Can we define THCD?

[Jock Scot]

We tried this a couple of years ago. There's a rather long locked thread about it. My hunch is that we will end up in the same boat on this go-round.

Well lets see if we can manage to get "hope to triumph over experience", shall we?

So if we take Steve's "three musketeers" picture, why is it that he is absolutely sure that the outfits are not THCD? I apologise if I put words in your mouth Steve, but are you coming from the physical slant? The synthetic material, machine sown, inside pocket, more modern cut diection? I think perhaps you are.

Me? I come from the THCD "look" direction and see THCD quite clearly in the same picture. As we can see by the questions that I asked above then in my view the "look" heading, is the only way we can go realistically, bearing in mind that all we, the members see, is a picture on a computer screen.

Does that explain the divergance of opinion, I wonder?

Alright humour me. Let us take these thoughts further.

If, I repeat, IF we go down the "look" route then we immediately fall foul of the "Traditional" heading wording for obvious reasons. So maybe it might be easier to re-word the heading than define THCD? Just a thought?

[McMurdo]

Jock
I agree that we should be dealing with this as a look rather than anything else. As for Steve's photo it looks patently as though it would fit into the THCD arena as far as I can see. I really think the acid test is if an outfit could fit in with others that are decidedly Traditional Highland Civilian Dress which I think Steve's could crommach and balmoral notwithstanding.

[David Host]

I agree with Jock as well. In my mind, THCD has always been about the proper look of it. How about polo shirts? Does one have to wear a jacket and tie to be wearing the kilt traditionally? Personally, I think not.

[Steve Ashton]

Because Jock brought up the subject of renaming the forum sub-sections let me say this.

I created our current subsections to give a little order to all the jumbled threads about how the different types of kilts.
We tried to divide the subsections by dates. I used prior to 1901 or when the Edwardian period began with Edward VII would be Historical.
Between 1901 and 1968 would be the Traditional.
And since 1968 would be modern. This was about when the large Highland wear companies we know today started up.

This did not work too well and many people objected. There was a lot of discussion about the dates I chose.

Then I had an idea that perhaps it would be better to concentrate on the kilt itself and less on how it could be worn.
So I broke the three subsections by the way the kilt was constructed.

Historical would be kilt made like those before the kilt we know today. Those kilts made in the manner of "The Art of Kiltmaking" would fit in this subsection along with Matt Newsome's bringing back the 4 yard box Pleated kilt as would those made by Howie Nicklesby as they are constructed exactly the same as other Traditional kilts.
These are what most agree are Traditionally made kilts.

The Modern subsection begins with the Casual kilts we know today. This includes USA Kilts, Utilikilts, Freedom Kilts and the Pakistani pub or tourist kilts.

We can define these types of kilts. As you can see, no one seems to be able to define TCHD. And no two people seem to agree on even the smallest detail of TCHD.

So if we want to rename the subsection I would suggest we stick to things we can define.

We could simply remove the second part of the subtitle description.

Historically Made Kilts and How To Wear Them
This forum sub-section is for those interested in learning about and discussing Historically made kilts and to discuss and see examples of how kilts can be worn to emulate a historical style or fashion.

Would become

Historically Made Kilts
This forum sub-section is for those interested in learning about discussing Historically made Kilts.



Traditionally made Kilts and How To Wear Them
This forum sub-section is for those interested in learning about and discussing Traditionally made kilts and to discuss and see examples of how kilts can be worn to emulate a traditional style or fashion

Would become

Traditionally Made Kilts
This forum sub-section is for those interested in learning about and discussing Traditionally made kilts.


and

Contemporarily Made Kilts and How to Wear Them
This forum sub-section is for those interested in learning about and discussing Contemporarily made kilts and to discuss and see examples of how kilts can be worn to emulate a contemporary style or fashion.

Would become

Contemporarily Made Kilts
This forum sub-section is for those interested in learning about and discussing Contemporarily made kilts.


Basing the subsections on something that we can define takes out opinion and all this heartache over what is or is not TCHD.

[OC Richard]

Wow it gets so complicated, trying to come up with labels for things! I spend so much of my time in nonverbal worlds (art and music) that all the wordplay gets overwhelming at times.

However, and not to throw a spanner in the works, and (perhaps improperly) borrowing notions from music, I will propose...

If something is a living breathing modern current thing, and is the end-product of an unbroken lineage of evolution, it is at the same time modern, contemporary, and traditional.

Traditional things aren't things that no longer survive which have been plucked out of an earlier time period; such things would be 'historical' or 'revived' or 'recreated'. A handstitched 8-yard tartan wool kilt doesn't have to be revived from the past, because it lives, it has survived to this very day. Like all traditions, Highland Dress exhibits both conservatism and innovation, the net result of which is gradual evolution.

Personally I would use the label Traditional Kilts for modern contemporary traditional Highland Dress, and the label Nontraditional Kilts for all kilts which fall outside of modern contemporary traditional Highland Dress.

But the last thing we need is more labels! Sorry.

(A sidetrack that might or might not pertain:

One hears from time to time people speak of "the ancient Irish tongue" or "the ancient Gaelic language" or the notion that one language is 'more ancient' than another. This is not the case. All of the tens of thousands of languages spoken today are, as far as we know, precisely the same age, all being the modern end result of an unbroken lineage of evolution back to, it seems, some original language (humankind having survived a severe bottleneck). So, all currently spoken languages are at the same time contemporary and ancient.)

[Peter Crowe]

Wow it gets so complicated, trying to come up with labels for things! I spend so much of my time in nonverbal worlds (art and music) that all the wordplay gets overwhelming at times.

However, and not to throw a spanner in the works, and (perhaps improperly) borrowing notions from music, I will propose...

If something is a living breathing modern current thing, and is the end-product of an unbroken lineage of evolution, it is at the same time modern, contemporary, and traditional.

Traditional things aren't things that no longer survive which have been plucked out of an earlier time period; such things would be 'historical' or 'revived' or 'recreated'. A handstitched 8-yard tartan wool kilt doesn't have to be revived from the past, because it lives, it has survived to this very day. Like all traditions, Highland Dress exhibits both conservatism and innovation, the net result of which is gradual evolution.

Personally I would use the label Traditional Kilts for modern contemporary traditional Highland Dress, and the label Nontraditional Kilts for all kilts which fall outside of modern contemporary traditional Highland Dress.

But the last thing we need is more labels! Sorry.

(A sidetrack that might or might not pertain:

One hears from time to time people speak of "the ancient Irish tongue" or "the ancient Gaelic language" or the notion that one language is 'more ancient' than another. This is not the case. All of the tens of thousands of languages spoken today are, as far as we know, precisely the same age, all being the modern end result of an unbroken lineage of evolution back to, it seems, some original language (humankind having survived a severe bottleneck). So, all currently spoken languages are at the same time contemporary and ancient.)

This kind of sums up what I understand by the term 'traditional' both as it relates to the kilt and more generally, Richard. Well said sir, and thanks!

[Nathan]

I agree. To me a tradition does not mean the absence of innovation, rather that any proposed innovation has to be accepted by the tradition in order to become adopted into it. For this reason, gradual or incremental innovations are more successful than abrupt ones.

To me, a tartan kilt that looks wool and has enough pleats in the back to pass as normal is traditional. I would consider my 6 yard, 13 oz kilt traditional, not just my 16 oz 8 yard tank.

I think machine sewn kilts and synthetic kilts will come to be accepted as traditional as well. Perhaps they already have. Here we may see a difference between the way kilt wearers and kilt makers discuss things.

The average kilt wearer will not bend down and examine the fell of his fellow's kilt to determine "traditional authenticity" so if nothing looks too off, it will be accepted as traditional without much thought.

A person who makes hand sewn kilts may say, "I make kilts in the traditional manner" meaning hand sewn. But someone else could say, "I use modern technology to help me make you a traditional looking kilt faster and therefore more affordably."

Both would be telling the truth.

Almost as soon as you define a tradition, the definition is obsolete. A traditional set of bagpipes from 2014 has a lot more synthetic parts than a traditional set of bag pipes from 1914. The evolution has been gradual and accepted by the tradition bearers.

In most contexts the look has to trump construction because most people can't see the subtle differences. Certainly, as Jock points out, not from a photo.

The kilt I purchased for my brother was not constructed in the traditional way but looks pretty traditional to my eye.



I'd say MacLowlife generally sums up the idea of what is worn in most situations below the waist, however, above the waist is a different animal and varies greatly based on the situation. Everything from a t-shirt to a doublet could be traditional, depending on the context.

We can also remove Highland athletes from the "civilian" definition I would hope because they make logical changes in order to perform their sports better and more safely that are acceptable by the tradition, specifically because of the context in which they are worn.

Here's another cat among the pigeons: White hose are both traditional Highland attire and traditionally looked down upon by many enthusiasts of traditional Highland attire at the same time.

[Calgacus]

Just to underline what Richard and Nathan have both pointed out, which is that something can be traditional and contemporary at the same time, and THCD is one of those things. I think this is where Steve was not 'getting it'. It came across to me that Steve thought that if a guy was to walk down the street wearing a tweed Argyll with gauntlet cuffs et cetera, he'd be viewed as something out of the 1930s. This is not the case, at least here in Scotland. He might be viewed as smartly dressed, and would probably be over 50, as tweed is not worn much by youngsters, but that would be it. I don't want to put words into Steve's mouth, that's just how I interpreted what he said.

Properly white hose are something seen worn by bands only, and to me are a bit of a no-no (even in bands!) Cream/ecru hose on the other hand are definitely THCD, just rather sadly tainted by the association with hired outfits.

As for THCD vs TCHD, I use THCD only because that is what appears to be used, but I think TCHD is more logical.

[Jock Scot]

Well we are still trying to come up with a solution, anyway. The conversation has not withered away-------yet.

I am afraid Steve that your proposed revised wording for the "traditonal" heading will founder, in my view. Why? Two words that will cause problems; "traditionaly made". It is now perhaps, more than ever before, becoming clear that THCD is more than "traditionaly made" attire and often contains quite large elements of modern cloths, etc that are involved within THCD. This is particularly relevant, when viewed in picture form, as it is almost exclusively on xmarks. THCD is a "living" thing with everyday modern applications, therefore I hope that you can see that we need a broader viewed definition than your present proposal.

[jfraser]

[QUOTE=Calgacus;1248674]
Properly white hose are something seen worn by bands only, and to me are a bit of a no-no (even in bands!) Cream/ecru hose on the other hand are definitely THCD, just rather sadly tainted by the association with hired outfits.

If my memory serves me right, initially, when pipe bands in the early 1960's started moving away from full Highland dress as worn by the military pipe bands, mainly because of cost, white hose
were used to replace the white spats. Then of course kilt hire companies got into the act and
before you know it, these hire companies are telling their clients that white hose is the correct
colour of hose to wear, after all that is the colour pipe bands use. So the impression of white hose being correct is still being enforced by some hire companies even today.