Are reeanactors often dressed too brightly?

[Scarf Ace]

What often strikes me about medieval reenactors is how brightly coloured their outfits often are. It's kinda understandable when they're dressed as nobles or so, but it just seems weird to me when a "peasant" is wearing a brightly coloured tunic; it's like he's supposed to be from 1200 but he's stuck in the 1980's. Is there a reason to go for these bright colours? Were such dye colours available in the middle ages?

I'm not saying that they should all walk around in drab colours, but those blatantly unnatural ones just look weird.

 

[Archonsod]

Colours tended to be bright because there's no real way of adjusting the pigment prior to chemistry taking off. Since most dyes were plant and berry based those tended to be the colours used. Peasants would usually be more colourful for the simple fact that they couldn't easily afford garments made out of more than one material (or in fact dyed, most likely they'd make their own garments from whatever they had access to such as wool, then dye it themselves using whatever local plants were suitable for it).

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

And still, peasants did dye their clothes but tended to use the same clothes for a long time. Dye got washed down. Colours got toned down.

 

[Archonsod]

Washing out is a problem with synthetic rather than natural dyes. Synthetic dyes are monochromatic, so when they start to fade they lose colour. Natural dyes are polychromatic, when they fade the colour actually gets deeper.

 

[Dvalin]

Some pictures of the event in question might help clear things up. Costumes at a well planned military reenactment is one thing, chain-mail swimsuits at the local 'renaissance' festival is another.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

Washing out is a problem with synthetic rather than natural dyes. Synthetic dyes are monochromatic, so when they start to fade they lose colour. Natural dyes are polychromatic, when they fade the colour actually gets deeper.

Really? I'd like to see some example.

 

[tostig]

It depends on the exact period in question, but generally speaking Medieval peeps loved to wear bright colours, for as long as we have evidence. More often then not it's the opposite case - re-enactors want the past to look like goddam Gears of War.
ie http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/da/MS_LATIN_11269.JPG from the 1410s and http://collections.royalarmouries.org/image.php?i=576249&r=2&t=4&x=9 from 1290-1310s.

If anything, medieval people had no concept of clashing colours.

 

[Archonsod]

Really? I'd like to see some example.

Simple physics. Polychromatic dyes contain all colours. If the colour mix is equal you get black. A given colour of dye, say from Woad, you have a lot more blue than any other colour. As the blue fades, the colour balance evens out, which means it gets darker (give it long enough and it'll turn black). Monochromatic dye on the other hand only has the one pigment, as it fades there's nothing to replace it, so eventually it will return to the colour of the un-dyed material.

 

[Devercia]

Not necessarily Arch. It would not fade to black because black can have a hue(color) obscured by its value(darkness). If a freshly dyed garment is light enough to be a deep hue(that is, not black/gray/white), then it does not contain enough of the other pigments to be black. It would fade to gray,assuming the garments natural color is white. Being that the other pigments would also fade somewhat, it would end up being of an even lighter value than what the dye it started as.

In short, if a dye has enough of the other pigments to be black, it will be incapable of showing a strong hue because there is not a single pigment with enough presence, even in the absence of all others. If a dye is a strong hue, it will be incapable of becoming black for the same reason. Chemical changes aside.

Example: a dyed garment's dye has all pigments equally. It is black. Remove all pigments but red. The dye is red, but the garment is pink because it no longer has enough dye to cover the natural garment color (white). If the dye is reapplied, the garment will be a deep red.

Example2: A dyed garment is dark red. Its dye is mostly red with traces of all other pigments(IE a natural dye) Remove red. The dye is near black with a slight green hue. The garment is light gray with a slight greenish hue.

The fact that the dye loses a color after it is applied to the garment changes a lot.

 

[xenoargh]

Simple physics. Polychromatic dyes contain all colours. If the colour mix is equal you get black. A given colour of dye, say from Woad, you have a lot more blue than any other colour. As the blue fades, the colour balance evens out, which means it gets darker (give it long enough and it'll turn black).

Uh.  At the risk of being fish-slapped... if I dye wool with madder, as the madder gradually fades / abrades / is converted into other chemicals via interaction with radiation (sunlight) free radicals etc... I have literally less madder dye on the wool; it just stands to reason that the result would look more, uh, sheepish.

That said, yeah.  The concept of clashing was invented by the Italians, stolen by the French, and ignored by the English, who invented Goth Black in response.  Or something. 

I really think there are probably PhD. articles on this very subject, awaiting quotation for our education here, and they probably say I'm a lying weasel (at least about the Italians- it was probably the Turks), but I can't be bothered to check it out 

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

Then, given enough time, all dyed clothes become black? Given that black is actually a very expensive and deep dye in itself, wouldn't it be some kind of gray with traces of other colours?

 

[Archonsod]

if I dye wool with madder, as the madder gradually fades / abrades / is converted into other chemicals via interaction with radiation (sunlight) free radicals etc... I have literally less madder dye on the wool; it just stands to reason that the result would look more, uh, sheepish.

Dye doesn't coat the material, it bonds to it. The only way to remove dye from the wool also requires removing the wool. Usually via bleach.

Not necessarily Arch. It would not fade to black because black can have a hue(color) obscured by its value(darkness).

It's a simplification. But to put it another way, the oldest naturally dyed objects we have are 36 000 years old. And you can still see the original colours.

 

[nijis]

Dye doesn't coat the material, it bonds to it.

That depends if you have a mordant, no? Which poorer folks would not necessarily have, even if they could have access to vegetable dyes like madder.

My reservation would be that if it was so easy to obtain a long-lasting, deep color, then why all the effort and expense to obtain insect dyes like kermes or later on, cochineal?

 

[Archonsod]

Because there's no other way of getting those exact colours. You may as well also ask if wool and cotton are so easy to come by, why the expense and effort to obtain silk?

 

[Frisicus]

What often strikes me about medieval reenactors is how brightly coloured their outfits often are. It's kinda understandable when they're dressed as nobles or so, but it just seems weird to me when a "peasant" is wearing a brightly coloured tunic; it's like he's supposed to be from 1200 but he's stuck in the 1980's. Is there a reason to go for these bright colours? Were such dye colours available in the middle ages?

I'm not saying that they should all walk around in drab colours, but those blatantly unnatural ones just look weird.

Besides trends and such, that did play an important role even in the Middle Ages, it is also logics. If you are a medieval stock farmer it would be wiser to have one set of clothes for special occasions and sundays (when you went to church) and clothes for working with cattle. If dying is available then financial wise it would be better to use for the sunday outfit your best fabrics and brightest dyes while the clothes that are used for farmwork are left more crude. Bright colours are nice to look at, but get dirty quick. 

However the idea spread by medieval films of the past 20 years that commoners only wore faded and brown/grey tinted clothes is not right.

 

[Devercia]

Then, given enough time, all dyed clothes become black? Given that black is actually a very expensive and deep dye in itself, wouldn't it be some kind of gray with traces of other colours?

I agree, and that is what I was arguing. The dye itself would remain black, but the garment would no longer be saturated enough to be black. If black is the complete saturation of all pigments, then removal of any pigment from any finite set of pigments cannot produce black. This is why I made the distinction between the dye and the garment. For dye to fade to black, barring chemical change and the natural color of the garment being black, it must be faded before it is applied. After it is applied there is a finite amount of pigment and any reduction reduces saturation. Without total saturation, there is no black. Ergo, a garment can not fade to black.

Not necessarily Arch. It would not fade to black because black can have a hue(color) obscured by its value(darkness).

It's a simplification. But to put it another way, the oldest naturally dyed objects we have are 36 000 years old. And you can still see the original colours.

That sentence of mine is rather ambiguous. I think I misscommunicated my point. 

 

[Scarf Ace]

Very interesting, thanks for the replies!

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

Interesting indeed, good info here.  By the way, I wear earth tones for my medieval clothing.  Fighting friars of a military order were not allowed to wear bright colors of the secular world, so brown and green it is for me. 

 

[Captain Pyjama Shark]

like poop

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

Indeed, which is appropriate since I am the ****.