/cgl/ - Cosplay & EGL

>>10620576

>Have standards gotten higher or lower?

Yes, because lolita is easier to buy and more accessible now. Back then if you weren't lucky enough to have contact with a shopping service, you had to rely exclusively on the comm_sales or western brands like in the starlight. If you had any brand you were seen as godly, no matter how you coordinated it.

Photoediting wasn't as big back then, people didn't have smart phones and weren't taking selfies seeking perfection. There wasn't a large emphasis on hair and makeup.

Now we expect everyone to be magazine street snap ready, not realizing those are planned photoshoots and not spontaneous photos.

I feel like the definition of "casual" is broad and unhelpful.

For example, theres >>10118814, an ETC/Leur Getter type coordinate which was considered Otome until recently, which usually has minimal or no petticoat, and different legwear and accessories.

Or theres coordinates like (>>10119432) or pic-related, wearing ambiguously lolita items released by lolita brands, like salopettes.

Theres (>>10119435) or (>>10119504) which seem like full lolita coordinates to me, just using knits or cardigans instead of a blouse. I don't see what makes this casual beside the lack of blouse.

Then there is (>>10119449) or (>>10118806) which are more the normal definition of casual lolita as defined during the daily lolita years, a skirt and cutsew or knit, combined with normie elements like sneakers or a normie t-shirt.