http://lilium-m.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] lilium-m.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] hetalia2011-10-11 04:49 pm
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry
Entry tags:
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[identity profile] xxmapsyrxx.livejournal.com 2011-10-11 06:14 pm (UTC)(link)
I think it's aboriginal. Qipao is very much not this color pattern, and it is not very ancient at all, in fact it is so modern, it may only have a history of no more than 150 years.
The aboriginal dresses I have seen often resembles this color pattern as well.

[identity profile] blue-bansheed.livejournal.com 2011-10-11 06:54 pm (UTC)(link)
When i said "Ancient qipao" I was referring to the fact that isn't the "modern one" as it is a lot more slim than the traditional one and was adapted in the last century and it's by now the more popular form of it. And By the way the Qipao haves almost 400 years as it was from the Quin dynasty, but I wasn't aware of the color pattern.

By the way, take a look to the Bunun's outfit it looks a lot like them.

East Asia Fashion Talk?

[identity profile] xxmapsyrxx.livejournal.com 2011-10-11 09:44 pm (UTC)(link)
In no way I think this is going to happen, but if Himaruya sensei releases the full picture, that is including how the dress looks like overall, then there probably is very little room left for the debate of "what is she wearing?".

It is very interesting that most people use these terms (ancient,modern, adapted etc.), because I think the evolution of East Asian clothes, whether traditional or not, have taken many different routes in modern days. Some encompasses a more dramatic approach and other encompasses a more gradual approach. In terms of Qipao, I think the adapted version (to make it simple for the discussion) is a rather drastic change from the ones wore pre-Xinhai revolution, or more appropriately before the 1920s. It is, in the opinion of mine, possible to draw a line between the adapted and the unadapted. Not necessarily as two different styles of clothes but something that deserves separate studies.

I am sorry I mistook your word for that meaning. The Qing Dynasty (do mind the spelling because the Qin Dynasty is a completely different era of time) is currently up for many debates, seeing as there is resurgence of many revolutionary related ideologies from Xinhai revolution, including fashion related areas. Unfortunately within the fashion arena, history regarding the Qing Dynasty is rather bloody and dark.

What I am about to say next may be rather different from what you believe in, so feel free to contest my argument. I think when it comes to studying East Asia, there are few holes people often fall into. One of the major holes I believe many people have fallen into, including myself, is how valuable we view pieces of history. East Asia has a very VERY long history, I have found myself and many others take a more focused look at modern history instead of history before 1850 (this is my very rough line of separation). Of course EA changed a lot in the past 150 years, but EA have been changing and evolving for many years, sometimes the changes that happened thousands of years ago still has a profound effect on EA today,as it is everywhere else. It is very important for us to weight in post-1850 as much as we weight in pre-1850. I suppose in comparison or proportionally, time frames need different quantification.

Qipao, with its 400 year history, regardless of talking about the unadapted ones or adapted ones, is still considered very modern in my opinion. It is especially true against wafuku, hanbok and hanfu. In the whole grand scheme of EA history to date, it started to shine very late.

Hope to hear from you ^_^
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only