Androgynous Aristocrat

It would, if you went by how I dressed in most of my blog posts, be an easy assumption to make that I am always very "feminine" by the traditional gendering of fashion. While I always love frills, I don't always go for skirts, corsets, long hair, and usual staples. I am actually quite fond of a more "tomboyish" or "androgynous" version of Romantic Goth fashion.  I love brocade trousers, waistcoats 'vests' to my American readers), frock-coats, pirate boots and ruffled shirts - the branch of Romantic Goth fashion that is derived from historical male fashion. It was not a very big step from that point to become interested in the fashion worn by the more Gothic-looking Visual Kei bands, Aristocrat fashion, and Ouji; the same aesthetic inspirations coming through in Japanese alternative cultures. There is a great overlap between Romantic Goth fashion and the Gothic Japanese street-fashions, and as I am someone that basically likes things that are frilly, anachronistically inspired and Gothic, I draw from both and mix and match. 

Selfies by HouseCat

I quite like looking somewhat androgynous. Since my late teens I have been quite curvy, which is not the most androgynous-looking shape, but I try and choose cuts and underwear that will to some degree make it less immediately apparent. I like playing with that androgyny because I don't actually see gender (the psycho-social aspect) as part of my identity. I have no particular dysphoria about my sex; I just see it as utterly irrelevant to who I am as a person, and not really part of my identity as a person on any fundamental level. but the rest of the world does not work like that; for as long as I can remember, I have had others try and define me and their expectations of me according to my sex and gender. This is one way I like play with, and try subverting those societal categories. 

Selfies by HouseCat

Being heavily made-up is probably a strange choice when deliberately aiming for androgynous, but the appearance I am seeking is something akin to more everyday, casual version of the styles worn by members of bands like Versailles Philharmonic Quintet, Moi-Dix-Mois, or Blood, and a little bit of Dave Vanian, Peter Murphy, David Bowie and maybe a small hint of Sharon Needles. I love seeing make-up on Goths and Gothic types of all sexes and genders. I think I end up looking more like an older teenage boy than a woman in her late 20's! I have a relatively angular face, which is useful in that regard. Any advice on make-up techniques like contouring to try and achieve this sort of look would be greatly appreciated.

Selfies By HouseCat

I wish I could post a full-body photograph of this outfit. I am wearing a long pirate-style coat by Dark Star which originally belonged to Raven, but as he began to bulk out more, it no longer fitted him, so I ended up with it and had it tailored to fit me a bit better. I had black brocade trousers on, and knee-high pirate boots. That is not my real hair, of course (that is still turquoise for now); it is a wig that was originally Raven's but I end up borrowing it far more than he ever wears it! I will try and get more photographs of me in Ouji and Aristocrat and whatever the Western equivalent in Romantic Goth fashion would be called. 

Music That Inspires: Choral Music

This is such a broad topic! I've found it very hard to narrow it down to one aspect for this blog, as music is something that permeates my life. Back when my I still had headphones for my iPod, it was something that was pretty much a constant in my life. I studied it up to A Level and play several instruments, and I sing. When I am particularly strapped for cash, I perform as a street musician (a busker) in Inverness with my recorders  and I am very glad to have a talent (turned into something useful by all the hard work and music lessons and the 6hr-a-day practice schedule when I was a teen) that can earn my keep if necessary. 

I also have milder synaesthesia, and for me sounds tend to be accompanied by colours and 'textures' (I 'see' a lot of it as solidified light almost like glass) to the point where when I am composing, I tend to pick things that look good when I shut my eyes, because they invariably sound good too, and even wrote up an entire chart of chords by colours and what they invoke imaginatively to help me in my compositions. 

I didn't want to write about my tastes in stuff like Goth, Darkwave and French Coldwave because I'm pretty sure I've covered various aspects of that on my blog already. Beyond Goth, my tastes in music are quite broad. I thought I would focus on an aspect of my musical life that has inspired me as a Goth while being quite removed from Goth itself. 

I like early ecclesiastical sacred choral works from a variety of traditions, not limited to but including many things from Gregorian chant to Renaissance polyphony, to modern works such as those of John Taverner and Karl Jenkins. 

When I was younger and somewhere between my Christian roots and my Pagan faith, I was rather active in various church choirs and I have been singing from a very young age. I sang in both church choirs and school choirs, but as many of the schools I went to (I moved a lot) were Christian, I still sang mostly sacred music. I have not attended Church for worship service in years, and do not intend to as I am thoroughly Pagan now, but I still attend the occasional concert of sacred music.  Choir holds almost all positive memories for me. I got to a relatively high standard and ended up singing some challenging music in some really beautiful places. 

While the religious content was not always in alignment with my personal faith (and as I grew older, I grew further away from Christianity) there was something about it that connected with me on a very profound and spiritual way. I think there is definitely something spiritually powerful about religious singing, as an act of worship and an act of faith in itself rather than as simply a celebration thereof. There is a lot in the Bible about music, from David's lyre, to the songs of Solomon, to the angels who sing eternal praises in Heaven, and while this is heading off on a tangent that probably deserves its own post, I certainly think that Christianity and other religions that use sacred song (I have some CDs of Buddhist singing, from a period when I was interested in becoming Buddhist), and they have something very precious and definitely inspiring. A few years ago I tried writing some Pagan songs in a similar choral style, but suffered from a lack of people to sing them (I experimented with multi-tracking myself, but it come out very strange!) and so that project was put into indefinite stasis. 

The heavens my imagination transports me to might not be the one I envisioned when I believed in an afterlife in Paradise, but the music still has the power to supremely move me. It also always reminds me of the glorious Gothic architecture of the Chapels, Churches and Cathedrals I have attended for various things from Royal School of Church Music summer-schools at Magdalene College Chapel in Oxford (a building that is truly glorious) to St. Mary's Church on the bridge in Henley-on-Thames with it's Morris-esque murals and beautiful stained glass, to Peterborough Cathedral (which is Gothic on a truly vast scale!) and thus whenever I hear certain pieces I think of certain places and events.

It should be relatively apparent that historic architecture, especially that in the Gothic style, is something that I am really passionate about. With early Gothic literature, the term came about because of the use of settings, and how a lot of those settings were the sorts of buildings I love. To me, I cannot easily separate my experience of those buildings from the music performed in them, the music I performed in them as part of a choir. 

I have a specific fondness for requiems (how stereotypically Gothic of me!) especially the later ones. Later requiems were written more as concert pieces than to be sung at requiem masses, but they are still based around religious texts and sentiments, and as such I'd like to mention a few here. Fauré's requiem with its serene , and is also one of my favourites, then Verdi's with its furious Dies Irae, and Mozart's as well (and the wonderfully Gothic story written about it for the film Amadeus! It's not true, and Sallieri was not driven by obsessive jealousy to murder Mozart by working him to death, but it's a very good story!). I also like Vittoria's 'Missa Pro Defunctis" and "Officium Defunctorum" - his "mass for the dead" and "offices for the dead", the latter of which I heard sung by The Sixteen back in 2006 in Reading. It was  one of those moments when, despite struggling with depression at the time, I managed to unlock the glass box it felt my head was in, and be lost in the music rather than my own thoughts. 

Choral music of various Christian traditions has inspired both my own musical life as a choral singer (I even ran a choir at the school I work at until my chronic illness made in untenable) and also as an artist and poet and photographer as glorious music mixes with beautiful colour and light in a synaesthesic mix in my head, and always evokes a sense of wonder, sacredness and a belief that there is a Divine and glorious presence in the universe, even if to me the heavens are the literal heavens of space full of stars, nebulae and very real glorious light, and to me, a pantheist, the Divine is inherently manifest through reality. When I shut my eyes and sit on the bare earth and feel the boundaries between what is me and what is everything else dissolve and meditate, there's a similar sense of awesome, brilliant, glorious something that I touched when I was singing psalms, evensongs, hymns, masses and oratorios. 

My Musical Pick
There is some overlap with my tastes in more Goth music; some of my favourite pieces by Dead Can Dance are the ones where multi-tracking has been used to create a choral effect, but the songs they sing have words of Lisa Gerrard's glossolalia rather the Latin texts various masses and offices. I think that same sense of light and glory that is forever intangible that I got when listening to choral concerts in Oxford collegiate chapels and grand Gothic cathedrals is what inspired Host of The Seraphim with its vocals that seem to soar ever upwards in plaintive chant over a very minimal (electric?) organ and distant strings. It reminds me of how psalms are traditionally sung with the chords changing according to the text, rather than the text made to fit the melody (think Alleghri's 'Miserere mei, Deus'). To me, Host of the Seraphim is like watching angels come and go, filing past out of view and into nothing but beautiful light. 

Confidence And Being Visibly Alternative In Public

I am more confident in my full Romantic Goth gear than I would be in jeans & t-shirt. 

I actually feel really uncomfortable when I'm not dressed Goth; I feel like I am wearing the costume of being somebody else. I am certainly comfortable with being alternative in public, even as obviously so as to wear long skirts, corsets, frock-coats and wigs in town.

I have seen several video and read several articles about this sort of thing, and here is my take on it.

I dress for only myself, and wear what I think is beautiful, and my tastes in clothes are far more layered, detailed, extravagant and anachronistic than most people's, and this to me is too eclectic to be formal-wear, even if the materials (like the jacquard and lace) are often thought of as too luxurious for everyday wear. For formal wear, I would wear either a dress, or a matching set.

The trick to being confident is realising that you are the ultimate judge of your own beauty, not some random stranger. You don't know the strangers by default of definition - you can't know the motivations for a passing comment; they could be complimenting you, but really think what your wearing is hideous (perfect example of this in the film 'Mean Girls') and be insulting you despite actually liking what you wear because they want to show off to their friends (<sarcasm> because insulting strangers really demonstrates how macho you are! </sarcasm>) so there's no point in taking stead in their opinions; although I think genuine compliments are fairly easily identified, and most people who make mean comments about Halloween or vampires or just shout "GOTH!" or whatever at us in the streets are doing so for the sake of being mean (because they are insecure, afraid of anything different, want to show off to the rest of their group, want to get attention etc.). Yes, some people just don't like the Goth (or other subcultural) aesthetic, but they generally don't feel the need to be publicly rude to a stranger about it, but on the other side of that, those who like your outfit may not want to publicly complement you.

Diamonds, clubs and the Ace of Hearts
Phone-cam selfie.

The only people you should listen to about your appearance are those who genuinely want to help you with it, for example friends and family and even then, you are allowed to disagree with them. My Dad is accepting of me being Goth, but actually prefers it when I wear black trousers, Doc Martens or New Rocks, a black turtle-neck, studded cuffs, etc. because he prefers a more practical aesthetic and thinks my "frilly stuff" is too busy for his tastes. I happen to disagree, and continue to wear frills when they won't get in the way. (See ::this:: post for my more practical aesthetic). Of course, sometimes friends will have a valid point and will try and broach any fashion advice politely. It's a tricky subject, and a tact minefield.

The second trick is being comfortable with your own appearance. If you feel pretty and feel comfortable, others will be more relaxed about it. The more self-conscious you are, the more you will subconsciously project that. If you really like your own appearance, then your own self-belief will shine through and you will carry yourself better and look pretty. 

If, when I look in the mirror before I go out, I look just how I want to, then I am confident to wear it in public. If something doesn't look quite right, then I will either try it and see (perhaps later in the day I will like it) if it is something minor, or simply change whatever it is that doesn't work. My reference point is my own aesthetic taste, and yes, that is inspired by other things I have seen, as nobody is truly original (only innovative). My tastes are influenced by photographs I've seen of other Goths, and people into Aristocrat, New Romantic, Lolita and other fashions, as well as high-fashion garments, costuming for stage and screen productions, works of art, historical fashions, works of fantasy etc. 

An important thing is being able to distinguish art from reality - high-concept fashion shoots are art, an inspiration, not a reflection of real life, and even a lot of other photographs have been improved with the aid of a computer, even if it is only to tweak the lighting, colour-balance, contrast, etc. and models tend to try and pose in flattering ways. Nobody looks like a perfect photograph all the time, not even professional models. Some people are highly photogenic, but even they have their 'derpy' moments and their off-days. 

I pay attention to the small details; for example having makeup-swirls that compliment the designs on my clothes, keeping strictly to a limited colour palette, carefully coordinating glove length to sleeve length and hosiery to skirt/trousers and making sure that the shoes and handbag compliment each other. I am picky about which jewellery I am wearing, which hair accessories, how I have styled my hair, and my wig. Once I know I have every small detail just how I like them, I feel pretty - but I am a perfectionist, and not everyone cares about that level of detail. Personally, I feel that it is an important part of being stylish and well coordinated, but some people revel in the deliberately clashing, or wear things that don't go simply because one of the items is of too much sentimental value to take off, or it just simply is not their priority.

If such ways of paying attention to detail make you feel more confident in your appearance, then do them, but don't agonise too much, though - you shouldn't end feeling like you just can't get close enough to perfection to go out, however many times you re-tie your bows, whatever necklace you wear, however many times you re-do your makeup, or whatever you do your hair or whatever. Remember, nobody is perfect, and it isn't perfection you should be aiming at. If you see a photograph that looks perfect, chances are it is a) a studio set up and b) a digitally altered image - and if you get too flawless, it can actually be uncanny and inhuman (which is fine if you want to look like a living doll, a vampire or a robot, but not so good if that is not your thing). Also, some of my prettiest outfits have come together out of whatever wasn't in the laundry. Sometimes over-planning can make me, and therefore probably others, look fussy and too much like I'm in a costume or going to a specific event or in a costume.

Also remember that really fancy wardrobes take time to assemble; I mentioned this in ::this:: previous post. Sometimes it can be a while before you have a whole outfit to wear - just be patient, keep saving/sewing/thrifting, and you will have all the parts. It doesn't mean you look ugly without the whole outfit, just that you haven't got what you want yet. Of course, some things just don't work without the rest matching; for example a fancy Victorian blouse can look a bit out of place with ordinary skirts and trousers, but  if you buy things in stages you can look quite nice, and gradually become more ornate/unusual.

If you are wanting to wear something particularly fancy out (like corsets, petticoats under skirts, hooped skirts, really high platform boots, trailing skirts, wigs, fancy headdresses, etc.) then wear them at home first; some of these things are going to feel strange, perhaps slightly uncomfortable, when you first wear them, and you will, with some, need to adapt to moving slightly differently because of restricted movement, altered balance, or increased size (large skirts catching on things, knocking things over, catching antlers or headdresses on door-frames, being taller in really high boots, etc.). Until you feel 'naturalised' and comfortable in those garments. If you are doing something that radically alters your appearance, then it might take some time for you to get used to your own new appearance! This has happened when I have had radically different hair-cuts or bought wigs; re-framing my face can make it look so different that I hardly recognise myself. Again, getting used to yourself looking different in your own home can help build confidence for wearing it outside.

Once you are used to wearing things at home, wearing unusual clothes with other eccentrically dressed people can be a good stepping point. Some people are never confident to be the only unusually dressed person. I am confident enough to be different in public but on my own, yet I still feel more comfortable when there's at least one more Gothy or frilly type person with me. You might actually stand out more as a group, but you are also not having to take all the attention on your own.

Most of all, remember that there is nothing immoral about choosing to go outside looking different. There IS something immoral about trying to make others feel bad.

Yes, you WILL garner attention if you look very differently, and some people will want to ask curious questions or even photographs. If you are too busy to answer, stop for photographs, or suchlike, you are allowed to politely decline. If people are rude to you, more than likely they are looking to get a reaction, either out of some kind of sadism or because they want attention; just don't give that to them. If you are upset (and sometimes even I get upset when people are rude, especially if I am having a bad day anyway) don't show it to them. Go somewhere else, somewhere you feel comfortable, talk to someone about the negative experience (I personally rant to my other Gothy friends, who have had similar experiences), and do something that cheers you up (for me, I like sitting quietly somewhere green, so I will go sit in the park, or the meadow, or take a walk in the woods if I am really upset about anything.). 

Also, if you get a proper compliment (at least one that's not obviously a backhanded insult, sarcastic, or a patronising attempt to humour you - yes, I'm a suspicious person.), take note of it. I get more compliments than insults. It's a really nice feeling to get a genuine (or at least hopefully genuine compliment) from a stranger, and sometimes I get more lengthy positive interactions based initially on my outfits. Personally, if another alternative type compliments me, I am especially happy, because I think it is more likely that they're genuinely being nice or curious and less likely to be treating me like an interactive zoo animal, and because I like getting a compliment from people who share my tastes to some degree; I feel that it means I am doing a good job of working within that style.

With more neutral responses, I notice that sometimes people stare and do more discrete things like mutter to their friends, but as I can't tell whether that is positive or negative, and isn't really impacting on me, I ignore it. I am also not the best at reading people unless I am paying very good attention to them, and still have trouble even then, so I am also oblivious to a lot of more subtle and private reactions.

The public reaction to you will be different depending on the local demographics. Since I moved to Scotland, my compliment to insult ratio has been pretty good - I get a lot more people telling me I look nice, especially older people! I think because I prefer an anachronistic style that is inspired by funereal elegance rather than a punky style with ripped fishnets and revealing clothes (although I do wear those on occasion) that older women of a more conservative background like what I am wearing as it is feminine, modest, elegant, detailed, etc. If I am wearing fishnets and platform boots and a really short skirt or hotpants, with lots of spikes, I generally get more advances from men (and sometimes women), but fewer compliments that aren't the opening to flirtation. Oddly enough, when I have been in major cities in southern English cities, the number of insults (usually from gangs of teenage boys, young men and drunks) was much higher than the number of compliments, despite Goths being far more prevalent. There are some places where it can be downright dangerous to stand out too much, and especially to wear certain clothes - take care in areas you know to be less than safe, and tone it down if you have to. Yes, bad things can happen anywhere, but some places do harbour greater risks than others.

Lastly, in the case of extended interaction, some people have certain prejudices about various subcultures - I am talking about "Goth girls are easy sluts" and "Goths are all Satanists and devil-worshippers" and "Goths are suicidal or homicidal lunatics" and "Goths think they are vampires" other misinformed and dangerous rubbish. If you join a subculture and wear that subculture's signifiers in public, be aware that there are prejudices, and people may act on them. Try to politely correct misinformation, don't play into the negative stereotypes, and generally, be polite and sensible. Sadly, there will be times when even if you are the nicest person, others will react badly on the grounds of things they think they know about 'your kind'. That sort of thing is highly situational, but read through the experiences of others, sites like Gothic Charm School, and try to handle things in as calm and rational a manner as possible, but I know that this can be hard when people are being really horrible and irrational to you. 

Generally though, if you are a polite and sensible person, people will judge you on your actions rather than your appearances, although they may still be a tad nervous and scrutinise you more closely. Often, if you give a good impression and are polite and friendly, they will realise that their misgivings were unfounded.

Basically, there are four main points to being confident in alternative clothes in public: 
✯You are the ultimate judge of whether or not you look nice, not others. 

✯If you feel comfortable in your clothes, you will come over better. Get used to things in your own space if you need to first. 

✯Reactions vary between places - a good indication of how they are more about the person reacting than the person being reacted to!

✯There is nothing immoral or wrong about different. 

Go out there beautiful! Wear whatever you want to wear - whether you want to be a Sweet Lolita or the darkest Goth, do it. Sometimes confidence takes time to build, but it is worth it.

Arthurian Legend, Medieval History and Gothic Architecture

Or how I came to fall in love with anachronism...

This is in response to Jess, who suggested the topic on the Domesticated Goth Facebook Page.

⚜✥⚜

I have always had a broad appreciation of history. My father is involved in archaeology as a geophysicist and archaeological surveyor, and I was therefore brought up saturated in local history and British history. This, however, can only partially explain why I like history in general, and not really explain why I have a fascination for the medieval in particular, or how this ties in with my other historical interests (we're heading over to Pre-Raphaelite territory...)

My attempts to be a real-life Pre-Rpahaelite depiction of Morgan LaFey

⚜ Childhood Fascination

It all started with an illustrated book of fairy tales from when I was a very, very small child. In it were children's versions of some Arthurian tales. I really, really wish I still had the book, but sadly it is long gone. I can't even remember what the book was called, but I remember that it had lavish, beautiful illustrations in full colour and great detail. There was this fabulous image of a knight in armour on a horse, with the horse adorned in barding and caparison and the knight with a very sharp and shiny looking sword. Then there was a book ordered from the back of a packet of Weetabix (::this:: book - I'm showing my age! ) which I read avidly and repeatedly and with great enthusiasm. It was the first book on history I ever owned, and my favourite section was that from the Norman Conquest on to Henry VIII - just a bit broader than the time-span  referred to as the 'High Middle Ages' and 'Late Middle Ages'.

This interest was picked up, and I was given a French language (I was brought up bilingual, my first language is actually French) history book with a few transparent pages called ::Le Château Fort:: which just fed this interest. I even got taken on some trips to some real-life castles, such as Rochester Castle in Kent, which probably sealed it for me. 

I can't really place what it is that drew me to these things, but  it was partially a confusion between what was myth and reality (probably on account of being a child with a broad imagination). There was something wonderful and exciting about believing that all these knights and maidens and brave chivalrous warriors and fierce monsters and witches and wizards had been real, just centuries and centuries ago. For some time, as a small child, my career ambitions were "knight"... 

As I read more I quickly learnt that no, dragons were not real (dinosaurs, on the other hand...) and neither was the Green Knight, and that chivalry and courtly love were not as later poets would have us believe. I also learnt, over time, that the "shining armour" of knights was often actually depictions things such as 1480s Gothic plate armour from what is now Germany and other parts of the Holy Roman Empire, that there are an awful lot of types of "pointy arches" buildings, and recorders are fabulous musical instruments with a long, long history. Basically, I learnt that a lot of the things I found really interesting came from between the mid 11thC and very beginning of the 16thC. 

⚜ Art History And Gothic Architecture

The more I got to know of art and architecture from that period, the more I realised that it was rich aesthetics that I adored, and still adore. 

I gained an interest in calligraphy and illuminated manuscripts when I was about 12 or 13, after being introduced to them in an English lesson focused on Arthurian myths. I began my first pseudo-'illuminated' Book of Shadows, the precursor to my current book of Shadows, which is all written in uncial calligraphy, richly decorated with a mixture of foliate, spiral and knot-work designs, a lot of silver and gold embellishments (albeit via more modern techniques) and even has a few illustrations. 

I also fell in love with Gothic architecture (no surprise to my regular readers). I like most styles of highly decorative architecture on grand scales, from the temples at Angkor Wat to Christopher Wren's St. Paul's Cathedral, but I have a special fondness for the Gothic and Gothic-Revival. I especially like buildings in the later Gothic styles, especially the Perpendicular Gothic, with their emphasis on verticality and arrays of stained glass windows. I can't explain why I prefer a pointed Gothic arch or fan-vaulted ceiling to a round Romanesque arch or barrel-vaulted ceiling, nor what it is about tracery designs that appeal to me, but that is the way I am, and I could spend all day looking at them. 

It is not enough for me to merely find interest in the appearance of buildings, I am always led to their function, and that then draws me back into the history - old abbeys, cathedrals, grand houses etc. always have rich histories, and it fascinates me how the uses of buildings change over centuries, and boggles me to think of all the thousands of people from so many periods and places that have visited these places and looked at them with their own unique perspectives. 

What also amazes me is the size and complexity of the buildings designed considering the limited understanding of physics and mathematics at the time. People sometimes think that because people in the past were illiterate and superstitious with a limited grasp of science and mathematics that they were stupid but education and intelligence are different things, as can be shown by ::this:: article, where it describes how a string and a weight could show if the vast spire of Salisbury Cathedral was straight or not (it wasn't, it was leaning, and Christopher Wren figured out how to straighten it in 1668) in an age long before optical surveying equipment, let alone laser levels! These cathedrals were built by a largely illiterate work force. People had to be creative and use their initiative to overcome the lack of technology and get things done by other means. 

This does not just apply to great cathedrals across Europe, or even to medieval times alone, of course, but it is one of the things about the medieval period that does intrigue me. 

Also, as an enthusiastic archer, and a person with an interest in historical arms and armour, Medieval European weaponry is very interesting to me, and to understand the weapons, one has to understand the conflicts that were their context, and how they became visual symbols in later periods, which necessitates some understanding of medieval life. 

(Those interested in medieval weaponry may be excited to know that I have asked a friend who is more knowledgeable than me in this area to write a guest post on such things!).

⚜Understanding Where I live
As my readers already know, I live in the UK, currently in Scotland and previously down in the Thames Valley. I am the sort of person that likes to know the history of the places where I live; they make up part of the culture, and inform present day attitudes (like someone I know here, with a tattoo of the Declaration of Arbroath, which was originally made in 1320). The history of the UK stretches back millennia and millennia before the Middle Ages, but much of its best recorded  history is that recorded by the monasteries and onwards, i.e Saxon through to Medieval and onwards. 

Earlier history interest me too, especially the pre-Roman 'Celtic' history of the various Iron Age, Bronze Age and earlier peoples of Britain, but much of these cultures is lost to time, and what we know is pieced together from artefacts and remains, and the writings of later Roman authors writing as outsiders. The very early history is full of mysteries, and these mysteries intrigue me, but they are mysteries, not things we know. 

Medieval history, on the other hand, includes quite a body of knowledge about what life was like then, and is quite accessible - it is not that expensive to go on a tour of Oxford castle and get quite good account of the castle's history, starting with its ecclesiastical history and moving forwards, and I certainly studied the Norman Invasion, the Charter of Liberties, the Magna Carter and the Peasant's Revolt at school, and am sure that various aspects of Medieval history are fairly widespread in history teaching at various levels. I guess it was something I could easily get into, and unlike Roman history, I wasn't faced with my Dad's near-obsession (he spent several years working at a Roman pottery manufacture site with several kilns and a processing works for clay) with the subject. 

⚜The Victorians Have A Lot To Answer for

Another thing my readers may well know is that I have an interest in Victorian things, and as all the Victorian-era Gothic Revival and Scottish Baronial architecture I photograph show, and the subject matter of many Pre-Raphaelite paintings also, there was a definite interest in a fairy-tale and Arthurian Medievalism in that period (as well as an interest in legitimate history). My interests become recursive at this point. To elaborate on the previous examples, I look at a Victorian Gothic Revival buildings, and see in them their stylistic ancestors (and giggle at the Victorian tendency to turn practical medieval things into nonsensical decorative devices.), I look at Pre-Raphaelite depictions of Arthurian legends, and wonder which suits of armour were used as costume references, and how many details are flights of fancy.  

⚜✥⚜

Hopefully I have managed to detail from where my interest stems in a helpful manner to those curious, and have not been too boring and introspective. Personally, I find the history far more interesting than my appreciation of it! I don't think this explanation is exhaustive, and in racking my brains I wonder if I am overlaying too much of who I am now onto my past self, but hopefully it is at least a bit helpful. 

The Original 'Goth' Bands Are Not Goth

I am going to say something vaguely controversial here: Siouxsie And The Banshees, Sisters of Mercy, Joy Division and suchlike are not 'Goth Bands'.

They are, though, the people who produced the music about which the nebulous thing we now call Goth crystallised. The term 'Goth' was one applied to these bands by the music press, but it was more applied to their fans. Goth came from the fans of musicians, not from the bands themselves. Many of these bands produced music in styles outside of what is considered Goth, some of them starting as punk bands that evolved through Post-Punk into producing things in the style that became the 'Goth' style, some of them taking their music in directions outside of that style later in their careers.

Siouxsie Sioux is a musician whose career illustrates both of these aspects of these changes in musical direction. She started out as Sex Pistols fan who decided to have a go with a few friends, and whose first public performance involved her reciting the Lord's Prayer over an improvised instrumental, and her musical career evolved through punk beginnings to Siouxsie and The Banshees' Post-Punk work a was actually quite experimental and influenced by quite a variety of things (David Quantick called 'Peek-a-Boo' an "oriental marching band hip hop with farting horns and catchy accordion" in his review in the NME, published 23 July 1988, and that I think illustrates this eclecticism.). 

After the Banshees were reduced to Siouxsie and Budgie being 'The Creatures' their music took another turn in direction, partly because Budgie being a drummer and Siouxsie being a singer meant that outside of the studio their music was quite pared down to percussion and vocals, and this had its practical limitations, but partly because their creativity drove them to try new things - "Manchild" for example, is a story in song set in Ancient Meso-America about human sacrifice - a dark theme - but musically its inspirations clearly come from various periods and places. 

Siouxsie's distinctive sense of fashion, the often dark subject matter of the music she performed, the timing of her work coinciding with the nascent Goth subculture, and her links to Post-Punk made her an early Goth icon, despite the fact that stylistically she and the Banshees were highly varied and not always within the stylistic bounds of what is now described as Goth.;This is partly because in the early 1980s Goth was a lot less concrete.Siouxsi and The Banshees were not the only band to have a stylistically varied career and yet somehow become part of the (oft debated) 'canon' of Goth music. The Cure, for example, went decidedly pop for a while, before returning to darker rock, although their later work was certainly not as Goth as their earlier work such as 'A Forest'.

It takes a substantial body of work for a genre to become established, and it takes innovators being followed by the people they inspire, and that takes time. The later imitators are probably actually more Goth because they tended to stick quite closely to their inspirations, and therefore had an output that was more stylistically consistent and within the bounds of what is now termed 'Goth', though this does not mean they were necessarily as good because in being derivative some were not necessarily fulfilling their potential and may have done better allowing themselves more creative scope rather than trying to stay within a style.

Quite a few of the first wave bands - most notably The Sisters of Mercy (though they were late in that wave) - reject the Goth label, and I actually support this. Goth is not a term to label the bands themselves, more a description of individual pieces of music that they produced. The people themselves do not identify with the subculture. Some find the label to be constrictive, with both commercial concerns and creative concerns about such a label possibly resulting in aiming music at a target audience and therefore loosing some creative freedom. Some simply do not fit that label consistently enough to think it applies to them.

The original Goths are not the members of these bands - they are the fans who took inspiration in terms of fashion and music from these people and expanded it into something much bigger, pulling in influences from sources as diverse as centuries-old architecture, Victorian literature, early 20thC horror movies and futuristic science-fiction costumery. While we can thank people like Siouxsie Sioux, Dave Vanian, Patricia Morrison and Robert Smith for inspiring us, we should thank ourselves for the community we have built, for the vast amount of expansion and creativity that has come after that initial musical spark, and for basically building the subculture. Goth exists because of Goths, especially promoters, designers, organisers, musicians, artists and crafters.

❇✤❇~☥~❇✤❇

(I had an interesting debate in the comments of one of my posts about whether the Cure were Goth once - I LIKE these debates - feel free to debate this or any other post with me in the comments. I find reasoned arguments for and against my position, positive reactions where people expand on what they like and  most of all constructive criticism to be the most helpful and interesting comments! It is actually reading and responding to the comments that is the most enjoyable part of blogging. I'm in this subculture and have ties to others for the love of their various  facets and discussing them is fun!)

Cultural Appropriation, Eclecticism and Subcultures

Today I have been reading about cultural appropriation. It started out with reading ::this post:: at This Is Corp Goth, about how mainstream fashion appropriates outward signifiers of Goth sub-culture, stripping it of the meaning it has to market it to masses, especially to those who are looking to be "edgy" and distinguish themselves slightly from the mainstream in pursuit of a bought "individuality", not because it reflects their inner aesthetic preferences (if they have developed a core set of aesthetic preferences), but because it is the current trendy way of seeming interesting; they want to be seen as "different" and "interesting" and "individual", but dare not do anything that endangers them to being thought of as "freaky" and "weird" or "not normal", distancing themselves from the originating subculture and the roots of what they have adopted.

This is an issue that has been much talked about in the Goth community, but there is another issue that is not talked about, or at least that I have not seen talked about: do members of the Goth community appropriate things from other subcultures, cultures and traditions, and are our inspirations being used in a way that is cultural and subcultural hybridisation, or in a way that is simply adopting something because it looks nice or is popular amongst other goths, without thinking of the origins of these things.

I routinely see things aimed at Goths that are marketed as "Celtic", "Gypsy" and "Japanese" which are either based off stereotypes or have nothing to do with those people, or even worse are based off hugely erroneous romanticisations of those people with vast historical and anthropological inaccuracies. There is, for example, a difference between the interlace animal designs of the Vikings and Pictish crescent designs and ancient Bronze Age spiral designs, and the interlace designs of Irish monasteries, but all get marketed as 'Celtic knotwork', despite not all of them actually including knots, or being from a group called 'Celts'. This is taking a broad an inaccurate view of what the word 'Celtic' means, and ignoring a lot of history to market something to people who have only a vague knowledge of the term. Often this is pandering to those seeking something exotic, and conflating something being exotic with it somehow being better with what is usual simply because it is different. 

It is not wrong to appreciate the artistic styles of another race or nationality or culture, but to genuinely appreciate something you have to understand that more than just words and obvious symbols are signifiers of meaning, and that some things that we think are merely art or decoration have long and deep traditions as something deeply personal and meaningful to many people in their originating culture, and to them it as vexing to see us appropriate those signifiers and unintentionally strip them of meaning as it is for us to see non-Goth people wear obviously Goth-inspired fashion and then denigrate Goth and Goths.

That said, I do not think it is wrong to wear or have or make things inspired by other cultures and traditions, as long as the inspiring items/traditions are understood, and as long as it is not too direct a copy, more a new creation with artistic ties, because one is not directly copying a symbol or item, but appreciating the aesthetics and then combining them with whatever else lurks in the designers brain and producing something new and appreciative and therefore not taking a specific symbol or item and re-using it stripped of its meaning.  A lot of it comes down to understanding what a specific symbol or item means, and the context in which it is used in its originating culture, something that can easily be learnt with a bit of research, and avoiding using that symbol or item in a way that would be disrespectful to that culture, and if you do wish to use something outside of its proper context, changing it enough so it is clear that you mean no accidental insult or sacrilege, and are merely being aesthetically inspired. 

For example, walking down the street wearing a feather in a band in the same way a Native North American people would do in the context of a feather earned by a warrior would be a bit like walking down the street wearing a medal that would normally be earned by a soldier when you haven't earned it yourself, compounded by being from the people who fought against those who would have earned it, but wearing a different type of feather in a different way altogether would just show an appreciation for that feather. 

It is also important to remember that just because something happened a long time ago, it does not mean that the event or culture is no longer relevant to people today.  A lot of people are very proud of their ancestors, and very connected to their roots, and historical events that caused harm to large swathes of certain cultures have not been forgotten or relegated to the history books, so be careful when using symbols from times past.  A red ribbon around someone's neck meant something specific in the French Revolution, and there are definitely people around who still know what that means, and whose ancestors did end up killed on the guillotine. Even more pressing, there are cultures who still feel the repercussions of historic events, and if you happen to come from the culture they feel has injured them, wearing their symbols could be seen as a grave insult. 

I think this is an important issue for us to bear in mind as creative people and people interested in fashion, especially as people whose tastes are likely to be more eclectic and to draw on things outside of western culture, or from different historical periods. It is basically a case of being aware of what symbols and items mean before using them, and of doing the research. We are a magpie people, who spot something and want it, but sometimes we have to acknowledge that, no, we can't have that exact thing, and then use it as an opportunity to be creative and create our own thing, which will mean so much more as something made by oneself. 

Traditional Goth, Modern Goth and Scene Snobbery

Goth was a very different thing in the '80s. I wasn't a goth back then, and I wasn't even born yet for a lot of the '80s. What I can remember is vague - some things are clear, like footage on television of the Berlin Wall coming down and this being somehow Very Important even if I didn't understand why at the time - but most of what memories I do have are very vague.  I have been interested in the early days of the subculture for a long while, and from what I've learnt, it was a very different beast. Two things stand out: it was called Goth by outsiders, the media, etc. not necessarily by the people within, and it was primarily about the music. 

The fashion was rather different too, partly because Goth-specific off-the-rack clothes didn't exist and partly because a lot of inspiration came from what the bands wore, and what the bands wore was sometimes stuff that wouldn't be called 'Goth' at all today (and if it was worn today would seem decidedly and deliberately retro '80s and might get the person accusations of "hipster"!). Patterned shirts were more common, and there was a lot of adaptation of mainstream clothes. There was less inspiration from Medieval or other anachronistic styles, and it was often more a layering of black street-wear customised with studs or band logos in the manner of punk. Despite Goth being associated with all black now, where it crossed over with Punk colours were certainly involved. Trousers were tight and preferably leather, boots were pointy. 

The hair was different; the sleeked back look had not really come in, nor red curls, and certainly not things like cyber dreads and the predominant style was to either bleach or dye black, then crimp and back-comb. Some rather creative styles were done via backcombing, including death-hawks (fluffy mohawks), Jareth-esque styles (see 'Labyrinth' staring David Bowie to see what I mean) and big fluffy Siouxsie Sioux styles or more deliberately unkempt Robert Smith styles. The makeup for women was heavily influenced by the likes of Siouxsie, with an ancient Egyptian element and straight eyebrows and lots of heavy black, sometimes accented with colours.  

Me with a Romantic Goth skirt and black foofy hair.

I identify as a Romantic Goth. I know and acknowledge the '80s Goth and it is my musical preference (and does impact on my fashion as I have foofy hair on some occasions, and Siouxsie make-up on regular occasions) but that is not personally how I like to dress. I prefer the lace and funereal elegance, the anachronism and the decadence of the Romantic Goth style. However much I adore female Goth icons like Siouxsie Sioux or Patricia Morrison, I would rather dress in a way that pleases me than emulate their style. That said, I adore pointy boots and want some rather nice ones from Pennangalan that come with very pointy toes and pentacle buckles. Pointy boots have a definite place in Romantic Goth fashion. 

Goth now is a much broader thing, part art movement, part subculture. I don't like those who try and put "rules" on Goth, trying to keep it like the Goth of the teenagers and young adults of the early '80s experienced it at that time.  Goth has always been a place for individualists, after all, and self-expression has always been one of the few tenets that binds this amorphic group of black-clad people. That said, there is still certainly a place for the fashion of the '80s goths, and '80s Goth music is certainly not dead (maybe it is undead?) and I hear at least some Sisters of Mercy, Bauhaus, Joy Division and (yes, I'm mentioning her again...) Siouxsie at every Goth night I go to, even if there's EBM & Industrial or even Marilyn Manson being played too. 

The new influences do not dilute the subculture, they prevent ideological inbreeding - imagine Goth like a group of wild animal; if it stayed within its own gene-pool it would become inbred and sickly rather than reinforced, but if it mingles and breeds with compatible groups, it grows stronger. It is like that with the creative influences of Goth - Goth is not a purebred show-dog which inherits genetic weaknesses along with its genetic 'purity', it is a mongrel from the city, bred to survive and feed off the dark parts of the world. Members of the Goth subculture overlap with other subcultures, especially other ones with a musical core, as few people like only one single genre of music, for example, my love of Celtic and folk music does not cancel out my adoration of Andrew Eldritch's dark crooning and or the bilingual madness of Asylum Party. 

Goth has also grown out from its musical roots, but those roots run deep and keep the many more modern branches aloft (more nature metaphors...) Even manifestations such as Cyber, that cross with Industrial and seem to hold little relation to the original Goth subculture of the '80s do look back to their roots - for example French Synthpop/EBM/Bodypop band Celluloide did a cover of the Dead Can Dance song "In The Power We Trust The Love Advocated" and it was actually quite danceable. The new variations do not exist at the exclusion of the older ones, and it is possible for them to peaceably co-exist. 

I really do not like the inter-scene snobbery - people looking down on Metal, Lolita, Industrial, etc. on the grounds that it is not Goth - they're separate subcultures, even if they have strong links with the Goth subculture now, so what is there to be snobby about? It is just a difference, it is not an inferiority, and just because one person does not like it does not mean that there is nothing inherently worthwhile about it for the people who do like it. I also do not like the snobbery towards people who have a strong interest in two or more subcultures or are from a hybrid subculture - for example Cybergoths, the subcultural inspiration for whom is part Goth, part fetish, part Cyber and part Rave - or for people who predominantly have an interest in one particular subculture, but also a partial interest in another - for example someone who is mostly interested in Goth but also likes Metal on occasions. 

While it is perfectly acceptable to be of the opinion that not all changes in the Goth subculture are to your taste, and to believe that it has changed nearly beyond recognition (it has certainly changed a lot over the decades) it is not acceptable to ridicule others, in person or on the internet, for not seeing Goth the same way you do. Goth has no doctrine, no rules and no ideology. While there are those who appear to be fruits that fell far from the tree and do all sorts of things with little relation to original subculture and call it Goth, and those who simply misapply the term in ignorance (especially in terms of music genre), and these people can be annoying, treating others with cruelty and mockery does nothing to remedy the problem. Living your own Goth life to the fullest and living as an example of what you think Goth should be at least may have a positive influence, and if you feel compelled to "correct" or "educate" people, at least do so in a polite, positive and encouraging manner - those lessons are more likely to stay learnt, anyway. 

It is cliched advice, but be the change you want to see in the world. If you think there needs to be more Batcave-era music at your local Goth club, request songs you like instead of bitching about the fact that the things you like are never played, but be aware that other patrons will have other tastes, and that the music is ultimately up to the DJ. If you think too few people go out with backcombed hair, wear yours up backcombed at the weekend with pride or post about how to back-comb on your blog so that newbies can be educated. It is important the roots of the subculture are not forgotten, but is also important to allow others to make their own corner within - and outside - the subculture without mockery and snobbery.