X Marks the Scot - An on-line community of kilt wearers.
-
21st June 20, 01:37 PM
#20
 Originally Posted by Katia
If we had to always consider an ill-fitting item of clothing to be not that item of clothing because of the fact that it's ill-fitting, there wouldn't be much "genuine" attire out there! I mean, if you took that same garment that is too long on Person A and hence not a kilt, and put it on Person B, who is taller and who it would fit correctly, would it turn into a kilt again? If we took Person B's perfectly-fitting kilt, and lent it to Person C, who is even taller yet and so it would be too short on them, does that turn into not-a-kilt?
I might say someone is committing the crime of not wearing the garment correctly, but that doesn't mean it's not actually the garment. I could wear my kilt on my head and it would still be a kilt... You would say, "why does that idiot have a kilt on her head?" not "Oh what an interesting hat."
That's a valid point, and I suppose there is a stage where we have to separate the garment's construction (as inspected by itself on a table, shall we say) from the garment's use.
Take a plain old length of tartan straight from the weaver. Is it a blanket? Is it a day plaid? Is it a great kilt? It could be one of these, or it could be all three. It all depends on what one does with it. Which is to say, yes, an item's definition very much depends on how it is worn.
But specific to the kilt, I hope that we would all agree an ankle-length pleated skirt which matches all the other criteria of a kilt except for its ridiculous length is not a kilt. Or would you say that it IS a kilt, just for a person who is 10 feet tall?
Ill-fitting is one thing. Intent to be worn outside the parameters of what is recognisable as a kilt is something else.
-
The Following User Says 'Aye' to Tobus For This Useful Post:
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks