![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is about a topic whose name is originally rendered in the
Japanese script; however the article does not have that version of its name in the article's lead paragraph. Anyone who is knowledgeable enough with the original language is invited to assist in adding the Japanese script. For more information, see: MOS:FOREIGN · Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Japanese) · MOS:JAPAN. |
![]() | The contents of the Japanese Fashion (Traditional) page were merged into Japanese clothing on 25 August 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from kimono was copied or moved into Japanese clothing. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
what Japanese girls wear for girl scouts what their girl Scout uniforms look like
yes Japanese people rock everyone's socks so don't deny it everyone knows that. They are also very calm and they are just better than anyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i think the "modern section" needs to be heavily added to. most japanese don't wear lolita or ganguro. many wear western designer brands etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.216.110 ( talk) 16:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This should either be rewritten as an article or renamed List of Japanese clothing. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) ( talk) 06:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
This page seems to have been vandalised. Not sure how recently, but it's clearly been tampered with in the past as well. - 1st December 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.121.252 ( talk) 19:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
So the dudes have those comedic thong loincloths, what about the ladies? Eregli bob ( talk) 11:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
There are almost no definitions of terms, and sentences are aften vague and confusing, with no supporting evidence or explination given. For example, the first three sentences, for someone coming to the article with no previous knowledge, make absolutely no sense. What is "yin" clothing and "yang" clothing? Why mention these two different types of clothing and then never explain them, or even mention them again? What on earth is meant by "These were developed to go along with nature"? To go along with who's nature? The nature of what? How were they developed to go along with this unspecified "nature"? Article is very vague and confusing--it's also frustrating that there are not cited references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artismyhammer ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The article Japanese Fashion (Traditional) covers some of the same ground as Japanese clothing but does not yet distinguish itself enough to qualify for a separate article. Ian.thomson ( talk) 08:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Normally I'd just come in and fix things but I feel compelled to explain my coming changes. So let me break the current picture selection down.
So all in all
Needed additions include at least: everyday wear, work wear, outer wear, (school?) uniform, and contemporary fashion. -- Pitke ( talk) 18:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, an IP editor 166.70.219.249 added this untranslated content to the article. I'm moving it here so that editors can help with translation before it is re-added to to the article (contingent on appropriate citations). Thank you. Netherzone ( talk) 22:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
縄文時代の身体装飾については石製や貝製の 装身具などの出土事例があるが、衣服に関しては 植物繊維などの有機質が考古遺物として残存しにくいため実態は不明である。ただし、 編布(アンギン、縄文期独自の編み物)の断片やひも付きの袋などの出土事例があり、 カラムシ(苧麻)・ アサ(麻)などの植物繊維から糸を紡ぐ技術や、できた糸から 布地を作る技術はあったことがわかる。この編布から衣服が作られて着られていたと推測されている。
縄文時代には人形を模した 土偶の存在があるが、土偶の造形は実際の身体装飾を表現したとは見なしがたい抽象文様で、実際の衣服の実態をどの程度反映しているかはっきりしない。
弥生時代の衣服についても、出土事例は少なく、『 魏書』東夷伝の一部の「 魏志倭人伝」によって推測されているのみである。魏志倭人伝の記述によると、倭人の着物は幅広い布を結び合わせている、男性は髪を結って髷にしているとある。
古墳時代の 豪族たちの 墳墓から発掘される 埴輪は、当時の服装を知る貴重な資料である。古墳時代の日本人の服は男女ともに上下2部式であり(つまり、現代の洋服の「トップス」と「ボトムズ」のような上・下の構成であり)、男性は上衣と ゆったりしたズボン状の袴で、ひざ下をひもで結んでいる。女性は上衣と喪(裾の長いロングスカート)の姿である。襟は男女ともに左前の盤領(あげくび)という詰衿形式が多い。これらの服装は貴族階級のものと推測される [1]。
『 日本書紀』によると、603年に、 聖徳太子が、優れた人を評価する 冠位十二階を定めて、役人の位階によって 冠の色を定めている。これより上層階級は、 隋の衣服令に従って中国大陸の 漢服を模倣することになる [2]。
On behalf of the ip requesting translation Netherzone ( talk) 22:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I've removed a paragraph at the end of the history section, which was sourced with "Japanese Traditional Raiment in the Context of Emergent Cultural Paradigms", published in the "Cogito" Journal of "Dimitrie Cantemir" Christian University, Bucharest, in 2012. Here's the paragraph in question:
As time passed, new approaches to clothing were brought up, but the original mindset of a covered body lingered. The new trend of tattoos competed with the social concept of hidden skin and led to differences in opinion among the Japanese community and their social values. The dress code that was once followed on a daily basis reconstructed into a festive and occasional trend. [3]
I have issues with this paragraph, and looking at the source, particular issues with its characterisation of Japanese clothing. Here's a quote from the source, talking about Japanese clothing before the Meiji period:
...the costume in Japanese culture was intended to emphasize the wearer's social status at the expense of 'degrading' the natural body. This was achieved through the application of the strict dress-code, whose idea was borrowed from ancient China, which regimented the colour scheme, shades, type and quality of the fabric - all determined by the wearer's position and social rank.
The author seems to view the development of Japanese clothing through a heavily Western lens of progress - that "new approaches to clothing were brought up, but the original mindset of a covered body lingered", combined with "the application of the strict dress-code, whose idea was borrowed from ancient China", really, really sounds like more of the same 'Japanese clothing was strict and exotic and ritualistic (but also primitive somehow) until Western clothing came along', which is so many miles away from being the case.
It is true that Japanese women who adopted Western clothing during the Meiji period were more likely to wear high-necked dresses - we know for a fact that the Empress of Japan of the time had a particular fondness for them, and had imported Western clothing modified to have a higher neckline.
But the author seems to take the approach that fashion didn't exist until Western clothing arrived, completely ignoring the fact that silhouette alone is not the only paradigm through which fashion trends can be seen. For instance, throughout the Edo period, fashions for clothing design and colour essentially flipped - from the gaudy, bright designs of the Genroku period, to the subdued development of iki as an aesthetic ideal, equally driven by fashion.
By painting Japanese clothing as a "strict dress code" from "ancient China" - almost, if not directly, implying a totally unchanged nature in this time - the author maligns Japanese fashion as straightjacketed by rules, which...I mean, look at the Edo period and tell me everyone followed the rules. The concept of iki originated from subverting patchily-applied clothing edicts. As an aside - "ancient China" isn't defined in this paragraph, but as a friend of mine pointed out the other day, people will call 16th-century China "ancient" if it suits their needs. It smacks of Orientalism.
The idea that social status alone, and not a desire to look good or fashionable, was the only thing that drove what people wore is ahistorical and untrue. The "dress code that was once followed on a daily basis" - which dress code? Mid-Meiji, roughly-defined ryakugi, informal clothing, versus reisō, formal clothing? Are we talking about the specific invention of many types of kimono, which really only happened in the later Meiji period? Or are we talking about the whole formality shebang, the whole nine yards of rules, that only began to exist after WW2, borrowed from a reconstructed view of the dress of the samurai classes?
This isn't even getting into kitsuke (dressing) and how that changed throughout the Meiji period - tell me with a straight face that collars didn't migrate up the body between 1860 and 1910 - but, I rest my case. I removed the paragraph for a pretty ahistorical view of the introduction of Western clothing to Japan, because we can do better than this. -- Ineffablebookkeeper ( talk) 12:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 09:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Japanese footwear currently redirects to Japanese_clothing#Types_of_traditional_clothing but obviously that's less than ideal.
The page should ideally do a better job organizing itself to discuss separate classes of clothing (unisex/male/female; full body/upper/lower/accessories/headwear/footwear; etc.) rather than suggested ensembles for historically appropriate cosplay. — LlywelynII 07:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)