Historically, working clothes have been less-ornamented versions of clothes meant more for display-- or maybe it's the other way round, clothes not meant for working have been more-ornamented versions of clothes for work. The general shape, and construction methods/complexity have been, usually, substantially similar; instead, different materials are used, and non-work clothes include more additional details that don't add to functionality. This generalization is modified by other variables like wearer's class/social conditions, gender, cultural aesthetics, climate conditions, and work conditions. Where individuals own few clothes (and occupy a relatively fixed social role), one person might use the same main garment or set of garments for both work and nonwork, and add or subtract minor elements for function or decoration --like putting on an apron for work, or jewelry for nonwork. Where there's a distinction between a working class and a leisure class, all the clothes of the leisure class tend toward a more extreme, less functional version of whatever the current cultural aesthetic is.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-01-29 07:37 pm (UTC)Where individuals own few clothes (and occupy a relatively fixed social role), one person might use the same main garment or set of garments for both work and nonwork, and add or subtract minor elements for function or decoration --like putting on an apron for work, or jewelry for nonwork. Where there's a distinction between a working class and a leisure class, all the clothes of the leisure class tend toward a more extreme, less functional version of whatever the current cultural aesthetic is.