Timber wrote-
Quote:Unsurprising Clarkson's unoriginal take might appeal to you, spendi, it only is to be expected Trollopes would find mutual comfort in shared affinities.
Perhaps Clarkson might have a point after all.
I saw the opportunity to try to do Mr Black a small favour in case the judge was reading here or one of his staff. It was quite clear that I don't share the opinion and I can only assume that you have reading difficulties because otherwise you have shifted me slightly nearer to Clarkson's viewpoint. I could shred that article.
Hi Lola-
Have you read Veblen on female ornament? It seems that the woman is a sort of advertising hoarding on which to display to public view the prowess of her owner who generally finds it distasteful to carry out the function himself. I think the shortest treatment is in an essay entitled The Economic Theory of Women's Dress. It might be The Barbarian Status of Women.
The cardinal principles of women's dress ,as distinct from clothing, are-
1-Expensivesness- It must be uneconomical and afford evidence of the wearer's owner to pay for things that are of no use.
2-Novelty-Heirlooms are an exception because they argue the practice of waste over many generations.
3-Ineptitude-articles,in order to be considered tasteful, should incapacitate the wearer for any useful effort.
If you apply these three principles, which I have barely summarised, you can't go wrong.
Obviously cheap jewelry is self defeating as it affords evidence that the wearer's owner is skint or that she has no owner but likes pretending she has.