Anti-fashion
Anti-fashion is an umbrella term for various styles of dress that are explicitly contrary to the fashion of the day. Anti-fashion styles may represent an attitude of indifference or may arise from political or practical goals which make fashion a secondary priority. The term is sometimes even used for styles championed by high-profile designers, when they encourage or create trends that do not follow the mainstream fashion of the time.
Anti-fashion is considered radical creativity in apparel. It recombines a hodgepodge of details that dramatically alters current fashions. The newly transformed styles are later incorporated into the mainstream through media hype and commercial sales which reduce its stature. Grunge is an example of the oppositional style of dress while the rational dress of the Victorian era, which allowed ladies to swim or bicycle, is an example of a functional anti-fashion.[1]
History[edit]
19th century[edit]
The burden of wearing extremely heavy dresses in all seasons that could not be washed was a health hazard, especially for frail women who might be overly susceptible to disease. Long dresses dragged on unpaved streets and floors carrying filth and germs indoors that affected household members, especially small children. In homes, long dresses were also fire hazards with open fireplaces. Fashionable styles requiring tight corsets, thin shoes or heavy tight hats—although considered beautiful at the time—restricted the wearer's movement and breathing.
Alternative forms of daywear were promoted by women's clubs of the time, especially The Dress Reform Association which began in Seneca Falls, NY. in the 1850s, and thus the Bloomer costume was born. It consisted of a bifurcated skirt held close to the ankles, a softly fitted-over dress that required only a non-restricting soft corset. This newsworthy pants-like costume created a huge fashion stir, both positive and negative, nationwide, and only the most daring feminists adopted it. It was not considered ladylike or beautiful by those who thought that only unfeminine non-conformists would dare to wear the new style.[5]