Edward
Bartender
- Messages
- 25,116
- Location
- London, UK
.
I think that it reversed itself when people stopped generally working outside (factories, service industry, office grunt etc). So, if one is of the leisured class, one can take part in outdoor recreational activities and beach/tropical vacations
That's very true, at least over this side of the Atlantic. Of course, I'm sure it was never taken to the sort of modern extremes where some of the wealthier classes (I see a lot of it in London, especially in Kensington) look like their skin is elephant hide by the time they are thirty. (Always shocks me in this day and age that anyone would for any reason lie for hours in the Sun, but then I've always been one to avoid it as much as possible myself, so).
The effect of the arrival of colour film also cannot be discounted. It's amazing how many elements of our contemporary beauty myths are coincidental to entertainment technologies. Black underwear on ladies, for example, became perceived as "sexy" because that's what they all wore in the early girly photographs. The reason they wore black was, of course, simply because with B&W photography, especially in the lower resolution, early days, the contrast made it show up better against the (predominantly white) models' skin.
As another FLer mentioned, there was some calculated "Golden Age" tanning (no pun implied), at least among actresses and models, likely due to the increased use of color film. In addition, "farm girls" like my dad's Pennsylvania cousins would also naturally pick up some color during the summer, due to their lifestyle. So I think that a woman today could be tanned and not be considered "less vintage." As applies to "ordinary" city girls, though, I don't believe that trying to get a tan during that time period was a goal. As an example, I've got scores of photographs of my (Sicilian) grandmother, mother, and aunt taken in NYC from the 1910s to the 1950s, and in none of them do they have anything that resembles a tan (of course, they wore hats a lot, too). To this day, my mother is against even going out in the sun to tend a garden, and has instilled the same attitude in my sister...So as applies to vintage, speaking of tanned vs. pale, I think that a case could be made for the inclusion of both.
Of course. What the Hollywood classes and the rich did and how they lived bore no resemblance to the average person. To think otherwise we're into the same territory as those who believe that vintage men always wore a suit, even to the supermarket. (Mind you, my grandmother would have told you that much before the Sixties a man would never have entered a supermarket, unless he were the owner. Son't know how widespread outside of Ireland that sort of attitude was, though.)
Carey, being a native southern Californian, I think that Stray Cat's comment has some validity. It's my experience that some girls do lay out in the sun because they know that a lot of guys find tanned skin attractive.
"The west coast has the sunshine,
And the girls all get so tanned..."
(California Girls by The Beach Boys)
The first hot day this year, I saw photos in the press of some sixteen year old girls sunbathing in one of the London parks. When interviewed they boasted of how they had covered themselves in baby oil to get a tan. There was no real indication that they were doing this for male approval rather than their own satisfaction, but to be honest if a girl that age today is stupid enough to risk her health like that, she's probably also dim enough to fins her self-worth in what some boy thinks. Where are the parents? Etc....