We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I know a few guys who were dragged to see the Charles James Beyond Fashion show at the Metropolitan Museum. I was, last weekend. Lots of husbands there being good sports, and lots of fashionistas of all varieties (taking notes and detailed close-up photos of stitching, etc).
I can assert that I know more about couture dress-making now than I did before. It is complicated, detailed, and difficult to do.
More pics and a little info below the fold -
This guy was a famous NY couturier during the late 40s through the 50s.He approached dress design as a sort of erotic architecture. All his things were one-offs and insanely expensive.
The two below are dinner dresses, not gowns (as any woman knows):
I would have preferred studying his creations when worn by ladies but that's not how they do it.
Some of the ballgowns have 6 layers of fabric, mesh, wires, etc to structure them. This one had 1200 square feet of fabric in it:
This one was made for Mrs. Randolph Hearst to wear to Eisenhower's inauguration but it was decided that it was too voluminous for that, so she wore it to Queen Elizabeth's coronation ball instead:
The thing with gowns and dinner dresses is that you have to design them, then you have to figure out how to construct them. As the show informed you, the construction is the real work. Many moving parts.
For me, the show was just more proof that anything can be interesting when you get into the details.