Fashion

“Things are entirely what they appear to be and behind them...there is nothing.”
-Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)

One weekend this summer, I bought a paperback copy of an amusing book in our collection, The Fashion Conspiracy by Nicholas Coleridge. Published in 1988, the book is still relevant today in the portraits it draws of fashion wealth, 80s excess, and the striking contrasts between high-end designer showrooms and Asian sweatshops. Coleridge, a British journalist and novelist, uses a form of the then-developing creative nonfiction to make his profiles and encounters more interesting. I find him a bit too credulous as a reporter, however; he recounts the story of Oscar de la Renta as the inventor of the “fashion victim” term without any demur, and repeats similar questionable anecdotes as a matter of course.

Having just finished the book, I’ve found that his title stretches the point a little. An avid reader of murder mysteries, I like to think of myself as an expert on conspiracy theories. Coleridge’s thesis really denotes a nudge and wink conspiracy, in which market players all work together to make the couture garment an amazing piece of expensive sleight-of-hand. If you want to read about someone ready and willing to link fashion with terrorism, look at this interview with Bret Easton Ellis.

I’ve always believed that diversity makes for a more beautiful world. I also thought that most people felt that way, these days. Imagine my surprise when word began to leak out this past year that the fashion shows were employing more and more white models, and less of those of other colors. Having only skinny white girls on the runways is far from completing fashion’s dreamscape. I know Naomi Campbell is bad-tempered, but honestly—we need black, white, Hispanic, and Asian (and would a Native American hurt, either?) women to represent our global world.

For years now, Saudi, Middle Eastern, and Asian women have been major couture buyers. The big designers have customers in all shades of the rainbow as a result of the global economy. Furthermore, as Cathy Horyn says, who writes for the New York Times blog On the Runway, diversity can be a means for “Beauty and Soul.” I hope the Fall 2008 New York Fashion Week organizers are listening: put more models of different races out there for all to see. Fashionable fantasies shouldn’t be for just one group.

Josephine Baker had to leave 1920s America for France in order to receive the acclaim she deserved for her talent. Do we really wish for a return to those times? This is a clear-cut case of NOT wanting everything old to be new again…

“A large income is the best recipe for happiness I ever heard of.”
-Jane Austen, Mansfield Park

Of course, there’s the little matter of how will we pay for our new fall fashions? You’ll be reassured to know that this question won’t bother that sector of the population that attends fashion shows and buys directly from couturiers. For the rest of us who await the trickle-down of readymade fashion must-haves, the question is a little more acute.

One secret of success is to pick and choose. Picking a new accessory—which the Vogue editors pushed as an idea—has always been a way of getting a modish look without too much financial pain. There are bound to be a lot of inexpensive costume jewelry knock-offs of statement necklaces and faux bijoux. I admire those who can sew and adapt the latest outlines or features, whether they are the new silhouettes or an alluring bias cut. One of my favorite books, available at the reference desk in the Art Reading Room is a wonderful resource, full of pictures and retro chic suggestions, called Collectible fashions of the turbulent 30s. Now, those were the days when your dress dollar had to go a long way! Unless you were Marlene Dietrich.

Those who know how to do canny shopping will benefit this year. If you live in the metro New York area, check out two sites that offer ways to shop frugally: TheElegantTightwad.com and fashionswapandmeet.wordpress.com

Well, the September issue of Vogue has hit the stands. I’ve been scrutinizing it, as I do every year, to see what will be on the runways and in the stores this fall. What I encountered is pretty much what I expected: cautious optimism and a whole lot of conservatism. Economic slumps don’t inspire risk-taking or an emphasis on the extraordinary. Clothes with good, classic lines were shown, and there were less retro looks than expected. The slim line in dressing discounts room for breasts and hips, not unlike the body aesthetics of the 20s and 30s. Colors favored were red and blue (election year, surprise!) followed by black and white. Muted metallic tones appeared plentiful, a hangover from last season. Dries Van Noten and Alexander McQueen provided the necessary alternative avant-garde looks. Armani followed the other established designers in subdued clothes, but utilized a winning bias cut.

There were few remarkable photographic studies, other than a radiant Gwyneth Paltrow hawking Tod’s leather goods. The Vogue editors’ concession to the weak economy was a number of articles on the value of accessories, including faux jewels and a statement necklace. In the area of shoes, things looked frightening. Nothing but wickedly threatening stilettos, which Christian Louboutin calls the “skyscraper pump,” except for one page of handsome flats- which made me want to either applaud or cry. I was informed, however, that the flat jazz lace-up shoe is in fashion now. Much more intriguing was mention of the “armorial gladiator ankle boot” as a must-have. Whatever that is…

Vogue, the magazine, has been the subject of some interestingly speculative publications. Academia has begun examining the magazine’s effect on the American fashion industry. One title, As Seen in Vogue, evaluates the effect of its advertising on consumers. Another viewpoint investigates Beauty Photography in Vogue, while drawing some rather bland conclusions about the social impact of fashion photography. Much more amusing—and revealing—is former editor Grace Mirabella’s take on the magazine in her In and Out of Vogue.

I wonder how many of you saw the small article in The New York Times in early July, titled “Texas Ranch Moves from Raid Toward Runway,” in which the polygamist sect raided for alleged underage brides and child abuse announced that they were selling versions of their old-fashioned clothing online. Yes, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims that on the basis of overwhelming interest in their children’s garments, they are now marketing their various conservatively-styled outfits for sale.

In order to raise money, which their spokeswoman admitted was important to them, the sect has established a website, fldsdress.com. The clothes are variations of toddler’s suits, overalls, and dresses with and without bloomers. Colors seem to be “Easter egg” pastels. One thing not on offer, however, will be directions for creating the women’s distinctively retro hairstyles… Look in NYPL’s Digital Gallery under the subject hair dressing to get an idea of the time period these styles came from.

And the demise of the Liz Claiborne Inc. sponsored brand, Sigrid Olsen, leaves many people in the fashion and consumer world unsettled.
 

Ah, the Dog Days of summer started very early this year, but they’re here now with a vengeance. The city needs daily intervals of icy downpours, or cold rain showers, while The Who’s “Love Reign O’er Me” blasts away in the background.

Well, if we can’t have that, let’s think of something cooling. The ancient Egyptians understood the usefulness of unbleached, durable linen. They wore fine linen garments to counteract the heat and humidity of the Nile Delta. Their production of linen is a remarkable story in itself, going back about three thousand years or so.
 
 
People in tropical countries also learned the value of wearing white, lightweight textiles. Our own modern era tropical wear is a variation on combinations of linen and khaki fabrics. The Filipinos devised costumes that merged elegance and utility. The nineteenth century gentleman in the illustration above is wearing a white shirt that is actually intended for formal wear—yet note how this shirt woven from pineapple fiber appears the height of casual dress to our untutored modern-day eyes. The shirt’s whiteness also proclaims the wearer’s affluence, for it would have to be laundered frequently.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

In novels, movies, television, too, you’ve been all the fashion,
Because yours is a story of such tragic passion.
The Boleyn girl book has become a cottage industry,
All because of your rampant celebrity.
A sorry pawn of an ambitious father,
Or a scheming hussy full of bother?
Which is the truth, despite all the tales,
Did you deserve to go down on Justice’s scales?
A pretty face, a slender neck,
All the better for Henry to bedeck,
You with glittering jewels and such trumperies,
While his pious wife went down on her knees,
And prayed for a means to ensure Henry’s love,
Cast off as surely as any old glove.
 
 
You played upon the king’s mania for an heir,
But the birth of a daughter led to despair.
No matter that she would later steal the scene,
By becoming England’s greatest queen.
This triumph was one that you’d not live to see,
For Henry’d grown tired of your company.
No matter your protests and cries,
That charges of adultery were all lies.
The time for untruths to be told,
Sent two men to the scaffold.
Lovely queen to grace a monarch’s bed,
Your fame would come only when you were dead.
But like all romantic fashions, yours will end,
And some other woman will bow and bend.
I wonder what tragic figure she will be—
Someone sad, like Cassandra or Antigone?

Historical Footnote: CATNYP has 96 books on Anne Boleyn, of which 24 are works of fiction (many of them recent publications). You can find these titles under the subject heading: Anne Boleyn, Queen, consort of Henry VIII, Kind of England, 1507-1536

My colleague Serena Jimenez often has a nose for a fashion trend. She alerted me to the runaway success of Showtime’s series The Tudors. I’m a pretty poor television viewer, whose idea of great tv is MSNBC’s Lockup series and HBO’s Deadwood (love those expletives). Therefore, I was initially skeptical of a production that featured a hard-bodied, smoldering Henry VIII, and took various other liberties with historical fact. But, over time, listening to her consistently eager reports, I found myself intrigued.

When my husband recently joined Netflix, I had him order the first disc for Season 1. Halfway through the first episode—I was hooked! I have two points to make about this television series. First, the series creators went right after the fact that Henry was a confirmed dandy and fashion leader; diplomats from other European royal courts were ordered to report back regularly on his changes of clothes. Henry’s costumes in the show are staggering, and as the episodes progress, I find myself eagerly waiting for what outfit he’ll appear in next. Second, I love the fact that this is a series in which the male lead is the unabashed attraction and outright sex symbol—along with a spectacular, historically-accurate wardrobe. Jonathan Rhys Meyers is a sheer delight and makes wonderful eye candy. There! I’ve said it. The real Henry VIII got corpulent fairly young, but this Henry is all a susceptible viewer could desire. Turnaround time!

So hurrah for Showtime, and the Irish production company that brings us such a breath of fresh air! If this series gets young people, and others usually bored by history, interested in Tudor doings, it’s all to the good. After all, Henry’s mania for a son and heir had a profound effect on the future. The rise of Protestantism in England, and later in America, would never have happened without this monarch’s “palpable” need.

I have to admit to being a little dismayed by the fact that feminism seems to be out of fashion. I’ve noticed this backlash of sorts in the last ten years or so, and realize that some of this may also be generational. Young women who didn’t live through the turbulent 60s and 70s may feel that feminism is either beside the point or irrelevant. Yet they grew up in a period when many battles had already been fought and won for them.

But when searching for the reason why Hilary Clinton’s pantsuits became a flash point of resentment, leading to negatives about her presidential campaign, it seemed like so many people—including big name journalists and pundits—were reliving the same kind of resentment that triggered the women’s rights protests of the 60s and 70s.

Hard-won freedoms should never be taken for granted. Just type the words “feminist backlash” into Google and you will see how the debate still ranges today. Since feminism and fashion are both social forces, the media loves speculating on which force will come out on top. See how academia is beginning to address the issue in Fresh lipstick: redressing fashion and feminism.

p.s. Next week’s posts will be lighthearted and frivolous. Blame it on the continuing heat and humidity…

Trousers suit, pantsuit—where did one leave off, and the other begin? Women wore trousers in the nineteenth century in special circumstances. For one example, the famous animal painter Rosa Bonheur wore pants for outdoor painting expeditions. But such clothing wasn’t acceptable for street wear. The early twentieth century couturiers started a trend for feminine slacks, limiting them for specific leisure occasions, such as beach wear or garden parties. We find illustrations of these outfits by the 1920s, with variations intermittently through the 30s and 40s. Actresses like Hepburn and Dietrich helped, but didn’t cinch the deal for social acceptance.

Which brings us to the 1960s. I think that we can look at pop culture, particularly rock n’ roll, for the genesis of feminine pants acceptance. The long Summer of Love that was the late 60s saw the advent of the unisex look, expressed best in the wearing of denim jeans. This was also the period in which militant feminism was born. The time was one of general disaffection with many things in society, and women were able to don pants as part of this protest. The men and women that led popular music in that period played an essential role in getting everyone accustomed to the sight of women in pants. Designer Tommy Hilfiger thinks so too, and you can see his endorsement of my theory in words and pictures if you peruse his Rock style: how fashion moves to music.

Yes, Marlene Dietrich was our mystery lady. While none of us who pay attention to fashion history are surprised anymore by the furor over women wearing pants, it still remains more than a little surprising how little documentation there is on that specific piece of history. I’d recommend to those teaching costume and fashion studies that they get their most promising grad students to work on this aspect of women’s dress.

As I looked through literature on the subject, I was shocked at how sketchy information is about the true origins of something like the pantsuit. The obituaries for Yves Saint Laurent labeled him as the inventor with his “Le Smoking” pantsuit in 1966, and a full-fledged “pantsuit” in 1970. Yet in a sweep of other books, I saw Andre Courrèges and British designer Tommy Nutter credited with the original invention.

The fact is, that just like searching the origins of the term “fashion victim,” researching the beginnings of the pantsuit calls for a systematic, detailed perusal of published literature, especially newspapers—along with some clever sleuthing. In the meantime, the Europeans have beaten us to basic documentation itself: the only books in our collection on the history of pants are in French and Italian!

Dawdling away at the reference desk the other day, I put the word “pantsuit” into CATNYP as a word search, wondering what would come up. Well guess what? One item showed up and it was on Hillary Clinton!

Yet over the course of an online perusal of Clinton’s unsuccessful campaign for Democratic Party presidential nominee, I found the word “pantsuit” over and over again, often in a negative context. This brought me back to wondering about the original reception of feminine trousers, especially when made into a formal pant suit or pantsuit.

Even more daunting was the realization that I had actually grown up in the period when women finally won social acceptance for wearing pants. Fashion history surveys and reference books don’t give much space to this topic, except to say that this change occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, with better acceptance in the 1980s when more women than ever entered the workforce.

The blog I mentioned earlier, www.wornthrough.com, is written by Monica Sklar. She’s had a varied career in many aspects of costume, academic and retail, but I particularly salute her, for she’s presently in a Ph.D. program about Apparel and Culture. For those interested in news on costume and fashion history conferences, exhibitions, scholarships, and curatorial and research jobs, including a sprinkling of insights from the field, this is a site to check out.

Early last month, the media caught on to a startling development. The Men’s Dress Furnishings Association, formerly the Neckwear Association of America, announced that it was disbanding. This event was seen as the death rattle for the necktie, that universally-donned item of masculine dress.

I predicted the death of the necktie in “A Rakish History of Men’s Wear.” My prediction was based on the variety of research I did for the exhibition, where I found various opinions, academic and industrial, that seemed to confirm a move away from regular wear. The general consensus centered on the growth of the casual sportswear industry for men, and the eternal quest for physical comfort. In terms of quantifying the necktie’s loss of popularity, however, I’ve found myself more at a loss. Until now—I recently went shopping for my husband at Lord & Taylor and discovered that the store’s square footage of sales space for ties had greatly diminished...

Men have been wearing something distinctive around their necks since at least Tudor times. From starched linen ruffs, tight neck collars, and intricately-tied cravats, to the four-in-hand and Windsor tie, neckwear was an essential part of male dress. Yet garments can become defunct over time. A good example can be found in breeches, those trousers worn to just below the knee. The French Revolution and the subsequent Napoleonic Wars allowed men to discover that long pants were more comfortable and effective, but breeches survived to almost the middle of the 19th century. They were worn mostly by older men, and still appeared at royal court events, before fading away. Today, we see a vestige of the breeches garment used in sportswear.

Will the necktie survive? The situation reminds me of Yoda’s statement in The Empire Strikes Back: “Very difficult. Future always in motion…”

Here’s a scene that plays out in all my “Researching Costume and Fashion History” classes:

PAB: What’s the number one problem with the Internet?
Pause. Finally someone speaks out tentatively…
Student: You can’t trust everything you read on it?
PAB: Yes! Quality Control!

When I first agreed to do a blog on fashion and design history, with special reference to that fact that everything old is new again, I knew I would have a problem right away. While the Internet is full of material, much of it is commercially-related or new in topic. The simple truth is that authoritative reference sources just haven’t made it online yet, and when new ones are made they may or may not get on the Web. Most historical reference tools and resources are still in book format. The reference publishing industry is pushing more and more titles online, but this is a fairly recent development.

But there really aren’t that many really impeccable sources to link you up with for some of the topics I choose to cover. Heather was right to remind me that Wikipedia isn’t terribly reliable or accurate; I tend to use it as a link, however, because it comes up early in the Google search engine optimization. The fact is that I’ll link you somewhere appropriate when I can, but otherwise you’ll find that I just keep on referring you to good old-fashioned books.

My correspondent Heather Vaughan turns out to a fashion historian, at www.fashionhistorian.net and she reports that she usually does a Wednesday post in the blog www.wornthrough.com. Check out her commentaries for another perspective on fashion issues.

And speaking of books, one of the best reference sets we have is found at the Art Reading Room (Room 300) desk: Encyclopedia of Clothing and Fashion. Now, if only tools like this would be put online as soon as they’re published. Sigh.

I’m hoping you may remember my post last month on the term “fashion victim.” I had a reply from Heather, who went out and did some proper research on where the phrase came from. She’d been rightfully suspicious that the term arose as recently as a comment by the designer Oscar de la Renta, and her doubts proved correct.

Heather’s research took her back as far as 1828. She searched journals in ProQuest and found references in a fiction piece in 1853, a racist cartoon in Harpers Bazaar dating to 1883, and newspaper mentions from the Chicago Daily Tribune in 1913 and then in the 1970s. The term appears regularly in literature from the 1970s on. I followed her trail, and found the same results; then I realized that I couldn’t spare the time this summer for a really serious expanded search into Newspapers Index and other periodical databases.

My apologies for not following this well-laid ground. Perhaps someone will take this subject up seriously for an academic paper or project? I did find something online, however, that indicates that being considered a fashion victim is still quite unwelcome, and this was addressed to men! As is this illustration in the Digital Gallery called “The Victim of Fashion,” dating to 1880. Anyway, I’ve learned my lesson, and will be careful about quoting dubious attributions in the future. More in my next post…

It’s almost the Fourth of July. Always a day for patriotism, it also serves as a time when we think about the wars that helped create this nation. And this year, we have a war that is ongoing, one that provokes many mixed feelings. A look in CATNYP reveals a spate of writing on the subject—under the subject heading Iraq War, 2003 are 383 entries alone, plus dozens of subdivisions. The available literature on the war covers a wide range of concerns, from the haunting Baghdad Journal: an artist in occupied Iraq to books on returning war wounded and those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

Speaking of those wounded, their numbers are and will continue to be (until the conflict ends) large. When I was a child I was unaccountably frightened by amputees. Such fear faded with time, and was cured by the return of a childhood friend from Vietnam minus a hand and a leg. Since the war in Iraq started, sources report that more than 29,000 people have been wounded. An enormous number of soldiers, male and female, have lost body parts while on active duty.

Such a great number of wounded soldiers, especially when they return to civilian life, will definitely have an impact on our society. Their experiences and stories may well eliminate the shock and fear that so impressed me as a child. If we have increased contact with those things that once inspired fear, it is more than likely that this anxiety will be replaced by worthier emotions. I think our returning wounded soldiers will become a great source of positive inspiration. Receiving two metal replacement knees and spending two weeks in a rehab hospital back in 2006 taught me a lot about personal challenge. Imagine what our returned wounded soldiers can teach us all about courage, compassion, healing, and the fine art of getting by.

This holiday, let’s set a firm fashion, and vow to celebrate and look out for the welfare of these real American heroes. Remember, also, that our main and branch libraries will have a lot of information, online and printed, that can help us track their progress.

p.s. Their caregivers are heroes, too!

My last posting could have been subtitled “Do we own fashion or does it own us?” While I frequently dwell on fashion as a social force, it’s good to remember that fashion is also a huge industry. When I was young and employed for a year at the Fashion Institute of Technology Library, I remember thinking that I’d love to see something that might reveal the business workings of the fashion industry as a whole.

Such a publication came out in 2007. Providing case studies from the clothing trade and the fashion design syndicate, Veronica Manlow’s Designing clothes: culture and organization of the fashion industry, is precisely the sort of book I’d wished I had access to years ago.

p.s. American politics are intruding onto the runways! Donatella Versace was quoted as saying that her fall men’s collection had been inspired by Barak Obama. For a glimpse of the future, check out the Fall 2008 Milan Fashion Week.
 
 
 

Back in 1993, the Library held an exhibition called “A Change of Clothes: Femininity, Fashion and Feminism.” I was looking at the brochure the other day, and found something written there that piqued my curiosity.

“Three important concepts—femininity, fashion, and feminism—can help us understand the origins of modern dress. First, there is a historical relationship between a woman’s outward appearance and her essential femininity. Second, western society promotes fashion as a worthy pursuit for women, drawing them into a world of self-imposed rules and regulations based on imitation, conformity, and consumerism. However, current clothing modes and styles have been radically affected by 20th-century changes in women’s status, employment, and social mobility. Third, in recent years, feminism (a misunderstood and maligned concept even today) has challenged long-held assumptions that women and their apparel have a subordinate role in society.”

Fifteen years later, do these words still ring true? We’ve just had the first woman candidate for American president campaign long and, ultimately, fruitlessly wearing pants more often than skirts. Yet fashion is seen as a support to many women’s dreams—just look at the success of “Sex and The City.” At the same time, however, feminism also seems to have become more of an ambivalent option for many young women. What do these developments, seen from the perspective of 2008, say about how far women have come in society?

And what about the “18 million cracks” in the glass ceiling that Hilary Clinton referred to in her concession speech?

I discovered the illustration below in our Picture Collection. It’s actually a compelling piece of evidence for the point I’ve made previously about feminine body types and the start of the modern era.

This advertisement for dress patterns from the early 1930s boldly states: “Look Slim.” The elongated line that appeared in the 1920s is carried to new lengths here, even as the hemlines remain decorously modest. These garments are an early version of the shirtwaist dress with its clinched belt. The drumbeat of advertising and exhortation to women began in this period and continues today. Previously, looking slim was an implied option. A caption on this ad says “Little women and larger-hip frocks,” proof that the clothing industry—and contemporary values—had already decided thin was desirable. An eye-opening look at the slippery road from this point on can be found in Naomi Wolf’s The Beauty Myth.
 
 
 

Over the last few months, I've noted the recurrence of news and feature article about the recession-proff nature of cosmetics, and lipstick in particular. One story, in the May 1 issue of The New York Times, speaks of purchasing cosmetics and lipstick as a way to have an indulgence when on a tight budget. "Hard Times, But Your Lips Look Great"
also confirms what I've long suspected: lip gloss has over taken lipstick in sales. But the beauty brands are tenacious in their conviction that belt-tightening will not include their products.

Read My Lips isa marvelous review of the history of lipstick. Coming of age when I did, I've always been wary of lipstick's benefits. A devotee of eye shadow, I never acquired the same taste for mouth color. The stuff just wears off too fast.