Talk:Artistic Dress

Fashion Mid‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

More coming: reactions to artistic dress, bohemianism, Liberty and aesthetic dress, Kate Greenaway and children's dress.

PKM 3 July 2005 04:58 (UTC)

Hope that you don't mind that I joined in the fray. We need dates, and I was too lazy to look them up. Also pictures of fashionable versions of aesthetic dress. I know I've seen fashion plates showing a strange mixture of medievalizing and tiny waists. Weren't tea gowns a compromise -- tightly fitted in front and flowing in back? (Watteau back, I think.)

Weren't there male versions of aesthetic dress too? Oscar Wilde was certainly known for his knee breeches. Zora 3 July 2005 08:46 (UTC)

Of course I don't mind; I was hoping for help with this. Yes, tea gowns (by way of Liberty I think) - that's the next thing I want to add.

And yes to Oscar Wilde (and the resurgence of smocks, especially for children, a bit later under the influence of Kate Greenaway's illustrations - which brings in retro-Regency, which is another influence on artistic dress, especially the sleeve styles...)

and we need to link to and contrast with Victorian dress reform PKM 3 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)

Oh and thanks for fixing the POV - I knew "wildly" and "excessive" weren't quite the thing. - pk

Edits of 9 July 2005[edit]

Added the references to Wilde and Liberty, and images. What do people think of the "more images" section? I don't want to load the page up, but it's important to see the clothes – is this a good compromise?

I'll find more images for late aesthetic dress and some tea gowns. PKM 19:44, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zora - I like your edit. Much more concise. PKM 23:19, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone working on Indian movies set up a photo gallery for Indian actresses and it actually looks kinda nice. Maybe we could figure out how to do this and have photo galleries for costume articles?

The problem is always, of course, getting images that are public domain. Since so many commercial sites just grab the Wikipedia text and images, we can't use anything that's fair use only. It has to be unlimited use. It's easy with stuff that's 2-D, since there's a US court ruling that a photo of a 2-D original that's old enough to be public domain can't be copyrighted. If the original is pre-1923, any images are fair game. But photos of old gowns, as opposed to photos of old fashion illustrations -- those can be copyrighted. Zora 23:25, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a definitive ruling whether pages from old catalogs count as "promotional" and are therefore PD? I've uploaded one from the 1930s... see suit.PKM 05:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with copyright law is that it's often not clear if anyone has rights. The only way you find out that it's OK to use it is if no one sues you. It seems highly unlikely that Sears, say, would sue you for using an image from a 1930s catalogue, but you can't rule out any corporate idiocy. Major reasons to have the laws changed! So I can't answer your question. I don't think that "promotional" use turns something into PD, but the copyright status of an old catalog is murky. Zora 07:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Artistic Dress movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]