Please explain...

[Makeitstop]

Just as long as you respect the decision of those of us who do choose to honour our ancestors, sir.

Todd

Absolutely. I was speaking only for myself.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Suppose for a moment that this is a forum about 1957 Chevrolets. Now how much modification does that '57 Chevy require before it ceases to be a '57 Chevy and becomes a hotrod?

I think the same applies to kilts. It would seem to me that the "traditional" kilt is just that-- a kilt. It can be any colour or combinations of colours (tartan) and still be a kilt. Just like "paint colours" don't affect the Chevy being a Chevy. You can put chrome wheels on your Chevy or box pleats on your kilt, and they still aren't radically changed from what they were to begin with. But, it seems to me, if you chop the top on your Chevy, add extra fins and scoops, cover the seat with fake fur, and generally radically alter the original design, well then you have a hotrod based on a 1957 Chevrolet, but it's no longer a '57 Chevy Bel Air two door hardtop.

The same applies to non-traditional kilts. When you take a traditional kilt, chop it, add pockets, change the way it closes, and make it out of some other material, whether it's the latest kind of vinyl or woven sea grass, it really ceases to be a kilt, and becomes something else. In the same way that a 1969 VW modified to resemble a 1952 MGTD isn't a 1952 MGTD (although it has a casual resemblence to the MG) the "contemporary kilt" isn't really a kilt, any more than a terry cloth bath wrap is a kilt. It's a different kind of garment.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea of the "contemporay kilt"-- There are probably a lot of places where they would be eminently more suitable than a traditional kilt. Hiking out in the Mojave Desert in August springs to mind. And, because it isn't "really a kilt" the standards of dress that apply to the traditional kilt don't necessarily have to apply to it. Which makes it ideal for the individual who wants to exert his independence from "traditional" society.

None of the foregoing is meant to be disrespectful of hotrodders or aficionados of the "contemporary kilt", nor it it intended to laud the virtues of the traditionalist. Rather, because the "contemporary kilt" is a different sort of garment, I believe it should be seen and respected for what it is, as much as for what it is not.

[BoldHighlander]

Honestly, you can like or dislike contemporary kilts. That's your choice. I, personally, don't like many "contemporary" style kilts. That's one reason why you don't see me posting often in the "contemporary & non-traditional kilt" category. But I don't begrudge anyone else their choice in wearing them.

There is a lot more in the realm of traditional Scottish attire than clan tartans.

Aye, well written Matt. I agree in that I'm not a big fan of "contemporary" style kilts either, but I don't begrudge anyone's choice to wear them as long as they don't begrudge mine to wear wool in a more "traditional" manner, rather it be tartan or solid tweed colours.

However a recent thread on gardening & kilts has swayed me to the idea of a canvas kilt for such endeavors so as not to wear out my more expensive wool kilt & to easily aide in cleaning up!

As a friend of mine use to say: "to each their own said the old lady as she kissed her cow"

[Keys MacQuarrie]

I suppose my answer is somewhat a statement of my entire life. I also ride motorscooters (Vespas, NOT Harleys) and sell T-shirts through various scooter blogs that state "Proudly Ignoring Popular Opinion".

Pretty much sums it up for me...

[berserkbishop]

There is a wide variety of garments that are not "traditional" kilts. I only own one "traditional" kilt right now. I own 1 SWK standard in hunting MacLeod, 1 gold bros abomination, and 1 very beautiful handsewn kilt in MacMillan (not my clan tartan at all). I bought the SWK and Gold Bros kilts to wear for the highland games and to see if I would like wearing a kilt. There is no use buying a $500 garment you wont wear IMO. Turns out I like wearing a kilt. Do I think it will replace my trousers, no, but on occasion when the mood strikes I strap one on with pride. Now that I have a handsewn kilt, I dont know if I will ever wear my others. . . .they feel so cheap in comparison. Again, it is not my tartan, but I sport it with pride because it is was a gift that I appreciate very much. There are many reasons why I like wearing a kilt. Yes I have Scottish blood, but it is lowland blood so really trews would be more appropriate, so it isint really to honor ancestors so much. I like the freedom, comfort, and statement that is made when wearing a kilt. I am extroverted, so I eat up the attention. I enjoy the camaraderie that there is with kilt wearers as well.

I never thought I would get into wearing kilts with pockets and such, but I found a use for it. I used to wear a kilt on campus nearly every week. I strapped on my MacMillan handsewn to strut about campus on, then I remember we were playing with acid in lab that day. Beautiful, expensive kilt + acid= a BERSERK bishop. So, to be safe I took off my kilt and put on some trousers. I would have rather been in a kilt. . . . . Solution the Mowgli made kilt that is on its way to my house. I get to still be kilted and make and I dont have to fret so much about messing up a costly garment.

I guess all that can be summed up like this. Why do I ride a motorcycle when cars are the more prominent and accepted form of transportation that the majority of American's use. I I ride a motorcycle because I find it practical, fun, and it sets me apart from the crowd. Not to mention the biker camaraderie. Same goes for me and ANY type of kilt, or man skirt if you dont consider contemporary kilts a kilt.

Ok thats enough. Sorry for the novel.

BB

[JakobT]

Suppose for a moment that this is a forum about 1957 Chevrolets. Now how much modification does that '57 Chevy require before it ceases to be a '57 Chevy and becomes a hotrod?

The same applies to non-traditional kilts. When you take a traditional kilt, chop it, add pockets, change the way it closes, and make it out of some other material, whether it's the latest kind of vinyl or woven sea grass, it really ceases to be a kilt, and becomes something else. In the same way that a 1969 VW modified to resemble a 1952 MGTD isn't a 1952 MGTD (although it has a casual resemblence to the MG) the "contemporary kilt" isn't really a kilt, any more than a terry cloth bath wrap is a kilt. It's a different kind of garment.

This raises the interesting question of exactly what makes a kilt a kilt, and what the difference between a traditional one and a contemporary one consists of.

Your example is interesting, but in my opinion doesn't entirely cover the case. If you modify a VW to resemble an MG, it's true that it would no longer be a Volkswagen, nor would it be an MG, but it would still be a car. In order to find out how much alteration a kilt can take before it would cease to be a kilt, we would have to look at what is unique about a kilt that separates it from other pieces of clothing. In my own personal opinion, the aprons, the pleats at the back and the straps, are the three things that separate a kilt from a skirt, because you might find some of them on a skirt, but never all three together. The tartan might be part of what makes a kilt traditional, but it's not what makes a kilt a kilt, because many other garments use the tartan in some form. As for the number and type of pleats, the material used, length and so on, that can and does vary. I'm told that one of the first known examples of a tailored kilt is a 4yd box pleated kilt. This might easily be regarded as something other than a kilt if it were defined as narrowly as your example suggests.

On the other hand, the definition of a traditional kilt vs. a contemporary one is much closer to your example, though still not quite there, I think. But at least here, we have very specific details, such as the rise, the weight of material and the tartan, that are almost always present on a traditional kilt, but which may or may not be there on a contemporary one, and there are also pockets and other details on contemporary kilts that never appear on traditional ones.

My own kilt is a case in point. It is a plain 6yd 13oz poly/wool kilt, made to measure by a Scottish kiltmaker. In other words, the main difference is that my kilt has no rise, no tartan, and slightly less yardage. But in my opinion, it's very definitely a kilt, and a good deal more traditional than, say, a Utilikilt. Still, the UK, though different from traditional kilts, is a real kilt in my opinion, much like a PC jacket and a suit jacket are both jackets, even though you would never mistake one for the other.

[M. A. C. Newsome]

This raises the interesting question of exactly what makes a kilt a kilt...

http://albanach.org/define_kilt.htm

[Jimmy]

Wearing the kilt is not just about wearing a garment that relates to your ancestry, culture and heritage, certainly the best items of clothing in a man's wardrobe is the full highland outfit, is there a better form of dress that a man can wear?
I was born, bred and still living in Scotland but I am the proud owner of 5 kilts (2 traditional, 2 modern black design and 1 leather kilt) Certainly at traditional Scottish events I always wear the traditional kilt but more commonly at leisure I like to alternate between black and leather. I feel comfortable and satisfied in either outfit.
I agree that the kilt offers the male population a way of escape from the tyranny of pants

[JakobT]

http://albanach.org/define_kilt.htm

An excellent article, and I agree with almost all the points you make. However, I feel that, in regard to this discussion at least, there is one thing which the article does not cover, namely what makes the kilt different from other garments. As you say in the article:

"Most of the people seeking to strictly define the kilt do so for the purposes of setting the “authentic” kilts apart from those of less quality."

It seems to me that the article is written specifically to counter such opinions, which, by the way, it does excellently. But doing so, it only defines what makes a bad kilt and what makes a good one, and really only covers the traditional end of the market. Utilikilts and other kilts with features that never appear on traditional kilts, still have lots of similarities with them, which in my opinion still makes them kilts. Some would obviously disagree, which is why what makes a kilt a kilt needs defining.

[Farlander]

Suppose for a moment that this is a forum about 1957 Chevrolets. Now how much modification does that '57 Chevy require before it ceases to be a '57 Chevy and becomes a hotrod?

I think this is a good analogy. I would perhaps change it just a little. The '57 Chevy, '69 VW or hotrod are all "Cars".

So, as I see it, a "kilt" is like a "Car". A fine Newsome Box Pleat in say a MacPherson Hunting tartan is like a fine red '65 Ford Mustang with black racing stripes.

Chopping a Ford (or a Newsome) will change it into something else, but it will still be a car (or kilt).

I suppose that at some point one could chop things so much, that it is no longer a car (or kilt).

So, when is a kilt no longer a kilt?