I'm undecided whether I want to treat the idea of dressing up or dressing down, business formal or business casual. This is a difficult concept to work with, because what is considered formal and what is considered casual are so relative to the time frame which is examined.
As a child, I remember my Grandfather always dressing up in suit and tie to go to town, and Grandmother always wore her Sunday Best to go, as well. It didn't matter if they were going to go visiting friends, go for church business, go to get groceries, or go to take their car to be repaired. Oh, and Grandfather always wore a brimmed hat.
That was then, and this is now. One of the articles, which I read in our textbook, talked about how the three-piece suit was work clothing or casual clothing or sports clothing three to four hundred years ago. Wild speculation was that perhaps knit jersey (T-shirt material) would become formal wear in the future. So, it seems, goes fashion.
Fashion is fickle. Fashion is often impractical. So this is what I think...
We have fabrics which are fine fabrics, expensive, with a hand for being used in formal clothing, whether the fabric be of a soft hand, or crisp or hard. Every fabric has different properties and have a particularly practical, specific use. Articles of clothing, both in design and in fabric, need to be constructed according to the demands placed upon them.
Therefore, clothing which is going to be used for attending church needs to be somewhat more formal in nature, demonstrating reverence for Deity. The demands placed upon it are fewer than, say, work clothing. Work clothing, on the other hand, needs to be durable, allow for freedom of movement, and have storage pockets. Office clothing, is different again. Office clothing needs to be softer, more comfortable, and less distracting, as far as the way they feel, goes. It needs to allow the wearer to concentrate on the work, not how tight the collar is, or whether or not the tie is crooked.
It naturally follows that sportswear should fit the sport. I suppose that if one wished to take this to the extreme, it would be most practical to wear nothing for swimming (unless it was for speed swimming, which would require body hair and body parts to be covered and streamlined, but even then, minimum coverage would be the most practical. sports which require running would require minimum coverage for support, with, perhaps, split legs or perhaps even legless. Sports requiring the extensive use of arms, would dictate sleeveless shirts or even no shirts. Support appropriate for men and women would ultimately be the only necessary clothing. That's if one wished to take this idea to extremes.
We are, however, kept in check by moral values dictating standards of modesty, and by the necessary coverage of certain body parts in order to maintain hygiene. These factors, must then be taken into account.
I suppose my point is that we need to look at dress as something which needs to fit the situation and environment. It needs to be practical and appropriate. Fashion needs to work within those parameters. There is a time and a place for all things, both for lace and for leather, for ornamentation and for austerity. I think that this will not happen, however, until the need for power and authority, and vanity are eradicated from the human psyche.
Until then, I'm NOT wearing a suit to go do my grocery shopping.
