HOME | DD

PaperOwls In reply to anonperson [2013-04-14 04:24:30 +0000 UTC]

Where in history do you see this?

👍: 0 ⏩: 3

anonperson In reply to PaperOwls [2013-07-13 18:15:25 +0000 UTC]

I mean, back 1000 years ago, people's clothing in Europe and the Mediterranean were far more revealing than in the 1800s/1900s. It wasn't uncommon to see men (or women) without shirts or even without clothing at all when it was hot.
In Korea about 200 years ago, it was actually a common trend for peasant women to wear kimonos with an opening around the chest.
I'm trying to find a source I can cite for you, but sadly I'm not really sure how to word my search for the above reference. I saw pictures of it in my East Asian Civ course this past semester, which is what prompted my comment at the time.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Magic-Bean-Buyer In reply to PaperOwls [2013-04-14 16:45:47 +0000 UTC]

Oh, and according to [link] the dresses are actually not in chronological order, which would make anonperson's observation spot-on in my opinion.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Magic-Bean-Buyer In reply to PaperOwls [2013-04-14 16:44:09 +0000 UTC]

I believe they're referring to the dresses illustrated in this deviation, actually, which makes sense if you think about it in the context of where the user posted the comment - on a deviation illustrating three different decades of fashion. I don't entirely agree with their comment (the third outfit is showing a bit more skin than the second), but I can see where they're coming from.

TL;DR: They see this in the Victorian Era, as illustrated above.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

PaperOwls In reply to Magic-Bean-Buyer [2013-04-14 16:53:03 +0000 UTC]

Ah, I was not looking at the Victorian era itself, but the fashion timeline as a whole- thanks! c:

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

FionaCreates In reply to CreatureCreatingBabe [2013-04-13 23:17:30 +0000 UTC]

The Artist answered the question in this comment if you're interested ^^
[link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

CreatureCreatingBabe In reply to FionaCreates [2013-04-14 22:27:25 +0000 UTC]

oh! there we go

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Lyricanna In reply to MonsterH21SW [2013-04-13 20:41:52 +0000 UTC]

This has been happening for 5 years

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

FionaCreates In reply to Lyricanna [2013-04-13 21:08:12 +0000 UTC]

Gosh has it really been 5 years.. oh wait 2007...

I'm old...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Lyricanna In reply to FionaCreates [2013-04-13 22:01:38 +0000 UTC]

I know right? So nearly 6...

We have been here too long.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

FionaCreates In reply to harperyo [2013-04-13 21:11:25 +0000 UTC]

Doll bases are "barbie doll nude" figures which are freely offered for other artists (like this lady) to draw on hair and clothes and reshade and reshape etc. It's a fun little hobby and can produce some amazing results. It's just like photo-manipulation in a way because it relies on stock photo. The Base is just the basic structure.

I can see where you're coming from, in that were this a lineart to colour in it wouldn't be quite so impressive, but all that is provided is the basic body, bald and nude, and after that it's up to the artist to go wild

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

harperyo In reply to FionaCreates [2013-04-14 07:43:08 +0000 UTC]

Oh, I see now! Thanks for the info!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Vayliya In reply to harperyo [2013-04-13 19:08:57 +0000 UTC]

Using bases is just one form of how the Digital Dolls category works. This wasn't a "coloring base", she drew everything save for the poses. This showed a lot of technical and artistic skill and is a wonderful example of the dolls category which is why I suggested it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

harperyo In reply to Vayliya [2013-04-13 19:14:58 +0000 UTC]

Ohhh, I see.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

tata-s-z In reply to Aranov [2012-01-26 18:01:28 +0000 UTC]

1860 yes, then a late 1880 early 1890, and a 1870-1880 (actually i mixed a few references there ^^)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aranov In reply to tata-s-z [2012-01-26 20:57:26 +0000 UTC]

Ooooh! I like. They're all lovely.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0