The women portrayed are so flat-chested for the most part. Was this a time when they still wore foundation garments that would flatten everything out (like in the 20s), or is it simply the artist's choice of model/ personal preference?
I don't think the women are flat chested at all. Yeah, the silhouette is a bit square, but so was the one of the 30s. The bust as its own entity was not a big deal until the 50s, so bras and such didn't highlight boobs in the 30s, they sort of masses them into one big lump.
You're right, I didn't phrase that correctly. When I said flat-chested I didn't mean that they have no boobs, more that everything seems flattened so that boobs and waist practically blend into one. It leaves wondering what the underwear must have been like, to achieve that level of squish (for the larger of bust at least...), and I guess I'm grateful I'll never have to wear it!
The women portrayed are so flat-chested for the most part. Was this a time when they still wore foundation garments that would flatten everything out (like in the 20s), or is it simply the artist's choice of model/ personal preference?
ReplyDeleteLove those hats -- and those "stout" women shoes. What a great catalog!
ReplyDeleteI don't think the women are flat chested at all. Yeah, the silhouette is a bit square, but so was the one of the 30s. The bust as its own entity was not a big deal until the 50s, so bras and such didn't highlight boobs in the 30s, they sort of masses them into one big lump.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, I didn't phrase that correctly. When I said flat-chested I didn't mean that they have no boobs, more that everything seems flattened so that boobs and waist practically blend into one. It leaves wondering what the underwear must have been like, to achieve that level of squish (for the larger of bust at least...), and I guess I'm grateful I'll never have to wear it!
ReplyDelete