You see, here in the comments and on the FB group, a lot about the debt that Ivy owes to the UK. Is that true though?
First, you have to start with what Ivy is. Ivy isn’t Trad, right? Ivy has Trad in it. Sushi has rice in it but we don’t call it rice. Ivy was a revolution that morphed into Trad to the point now where they are almost interchangeable. (I am working on that.)
But first and foremost, Ivy was Trad disrupted. Yeah, I have cordovan penny loafers. Trad. Yeah, I have shorts. Trad. Wear them together? Ivy.
Does Trad owe the UK? Only if fish owe water.
But does Ivy? Today’s Ivy incorporates the disruptive nature of the hey day with what happened when those folks got jobs. But at its roots, Ivy was a disruptor first. The nature of things is cyclical, and one could argue that, in fact I do argue that, both the UK trad and our own Trad here owe Ivy, not the other way around. At least at this point in the clover leaf.
Why? Because of the nature of things. For duration, ideas need volatility. Ivy was Trad’s volatility. And is again. In order for the market to make money, it needs volatility. In order for Trad to survive, it needs to be shaken up every once in a while. Ivy serves that purpose.
I would submit that the UK, and Trad, owe Ivy. Not the other way around.
ADDENDUM: Great notes! Let me go a little deeper. Yes of course, the UK created amazing elements of Ivy, as noted in the comments. But these are elements. Ivy is a particular way of arranging these elements. Salt is an ingredient of good tomato sauce. What is the debt of the sauce to the salt? The boat shoe is right down the Ivy fairway. What is the debt of Ivy to the sailboat? With regard to the UK owing Ivy – Ivy blew a breath of fresh air into a style that would have otherwise withered. Style is cyclical, and without a meaningful disruptor (in this case a generation that reinvigorates the style) the style withers. That’s the reason you aren’t in bloomers.