Requiem for the Male Peacock.
Watching ‘Rebels of Oz’, Howard Jacobson’s BBC4 profile of four artistic Aussies who made a sizeable contribution to the cultural renaissance of the 60s and 70s, archive film of the late art critic Robert Hughes in velvet jacket, frilly shirt and shoulder-length hair reminded me that the brief revival of the male peacock during this flamboyantly fruitful period was something that spread way beyond the Carnabetian confines of the youthquake that kick-started the revival in the first place. While considerable coverage is afforded all the young dudes whose embrace of self-expression via their wardrobes liberated them from their fathers’ season-ticket at Burton’s, the impact this sartorial revolution had on previous generations is often overlooked.
Two of the most high-profile representatives of this Third Wave of Dandyism could be located on early 70s British TV screens: Jon Pertwee as Doctor Who and Peter Wyngarde as Jason King. Both men had been around long before it was legitimate to release their inner peacock; when Pertwee became the successor to Patrick Troughton in 1969, he was fifty; when Wyngarde landed the part that made him a household name in ITC’s ‘Department S’ around the same time, he was forty – and this in an era when the teenage mantra was to never trust anyone over thirty. Although Wyngarde’s penchant for the occasional rendezvous with lorry drivers was still unknown to the general public when he was cutting a dashing swathe across the schedules, both he and the unswervingly heterosexual Pertwee were bringing a look to the masses that barely a decade before had been the province of a small, secluded and understandably secretive gay clique largely centred around Soho. Quentin Crisp had been parading through London’s Naughty Square Mile since the 30s, defiantly advertising his sexuality via his striking appearance and regularly bearing the scars of his encounters with those who didn’t share his aesthetic perspective. He was still doing so in his sixties, when Pertwee and Wyngarde were sharing screen-time with mini-skirted dolly-birds and proving a Dandy didn’t automatically equate with effeminacy in the brave new world of the Sexual Revolution.
In historical terms, the man had always been the peacock, whereas the woman was as much a visual appendage as she was in every other respect. In the late eighteenth century, however, the female of the species began to seriously compete with her male counterpart for the first time; at the point when the foppish extravagance of the ‘Macaroni’, with his heavily-powdered countenance, outlandish wigs and gaily-embroidered jackets and breeches, reached a peak of Glam excess that wouldn’t be seen again for another two-hundred years, the women adopted his glittering template and gave it a feminine twist, resulting in the debut of the ‘Beehive’ hairstyle and the deliberately dysfunctional hoop skirt – articles that served no useful purpose other than they looked breathtaking, a legacy that is still with us via that infamous pair of shoes every modern woman owns that were purchased to be looked at rather than worn.
When the original Dandy emerged in the early nineteenth century, he perceived himself as a stripped-down and streamlined counterpoint to the Fop; rivalries between the two were not unlike those between the Mods and the Rockers in the 1960s. At a time when even mainstream male fashion included the ‘pigtail’ wrapped in ribbons, the Dandy dispensed with the excessive baggage of his predecessor, most notably the powdered peruke that now had uncomfortable connotations with the wig-wearing heads that had a come a cropper during their date with Madame Guillotine. Beau Brummell, unofficial fashion adviser to the Prince Regent, was the undisputed arbiter of this style, and his fastidious attention to a less-cluttered ensemble eventually paved the way for the more recognisable contours of the suit. However, although the Dandy as a ‘youth cult’ disappeared with the passing of the Regency, its traces lingered in male dress for decades. Prominent Victorians such as Charles Dickens may wear the solemn scowl of the bearded moral crusader in famous photographs, but Dickens was notorious in his youth for his dandified dress sense, particularly his dazzling waistcoats; and even when colours became less vivid and more uniformly ‘masculine’ in the second half of the nineteenth century, Victorian men – even the Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli – still retained a hint of the Dandy via their luxuriant locks and ambitious whiskers, whereas floppy-haired aesthetes such as Oscar Wilde gave it a fresh new angle. A shaven-head was the mark of a malcontent such as Magwitch from ‘Great Expectations’.
The Edwardian era was the last hurrah for the Dandy in the public spotlight until the 1960s; actor Patrick MacNee, who portrayed the stylish secret-agent John Steed in ‘The Avengers’, has described his own father as an Edwardian Dandy, and one of the less-recognised casualties of the Great War (albeit an admittedly trivial one) was the male peacock. Short back-and-sides was the new military haircut for the army that had jettisoned the traditional scarlet uniform for camouflage khaki, and not getting one’s hair cut was almost regarded as unpatriotic. For the following half-century only women had a licence to express their more extrovert natures via what they wore, whereas short hair and sober dress were redefined as a compulsory masculine statement, which explains the initial outrage that greeted the rude arrival of the Rolling Stones in 1964 – not to mention persistent questions surrounding their sexuality from a generation who associated a fondness for sartorial adventure with ‘queers’. But when the youth took their visual cues from the likes of Mick Jagger, Brian Jones, Dave Davies and Jimi Hendrix, the re-emergence of the Dandy as a viable cultural force had wholly unexpected consequences. Even when the youth discarded their Carnaby Street glad-rags and morphed into the studied scruffiness of the hippy, the Dandy continued to command a high profile as it was assimilated into the wardrobes of those too old to have been part of the Swinging scene.
1970s TV adaptations of classic nineteenth century novels are notable for the fact that few of the male actors in them required wigs or false sideburns, for most already had the hair and whiskers; even the authentic fashions necessary for the part could easily have been items they walked off-set wearing. Outside of drama productions, many television presenters thought nothing of wearing colourful neckerchiefs to discuss serious subjects, underlining how the male peacock had been successfully absorbed into the mainstream again. The Year Zero bombshell of Punk effectively ended this Third Wave of Dandyism, however – a peasant’s revolt that tore down the decadent symbols of the old order; and though it occasionally resurfaced in short-lived youth cults and the odd imaginative pop star, the Dandy was dead. Despite horrible media buzzwords such as ‘Metrosexual’ to define men who actually reject the T-shirt, jeans and trainers slob ensemble, any 21st century boy who cares about his appearance usually dons nothing more flamboyant than a well-tailored suit. And with the preference for blending in with the crowd rather than standing out from it more prevalent than ever in an age of superstitious finger-pointing, the 1970s are mocked as well as reviled because men were given carte-blanche to break free of the fashion straitjacket that continues to render them wary and fearful of competing with their visually emancipated wives and girlfriends. But, of course, this is progress – isn’t it?
Petunia Winegum
-
July 30, 2014 at 3:35 pm -
All peacocks are male; the female are call peahens.
-
July 30, 2014 at 4:01 pm -
No , not progress. The creativie dressing of all people, whatever sex, sexuality or ethnicity is something to behold and rejoice in. The world is grey enough. That’s why I don’t wear brown, grey, black or drab navy blue. Vibrancy triumphs for me.
Those afraid to stand out from the crowd sartorially are probably also those who would not go against the grain in any question of received opinion. Style, not fashion, is always welcome. Style with substance is even better (and Quentin Crisp exemplified this).
Thanks for a great, unusual piece at the Raccoon Arms, Petunia.
-
July 30, 2014 at 5:07 pm -
I’m always drawn towards anyone with their own unique, individual style as they tend to be far more interesting people and less likely to fall in with the consensus – more so than ever these days.
-
July 30, 2014 at 5:09 pm -
I go against the grain of most received opinions and have done for very many years. I don’t need any “vibrancy” to do that. All I needed to do was to speak up and not let the shallow ones hold the floor.
I could not care less what “the crowd sartorially” might be wearing and have never ever cared less since I woke up about “fashion” some fifty-odd years ago and realised it was all a great big con.
“Style” is crap. “Style” is false. You don’t need “Style”, nor “vibrancy”, and you most definitely do not need to avoid wearing “brown, grey, black or drab navy blue”, to have your very own thought out opinions of life in general, and realise that very silly dilettantes “don’t wear brown, grey, black or drab navy blue”.
-
July 30, 2014 at 5:45 pm -
What one wears is something that is important to many people in defining their individual persona, though clearly not you. Each to their own.
-
July 30, 2014 at 6:18 pm -
Generally adolescents attach a great deal of importance to clothing styles as they want to identify with a particular sub group in their own age range and being a dedicated follower of fashion sends out signals to prospective mates. Remember how everyone wore flared pants that were tight around the thighs and groin around 1970 and the bigger the flare, the bigger the… well you get the idea. Oh flares, where are you now? Where is thy sting?
As one gets older one cares less and less and just wants clothes that are comfortable, fit well, and preferably cheap. These days most of my shirts cost $1 and come from the City Rescue Mission Used Clothing Store. But they are stylish enough. Just the other day someone asked if I was a golfer, in recognition of the City Rescue Mission Golf Tournament shirt I was wearing. Used shoes are hard to find and one has to spend money to get good ones that will last a few years.
Clothing has got much cheaper. When I worked in Bermuda around 1980 I had to wear short sleeved white shirts for work and on trips to the US or England they would typically cost $20 in the US or £20 in England. Today, 35 years later I can get the same thing for less than half that price. I paid £60 for a pair of running shoes in 1982. I would get the same thing for less than half now. Back in the early seventies a pair of Wrangler jeans cost around a week’s wages. Now they would cost an hour’s wages or two hours or three hours for the lower paid.
Of course any choice we have is somewhat limited to the types of fabric and colours and styles of clothing that manufacturers are currently producing at the price point we wish to pay, and when you come down to it a shirt is a shirt is a shirt, regardless of the manufacturer’s brand.
As a purchaser of child’s clothing I notice that prices are frequently boosted by adding images of popular media or movie characters to the clothing. It is better to avoid such.
I will not pay for a shirt bearing the name of a product or company or sports team. If they want me to promote their business, they need to pay me, or at least give me the garment for free.
-
-
July 30, 2014 at 6:10 pm -
I did not say one was a pre-requisite for the other, merely that my experience has shown me they often manifest together in the same person.
If you wish to be of dour appearance and disappear into the background noise of bland conformity that is entirely your choice. It is, however, somewhat silly to call me a “dilettante” purely because I don’t and displays a rigidity and narrowness of mind.
-
-
-
July 30, 2014 at 4:45 pm -
I was particularly fascinated to notice in this 1901 footage that the working-class women are effectively wearing the Hijab.
http://player.bfi.org.uk/player/watch-textile-workers-leaving-a-factory-c-1901-150668397/Z0a2k1ZTolK7W9SpC-x5urL2nP3b15UY
The modern BFI caption is equally fascinating as it tries to explain this away by saying it’s a cold day and the women are wearing “shawls” to keep warm. This is plainly cobblers. It’s noticeable that the female children have no suggestion of wearing anything to keep warm especially. One or two of the younger-looking mature women seems to have rejected the Hijab in favour of a boater-style hat.
Spot the Dandy if you can….-
July 30, 2014 at 5:05 pm -
Fascinating film. What’s especially striking about how the women are dressed is the fact they can only be pinpointed to a specific moment in time due to them being captured on celluloid; otherwise, they could have stepped out of any century from the middle-ages onwards.
-
July 30, 2014 at 5:16 pm -
Actually the women do not have their faces covered and all the people in the picture have their heads covered, men, women, and children. (I can only see the still picture as it will not run in the USA.). Women still cover their heads for all kinds of reasons, for example to keep hair clean in a dirty environment, to protect it from the rain, for religious reasons in church, at Ascot races to compete with other women, for riding horses or bicycles, for Olympic opening ceremonies, to keep the sun off their heads in hot climates, for swimming, and with hair nets to keep their hair styled the way they want it, for hygiene when working in restaurants and cafeterias or in operating theatres, to designate rank in the police and military, for protection on building sites, and so on.
Even today many ordinary British women such as the Queen are rarely seen outside without some kind of hat.
-
July 30, 2014 at 5:27 pm -
July 30, 2014 at 5:49 pm -
Similar one on youtube from BFI Jonathan – just for you..
http://youtu.be/qrjxo8JowQ4-
July 30, 2014 at 6:27 pm -
Fascinating. A few of the women actually draw their shawl across their face as they pass the camera. And, in the background, one be-shawled woman turns her back and lingers there, obviously not wishing to be photographed as she leaves. In contrast, there’s a smart young lass in a boater and cape who deliberately hangs around long enough to be sure that she’s on film. Modern youth! What is the world coming to?
-
-
-
July 30, 2014 at 7:11 pm -
The middle-eastern derived form of “modesty” is actually pretty common in Christendom. Most obviously, nuns wear a hijab, but whenever the Faith took on a severe form, you start seeing variations on it-
http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/ModestDress.html
Covering hair is pretty basic to it, since attractive hair is an important sexual attractant in humans, and hairstyles are additionally a way of showing off, so even when the hair isn’t covered, it tends to be plastered down in unattractive, severe styles. Same for men; it’s worth noting that as historically men were forced into the drab butler uniform of the “suit” (dark colour, no decoration, everyone the same) they still clung on to exuberant hairstyles and whiskers until they were eventually deprecated as well.
Don’t worry guys, you can still choose what tie to wear!
-
July 31, 2014 at 2:38 am -
If you look at the other street scenes of the period the women mostly have their head covered, but so do most of the men. I suspect that poorer women going to work in a dirty factory probably didn’t want to wear their, for them, expensive hats. The other scenes of the time showing working women at social events or the seaside have them mainly dressed up in hats rather than shawls.
I also think it might have been drizzling with rain. There are certainly puddles in the street but given the age of the film, the degraded youtube quality and the fact that the scene is not back lit (which would show up rain better) we just can’t see falling rain.
-
-
July 30, 2014 at 5:07 pm -
Yes indeed, I remember my father used to read the lesson in church wearing a light gray suit, shocking pink shirt, canary yellow tie, and sky blue waistcoat. I remember my mother–an agnostic–commenting that he looked like a peacock. The flower power era was pretty tasteless, but it was as kind of counterpoint to the greyness of post-war austerity and Marks and Spencer white shirts and y-front underpants. While my father was wearing this stuff, I was still occasionally wearing his demob suit, which I found rather stylish.
-
July 30, 2014 at 5:09 pm -
It’s interesting that someone such as Bowie, who had been an exemplary peacock in the early 70s, had himself turned to the ‘demob suit look’ by the middle of the decade, particularly in his performance of ‘Golden Years’ on ‘Soul Train’.
-
July 30, 2014 at 6:07 pm -
An interesting article, though I am not sure that dandyism is dead – I suspect it is merely resting. Fashion (for want of a better word) has always been about change, and England has always been a leader in this respect. Whilst it is true to say that today’s youth has a regrettable sense of conformity with regard to clothing, it was ever thus – the dandy was always the outsider, and revelled in his/her status.
This magazine at least attempts to be different:
http://thechapmagazine.co.uk/
It’s been going for a good few years now, and whilst not exactly dandyism personified, does at least give sartorial tips on how to avoid looking dull…
As for the sainted Bowie, he may well have been besuited in 1975, but has continued to change his image regularly over the years, generally setting trends rather than following them…
Excellent name by the way Petunia, or is that Cyril?-
July 30, 2014 at 6:30 pm -
Haha! You know your obscure cultural trivia! Cyril’s lips are sealed.
-
-
-
July 30, 2014 at 8:23 pm -
In the 80’s I used to cadge my uncle’s demob suits, fantastic, I also used to highly prize the occasional Gieves and Hawkes suit that I came across.
-
July 31, 2014 at 10:48 am -
In the late 70s and early 80’s I spent a lot of time at Alfred Kemp in Camden Town, an enormous shop devoted to second hand suits – you could pick up some splendid bargains there…
-
-
-
July 30, 2014 at 5:09 pm -
Hair (the original 60s stage event) had a song about the male of the species being the flamboyant one.
And 100 years ago, young children of both sexes were clad in dresses, with pink for a boy and blue for a girl!
Plus ca change…-
July 30, 2014 at 6:27 pm -
Yes, there was a ceremony called ‘breeching’ that all little boys went through when they acquired their first pair of pants – having worn dresses up to the age of roundabout five.
-
July 30, 2014 at 6:34 pm -
I bumped into the breeching phenomenon a little while ago and I find it absolutely fascinating. It’s quite apparent that the boys weren’t simply being dressed in a practical unisex garment; they were quite clearly and deliberately being dressed as girls. One can only speculate why, but speculating on, it seems to feed into a persistent Western idea that children basically have a female status until they acquire manhood. If you define feminity as “that class of humans which are protected” and masculinity as “that class of humans who are protectors”, it makes some sense. Once the boy was breeched, he was at an age at which he started learning his masculine role as a protector of females. Until then, he was an honorary girl.
-
July 30, 2014 at 6:37 pm -
I’m not certain at what point this practice ended. I have photos of my grandfather as a toddler in the 1920s and he appears to be wearing a dress.
-
July 30, 2014 at 6:58 pm -
Indeed.
In the more general sense, childrens’ clothing seems to have been basically bloody awful until as recently as the 1980s. My sister and I have often had jokey discussions about this. Ghastly little dresses for girls, horrid shorts for boys. Why exactly adults felt the need to always be able to see a child’s legs at whim remains a mystery.
But anyway yes, honorary femininity for young children seems to have persisted until surprisingly recently.
-
July 30, 2014 at 7:17 pm -
I imagine short trousers used less material and cost less to make, especially in the days of tailored clothing. These days the difference is probably significant, though funnily enough I wear shorts pretty much all the time except for the workplace or going out in the evening. On the other hand, I can hardly remember when I last wore a tie. Actually it was a wedding.
-
July 31, 2014 at 4:44 am -
In the 1970s it was common for boys mainly to wear shorts until about 11.
I always wondered if it was partly to do with the number of trouser knees we would have worn through or torn – clothes being comparatively much more expensive in those days.
-
-
-
-
July 30, 2014 at 7:46 pm -
There is also a practical aspect – it makes dealing with a childs sanitary needs much easier, and it is also simpler to make new clothes to deal with their growth. New hose and doublets etc every 6 months would be a pain in the neck and rather expensive.
Certainly in Tudor England it was done around age 6 or 7.
-
-
-
July 30, 2014 at 6:30 pm -
A lot of style is just a form of disguise. If you see youth wearing outrageous pink hair and rings through their noses and tatoos on their face, you will probably not notice that they are not very attractive individuals in terms of conventional good looks, physique, etc. because you are too busy noticing their bizarre presentation–unless you are medically trained, in which case you see right through the facade.
Just the other day I noticed a middle-aged woman in the bank line in front of me wearing a long black shirt with the tail outside her trousers, covering her rearguard. As this was a little odd, I looked closer and realized that she was trying to disguise the fact that she had a rather large booty. So the disguise that was intended to be a distraction had the opposite effect to the desired one. That is often the case. People who are good looking and in good physical shape tend to look good in anything they wear. Most people strive for this look, but it is hard to pull off if you are in fact misshapen.
-
July 30, 2014 at 6:35 pm -
The irony today is that one-time totems of genuine visual outrageousness, such as piercings, coloured hair or multiple tattoos, are now only worn by those I’d call ‘Alternative Conservatives’, that is those who imagine they’re being radical in the way they look, yet whose look is catered for by an entire branch of the fashion industry rather than being a DIY product of the wearer’s imagination.
-
July 30, 2014 at 7:27 pm -
I’ve always found piercings (including ears) to be some degree of revolting (that’s a bit too strong a word but my mental thesaurus has broken down). I can’t fathom why anyone has them, or why they would be considered attractive.
On the other hand, I rather like “tramp stamp” type tattoos.
-
July 30, 2014 at 8:27 pm -
I went to the Chap Olympiad the other week in Bedford Square Gardens, wearing a tweed suit and a trilby. The effect of people heading off the event was to have people stop driving to look at us, while people with multiple facial tattoos and multi-coloured hair didn’t get a look in. Your comments about ‘Alternative Conservatives’ are absolutely spot on.
-
-
July 31, 2014 at 12:29 am -
Misshapen is a funny word, as it contains other words (and one could add another ‘p’); but it rather implies there is an acceptable shape from which the subject differs.
-
-
July 30, 2014 at 6:38 pm -
There was one other dandy that I can remember from that time, Adam Adamant played by Gerald Harper – a Victorian gentleman who had been frozen in time (literally) and then thawed out into the swinging sixties…
-
July 30, 2014 at 8:50 pm -
Yes, I once bought a VHS tape of that with a couple of episodes on. Shame it wasn’t made in colour.
-
July 31, 2014 at 10:41 am -
The entire series has been available on DVD for a couple of years, it is a glorious reminder of shaky sets and a London that doesn’t exist anymore… http://www.amazon.co.uk/Adam-Adamant-Lives-Complete-Collection/dp/B0006GVKB6
-
July 31, 2014 at 10:46 am -
Adam was supposed to be a revived Victorian though, so I’m not sure where the “Dandy” comes in. He dressed a bit like Dracula.
-
July 31, 2014 at 11:03 am -
He dressed like a gent – the whole premise of ‘Adam Adamant’ was as a somewhat feeble riposte from the BBC to ITVs ‘The Avengers’. The acting and writing were all good enough, but the tiny budget and lack of support from the BBC hierarchy eventually did for it – a shame.
-
-
-
-
-
July 30, 2014 at 6:52 pm -
“A shaven-head was the mark of a malcontent such as Magwitch from ‘Great Expectations’.”
A lot of British men seem to look the same now. Bald, no facial hair, pudgy/overweight and leisure wear. (Hey, it rhymes!)
There’s apparently a DVD for this:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22advanced+style%22 -
July 30, 2014 at 7:02 pm -
I enjoyed your piece as it brought back a lot of memories. Strangely, I was more into the Mods and Rockers thing and never really got into flower power but now I find my self drawn to the music of the times.
Jason King. Yeah, that was quite good. Must take a look for it on pirate bay…
-
July 30, 2014 at 7:24 pm -
As you probably know Petunia, Peter Wyngarde only sported the trademark Jason King look in Department S because at the start of filming he was still appearing in a period play in the West End as a Russian Count.
The original conception for King was as a rather tweedy Oxbridge Don and the first choice for the role was Kenneth More. -
July 30, 2014 at 7:31 pm -
“But when the youth took their visual cues from the likes of Mick Jagger, Brian Jones, Dave Davies and Jimi Hendrix, the re-emergence of the Dandy as a viable cultural force had wholly unexpected consequences. ”
Adam Ant??
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/06/08/article-1191713-054500A5000005DC-224_233x544.jpg
-
July 30, 2014 at 7:33 pm -
XX The Year Zero bombshell of Punk effectively ended this Third Wave of Dandyism, XX
I would tend to take it back from that, and quote a line or two from Saxon;
“Where were you in 79 when the dam began to burst?
Where you wearing denem, wearing leather, did you run down to the front.
Did you queue for your tickets through the ice and snow?
Denim, and leather, put them all together, it was YOU that set the spirit free!”Bikers!
LONG before punks!
-
July 30, 2014 at 8:09 pm -
The hair metal era was pretty dandified.
-
July 30, 2014 at 8:22 pm -
Aye, but they were/are puffters. I am talking about the “Biker revolution” at the mid to end of the 70s and into the early 80s.
THEN came “Glam metal” FFS!!!
-
July 30, 2014 at 8:39 pm -
Who are you defining as glam metal? Kiss? Weren’t they pre- Saxon? I would have thought you were Deep Purple or Black Sabbath oriented. Not picking a fight – just interested. I was more into weird punk than anything else ( Wire, Virgin Prunes, Suicide etc).
-
July 31, 2014 at 8:30 am -
Aye, Purple, Sabbath, Maiden. But Also other stuff, from Italian Opera, to middle ages (Corvus Corax, Richie Blackmoor, Subway to Sally, etc), Nina Simone, even…. (HOROR!!!) some of Doris Days stuff is listenable to.
Saxon were going for a long time (In fact they are STILL going!) Kiss, I am sure, came later. As you say, they were “glam rockers.” But the whole “Glam rock” thing, where once good bikers turned up in metalic red jeans and leopard skin jackets, started much later than, say Kiss’ “Double Platinum” album, which was around 79/80.
The first punks we saw in town were in the early to mid 80s.
-
July 31, 2014 at 10:04 am -
Kiss formed in ’73, just a little bit before Saxon, who didn’t form up ’til ’76..
-
July 31, 2014 at 10:17 am -
O.K.
But the first album I recall was, as I say above, “Double Platinum.” I am not sure when they actualy “reached” the U.K.
I deffinately knew of Saxon before Kiss. And the “Glam metal” pufters were deffinately after both.
-
July 31, 2014 at 10:28 am -
Glam Metal? Did I miss Chrome Rock?……..
-
July 31, 2014 at 11:39 am -
“Kiss on the duke box and half a pint of your best Brasso, please, madam!”
-
-
July 31, 2014 at 10:48 am -
Gotta say, never saw Kiss play over here, did see Saxon play, quite a lot, and Motorhead, Ozzy, Maiden, Metallica…still go nowadays, and take my son (’bout time he paid for his own tickets!)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
July 30, 2014 at 7:42 pm -
I disagree with the historical statements; whilst the woman, as the lesser being, would have often had second call on resources for clothing etc, there are many examples of peacock like clothing for women. See for instance the Tudor court, especially under Elizabeth 1. The farthingale, a hooped skirt worn under the dresses to give them the sort of shape that is surely required for that peacock effect, came into use in the 16th century. I recommend a search online and examination of some of the many paintings which have survived from the period.
-
July 30, 2014 at 8:08 pm -
Indeed. Historically, both men and women of the elite dressed extravagantly. One interesting example was ridiculously long skirts which were almost impossible to walk in, which basically showed you were a high born woman who had learned to do so. A commoner would just “walk up the skirt” and fall over.
-
July 30, 2014 at 8:44 pm -
Obviously, one has to generalise to a degree in this kind of article and limitations of space make cutting corners unavoidable. Yes, there was certainly plenty of feminine extravagance in the Tudor court, and queen regnants were naturally promoted as exotic and glamorous figures as part of the whole royal PR machine; but male sovereigns were more commonplace and therefore men had a higher profile as style-setters. From the Restoration onwards, the male undoubtedly had the visual edge, whilst women looked fairly drab by comparison, which is there in all the paintings of the time; it’s also worth remembering that cosmetics for women were frowned upon during this period. Men became more foppish as the 18th century wore on, eventually reaching a peak of sartorial flamboyance by the end of the century that in turn inspired women to embrace makeup and clothes in a way they have continued to do so ever since.
-
-
-
July 30, 2014 at 9:33 pm -
Oh, Petunia! I’m no spring chicken, but I suspect most posters on here are of that charmed generation just about 10-20 years older than me who got to experience a cultural moment which I witnessed as a small child – believing in my innocence that it was normal and that I would soon be able to stake my own little claims on it.
Well, didn’t I get a gunk (as we say in Ireland). BTW, I wrote a well-received play about Charles Dickens for his bicentenary, and believe yu me, I explored his dandyism. He never shrugged it off, event to the end.
I will leave you with the words of Baudelaire, the great philosopher of dandyism:
“Fastidious, unbelievables, beaux, lions or dandies: whichever label these men claim for themselves, one and all stem from the same origin, all share the same characteristic of opposition and revolt; all are representatives of what is best in human pride, of that need, which is too rare in the modern generation, to combat and destroy triviality”.
Indeed.
-
July 30, 2014 at 11:08 pm -
I know exactly what you mean in your opening comment. All my earliest memories are from the early 70s, so my first impression of the male of the species was that he was a rather dandified character. Perhaps that’s why I think men should still shove their inner peacock into the open air if they so wish and bear the slings and arrows of the ‘Real Men’ with heads held high. I own a cane, by the way!
-
July 31, 2014 at 12:07 am -
And I jolly well hope you lean on your chin on it, in a pensive mood, swing it casually from side to side when bored with present company, flick it casually to underline a point in conversation, and put it to its proper use either for business or pleasure
-
July 31, 2014 at 7:16 am -
I was born in 1966, so much of my outlook is based 0n the expectation from growing up in the 70s that society would continue on a liberal path, and my growing dismay as it did a sharp reversion back into puritanism. Which influences much of what I write here and elsewhere.
-
July 31, 2014 at 12:17 pm -
Hear, hear.
-
-
-
-
-
July 30, 2014 at 9:41 pm -
Not sure about all this dandy stuff. Seems to be a minority persuit for metropolitan wannabees. Clothing should be a) comfortable and b) appropriate to circumstances.
Went to a funeral a couple of weeks ago. Just before departure time the phone rang; the son ofthe bereaved family with the message, “No black – come as you are. Dad was always very informal.” So the posh shirt I’d just spent 15 minutes ironing went back in the wardrobe, along with the cufflinks. On with a smart casual shirt, light coloured trousers and hastily polished brown shoes.
At the ceremony, it quickly became clear that the message had only reached about half the mourners. The other half were in regulation dark suits and black ties. So half of us sat through the service feeling uncomfortably underdressed, and the other half sat through it feeling uncomfortably overdressed.
Sometimes, the seemingly stultifying dress code can be a very useful way of removing such feelings of discomfort – provided they are observed lightly, and not regarded as an absolute requirement.
As for ‘peacock feathers’, they are for show-offs (usually insecure) or showmen. They are not for real men. Real men (and especially gentlemen) prefer comfortable, appropriate, understated classical elegance, except when in the workshop, when overalls will do.
-
July 30, 2014 at 11:32 pm -
Sorry, my reply to you is below. I may be a real, if somewhat flamboyant, real man, but smartphones still defeat me… Always every time….
-
-
July 30, 2014 at 10:38 pm -
Real men?
Your definition is a bit narrow, but I’m sure it suits/fits you fine.
As a real man, I want something else.
-
July 31, 2014 at 12:13 am -
Lol, I’ll take my chance with unreal men
Haven’t we figured out by now the whole thing is “unreal” – just whatever the group consensus is at the time?
“Real/Unreal”? “Today,children, we will be going through ….. (dah-dah!) the Round Window!”
-
July 31, 2014 at 1:06 am -
Kind of my point, but thank you for the response.
-
-
-
July 31, 2014 at 12:22 am -
Being a man of a certain age I wear what I like. Generally I eschew clothing all together and emerge resplendant with just a blue ribbon tastefully tied on to the end of my ‘todger.’ I like to think that it accentuates the gentle folds of my elaphantitis bestrewn scrotum.
-
July 31, 2014 at 12:33 am -
100 years ago you’d have used a pink ribbon, as blue was considered a girly colour.
-
July 31, 2014 at 1:22 am -
Indeed, as Earnshaw’s Infant Department (the classic trade publication) put it in 1918:
“The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl”.
Same old crap, just different colours
-
-
-
July 31, 2014 at 3:45 am -
I can’t believe that I got to the end of the comments with seeing a single mentioned of Teddy Boys.
The hours spent getting just the right ‘drape’ jacket – red for preference – with black velvet collars and cuffs.
14″ drainpipe trousers – you had to unscrew your feet to get ’em on and off, fluorescent lime green socks and thick crepe-soled ‘brothel creepers’ to slink around in.
On my first trip out in my splendour, a middle-aged lady on the bus moved to a seat well away from me, muttering to herself.
As today’s yoof might say, “result!”Ah happy days.
… and I’m only 49 (in hexadecimal).-
July 31, 2014 at 2:09 pm -
Hands up – a shameful omission. Again, limitations of space etc. But the overall point of the article was intended to show how the dandyism of Carnaby St spead to generations beyond the young ‘uns and temporarily shook-up notions of masculinity through dress; admittedly, the point may have got lost along the way.
-
July 31, 2014 at 3:34 pm -
It could be that each generations idea of what “dandy” is could have changed.
We thought we looked just “fine and dandy,” evn if a bike leather is more practical than a frilly shirt.
-
-
-
August 2, 2014 at 8:14 pm -
Paul Smith, one of Britian’s most famous designers. does a fair line in peacockery although admitted he is not quite High Street.
{ 73 comments… read them below or add one }