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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-01-28 07:37 pm (UTC)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.