TRADITION: let's (re)define it.

[Spartan Tartan]

I'll throw my hat in the ring this time. But instead of trying to decide what others should post where, I will just describe how I decide where to post.

It comes down to my intent. When I'm getting dressed, what is my intention or motivation? If I feel that I am getting dressed with my choices guided toward the traditional, then any post about that outfit would be placed into the "traditional" sub-forum. Accordingly, if I asked for opinions about that outfit, I'd have on my thick skin.

On the other hand, if I think I'm being more modern (it could simply be a modern tie to highlight the outfit, or a UK with boots....), then my posts would be there.

As a still reasonably new member, I have never given too much thought to the forums. If I have a picture, I post in pictures. If I want input about a traditionally inspired outfit, I go to traditional. If I want to talk about kilted Roller Derby outings,I'll likely end up in modern or general discussions sub-forums.

Although I can appreciate long discussions (and do follow many of them) about the finest of details, I do not understand why it matters so much which forum I (or anyone else) posts into. Am I going to be kicked out of the XMTS club if I believe my 8-yd knife pleated kilt worn with full PC get up belongs in a modern forum thread for discussions?

Just my 2 cents..

[MacMillans son]

So if we take the time bracket off of the title all will be right with the world...right?

Restarting this "How do we define traditional" discussion for the umpteenth time is causing the earth to slowly begin to elongate due the increased rate of spinning...around and around and around and......

[WillieMacG]

So if we take the time bracket off of the title all will be right with the world...right?

"Basically."

[Joshua]

The problem is, it is a very intangible definition to begin with.

Jacket styles have changed over the years, however I consider 3 staple outfits to comprise most of "Traditional Daywear":

Dress shirt, 4-in-hand knotted tie, colored hose, low-cut leather shoe (oxford/brogue)

AND:
Waistcoat
OR:
Kilt-Jacket and Kilt Belt
OR:
Kilt-Jacket and Waistcoat.

With minor modification (switching leathers from brown to black, fabrics from tweeds to black, etc... you have switched to "Traditional Eveningwear".

All of these above styles are as "old" as the men's suit and jacket. However, just like the modern "business/dress/tuxedo" suit has only changed in minor detail for the past 110 years or so... so has kilted fashion

My point is... a well made suit from 1930, kept well, would still look good today. That is "traditional". If you could traverse kilt-appropriate areas of time over the last 100 years or so in your attire with only *minimal* differences (please, don't be pedantic and split hairs here over collar styles, etc), I would venture to say that is "traditional".

Because of how long we've had this iteration of the classic "suit", I regard it as "the wheel", as in "it won't be reinvented any time soon". I will wager that my comments above will ring true in another 100 years. And, if we are vigilant in how we dress today, the same could possibly be true of the kilt.

[Cowher]

Using that illustration of the suit: if you did wear a suit from the 30's it would be dated. If you wore a suit from the 1970's it would be dated and in 20 years Tge suits that are all the rage today will look dated. But they are all suits. They are still the standard for office types.
If you wore a kilt outfit from the time of the undoing of the highland dress act you would look dated. And on and on. But it's still semi formal kilt attire.
I have issue with the way kilted style is described here. To me it is:
Traditional highland dress = classic kilt wear
Modern kilt wear = casual kilt wear

[Lime]

Isn’t “tradition” just something you do twice?

I consider “tradition in dress” to be dress which is within the "accepted norm" while “modern” pushes that accepted norm in some new way.

It does not help that the "accepted norm" constantly shifts over time and in different places. For instance the ubiquitous button down collar may be within the accepted norm for American business wear whereas in the UK a button down shirt in the office may cause the senior partner to choke on his cucumber and Marmite sandwiches! Likewise that same senior partner may be wearing a traditional English shirt, handmade on Jermyn street, but with a breast pocket (shock horror!) which would have made his senior partner go into a tirade about the youth of today before seating himself on his clay trap and shouting "pull"!

[Drac]

Can't there a differerance between traditional and right/good looking?

US Navy dress white uniforms are traditional but they are anything but nice looking in my opinion. Polyester bell bottoms aren't my style.

I've seen some of those opictures that have been posted of Victorian wear, which I would quess would be traditional, but I would never go that far as some of those. I am still wondering how they were able to walk.

Jim

[M. A. C. Newsome]

Some people seem to want to equate modern kilt wear (i.e. "non-traditional") with "casual" kilt wear, but I would strongly disagree. This implies that the kilt was never worn except for formal occasions. But remember there was a time when the kilt was the regular day-to-day mode of dress for the Highland male.

There is nothing formal about these photos, yet I would argue they represent traditional kilt wear.












In light of this fact, I think when one wears the kilt in a contemporary, casual fashion, one is being very traditional. I tend to define "traditional" as any manner of wearing the kilt that stems organically from the tradition of Highland dress that comes before it. I would define as "non-traditional" any style of kilt-like garment that originates independently, or a style that pointedly departs from, the Highland dress traditions.

So I view myself as being very traditional when I wear the kilt in this way, even though I get the feeling from some on the forum that they would not view it the same way:

[Jock Scot]

Well said Matt, I was about to say much the same, but you beat me to the draw and you have made the point far better than I could have done!

You also illustrate the point, well, that the 1980's XMTS demarcation line is not appropriate either.

[Father Bill]

To me, Matt, you look very "traditional" in my own understanding of the word, but then I don't personally define the kilt below the waist by the PCs, Balmorals, or jabots above it.

Are folks trying to pussyfoot around the use of non-tartan non "tank-like" designs? I like some of those. Others I think are silly attempts to be different for the sake of difference, but I readily and gladly admit that this is a reflection of my own tastes and preferences, not of any hard or fast rule.

If that is what we're really trying to say asnd we're afraid of offending anyone, then let's go ahead and say it, but make it clear that the thought is merely to keep discussions of similar types together in various forums, and not to make value-judgements as to which is "better" than the other.

Better? No. Different? Of course! It's childish to refuse to acknowledge it.

Long live the kilt!!