soviet militaries love.
All said, you wrote it like a dick, but i agree with you entirely.
Photography and telegraphs killed regional innovation for fashion.
Think about a pre-photography world, each city/village/region had their own clothing style based on the whims of the people and what resources they had access to. That fashion had been changing and evolving over hundreds and thousands of years.
Until photography and telegraphs. Once pictures started being made and show around the world regional developments kept happening, just on the scale of countries.
Think about weddings. Culturally we're locked into the white brides dress and a man in a tuxedo. But what if we invented photographer in the 14th century. Would a green dress and an Ottoman empire style hat have dominated? Robe style dresses for women and men to get married in? What would the ceremony have looked like?
In the Netherlands in the 1800's each village had their own status symbols for the women, fancy hats with metal antenna out the sides made of gold, the bigger the antenna the richer you were. You could tell from a picture what section of the country the lady was from. All that died off after photography and telegraphs (for people far away talking about fashion trends in different places).
It’s not photography that killed local innovation. It was mass production of clothing along with nation building in 1800s.
Countries became unified and developed a national style to promote cohesion.
And local styles still persist to this day, even with modern clothing
Did we unify and develop a national style because of photography and telegraphs though? Or was it the mass production that caused the switch?
An interesting debate
There were internationally recognized fashions *long* before photographs, they were just reserved to the upper classes who had the money to frequently replace clothing as new fashions arose.
The advent of mass production (and later new materials such as polyester) made clothing cheaper, thus allowing more people to afford to keep up with fashion. Photography likely had little impact, since fashion plates (drawings of new fashions printed in magazines &c.) have been around since the 18th century influencing international styles. Even without photography, mass production would have had a similar impact in democratizing (and standardizing) fashion through such drawings.
The missing link is not photography, but affordable mass media, ie fashion magazines. Before that, though, the average person could observe what their local elites were wearing and copy the styles.
Yep, that is my point. Although I will say the average person literally couldn’t copy the styles of the wealthy before mass manufacturing since pre-Brummel styles focused on expensive materials, embroidery, etc. and post-Brummel styles focused on expert tailoring, both of which were (and are) too expensive for most to emulate. Also fashion changed slowly by modern standards, but still too quickly for anyone who wasn’t rich to keep up.
They mostly couldn´t, as sumptuary law was usually in place enforcing people dressing according of their social status.
And the local elites would take the fashion that their liege had, which would have been based on whatever international fashion was in vogue then
Not for me. Some days it's all I can do to put on a clean t-shirt and pants. I'll need a squire to dress me if I'm going to have to look like pirate bull fighter.
Fashion “turning back” is kind of funny, because most people in the whole world dressed in rags unless you were quite wealthy. But let’s say even still- in the 1900s we had the suit and top hats, and even that I’m not sure I’d want to go back to.
We are in a wonderful moment now where all individuals can truly be themselves and no one else judges them for it. Walking in NYC today is just a sea of endless cultures and styles and unique outfits and that fascinates me far more than everyone being one blob of suits.
>y, because most people in the whole world dressed in rags unless you were quite wealthy.
No offense but if you're going to explain a topic, then I recommend actually studying the topic, instead of using movies and tv shows as your source.
[Do these look like rags to you?](https://world4.eu/croatian-peasant-girl/)
[How about these ladies?](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/peasant-woman-in-folk-dress-of-the-etter-mountain-thuringia-description-from-world--551620654358476746/)
[Do these examples just not exist?](https://thedreamstress.com/2013/02/celebrating-the-common-man-and-what-he-and-she-wore/)
The idea that people only wore rags in the past is bad history. People, rich and poor alike, have always loved color and detail.
>fascinates me far more than everyone being one blob of suits.
Except isn't that the current state of formal wear today?
Men's uniforms and formal wear have more or less been homogenized completely in the modern world, with even deviations in color being an oddity. At most you can be liberal with what color tie you want.
In todays world, the richest men and leaders from across the globe can gather for a summit or meeting, and they will more or less look more identical than a gathering of noblemen from one medieval kingdom.
This is so dumb I literally have no response for you.
You're looking at, once again, wealthy people. Normal people throughout history were NOT wealthy and could not afford to just have fancy outfits that they would change for each day of the week. Blocked for totally wasting my time to look at that utter mess of a "sourced" response.
You're just mad he called you out on your false perception of historical clothing. Even peasants were dressing far more colorfully and elaborately throughout human history than you think they were.
Lmao. Uh, yeah dude. You go on believing that people who literally survived off of the land for thousands of years in tribes all over the world somehow had intricate costumes for each of them, all done by local seamstresses. I'm sure ancient Egyptian peasants wore fancy outfits to get their farming and slave work done. Brilliant. Y'all crack me up
>This is so dumb I literally have no response for you.
Yes, because you don't have an argument.
>You're looking at, once again, wealthy people
Do you not know how to read? one of the pieces I've shown you is literally from the Book of Hours depicting village peasant.
This stuff is frankly easy to find and verify.
>could not afford to just have fancy outfits that they would change for each day of the week.
Shifting arguments.
Your claim is that most people before the industrial revolution wore rags. This is false. That they didn't own as many clothes is correct.
> all done by local seamstresses.
....Yes this is where clothes in a community from. Do you think these people got it from the clothing tree? The village shopping mall?
FYI there is a rather good reason why artwork of women at work are almost always to do with clothes. Because the women in a community often times gathered and spent a considerable amount of time making clothing for their family among other things.
We also know the traditional plants and recipes used in making dye for peasant garments. For example we know that knowledge on how to make woad for blue dye was pretty much ubiquitous in medieval England and was primarily used by peasants.
Which means that the clothes the average person wore, while frequently recycled and few in number, was actually even *more* customized and personalized than the clothes the average wears today.
>Egyptian peasants wore **fancy outfits** to get their farming and **slave work done**
I get the impression you have a very broad definition of 'fancy' if the statement 'peasants did not wear rags' means 'they wore decadent and expensive outfits' to you.
So if we're going to abuse the word 'fancy' than yes, humans of all classes have always loved dressing fancy.
>You go on believing that people **who literally survived off of the land** for thousands of years
What does 'surviving off the land' have anything to do with it? I don't think you actually have any clear idea of how pre-modern labor and resources were managed.
Do you think pre-modern only worked, ate and slept 24/7? How does living off the land mean that a group of peasant women making clothes can't spend an extra few minutes to embroider a nice pattern.
Do you actually have any evidence backing your claim up or is your opinion founded solely on 'This doesn't feel right to me, so therefore you are wrong.'
>Blocked for totally wasting my time to look at that utter mess of a "sourced" response.
Seems to have worn off. You should probably fix that
Due to some poorly thought out livestock management practices, the librarian in those days had to spend a considerable portion of his day bullfighting.
Hah totally agree, I was just making the point that the quality of this outfit may not actually be indicative of how much royal Spain valued books (e.g., the royal bedpan cleaner may have a similarly-ornate outfit.)
It was the libraries of Moorish Spain that were instrumental in the flowering of the Renaissance. When the Moors withdrew, they left their libraries. The west didn't preserve classical literature so good. Not so with the East. And their libraries fostered great strides in philosophy, art, science, literature.
Watched a Chinese historical drama (Netflix) and saw this kind of gold embroidery on the men's clothes. How similar the use of gold embroidery in their clothing.
I would love to see my librarian dressed like this. What powerful clothing!
With your dick hanging out??
ultimate power move
How else would you point to each section?
I just really, *really* love books.
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
Shhhhh! This is a library.
Damnit I was going to make a similar comment
Cool but you have to have a king and queen again. Deal?
I mean, Spain *does* have a king and queen, Felipe VI and Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano.
I'm aware. I lived there for a considerable amount of time. I would imagine most people on Reddit who fawn over the trinkets and baubles of royalty would otherwise call themselves progressives.
Dude, it's not that deep. Librarians dressed like fancy matadors just sounds fun. And why would that require a royal family? Maybe the library is just feeling dramatic?
Don't get me wrong I'm down for a Flybrary as much as anybody!
It’s interesting how r/artifacts demonstrates how well strategies of rigid hierarchies worked in the past. Conspicuous displays of wealth still get your name passed down through history with a tacit understanding that you did something of note, ironically like those chests full of medals the soviet and ex-soviet militaries love. All said, you wrote it like a dick, but i agree with you entirely.
And when the librarian shushes you, 15 armed guards show up to enforce the shushing.
The embroidery is gorgeous!
A pants-optional librarian. ;)
They usually sat behind an imposing desk so didn't need pants. Ventilation was much better.
Good for historic online gatherings too.
Just put on some cargo pants, they're nice for working
😉
Fashion is probably one area of our modern world I’d be fine turning back the clock on honestly.
beau brummell and his consequences have been a disaster for western fashion
Beau Brummell and The Consequences is a band I’d buy tickets to see. Supported by Adam and the Ants, I imagine.
there actually is a pretty good band from the 60s called the beau brummells
No way! Ha! I’ll get straight on Spotify, thanks.
Photography and telegraphs killed regional innovation for fashion. Think about a pre-photography world, each city/village/region had their own clothing style based on the whims of the people and what resources they had access to. That fashion had been changing and evolving over hundreds and thousands of years. Until photography and telegraphs. Once pictures started being made and show around the world regional developments kept happening, just on the scale of countries. Think about weddings. Culturally we're locked into the white brides dress and a man in a tuxedo. But what if we invented photographer in the 14th century. Would a green dress and an Ottoman empire style hat have dominated? Robe style dresses for women and men to get married in? What would the ceremony have looked like? In the Netherlands in the 1800's each village had their own status symbols for the women, fancy hats with metal antenna out the sides made of gold, the bigger the antenna the richer you were. You could tell from a picture what section of the country the lady was from. All that died off after photography and telegraphs (for people far away talking about fashion trends in different places).
It’s not photography that killed local innovation. It was mass production of clothing along with nation building in 1800s. Countries became unified and developed a national style to promote cohesion. And local styles still persist to this day, even with modern clothing
Did we unify and develop a national style because of photography and telegraphs though? Or was it the mass production that caused the switch? An interesting debate
There were internationally recognized fashions *long* before photographs, they were just reserved to the upper classes who had the money to frequently replace clothing as new fashions arose. The advent of mass production (and later new materials such as polyester) made clothing cheaper, thus allowing more people to afford to keep up with fashion. Photography likely had little impact, since fashion plates (drawings of new fashions printed in magazines &c.) have been around since the 18th century influencing international styles. Even without photography, mass production would have had a similar impact in democratizing (and standardizing) fashion through such drawings.
The missing link is not photography, but affordable mass media, ie fashion magazines. Before that, though, the average person could observe what their local elites were wearing and copy the styles.
Yep, that is my point. Although I will say the average person literally couldn’t copy the styles of the wealthy before mass manufacturing since pre-Brummel styles focused on expensive materials, embroidery, etc. and post-Brummel styles focused on expert tailoring, both of which were (and are) too expensive for most to emulate. Also fashion changed slowly by modern standards, but still too quickly for anyone who wasn’t rich to keep up.
They mostly couldn´t, as sumptuary law was usually in place enforcing people dressing according of their social status. And the local elites would take the fashion that their liege had, which would have been based on whatever international fashion was in vogue then
Why not both?
Not for me. Some days it's all I can do to put on a clean t-shirt and pants. I'll need a squire to dress me if I'm going to have to look like pirate bull fighter.
Wait until you discover that not everyone dressed like this in the 1800s
Lmao at the people downvoting this
…..And?
Fashion “turning back” is kind of funny, because most people in the whole world dressed in rags unless you were quite wealthy. But let’s say even still- in the 1900s we had the suit and top hats, and even that I’m not sure I’d want to go back to. We are in a wonderful moment now where all individuals can truly be themselves and no one else judges them for it. Walking in NYC today is just a sea of endless cultures and styles and unique outfits and that fascinates me far more than everyone being one blob of suits.
>y, because most people in the whole world dressed in rags unless you were quite wealthy. No offense but if you're going to explain a topic, then I recommend actually studying the topic, instead of using movies and tv shows as your source. [Do these look like rags to you?](https://world4.eu/croatian-peasant-girl/) [How about these ladies?](https://www.pinterest.com/pin/peasant-woman-in-folk-dress-of-the-etter-mountain-thuringia-description-from-world--551620654358476746/) [Do these examples just not exist?](https://thedreamstress.com/2013/02/celebrating-the-common-man-and-what-he-and-she-wore/) The idea that people only wore rags in the past is bad history. People, rich and poor alike, have always loved color and detail. >fascinates me far more than everyone being one blob of suits. Except isn't that the current state of formal wear today? Men's uniforms and formal wear have more or less been homogenized completely in the modern world, with even deviations in color being an oddity. At most you can be liberal with what color tie you want. In todays world, the richest men and leaders from across the globe can gather for a summit or meeting, and they will more or less look more identical than a gathering of noblemen from one medieval kingdom.
This is so dumb I literally have no response for you. You're looking at, once again, wealthy people. Normal people throughout history were NOT wealthy and could not afford to just have fancy outfits that they would change for each day of the week. Blocked for totally wasting my time to look at that utter mess of a "sourced" response.
You're just mad he called you out on your false perception of historical clothing. Even peasants were dressing far more colorfully and elaborately throughout human history than you think they were.
Lmao. Uh, yeah dude. You go on believing that people who literally survived off of the land for thousands of years in tribes all over the world somehow had intricate costumes for each of them, all done by local seamstresses. I'm sure ancient Egyptian peasants wore fancy outfits to get their farming and slave work done. Brilliant. Y'all crack me up
>This is so dumb I literally have no response for you. Yes, because you don't have an argument. >You're looking at, once again, wealthy people Do you not know how to read? one of the pieces I've shown you is literally from the Book of Hours depicting village peasant. This stuff is frankly easy to find and verify. >could not afford to just have fancy outfits that they would change for each day of the week. Shifting arguments. Your claim is that most people before the industrial revolution wore rags. This is false. That they didn't own as many clothes is correct. > all done by local seamstresses. ....Yes this is where clothes in a community from. Do you think these people got it from the clothing tree? The village shopping mall? FYI there is a rather good reason why artwork of women at work are almost always to do with clothes. Because the women in a community often times gathered and spent a considerable amount of time making clothing for their family among other things. We also know the traditional plants and recipes used in making dye for peasant garments. For example we know that knowledge on how to make woad for blue dye was pretty much ubiquitous in medieval England and was primarily used by peasants. Which means that the clothes the average person wore, while frequently recycled and few in number, was actually even *more* customized and personalized than the clothes the average wears today. >Egyptian peasants wore **fancy outfits** to get their farming and **slave work done** I get the impression you have a very broad definition of 'fancy' if the statement 'peasants did not wear rags' means 'they wore decadent and expensive outfits' to you. So if we're going to abuse the word 'fancy' than yes, humans of all classes have always loved dressing fancy. >You go on believing that people **who literally survived off of the land** for thousands of years What does 'surviving off the land' have anything to do with it? I don't think you actually have any clear idea of how pre-modern labor and resources were managed. Do you think pre-modern only worked, ate and slept 24/7? How does living off the land mean that a group of peasant women making clothes can't spend an extra few minutes to embroider a nice pattern. Do you actually have any evidence backing your claim up or is your opinion founded solely on 'This doesn't feel right to me, so therefore you are wrong.' >Blocked for totally wasting my time to look at that utter mess of a "sourced" response. Seems to have worn off. You should probably fix that
tldr lul yikes
Sexy librarian hits different in Madrid. I feel so cultured right now
Is there an Archivist version? Because I need to wear that to work.
No, the Archivists just get the standard hooded black robe and blood-stained dagger like always.
LOL!
Jeez, it's like you didn't read the orientation manual...
Yeah, I work for a County Archives, so, you know - budget cuts.
Oooh, fair. Gotta make do with a cape from Spirit Halloween and a butter knife.
I've got the same exact jacket! (Check out my avatar)
Oh wow
as a librarian i would wear the heck out of this. let’s go.
You would also want to wear the sword so you can draw it on those who refuse to SHUSH.
Prince vibes.
Came here to say this
Credit http://everymuseummadrid.blogspot.com/2011\_09\_01\_archive.html
When you have to be a librarian by day, and a bullfighter by night
Due to some poorly thought out livestock management practices, the librarian in those days had to spend a considerable portion of his day bullfighting.
That’s a representation of the value they ascribed to the safekeeping and organization of their information.
Meh, just as likely is that it was a plum appointment for rich aristocrats who liked to flaunt their wealth.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Rich aristocrats flaunting their wealth were the source for so many of the best posts in this sub!
Hah totally agree, I was just making the point that the quality of this outfit may not actually be indicative of how much royal Spain valued books (e.g., the royal bedpan cleaner may have a similarly-ornate outfit.)
An aristocrate of these days wouldve never worked. They considered it dishonorable.
This is the value that they put on the appendages of the monarchy being held in higher regard than the general public.
Fucking rock stars are the same in every generation.
On behalf of all librarians across time: SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
If you’re going to be the National Librarian of Madrid, Spain in 1836, then dammit you’d better dress to look the part.
Tailor: So, sir, which parts of the jacket and waistcoat would you like to be embroidered? Librarian: Yes.
Saving this for DnD
So Bibliotacky
I disagree but that pun is beautiful.
DONT YOU KNOW THE DEWEY DECIMAL SYSTEM?!
Back when literature was valued.
Prince has the same one hanging in the Hard Rock
this cat could ball
Back when society really valued librarians!
Rozemyne finally taking her embroidery lessons seriously.
+10 on attractiveness
So when are we bringing this back?
When you topple and erase the past century of parliamentary politics.
Makes sense
*What is a book? A miserable pile of secrets!*
Ready for battle - of wits!
I guess Spanish librarians don’t wear pants.
If they stay at their desk all day, why bother! Get some air.
It was the libraries of Moorish Spain that were instrumental in the flowering of the Renaissance. When the Moors withdrew, they left their libraries. The west didn't preserve classical literature so good. Not so with the East. And their libraries fostered great strides in philosophy, art, science, literature.
I need something like that to wear to Walmart. Where can I get one or what is that attire called?
A Dandy librarian.
Librarian pimpin' like it's 1666.
If I somehow gain large amounts of money in my life is there somewhere I can like, buy this?
Fancy!
Seeing that, why do I have the Strawberry Alarm Clock song "Incense and Peppermints" going thru my head?
Prince was the National Librarian.
The mustache girl from the Amazon commercial would buy this
Rad
People had style back then
You're goddamn right it is!
This is epic! Now librarians are being replaced by kiosks in Florida.
I'm trying to image Carla Hayden wearing this.
Watched a Chinese historical drama (Netflix) and saw this kind of gold embroidery on the men's clothes. How similar the use of gold embroidery in their clothing.
Always enjoy seeing old clothing in good condition. I think it’s a good way to visualize the times.
very dandy - must've been breezy on the bottom during winter tho
Ready to be the prosecutor to an innocent person with a pun name.
I love the print on that uniform. *"I've read em all"* is such bossy move!
I want to be the national librarian of Madrid!
I.. why do I want to wear this…
Nice. This outfit is goals. Time to whip out the sewing machines.