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 about it - and in full bloom of hippy culture.
The symbolism it assumed was undoubtedly greater than the portion of skin it uncovered or left hidden, intact from malicious glances.
As? Do you know what I'm referring to?
Wow, someone did their homework. You hit the nail on the head!
Today we talk about skirts, and of clothes as a woman in general. Their length was very variable in the narrative arc traced by fashion, almost proportional to the social perspective that affected them, despite themselves.
Look at the twentieth century, take into consideration the period between the post-war years, 1920, and the 1990s. In less than three quarters of a century, you will be able to see how the perception of modesty and consequently the length of these garments has changed countless times, even in fluctuating ways.
Why all these drastic changes?
We can simply attribute it as the only conditioning factor trend but it would not be the actual answer, the real solution to the question, indeed we would only be scratching the softest part, its surface.
Today I am about to reveal to you that they are absolutely not to be based on the single reason mentioned above.
An example?
In 1926, the then well-known professor of industrial relations at the University of Pennsylvania, George W. Taylor, developed and introduced a peculiar theory into the economic environment, theHemline Index”, or “the hem index”.
Simply put, every time there was a positive trend on the stock market, the hemlines on women's dresses shortened and then fell along the thighs and up to the knees, when instead the trends were at a peak.
In short, hems fluctuated based on stock prices and gross domestic product.
The first test of the index came after just three years, during the great bubble of '29.
Imagine the purchasing power of a woman in that period of crisis: with the little liquidity left, logically she bought only the necessary goods.
And clothing wasn't one of them.
This corresponded to the growing use of office clothing even in everyday life, gray and almost ankle-length.
And in more pleasant times?
Reverse! In the subsequent economic boom showing off the glitz was a must and there was enough money to do it.
And immediately toast with short skirts, glittering men's clothes and contraband alcohol in a Chicago speakeasy, a cocktail accompanied by the frenetic rhythm of a swing song.
Moral of the story?
It's not all trendy, what we wear.
Sometimes it's also about economics.
Ps Professor Taylor's theory is still highly accredited, furthermore in 2010 it received several academic validations.
