Clothes were terribly important in the '20s. They really were an arbiter of who you were and how much money you had: an indicator of social status.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I was never a big fashion person, and so I'm sure I wore whatever. I was growing, and so I just wore whatever clothes that weren't that expensive and made sense at the time. But I'm sure that I look back and say, 'What was I thinking?' My adolescence was more in the '80s, and that's more my cross to bear.
I started dressing vintage when I was a teenager because I didn't have money for designer clothes.
I don't understand what modern clothes are about at all.
I'm old enough to remember in the 1930s and the 1940s when thrift, frugality, was considered an important virtue.
I really have a generation gap about modern clothes.
There was a time when formal clothes were one of life's great pleasures, as well as a way of describing instantly a man's status wealth. Toffs wore the most, the proles the least. Fast forward to 2008 and clothes are still an unrivalled pleasure but some men - and this includes many of our betters - have confused status with fake informality.
I couldn't care less about fashion. If I had taken any clothes home, they would have remained in my closet for the rest of their existence.
As a child, as a teenager, I was kind of not allowed to wear fashionable clothes.
In L.A., retro culture is just part of the thing you do. When we were kids, we didn't have allowances, and it was not cool to wear designer clothes. So it meant that we were into 1920s dresses when we were 13.
The Twenties outfits are all about freedom and loose, flowing lines, whereas in 'Cinderella,' I had to wear corsets and big huge skirts.
No opposing quotes found.