Fashion pill of the day:
It was a sign of criticism, nonconformity, and revolution during the boom of the beat generation – you should ask Mary Quant, she knows something about it - and in the full bloom of hippie culture.
The symbolism it assumed was undoubtedly greater than the portion of skin it revealed or left hidden, intact from prying eyes.
Come? Do you know what I'm referring to?
Wow, someone did their homework. You hit the mark!
Today we talk about skirts, and dresses for women in general. Their length has been very variable throughout the narrative arc traced by fashion, almost proportional to the social perspective that affected them, whether they liked it or not.
Look at the twentieth century, consider the period between the years of the first post-war, the 1920s, and the 1990s. In less than three-quarters of a century, you will see how the perception of modesty and consequently the length of these garments has changed countless times, in a fluctuating manner.
Why all these drastic changes?
We could simply attribute the only conditioning factor to the trend but that would not be the actual answer, the real solution to the question, rather we would only be scratching the softest part, its surface.
Today I'm about to reveal to you that they should not be based solely on the single reason mentioned above.
An example?
In 1926, the then well-known professor of the chair in 'industrial relations' at the 'University of Pennsylvania', George W. Taylor, developed and introduced a peculiar theory into the economic environment, the 'Hemline Index', or 'the hem index'.
Put simply, whenever there was a positive trend in the stock market, the hems on women's clothing would shorten and then descend, along the thighs and beyond the knees, when trends were plummeting.
In short, hems fluctuated based on stock prices and gross domestic product.
The first proof of the index came just three years later, during the great bubble of '29.
Imagine the purchasing power of a woman during that crisis period: with the little liquidity left, she would logically only buy necessary goods.
And clothing was not among them.
This corresponded to the increasing use of office clothing even in daily life, gray and long almost to the ankles.
And in more pleasant times?
U-turn! In the subsequent economic boom, flaunting luxury was a must and there was enough money to do so.
And immediately toasting with short skirts, dazzling men's suits, and bootleg alcohol in a speakeasy in Chicago, a cocktail accompanied by the frenetic rhythm of a swing tune.
Moral of the story?
It's not all about trends, what we wear.
Sometimes it also involves economics.
The theory of Professor Taylor is still very much accredited, and in 2010 it received several academic validations.
