This is just getting into mincing words now. YES…all clothing are costumes, and costumes are clothing.
Every day when we put on clothes, it is the costume for the performance of our selves that day. Clothes, like costumes communicate something we want to tell to our friends, family and strangers.
Some items worn daily in todays times are costumes, such as uniforms.
But here is the distinction between costumes and clothing - the rules between the two are governed by the setting, situation and the laws/norms of the situation. For example, you are an astronaut. You wear a space suit daily as your clothing/costume. But norms dictate you don’t wear your space suit to the beach. Can you anyway? Sure, but you will not fit the norms of that particular situation.
You wear a bunny suit daily. Norms dictate you don’t wear it to a funeral.
In OP’s situation, this location asks that visitors do not wear costumes. They are in charge of enforcing it - they are the ones who decide if your daily clothing is a costume or not. Maybe they don’t want people to be confused between staff and visitors. MAybe they want visitors to respect and honor the location.
So if the cathedral dictates that women must not wear shorts (must wear skirts) - them’s the rules - you are free not to visit. Your costume/outfit/clothing/attire/etc is not defined by you alone, it’s governed by the society you exist within.
*kicks people wearing khakis and polos out of park* “What? It’s a costume!”
When I wear khakis and polos (not joking this time), I get mistaken for staff in every store I go to. No one has kicked me out yet (wearing work clothes or otherwise).
Of course it can, it just wouldn’t be politically correct to do so and would likely violate anti-discrimination laws that privilege the rights of members of organized religion above the rights of individuals who’s philosophy is not that of an organized religion. There is no functional difference between religious people wearing 18th century or older clothes and this couple wearing Victorian garb as a key tenet of their lifestyle. The only difference is that special privileges have been given to religion.
All right, cards on the table… I’ve been studying textiles and costume since I was in my teens, and am decently well-studied that I can usually spot any anachronisms in films. What’s your hand?
ETA: I just thought – the couple have chosen late Victorian dress. I’d say 1890s or so? That’s interesting in light of the ejection from the Gardens, since her dress came back in style as formal wear in the 1930s or so, and the top half isn’t so off from the jackets of the 1950s and 1980s. His suit isn’t that different from what Teddy Boys wore in the 1960s. Which circles back to “how old-fashioned does it have to be before it’s too ‘costume’ for the Gardens?”
So if I run, let’s say, an amusement park, I can’t have a rule against people building bonfires on the midway? How about gang attire? How about swords and machetes?
Was is objectionable to simply ask them to remove their hats?
Statement from the Gardens:
For the enjoyment and safety of all visitors, and to preserve our tranquil atmosphere, The Butchart Gardens joins many international attractions, (Disney Parks; SeaWorld Parks/Busch Gardens; Museum of Fine Arts Houston; --to name a few), in not permitting costumes or masks to be worn onsite. This includes persons wearing period style, historical dress, or adult clothing that could be viewed as a costume as they could be mistaken for entertainers or interpreters hired by The Gardens and could detract from the experience of other visitors. This policy has been in place for many years and is prominent on our website.
The Butchart Gardens stands on its record for the courtesy and professionalism of its staff. The Chrismans were afforded this courtesy from the moment they arrived at The Gardens to the moment they left. As a compromise, Mrs. Chrisman was politely asked to remove only her hat, and had she not refused, the Chrismans would have been welcomed into The Gardens.
Upon this refusal we immediately refunded all their costs including bus fare to The Gardens, admission fee, meal costs, and they were provided a paid taxi back to Victoria.
We are most thankful for all the support we are receiving.
Kind of, yeah. Hats aren’t prohibited in the park, so it was a rather strange request, especially if it was a sunny day. I never go out without a hat, myself. And, as the couple notes, demanding hat removal can also be something of a dominance thing.
Asks (?) the person who terminates their question with a period. Is that what people mean by “period clothing”? I can only hope that your period clothing is rather less loud than your exclamatory. /s
It is not so much a matter of belief as it is simply a functional model of a social phenomena, it seems obvious to me, but I am not especially attached to it. Sure, a hat fashioned in 2005 is more contemporary than a t-shirt which was fashioned in 1995.
And this is setting aside that notion of simultaneity was debunked in the late 1800s, which most people apparently still have not caught up with. If it is 1986 for you right now (whatever “now” can precisely mean), then it is also 1886 right now - but 100 light years from your location. Time is a place, and vice versa. McLuhan understood the cultural manifestation even in the 1960s. In a society with more-or-less instantaneous communication, all times and cultures can can be seen to overlap and co-exist.
Yes, people do define the times in which they live. A contemporary person’s normal clothes become, by definition, contemporary clothes. The same is likewise true for non-European clothes, but from what I am reading I doubt if the Butchart people are sufficiently cosmopolitan to grasp this. They would probably complain about Wakashan clothes as well, despite those even being native to the region. Because they sound like (by my standards) conformist gits.
There really isn’t a time period…it’s governed by the settings and norms of the situation and or society.
I once wore a tie to my first day at an ad firm. There was a company meeting that day and the boss said “lose the tie.”
Shirt and tie would be fine in other situations, but in this one, I was out of place. It wasn’t my call - it was “the golden rule” as in “he with the gold makes the rule.” trends come and go and come back again. Who knows, victorian wear may make a comeback. Look at steam punk…
Everyone just has to realize that we all have to deal with society. We can dress and live as a victorian, we can dress and live like the Amish, we can be a furry for crying out loud. That’s fine if that’s how you roll. But you also have to live in whatever society you chose to live in. If you are a woman living in Saudi Arabia, you better cover that hair no matter what your personal beliefs are…
