indywind ([personal profile] indywind) wrote in [personal profile] untonuggan 2016-01-28 07:37 pm (UTC)

Oh, okay, fair enough; as a broad generalization for popular audiences that's not inaccurate.

I'm a historical textile nerd, specializing in pre-sewing-machine-times, though, so I know enough more that "more-or-less accurate in a simplistic way" begins to look more "so oversimplified it's no longer accurate." Some curved-construction methods are easier by hand than by machine, a few are FAR easier (inset gussets OMG), many are equally fabric-sparing, some fitted constructions *more* fabric-sparing than rectangular versions of similar garments. But curved and pieced construction takes more time than making a roughly-human-sized rectangular sack, so it tends to correlate with *either* time-saving mechanization, or with different prioritization around clothing than we (modern western first-world) take for granted. For instance, our clothing expectations tend to emphasize quantity (owning many different clothes) and standardization (being able to buy off-the-rack) over durable utility and custom fit. Repair-vs-replace is another ideology trade-off that's apart from technology; it is often easier to repair by hand (rather than by machine) clothes constructed in any manner. But it is easier to replace factory-constructed clothes than to repair them, because the labor cost is distributed and externalized so we don't notice it.

Erm, I apologize if this was more than you wanted to get into. My geekery sometimes slips the leash.



Post a comment in response:

If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org