As to the dream situation you refer to, its unfortunately not as easy as that. Both sides (the aspiring amateur and the industry professionals) are much more alike than either would like to agree. Except neither side is willing to even talk to each other, let alone share the information that would help bridge the chasm between the two.
I don't think that's true. I've been on a number of e-groups related to sewing and pattern making, that include people with a wide variety of backgrounds. I don't see them refusing to talk to or help each other, at all.
It really comes down to the
same basic steps that both sides follow, with slight changes in the order and importance each side places on those steps.
No, it doesn't. There are very distinct differences in procedures, and even techniques, depending on whether you are making clothes for yourself, or custom making them for others, or making them for theatrical productions, or for a ready-to-wear business. For that matter, whether you are making modern clothes or historic ones.
People making clothes for themselves simply don't have to worry about grading for a range of RTW sizes, marketing, or manufacturing. And, they can make whatever they want, aside from constraints imposed by their personal budgets and schedules. They can be as unfashionable or outre as their lifestyle permits. They also don't have to carry out a theatrical director's vision of a production.
People making clothes for theater have to deal with the director's vision, plus struggle with the actors' visions if the actors decide to be a pain, plus (usually) a tight budget, plus (at least for stage) the constraints of quick changes, the appearance of the costume from the back of the theater and under lights, and the likely necessity of altering the size of the costume later for some future production with a different actor.
People making clothes for a small ready-to-wear business have to design salable styles, they have to design whole product lines, they have to get them manufactured, and they have to market them. They have to run a small business and deal with all the accounting, legal regulations, and other issues.
And then there are variants for people making custom clothing for others, and people designing ready-to-wear for a large manufacturer.
The basic sewing level isn't even the same. As I've pointed out, in a factory the stitchers use specialized machines and they do not make whole garments. Not to mention, people don't cut around individual garments with shears. As far as I know, they use computer-driven laser knives.
The pattern-making level is sort of the same, except, people making clothes for themselves do not need to grade a range of ready-to-wear sizes. In fact, some will quite happily use commercial patterns and just alter the size to fit.
Another issue is, there are different methods of producing patterns (drafting, flat pattern work, and draping). People working for an employer, whether a theater or a ready-to-wear company, cannot necessarily choose which method they use. Also, at RTW companies the pattern-making process is much more computerized. Designers are not drawing around slopers with a pencil and then slashing and spreading the paper. Yes, some amateurs use pattern-design software but in the industry it is a necessity. In fact, the designer may well farm out making the patterns to someone else, and that goes for theatrical design as well.
But most programs out their focus solely on one or the other. Simple work on the cooperation, perhaps even collaboration with certificate programs instead of full out degree programs, would provide students with skills they need to get a job after they graduate. .... I hope that makes sense.
I wasn't really seeing any problems with the ways the courses I took were set up. The thing is, there were basic dressmaking courses and advanced ones, and the instructors managed to accommodate students with a variety of goals. This was achieved largely by letting students choose their own projects insofar as the learning goals of that part of the course were achieved.
Then there were separate courses in flat pattern work, and in draping, and in grading patterns, and in merchandising. But: No one had to take any of these courses, other than dressmaking being required before taking pattern-making courses. No one who thought grading, or draping, or fashion illustration, or whatever would be useless for their purposes had to take that course. No one had to be a garment design and merchandising major to take the classes.
Theatrical costume design courses are usually part of the theater department. But they have to be, because usually they are organized so the students are making the costumes for an upcoming production. That doesn't leave much room for students to choose their own projects.
I'm just not seeing a huge problem here. Oh, I'm not saying every college has enough sewing or garment design courses to necessarily meet the demand, or that every student is totally satisfied with every course they take. But generally, people seem to be quite good at taking a sewing or design class and getting the information they want out of it, then going on and teaching themselves some new things at need, then maybe taking another class or workshop somewhere else.
What I am getting at is: People making historic costumes for themselves may not be familiar with grading ready-to-wear sizes, or with mass manufacturing, or with CAD programs. But, most of the time they don't need to be. If they do need these skills, they manage to read a book, find a class, self-teach, and carry on. With umpteen books available on every aspect of sewing, textiles, history of costumes, theatrical costuming, CAD, garment manufacturing, running a small business, fashion illustration, and every other thing you can think of people want to know, they're not starving for information they are not getting.
Fran Lavolta Press www.lavoltapress.com _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list h-costume@mail.indra.com http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
