What do you think?
Rate this book
Sex and Suits
Libro usado en buenas condiciones, por su antiguedad podria contener señales normales de uso
212 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1994
23 people are currently reading
1380 people want to read
About the author
Anne Hollander
11 books21 followersAnne Helen Loesser Hollander was an American historian whose original work provided new insights into the history of fashion and costume and their relation to the history of art. She published numerous books on the history of fashion, modernity, and the body including Seeing Through Clothes and Sex and Suits.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews
April 12, 2020
I am seriously emotional after reading this text. It was profoundly validating, remarkably accessible, and the implications it has are so massive. It is truly one of the best books I have ever read and I know that it's going to stay with me forever. I am so grateful for Anne Hollander, absolutely smitten.
With such artful & whimsical writing Hollander traces how Western fashion historically was divided on the basis of class, profession, religion NOT gender. People of all genders wore complex, colorful adornment including wigs, heels, makeup, skirts & jewelry. The visual separation of “men’s clothes” & “women’s clothes” occurred in the 18th & 19t h centuries with the consolidation of the binary sex system. Previously women were understood as “underdeveloped” men, not a distinct & opposite sex. Clothing aesthetically displayed this new binary.
With the advent of the first paid female tailors in France in 1675, clothing became divided into “respectable” tailoring for men & “frivolous” “fashion” for women. Fashion’s proximity to women made the public understand it as foolish, self-indulgent & spectacular whereas men’s clothes – those similarly constructed – became seen as a marker of reason, uniformity & progress. Men’s clothing – like embroidery & lace – which had been worn for hundreds of years became seen as effeminate.
Clothing not only adorned the body, it shaped it to produce the image of “natural” anatomical facts. Modern gendered fashion sought to recreate ancient Greek sculpture whereby men were reconfigured as the classical male nude & women draped goddesses. Hollander argues that the suit – designed to enhance chest & shoulders -- was/is the sartorial embodiment of the male nude. Think here about the silhouette of the pant reveals the outline of a body, whereas a skirt obscures it.
For Hollander, “women’s fashion” has historically borrowed from “men’s clothes,” but rarely vice versa (ie t-shirts & jeans here). This is because the universal body is still imagined as the male nude, women & femininity are seen as abnormalities. Eventually, women’s fashion modified the male suit, but always as an analogue in order to maintain a natural distinction between the sexes. Ultimately the sex/gender binary distinction in fashion became naturalized, irrespective of the lived reality & bodies of actual humans who are not ancient sculptures.
With such artful & whimsical writing Hollander traces how Western fashion historically was divided on the basis of class, profession, religion NOT gender. People of all genders wore complex, colorful adornment including wigs, heels, makeup, skirts & jewelry. The visual separation of “men’s clothes” & “women’s clothes” occurred in the 18th & 19t h centuries with the consolidation of the binary sex system. Previously women were understood as “underdeveloped” men, not a distinct & opposite sex. Clothing aesthetically displayed this new binary.
With the advent of the first paid female tailors in France in 1675, clothing became divided into “respectable” tailoring for men & “frivolous” “fashion” for women. Fashion’s proximity to women made the public understand it as foolish, self-indulgent & spectacular whereas men’s clothes – those similarly constructed – became seen as a marker of reason, uniformity & progress. Men’s clothing – like embroidery & lace – which had been worn for hundreds of years became seen as effeminate.
Clothing not only adorned the body, it shaped it to produce the image of “natural” anatomical facts. Modern gendered fashion sought to recreate ancient Greek sculpture whereby men were reconfigured as the classical male nude & women draped goddesses. Hollander argues that the suit – designed to enhance chest & shoulders -- was/is the sartorial embodiment of the male nude. Think here about the silhouette of the pant reveals the outline of a body, whereas a skirt obscures it.
For Hollander, “women’s fashion” has historically borrowed from “men’s clothes,” but rarely vice versa (ie t-shirts & jeans here). This is because the universal body is still imagined as the male nude, women & femininity are seen as abnormalities. Eventually, women’s fashion modified the male suit, but always as an analogue in order to maintain a natural distinction between the sexes. Ultimately the sex/gender binary distinction in fashion became naturalized, irrespective of the lived reality & bodies of actual humans who are not ancient sculptures.
August 16, 2020
After reading Alok Menon’s rave review, I had to read. I was a little disappointed when starting out: the writing style is clever but very academic in style. The first few chapters seem to focus on justifying the use of the term “fashion” to largely mean “western fashion,” which is fine but might have been simply stated as an admission of bias based on author’s background and expertise. Maybe if this were written in the 21st century that would have been the case; instead Hollander spends a lot of time explaining why “eastern” fashion is going to be mentioned peripherally and not considered fashion. This smells like a Eurocentric line of thinking, but in many other ways the ideas of this book are ahead of their time, and were interesting to explore once I got into it.
My biggest takeaways from this book were: fashion is art, fashion expresses sexuality, men historically were the artists of this art form and both men and women the canvasses, and dressing oneself well shows a degree of (sexual) self-knowledge and consciousness that is unique to this art form. The last few chapters brought these ideas together in a way that slowly built over the course of the rest of the book. It doesn’t seem that profound, but I think the link to sexuality is key here. When understanding fashion history through the lens of expressing and constructing the body’s sexuality, there is an element of excitement, intrigue and revolution when considering the choices each of us make, consciously or unconsciously, every day. Where do the “rules” we dress by originate from, and what do we express when we do or do not follow them?
I particularly enjoyed Hollander’s accurate predictions about the future of American fashion, especially the popularity of bomber jackets.
My biggest takeaways from this book were: fashion is art, fashion expresses sexuality, men historically were the artists of this art form and both men and women the canvasses, and dressing oneself well shows a degree of (sexual) self-knowledge and consciousness that is unique to this art form. The last few chapters brought these ideas together in a way that slowly built over the course of the rest of the book. It doesn’t seem that profound, but I think the link to sexuality is key here. When understanding fashion history through the lens of expressing and constructing the body’s sexuality, there is an element of excitement, intrigue and revolution when considering the choices each of us make, consciously or unconsciously, every day. Where do the “rules” we dress by originate from, and what do we express when we do or do not follow them?
I particularly enjoyed Hollander’s accurate predictions about the future of American fashion, especially the popularity of bomber jackets.
Read
December 31, 2019DNF, which is unusual for me as I'm pretty stubborn even when bored.
Maybe I'm just tired but the author's constant declarations that only western fashion exists as fashion vs custom, only it allows for individuality, cherishes decoration, is consciously playful & meaningful seems incredibly blinkered, even in a book this old.
Anyways I was hoping to read about suits, their power, origin, changing & attributed meanings and context etc, which was likely to be eurocentric yes, but not so doggedly smug.
This book seems to be fundamentally more of a defence of (women's) fashion, and a culturally arrogant one, with some interesting insights about men's suits thrown on top. Interesting as they were (I got to page 51), the sour taste got overwhelming enough that I couldn't stomach anymore.
Was really hoping for more!
Maybe I'm just tired but the author's constant declarations that only western fashion exists as fashion vs custom, only it allows for individuality, cherishes decoration, is consciously playful & meaningful seems incredibly blinkered, even in a book this old.
Anyways I was hoping to read about suits, their power, origin, changing & attributed meanings and context etc, which was likely to be eurocentric yes, but not so doggedly smug.
This book seems to be fundamentally more of a defence of (women's) fashion, and a culturally arrogant one, with some interesting insights about men's suits thrown on top. Interesting as they were (I got to page 51), the sour taste got overwhelming enough that I couldn't stomach anymore.
Was really hoping for more!
December 14, 2020
(The English review is placed beneath the Russian one)
Довольно странная книга. Возможно, эту книгу можно обозначить как философские размышления на тему истории моды. Не знаю как остальные читатели, но сложные, путанные и не конкретные тексты у меня всегда ассоциировались со словом «философия». Ведь нельзя сказать, что книга пуста или что в ней нет ценных идей. Нет, идеи довольно интересные. Проблема лишь в том, как книга написана.
Автор анализирует историю мужского и женского костюма через призму всей истории, т.е. как менялся и мужской и женский костюм. И чтобы понять суть идеи, нужно обозначить начальную и общую как для мужчин, так и для женщин точку – Древняя Греция. Благодаря сохранившимся скульптурным изображениям живших в то время людей, мы можем увидеть, что одежда мужчин и женщин не сильно отличалась. Это важный факт указывает на то, что общество ещё не пыталось одеждой подчеркнуть гендерные роли или социальные позиции женщин и мужчин и не пыталась через одежду фокусировать внимание общества на определённые части мужчин и женщин. В Древней Греции все носили одежду, которая полностью скрывала фигуру. Более того, если для мужчин нагота была обычным делом, то для женщин это был запрещено (знаменитые обнажённые женские статуи вызвали довольно сильный переполох в то время).
Далее, средние века и новое время с его пышными женскими костюмами, постоянной миграцией (перемещением) женской талии и фиксацией на грудь. Мужской костюм тоже претерпевает множественные метаморфозы, но к определённому веку он останавливается в своём ярком и капитальном изменении, принимая форму, которая в итоге выльется в современный мужской костюм. Т.е. все те мужские костюмы, начиная с гульфика и одежды, делающей фигуру мужчины похожей на грушу и пр., происходило быстро, радикально, но в какой-то момент остановилось, как будто приняв, наконец, конечную форму. Женский же костюм продолжает свои трансформации, включая главные сражения – социальные. Т.е. сражения за признания у женщин ног. Если мужские штаны ещё с давних времён признавали наличие ног, и мы можем наблюдать постоянные изменения в моде связанные с трансформацией, которая вылилась в конечном итоге в брюки. То вот женщины как бы обязаны были носить юбки и ничего более. Могла меняться талия, вырез на груди мог увеличиваться или уменьшаться, могли открываться волосы или закрываться чепчиками или шляпами, но ноги всегда были закрыты. Как мы знаем, лишь в 1950 брюки были окончательно завоёваны женщинами. И даже сейчас в костюм женщин входит юбка, но не брюки, делая юбку как бы аналогом мужского галстука, которые становится выразителями гендерной принадлежности. И делает это так, что это становится похоже на вторую кожу.
Интересное замечание автора по поводу костюма. Автор пишет, что костюм появился как замена рыцарским латам. Вот все те многочисленные трансформации костюма, который в итоге, в какой-то момент, перестал сильно изменяться, были связанны именно тем, чтобы создать аналог рыцарский доспехов. И да, военная форма (у которой между гражданским костюмом нет никаких различий), это прекрасно подтверждает.
Вот эти несколько довольно интересных идей как бы лежат на самой поверхности книги, т.е. те, что легче всего понять, ибо дальше или глубже мне уже было сложно понять автора. Дальше автор пишет, что в XX веке началась ликвидация исключительно женской и мужской одежды (но не до конца, ибо юбок мужчины как не носили так и не носят) и появления стиля унисекс. Теперь можно носить что угодно с чем угодно (вспомним, что верх у женщин менялся радикально, но нижняя часть всегда была закрыта юбкой).
В общем, книга не для всех. Читается сложно и книга будет интересна скорее только тем, кто сильно увлекается темой «история моды».
Quite a strange book. Perhaps this book could be labeled as a philosophical reflection on the history of fashion. I don't know about other readers, but complex, confusing, and not concrete texts have always been associated with the word "philosophy" for me. After all, you can't say that the book is empty or that it doesn't contain valuable ideas. The ideas are quite interesting. The only problem is the way the book is written.
The author analyzes the history of men's and women's clothing through the prism of all history, i.e., how both men's and women's clothing evolved. And to grasp the essence of the idea, it is necessary to outline the starting point and the point common to both men and women - Ancient Greece. Thanks to the surviving sculptural images of the people who lived at the time, we can see that the clothing of men and women did not differ much. This important fact indicates that society had not yet tried to emphasize gender roles or social positions of women and men through clothing and did not try to focus society's attention on certain parts of men and women. In ancient Greece, everyone wore clothes that completely concealed the figure. Moreover, while nudity was commonplace for men, it was forbidden for women (the famous nude female statues caused quite a stir at the time).
Then, the Middle Ages and the New Age with its opulent female costumes, the constant migration (displacement) of the female waist, and the fixation on the breast. Men's costume, too, undergoes multiple metamorphoses, but by a certain century, it stops in its vivid and major change, taking the form that would eventually culminate in the modern men's suit. That is, all those men's suits, starting with the codpiece and clothing making the man's figure look like a pear, etc., happened quickly, radically, but at some point stopped as if finally taking the final form. Women's costume, on the other hand, continues its transformations, including the main battle - the social one. That is the battle for the recognition of women's legs. If men's pants from ancient times recognized the existence of legs, and we can observe the constant changes in fashion associated with the transformation, which culminated eventually in modern pants. Women were obliged to wear skirts. The waist could be different, the neckline could be bigger or smaller, the hair could be open or covered by bonnets or hats, but the legs were always covered. As we know, it wasn't until the 1950s that the pants were finally conquered by women. Furthermore, even now, women's suits include a skirt, but not pants, making the skirt the equivalent of a man's tie, which becomes an expression of gender identity. And does it in such a way that it becomes like a second skin.
It is interesting to note the author's comment about the suit. The author writes that the suit appeared as a replacement for the armor of knights. Here are all those many transformations of the costume, which at some point, ceased to change, were related precisely to create an equivalent of knight's armor. And yes, the military uniform (which has no difference between civilian suit) confirms this perfectly.
These interesting ideas that I have just described kind of lie on the surface of the book, i.e., those that are easiest to understand, because further or deeper was already difficult for me to understand the author. Further, the author writes that in the XX century started the elimination of exclusively female and male clothing (but not entirely, because skirts men did not wear and do not wear) and the emergence of a unisex style. Now you can wear anything with anything (remember, women's tops changed radically, but the lower part was always covered by a skirt).
All in all, the book is not for everyone. It is difficult to read, and the book will rather be interesting only to those who are interested in the topic of " history of fashion."
Довольно странная книга. Возможно, эту книгу можно обозначить как философские размышления на тему истории моды. Не знаю как остальные читатели, но сложные, путанные и не конкретные тексты у меня всегда ассоциировались со словом «философия». Ведь нельзя сказать, что книга пуста или что в ней нет ценных идей. Нет, идеи довольно интересные. Проблема лишь в том, как книга написана.
Автор анализирует историю мужского и женского костюма через призму всей истории, т.е. как менялся и мужской и женский костюм. И чтобы понять суть идеи, нужно обозначить начальную и общую как для мужчин, так и для женщин точку – Древняя Греция. Благодаря сохранившимся скульптурным изображениям живших в то время людей, мы можем увидеть, что одежда мужчин и женщин не сильно отличалась. Это важный факт указывает на то, что общество ещё не пыталось одеждой подчеркнуть гендерные роли или социальные позиции женщин и мужчин и не пыталась через одежду фокусировать внимание общества на определённые части мужчин и женщин. В Древней Греции все носили одежду, которая полностью скрывала фигуру. Более того, если для мужчин нагота была обычным делом, то для женщин это был запрещено (знаменитые обнажённые женские статуи вызвали довольно сильный переполох в то время).
Далее, средние века и новое время с его пышными женскими костюмами, постоянной миграцией (перемещением) женской талии и фиксацией на грудь. Мужской костюм тоже претерпевает множественные метаморфозы, но к определённому веку он останавливается в своём ярком и капитальном изменении, принимая форму, которая в итоге выльется в современный мужской костюм. Т.е. все те мужские костюмы, начиная с гульфика и одежды, делающей фигуру мужчины похожей на грушу и пр., происходило быстро, радикально, но в какой-то момент остановилось, как будто приняв, наконец, конечную форму. Женский же костюм продолжает свои трансформации, включая главные сражения – социальные. Т.е. сражения за признания у женщин ног. Если мужские штаны ещё с давних времён признавали наличие ног, и мы можем наблюдать постоянные изменения в моде связанные с трансформацией, которая вылилась в конечном итоге в брюки. То вот женщины как бы обязаны были носить юбки и ничего более. Могла меняться талия, вырез на груди мог увеличиваться или уменьшаться, могли открываться волосы или закрываться чепчиками или шляпами, но ноги всегда были закрыты. Как мы знаем, лишь в 1950 брюки были окончательно завоёваны женщинами. И даже сейчас в костюм женщин входит юбка, но не брюки, делая юбку как бы аналогом мужского галстука, которые становится выразителями гендерной принадлежности. И делает это так, что это становится похоже на вторую кожу.
Интересное замечание автора по поводу костюма. Автор пишет, что костюм появился как замена рыцарским латам. Вот все те многочисленные трансформации костюма, который в итоге, в какой-то момент, перестал сильно изменяться, были связанны именно тем, чтобы создать аналог рыцарский доспехов. И да, военная форма (у которой между гражданским костюмом нет никаких различий), это прекрасно подтверждает.
Вот эти несколько довольно интересных идей как бы лежат на самой поверхности книги, т.е. те, что легче всего понять, ибо дальше или глубже мне уже было сложно понять автора. Дальше автор пишет, что в XX веке началась ликвидация исключительно женской и мужской одежды (но не до конца, ибо юбок мужчины как не носили так и не носят) и появления стиля унисекс. Теперь можно носить что угодно с чем угодно (вспомним, что верх у женщин менялся радикально, но нижняя часть всегда была закрыта юбкой).
В общем, книга не для всех. Читается сложно и книга будет интересна скорее только тем, кто сильно увлекается темой «история моды».
Quite a strange book. Perhaps this book could be labeled as a philosophical reflection on the history of fashion. I don't know about other readers, but complex, confusing, and not concrete texts have always been associated with the word "philosophy" for me. After all, you can't say that the book is empty or that it doesn't contain valuable ideas. The ideas are quite interesting. The only problem is the way the book is written.
The author analyzes the history of men's and women's clothing through the prism of all history, i.e., how both men's and women's clothing evolved. And to grasp the essence of the idea, it is necessary to outline the starting point and the point common to both men and women - Ancient Greece. Thanks to the surviving sculptural images of the people who lived at the time, we can see that the clothing of men and women did not differ much. This important fact indicates that society had not yet tried to emphasize gender roles or social positions of women and men through clothing and did not try to focus society's attention on certain parts of men and women. In ancient Greece, everyone wore clothes that completely concealed the figure. Moreover, while nudity was commonplace for men, it was forbidden for women (the famous nude female statues caused quite a stir at the time).
Then, the Middle Ages and the New Age with its opulent female costumes, the constant migration (displacement) of the female waist, and the fixation on the breast. Men's costume, too, undergoes multiple metamorphoses, but by a certain century, it stops in its vivid and major change, taking the form that would eventually culminate in the modern men's suit. That is, all those men's suits, starting with the codpiece and clothing making the man's figure look like a pear, etc., happened quickly, radically, but at some point stopped as if finally taking the final form. Women's costume, on the other hand, continues its transformations, including the main battle - the social one. That is the battle for the recognition of women's legs. If men's pants from ancient times recognized the existence of legs, and we can observe the constant changes in fashion associated with the transformation, which culminated eventually in modern pants. Women were obliged to wear skirts. The waist could be different, the neckline could be bigger or smaller, the hair could be open or covered by bonnets or hats, but the legs were always covered. As we know, it wasn't until the 1950s that the pants were finally conquered by women. Furthermore, even now, women's suits include a skirt, but not pants, making the skirt the equivalent of a man's tie, which becomes an expression of gender identity. And does it in such a way that it becomes like a second skin.
It is interesting to note the author's comment about the suit. The author writes that the suit appeared as a replacement for the armor of knights. Here are all those many transformations of the costume, which at some point, ceased to change, were related precisely to create an equivalent of knight's armor. And yes, the military uniform (which has no difference between civilian suit) confirms this perfectly.
These interesting ideas that I have just described kind of lie on the surface of the book, i.e., those that are easiest to understand, because further or deeper was already difficult for me to understand the author. Further, the author writes that in the XX century started the elimination of exclusively female and male clothing (but not entirely, because skirts men did not wear and do not wear) and the emergence of a unisex style. Now you can wear anything with anything (remember, women's tops changed radically, but the lower part was always covered by a skirt).
All in all, the book is not for everyone. It is difficult to read, and the book will rather be interesting only to those who are interested in the topic of " history of fashion."
March 10, 2024
While I agree with the larger points of the book about the gendered nature of fashion and women’s fashion largely following men’s fashion rather than modernly assumed inverse, I would VERY much like to introduce Hollander to the study of colonialism as well as more nuanced approaches to scholarship. Granted this was written in 1994, but the language of this book is so incredibly colonialist (also warnings for transphobia) and the entire book is based on major generalizations about euro-american fashion that miss a lot of nuance and even carries misinformation about history. Overall I would not recommend this for any accurate study of fashion history— the main premise of the book being gleaned from reviews/synopses is more than enough. Otherwise I would recommend learning from fashion historians on YouTube like Nicole Rudolph (she/they) who discuss gendered fashion history in a more nuanced way via primary source research and reconstruction.
February 13, 2021
really interesting to learn about the history of fashion like this, but idk about the theory element, i had a hard time understanding some of it and some of it i wasn't sure if i was being insulted or phobia'd or what lmao like it's from a few decades ago so who can really say..... but in general i didn't quite vibe with a lot of the theory and it was hard to tell what was theory vs fact sometimes which didn't sit right with me? don't know to what extent that was my reading comprehension's fault tho. still worth the read ultimately! i learned a ton and unlearned even more
June 24, 2012
This was...an interesting little book. I enjoyed the sections on the evolution of fashion, but found the more sociological sections on the relationship between sexuality and clothes to be a bit far-fetched. The writing was also very dense...it read like a textbook I should have had in a women's studies course more than anything.
February 6, 2019
To be honest for the review, I stopped reading the book about 20% in. I was expecting more of a history of the modern suit (how it developed, etc.), not a long treatise on what fashion is. The author just kept talking in abstract terms about fashion, so I really couldn't get into the reading. The parts when she started describing specific clothes would have benefitted from more pictures. I don't know what a padded doublet is, or the difference between trousers and breeches.
February 10, 2016
Love this book. I found some of the explanations of why certain trends evolved the way they did and of the symbolism of modern men's dress to be fascinating. Fashion is so tied up with how we view gender, power, people, etc.; parts of this book still resonate with me and it's been about 13 years since I read it.
December 22, 2023
- Author suggests that female fashion typically follows male fashion: that female fashion tend to be more conservative and male fashion are typically trend setters, then soon the female fashion follow suit
- Author noted that people often assign meanings to style of the decade after the fact, not during when a new style of clothing is under development
- Fashion change largely due to the underlying desire for each generation differentiate themselves from the prior generation, and the author argue that because of that, style can't be predicted (author noted that many such scientists try to link, for instance, skirt length with stock market. But such corelation has rarely been well proven)
- Author would like to use the word "modern" as a verb rather than a noun: that "modern" fashion is not a singular stagnant style, but rather an ever evolving style
- Clothing change doesn't occur out of vaccume. Chances are, any new wave of clothing has its roots 25 years prior
- Non fashionable clothing (traditional clothing) are stagnant, and is used to establish a cultural value
- Modern suit was born out of wanting to feel effortless easy (as oppose to clothing prior, which borne with burdens and layers)
- Men's style tend to be modest in nature compared to women's. "Underwear" has always been worn unseen (and the society's definition of underwear evolves over time)
- The more causal choice usually trend to become the norm, then trended over by the next casual choice
- Author noted that people often assign meanings to style of the decade after the fact, not during when a new style of clothing is under development
- Fashion change largely due to the underlying desire for each generation differentiate themselves from the prior generation, and the author argue that because of that, style can't be predicted (author noted that many such scientists try to link, for instance, skirt length with stock market. But such corelation has rarely been well proven)
- Author would like to use the word "modern" as a verb rather than a noun: that "modern" fashion is not a singular stagnant style, but rather an ever evolving style
- Clothing change doesn't occur out of vaccume. Chances are, any new wave of clothing has its roots 25 years prior
- Non fashionable clothing (traditional clothing) are stagnant, and is used to establish a cultural value
- Modern suit was born out of wanting to feel effortless easy (as oppose to clothing prior, which borne with burdens and layers)
- Men's style tend to be modest in nature compared to women's. "Underwear" has always been worn unseen (and the society's definition of underwear evolves over time)
- The more causal choice usually trend to become the norm, then trended over by the next casual choice
February 23, 2021
Supremely interesting and fun. Reading Proust it was impossible not be infected by his enthusiasm for Fashion -- but what do I know about Fashion? I can't remember how this ended up in my reading list, maybe it was because of Proust--who knows, but I'm beyond happy I found it. Anne Hollander breezes through the history of the men's suit, it's ties to ancient Greek and Roman art, with dashing words and nice phrases. I can't think of another book that so dramatically changed how I look at things. Where did pants come from? Why didn't everyone get to wear them right away? This book has the answers.
September 13, 2022
Art historian Anne Hollander takes on fashion history in this readable and enjoyable book. The title sums of much of her thesis on fashion: that it is driven by sex, and that suits are incredibly important to fashion history. With a small bibliography and little to no mentions of which sources she gathers info from, this is much better for a casual reader of fashion history, and less a scholarly/academic focused book. Smart, sassy, and opinionated, Hollander brings things to life, and has a wonderful turn of phrase.
Read
January 19, 2023It is quite difficult to really follow the trends of changes in one direction or another of men's suit fashion. But it is important that now there is an opportunity to choose your unique style of men's suit fashion, especially for graduation. This resource offers a huge collection of stylish men's suits, to make unforgettable moments of your events glamorous and unique.
Read
January 28, 2021I've always been curious about the ebbs and flows of fashion so this book was fascinating. It treats fashion as an art form and so charts its evolution from when it became sharply divided between the sexes to current day.
May 21, 2019
The history of modern dress is clearly and passionately explained in this book. A vital read for anyone interested in fashion.
February 16, 2020
really interesting
September 8, 2025
Interesting walk through of fashion history. The way the author describes suits with unbridled, passionate praise when they are brought up is something I found funny.
May 6, 2025
The history of clothes is such a wild romp that the “lacking of reading” of the book will pit you at a great disadvantage. For example, did you know that men’s original outfits, especially in the 18th century, were especially made to accent the male’s body below the waist.
October 3, 2007
Read this for an art history paper on modernity and fashion. Well-written exploration of the history of the modern suit, especially in regards to how women's clothes have evolved over the last two centuries - not just what we wear but how we feel wearing it. Written from the viewpoint of an art historian.
Want to read
January 15, 2010To re-read - library?
Displaying 1 - 20 of 20 reviews