[Sca-cooks] Is cooking like costuming?

[lilinah at earthlink.net]

Lady Katherine Rowberd wrote:
>See, in my world view, slavishly copying stuff from period sources is a
>good way to learn, but once you have a reasonable understanding of the
>topic you can use your knowledge to make your own things in the same
>style.  This is most commonly seen in costuming, where people might
>start by attempting to make costumes or garments to exactly match
>portraits or whatever, but will eventually start to design their own
>clothes based on a general style.  So if this is common and accepted in
>costuming, why isn't it more accepted in cooking?
>
>I guess the thing is that people associate "period-style" with the
>generic roast-meat-and-bread-and-soup feasts that are common in some
>places, and the authenticists are trying to encourage people to move
>away from the myth of Henry VIII with his turkey leg and towards
>something accurate.  Another thing might be that the general knowledge
>of period cookery (or our perception of that knowledge) is not as good
>as our knowledge of costuming, and so cooks as a group still feel more
>comfortable copying from specific sources rather than making stuff up.

I really don't think the differences between cooking and costuming
are as great as you make them out to be. Most people are content to
accept peri-oid food and clothing. There are a few people who are
very scrupulous and who know the difference in either field.

Frankly, other than in the 16th century, there's darned little out
there on cooking *or* costuming that's very conclusive. One of the
biggest differences i can see is that one can find a number of
different colors, fabrics, and fabric patterns to use to make "the
same" Italian Renaissance dress. But there are many aspects of
costuming that are open to interpretation and lots of the
interpretations i've see are way off.

I've seen a number of lovely garments that look "period" to those who
don't know a whole lot, but which are way off if one knows. For
example, i was recently looking at a bodice in a 16th century
"style", but the colors, fabrics, decorative techniques, and
decorative motifs were way off. It was lovely and nicely done and
most people would accept it as "period". But in all truth, it wasn't.
I think, personally, that i would be gracious to call it peri-oid.

Is a houppeland made of printed cotton in pastel colors period or
peri-oid? Is a "Burgundian" dress made of Jacquard woven fabric
period or peri-oid? Is a Tudor dress made of "royal blue" acetate
satin period or peri-oid? Is a garment with "Celtic knot" embroidery
period or peri-oid? Or are any or all of these things just way off?
And how often do you see people wearing Elizabethan garb made of
wool? Sure, pure silk velvet and a good stiff silk satin are either
impossible or too expensive for the vast majority of us, but are
costumers even using the closest stuffs they can find and afford, or
are they making their garb out of stuffs they just like and think
"look good" on them? And are these choices being generally accepted?

For example, i got into a discussion of period fabric colors on a
relevant e-list. Frankly one cannot know what colors people were
wearing based on paintings, except perhaps in the 16th c. and maybe
sometimes in the late 15th, for several reasons. One reason is the
painter's palette differed greatly from the dyer's. Another is many
paints could not be mixed to produce additional colors, and several
paints could not be used close to each other or the chemicals in them
would react and change the color, often turning one or both black.
Furthermore, prestigious colors in painting are quite different from
prestigious colors in dyes. And, for my last example, a pale colored
garment in the real world would, most of the time, indicate poverty,
yet there are many pastel garments in paintings (parts of the 16th c.
are exceptional).

Additionally, when dealing with certain times and places, damned
little is known. Byzantium, for example. Most of the surviving art
shows royalty in ceremonial garments. Exactly how some of these were
made is still a mystery. What they wore daily is not clear. We have
to interpret art, surviving writings, stuff from other near by - or
not so near by - places that were influenced by, had an influence on,
or traded with Byzantium to try to figure it out.

And Byzantium is not a unique example. But, enough. This is a cooking list.

My basic point is that there's an awful lot that's "accepted" by
people in the SCA as "period" that really really isn't. This goes for
what far too many people would consider "period" costuming as well as
cooking.

Anahita
who costumes, too