Stylish Blogger Award

Well, I am very flattered because Christian over at the amazing blog Silver Screen Modiste has nominated The Fashion Historian for a Stylish Blogger Award. Thanks Christian!! Be sure to head over to his wonderful blog and read all about fashion in the movies.



According to the rules I must now thank the person that nominated me, share seven stylish facts about myself, and then nominate seven other fabulous bloggers and notify them.

1. In the summer of 2009, when doing research for my project Beauty Reinterpreted: 18th Century Fashion Through the Eyes of 20th Century Film, I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to see an actual costume designed by Adrian for the 1938 Marie Antoinette. It's owned by private collector and all around lovely person Larry McQueen, who not only let me study the dress by Adrian but also let me look at a dress worn by Carole Lombard in one of my all time favorite movies My Man Godfrey, a dress worn by Bob Hope during his drag scene in Casanova's Big Night, and a beaded stole worn by Marlene Dietrich in Angel... And then he let me try on the stole.

2. I never grew out of loving to play dress up. Whether it's a costume for a play or something I made myself for fun, I ADORE putting on a costume. Last summer I had the best time in the world dressing up in my robins egg blue robe a l'anglaise and walking around historic Philadelphia with my friend Amanda (who was also in costume).

3. In elementary school I started the highly stylish trend of wearing two different colored socks.

4. My personal fashion philosophy is: own it, work it, love it. It doesn't matter if your outfit is a little off, it doesn't matter if it doesn't quite match, as long as you are confident and own it, then you will be fabulous.

5. You will rarely see me without some sort of fake flower in my hair.

6. It is a personal dream of mine to waltz in a beautiful ballroom wearing an enormous 1860s cage crinoline. I blame Deborah Karr and Yul Brynner.

7. I generally trace my love of fashion history back to my American Girl dolls, particularly Felicity, the 18th century doll. She had a cobalt blue robe a la francaise-esque gown in her Christmas story and I fell madly in love with it. I never had it as a little girl, so when they recently discontinued the Felicity doll (grumble grumble) I made sure to buy myself one while I still could. Now I will always have the dress that started it all...

And here are my nominees!

1. Heather at The Duchess of Devonshire's Gossip Guide to the 18th Century. An amazing blog about all aspects of 18th century British culture, from art to fashion to the theater to the fabulous celebrities of the day.

2. Lauren at Marie Antoinette's Gossip Guide to the 18th Century. The 18th century France version! These are two of my favorite blogs ever.

3. Nicole at Diary of a Mantua Maker. A great resource for 18th century fashion, especially for costumers.

4. Cathy at Cinema Style. An amazing blog all about style in the movies.

5. Abby at Stay-ing Alive. Another fashion history blogger, a great resource for research and costuming.

6. Loretta and Susan at Two Nerdy History Girls. An amazing blog with all sorts of history goodies.

7. Ingrid at Fashion is my Muse. An artist who uses fashion as inspiration. A great blog for interesting research and beautiful interpretations of fashion from the past.

Fashion in Reynolds and Gainsborough: Part 9

This is the last part! I hope you all have enjoyed your detailed foray into the works of two amazing painters. I've included my bibliography if you would like to do further reading on the topic.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8

How they were represented, whether as classical goddesses or modern fashionistas, was extremely important to the sitters for both Reynolds and Gainsborough. When both these painters were active the cult of celebrity was at its height. According to Mark Hallett, “Celebrity, among other things, is about the commodification of fame, about the dissemination of images representing the individual celebrity, and about the collective conversations and fantasies generated by these processes.” By the mid eighteenth century, a new freedom of the press and extremely lax libel laws allowed for the rumor mills to run wild, and writers and cartoonists to portray the celebrities of the day in any manner they chose. The public was fascinated with the scandals and glamour of the lives of celebrities. For women, celebrity came either from the top or the bottom of the social chain- aristocrats and actresses and courtesans. The common denominator in these women was their wealth. To have their portrait painted was an opportunity not only to be remembered but to represent themselves to the eager public who followed their every move. Thus how they were represented was extremely important.

Those who sat for Reynolds, portrayed in classical drapery, aligned themselves with the lofty ideals of ancient civilizations. They expressed intelligence, timelessness, an association with the greatest artists, architects, and philosophers the world has ever known. Contemporary society held up Ancient Greece and Rome as the pinnacle of western civilization, a height of perfection that has yet to be reached again. By wearing the clothing of these worlds, Reynolds’ sitters became associated with the perfection of these ancient societies and subsequently hoped the public would make the same connections. There is also a sort of power associated with ancient women, for example the powerful goddesses or rulers such as Cleopatra and Olympias, mother to Alexander the Great. In aligning themselves with a culture which worshipped female deities and allowed powerful female rulers, Reynolds’ sitters were asserting their own power, something strongly lacking in the life of the eighteenth century woman.

Gainsborough’s sitters, on the other hand, were mostly portrayed in the eighteenth century equivalent of couture. In wearing the latest fashions, these women were giving a different representation of themselves to the public. Rather than being associated with the intelligence and gravity of ancient civilizations, these women associated themselves with the height of eighteenth century society. Those who were the most in style and set the trends were also the wealthiest, and they wished to show off both their wealth and fashion know-how. By showing off their good fashion sense Gainsborough’s sitters aligned themselves with the world of wit and pleasure. If they were fashionable enough to set trends, and wealthy enough to afford the latest styles, then these women were also witty conversationalists, excelled at artistic endeavors such as music or dancing, and had a healthy interest in politics and the latest literature. Thus by showing off their best style, Gainsborough’s sitters showed off their accomplishments in society on the whole. This in turn also gave Gainsborough’s sitters a kind of power, one that was slightly more tangible than that gained by Reynolds’ sitters. While Reynolds’ sitters merely associated with the great women of antiquity, Gainsborough’s sitters were the great women of contemporary society. Although women were still second class citizens, by dominating society these women were able to gain some form of personal autonomy.

Bibliography
1. Ribeiro, Aileen. The Art of Dress: Fashion in England and France 1750-1820. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995. Print.

2. Rosenthal, Michael. The Art of Thomas Gainsborough: 'A little business for the Eye'. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999. Print.

3. Joshua Reynolds: The Creation of Celebrity. Ed. Martin Postle. London: Tate Publishing, 2005. Print.

4. "Queen Charlotte." The Royal Collection. The Royal Collection, n.d. Web. 4 Dec 2010. .

5. Bradfield, Nancy. Costume in Detail: 1730-1930. 1st ed. Hollywood, CA: Costume & Fashion Press, 1958. Print.

6. Anawalt, Patricia Rieff. The Worldwide History of Dress. New York, NY: Thames & Hudson Inc., 2007. Print.

Quick Personal Update

I just have to take a minute to share my good news with everyone. I got into NYU!!!!! I will be getting my Masters degree in Visual Culture: Costume Studies aka The Super Awesome Fashion History Program Of My Dreams. I'm so happy and excited, I've been walking around with a big smile on my face for three days. Starting next fall I'll be spending all my time studying fashion history, so expect more in depth posts about more awesome things.

YAY!!!!!

The American Civil War and the British Textile Industry

This is a shortened version of a paper I wrote for my History of Sea Power class. Ignore the less than stellar prose, I was pretty tired when I wrote it. For further reading on the subject consult King Cotton Diplomacy: Foreign Relations of the Confederate States of America by Frank Lawrence Owsley.



In 1861, a naval blockade was declared on Southern ports, as part of the Union effort to win the American Civil War. Southern society was agrarian, taking more interest in good manners than in industrialization, and thus depended on trade for necessities. This was especially important during the war, when the South needed to import weapons, uniforms, and other necessities. Thus, with no significant navy of its own, the Union blockade produced a serious problem for the South. The one thing the South could rely on was it’s dominance in the cotton market, in particular, the British dependence on American cotton. Cotton exports to England valued about $150 million at the outbreak of the war, and the British milling industry was the livelihood of one sixth of the British population. Thus the Union blockade was a serious threat to the British textile industry. Southern planters even tried to use this threat to their advantage, placing an embargo on cotton in the early years of the war in the hopes that the subsequent loss of raw materials to British mills would cause English intervention. However, the outcome was not to the favor of the South, and the British textile industry continued to thrive despite the short lived embargo and the Union blockade.

In 1861, the Confederacy issued a cotton embargo in the hopes that the British would be so desperate for cotton that they would intervene on behalf of the Confederacy in the war. The embargo lasted until the spring of 1862, when cotton became the currency for supplies needed by the army. In the UK, a “cotton famine” coincided with the cotton embargo, causing unemployment rates to jump significantly in cotton mills. While some attribute a relationship between the embargo and the famine, this is not necessarily the case. Even during the cotton embargo, the British textile industry had a ready supply of raw cotton. The cotton crops of 1859 and 1860 were larger than normal, and the UK was beginning to import cotton from other countries such as India, Brazil, and Egypt, causing a surplus of raw cotton in the UK. In fact, there was such a surplus that the UK re-exported much of their cotton. The export of cotton increased every year from 1862 to 1866, and during the supposed cotton famine of 1861 to 1862, when the cotton embargo by the Confederacy was in place, the re-export of cotton to France was increased by a multiple of more than five. Clearly, the lack of American cotton was not severely affecting the supplies of the British textile industry.

In conjunction with the surplus of raw cotton, there was an overproduction of textiles in the years leading up to the American Civil War. Stores were packed with fabrics and yarns which greatly exceeded the actual demand of the public. Therefore it only made sense to close down textile production until the current stock could be sold off. Another theory is that, due to the threat of less cotton caused by the Union blockade, the prices for cotton soared during the early years of the war, and British cotton mills held onto their raw cotton stock, in hopes that they might use price increases to obtain a profit. Either way, it is clear that while unemployment rates in cotton mills were high during the cotton famine, the textile industry itself maintained efficiency and profit.

While there was a decrease in the cotton exported during the American Civil War, especially during the cotton embargo, the Confederacy soon realized that cotton was their only method of payment for much needed supplies. Thus the blockade runners were employed, slipping through the Union blockade to bring raw cotton to England in exchange for weapons and other necessities. Although many blockade runners made a limited amount of voyages, it was still a highly profitable and successful business. The Confederate coast stretched for 3,549 miles, and contained a great number of rivers and bays which provided access to the sea. Even with Union naval forces reached their peak, there was still plenty of room for Confederate ships to escape to the open ocean. Blockade runners such as the “Hattie”, the “Kate”, and the “Antonica” made multiple successful journeys through the blockade, and when the blockade was at its height only one out of six blockade runners failed.

The success of the blockade runners could also be attributed to their advanced construction. Steam power provided a greater speed than the ships of the US Navy could reach, the ships sat extremely low in the water, burned smokeless coal, and painted dull colors to provide a sense of invisibility. The content held in these blockade runners was cotton. Sources vary on how much cotton was actually exported, but some estimate that about one million bales were sent to Europe from 1862 to 1864. With this cotton, blockade runners were able to obtain both military and luxury goods to sell back to the Confederacy, captains making profits of $5000 during the height of the blockade.

Another important reason for the lack of impact of the Union blockade on the textile industry was the ready supply of cotton from markets outside of America. The potential for using India as an agricultural provider had been around since the 1820s, but the American Civil War spurred the British to action. They rapidly transported the necessary equipment for maintaining and harvesting a successful cotton crop, and even worked to redefine contract laws to give an advantage to merchants. By 1862 India provided seventy percent of the raw cotton used in the UK. In Egypt, the Ottoman viceroy Sa’id Pasha converted his lands into cotton farms, becoming one of the largest cotton producers in the world. This was part of a larger scheme to modernize Egypt via cotton sales, and in order to help Egyptian cotton production new canals, railroads, and processing technologies were built. Almost half of all fertile land in Egypt was devoted to cotton by the closing years of the American Civil War. Brazil doubled raw cotton exports during the war years, going from 32.4 million pounds in the 1850s to 61 million pounds in 1865. While these were the three biggest markets, they were by no means the only ones. Argentina, China, Central Asia, and parts of Africa all contributed to the cotton market.

Fashion in Reynolds and Gainsborough: Part 8

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

One connection in the dress of the sitters for both Reynolds and Gainsborough was the exotic references both painters often used. Orientalism was all the rage in the eighteenth century, and in particular Turkish styles permeated fashion. The robe a la turque was a highly fashionable and popular appropriation of Turkish dress. Lady Mary Wortley Montagu described Turkish costume in the eighteenth century when she traveled abroad:

“The first part of my dress is a pair of drawers, very full that reach to my shoes, and conceal the legs more modestly than your petticoats… Over this hangs my smock, of a fine white silk gauze, edged with embroidery. This smock has wide sleeves hanging halfway down the arm, and is closed at the neck with a diamond button… The antery is a waistcoat, made close to the shape, of white and gold damask, with very long sleeves falling back, and fringed with deep gold frienge… My caftan, of the same stuff with my drawers, is a robe exactly fitted to my shape, and reaching to my feet, with very long strait falling sleeves. Over this is my gridle, of about four fingers broad, which, all that can afford it, have entirely diamonds and other precious stones…”

In assuming this foreign style, the wearer implies that they are well traveled and knowledgeable of cultures other than their own.




In his painting Mrs Hester Lynch Thrale with her Daughter Hester Maria from 1777-8, Reynolds brings elements of Turkish dress into his traditional classical drapery. Like Reynolds’ other sitters, Mrs. Thrale is dressed in a made up costume that calls to mind both classical civilizations and the silhouette of contemporary fashion. Yet her gown is made of a lustrous silk, bordered with a zig-zag and polkadot pattern done in gold embroidery, calling to mind both the wealth and an interpretation of the visual aesthetic of the east. Around her waist is a bright red sash, trimmed with gold and heavy fringe, which drapes lightly to the floor and is clearly an echo of a kuşak, the waist girdle worn in Turkish costume. Her whole costume is carries many elements similar to the ones described by Lady Montagu. Although there is nothing in the landscape to suggest an oriental locale, Mrs. Thrale is clearly aligning herself with the exoticism and excitement of a foreign world. However, she also aligns herself with the height of western fashion with the combination of her fashionable tall hairstyle and the trend for Turkish styles.




Gainsborough’s portrait of Sarah Siddons, entitled Mrs. Siddons and dating from c. 1783-85, also indulges in an orientalist Turkish fantasy, although his version is more within the current trends of western fashion. Mrs. Siddons wears a blue and white striped wrap gown of the very latest style with a blue sash around her waist, a picture hat like the one worn by the Duchess of Devonshire, and is wrapped in a cloak lined with fur and carries a fur muff. As a famous actress, Mrs. Siddons could afford to wear the latest styles and surround herself with luxuries like fur, thus she wished to show this symbol of wealth and power off in her portrait. Henry Bates described the portrait, saying

“The resemblance is admirable, and the features are without the theatrical distortion which several painters have been fond of delineating. In addition to the great force and likeness which the portrait possesses, the new style of drapery might be mentioned. Mrs. Siddons’s dress is particularly novella, and the fur around her cloak and fox-skin muff are most happy imitations of nature.”

The style of wrapped dress, along with the striped design, is influenced by anteri- the robe worn in Turkish dress, showing her connection with the exotic as well as with the latest trends.

Whether Gainsborough’s foray into orientalist Turkish fashion is more or less of a fantasy than Reynolds’ is up for debate. The gown painted by Gainsborough is clearly a western style, something which could be seen walking down the street or in a fashionable park. The clothing of Reynolds’ sitter, on the other hand, is clearly a fantasy costume meant to invoke both Turkish and classical societies. The costume-like nature of the dress in Reynolds’ painting could indicate a greater accuracy, yet it also brings in elements of other cultures and could be just as contrived as the western appropriation of Turkish costume seen in Gainsborough’s painting. What is most important is the different expressions of orientalist fantasy. In Reynolds’ work, the costume-like nature of the garment and the non-specificity of the background places the sitter within an orientalist fantasy world, giving her the attributes of the western fantasy of a beautiful Turkish lady. Gainsborough’s painting, on the other hand, shows distinctly western trends throughout, placing the sitter within her own modern, local context and showing her to be an exotic lady but still a contemporary lady of eighteenth century London.

The First Shaped Garments

When we think of ancient clothing, we think of loose draped fabric with not a whole lot of shape. This is mostly true, but not completely true. While Ancient Greece and Rome may have had the elegance of draped fabric, Ancient Crete and Mycenae were the true fashion pioneers, predicting the direction fashion would take in the Western world.

Crete and Mycenaean cities had a lot of contact, trading with each other and picking up artistic styles and religion. Subsequently the clothing of Mycenaean women was greatly influenced by Cretan fashion.


Cretan snake goddess figurine, 1700-1550 BC.

This statue shows a snake goddess wearing a tightly fitted bodice with three quarter length sleeves and an extremely low square neckline showing the breasts, a tightly cinched waist, and a full cone shaped skirt made up of flounces or pleats. The apron-like garment worn around the waist may be ceremonial, as existing frescoes from Crete showing more ordinary women do not feature one, but then again we have limited information about the ancient world and wearing an apron or not might have just been a fashion choice. Breasts were supported by lacing or wide belts. Garments were elaborately decorated, in Mycenae they could have gold sequins, shapes made from gold foil such as rosettes, silver, lead, and iron. Evidence also suggest that these clothes were highly colorful.


A Mycenaean fresco from Tiryns, 1375-1200 BC.

While other ancient clothing was made of simple square shapes pinned together, Ancient Cretan and Mycenaean clothing was highly shaped, and involved patterning and sewing. They conformed to and emphasized the curves of a woman's body, and created a geometric silhouette which will not be seen again until the sixteenth century when the farthingale was introduced into womens fashion, turning skirts into cones. The complex fashion worn by the women of Ancient Crete and Mycenae was centuries ahead of its time, making these civilizations the true trend setters of the Western world.

Terrible joke: When Helen of Troy ran away with Paris and started the Trojan War, she ran away from her husband and home in Mycenae. Perhaps she was not just the face that launched a thousand ships? BUH DUM CHING!!!

Fashion in Reynolds and Gainsborough: Part 7

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6




Another powerful lady painted by Gainsborough was Queen Charlotte, who posed for her portrait in 1781. Although the robe a la francaise had gone mostly out of style in everyday wear by the time this portrait was painted, it continued to be used for court dress. As the highest ranking lady of the court, naturally the queen would be painted in a court gown. The wealth of the monarchy is established in the delicacy and sumptuousness of the gown, which is made of white silk net shot through with gold and overlaid onto white silk. The difficulty of construction of net and lace made it an extremely expensive luxury item. To have an entire dress of net, and one that is shot through with gold, shows an enormous amount of wealth. But unlike many other court gowns, this one does not look heavy. Instead it seems to float around the body of the Queen, who clearly has no problem maneuvering in wide panniers and a long train. One of Reynolds’ pupils, James Northcote, described the grace of the painting saying “With what a graceful sweep she seems to move through the picture! ‘Tis actual motion, and done with such a light airy facility… The drapery was done in one night by Gainsborough and his nephew, Gainsborough Dupont; they sat up all night, and painted it by lamplight.” Queen Charlotte is represented as stylish, wealthy, and possessed with the natural grace to float through space just as her gown floats about her body. She seems to take on the role of a contemporary goddess, shimmering and in and out of focus as she walks.

Fashion in Reynolds and Gainsborough: Part 6

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5




Other paintings by Gainsborough forgo any reference historic dress at all, instead focusing on the most in the moment fashions. His famous portrait of Lady Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire, painted in 1783, caused a millinery sensation. The Duchess wears a white robe a l’anglaise tied with a turquoise sash, and a highly structured black hat is perched atop her hedgehog hairstyle. The hat was one of the Duchess’s own creations, featuring a wide brim and medium crown, perhaps taking inspiration from the cavalier hats worn in the early seventeenth century. The hat is relatively simple, only decorated with a few black ostrich feathers (the Duchess had popularized wearing ostrich feathers in tall hairstyles a few years earlier) and a band of white fabric around the bottom of the crown to match the dress. After the painting was displayed at the Royal Academy, women of style everywhere clamored for a “picture hat”, just like that worn by the Duchess of Devonshire. As it was her own creation, the Duchess’s hat had no official name, being referenced to as the picture hat until the Victorian period when it would gain the moniker of the Gainsborough hat. The picture hat started a new trend, and anyone who was anyone wore one. Through the nature of the construction of the picture hat, it only works well when it is worn with the fashionable hedgehog style, reinforcing its role as a top fashionable item.


In wearing a hat of her own creation in her portrait, the Duchess asserts herself as a trendsetter at the top of society. Aware of her own fashion influence, she probably knew that her hat would be copied, thus her wearing of it strengthens her position as the most stylish lady in England, able to influence every other woman of style. The Duchess also shows her creativity, as the hat was of her own design. She shows herself to be something of an artist, able to create new styles, as opposed to just a woman who went with whatever the current trends dictated. The Duchess also gains power through her ability to create her own hats and influence the fashion of women all over England. While the Duchess’s portrait by Reynolds associated her with the timeless beauty and wisdom of classical societies, her portrait by Gainsborough reinforced her position of power in contemporary society.

Fashion in Reynolds and Gainsborough: Part 5

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4




Gainsborough’s work The Three Eldest Princesses from 1784 was commissioned by the Prince of Wales, and shows Princess Charlotte, Augusta, and Elizabeth, the eldest daughters of King George III. Gainsborough uses soft pastel colors, painting the princesses in pink, yellow, and turquoise. The princess in pink has pearls wrapped around her arms, separating her sleeves into puffs, much like the sleeves on the dress of Lady Sheffield, and is wrapped in a sheer shawl shot through with thin stripes of gold. The princess in yellow wears a sash of metallic fabric around her waist, and the princess in blue has golden fringe on her dress as well as gold stripes shot through her sleeves and her shawl. Overall it is a display of the wealth, which reflects on the wealth of the monarchy. The sumptuous and delicate fabrics show that the princesses are true royals- they do not work and can afford the most luxurious and delicate materials. Despite the wealth of the gowns, they are relatively simple in design, the only decoration being very subtle. This reflects on the modesty and good taste of the princesses, as well as represents the English style of dress which often looked down on the excess of French styles. In this painting, the three women are true representations of the proper English woman, and the English monarchy on the whole.

Fashion in Reynolds and Gainsborough: Part 4

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Thomas Gainsborough was seen as Reynolds’ great rival and opposite. While Reynolds preferred to dress his subjects in classical dress, Gainsborough used a wide array of costumes and styles. Many of his most notable portraits show his sitters wearing the latest styles, showing them to be at the height of fashion. According to Aileen Ribeiro, “his letters tell us that he aimed in painting to make the heart dance and to portray ‘modern truth’” and that often made up dress detracted from the beauty of the portrait.


Gainsborough was not against incorporating elements of history into his sitters clothing, however, although the overall silhouette and style are very modern. In his portrait Sophia Charlotte, Lady Sheffield, painted in 1785, Lady Sheffield’s clothing is within the current fashions, but also adds a few historic touches which not only bring an element of the fantasy into the portrait but in fact heighten the fashionableness of the sitter, as elements of seventeenth century costume were often worked into the fashionable looks of the day.





Lady Sheffield wears a pale yellow silk robe a l’anglaise, very much in line with the fashionable style of the day. The robe a l’anglaise became the dominant style during the end of the eighteenth century, and was considerably simpler and less fussy than the robe a la francaise. The back was fitted, and the skirt was no longer held out by panniers but instead by soft round padding, giving an elegant and more natural silhouette. Lady Sheffield’s hair is frizzed in a horizontal style known as the hedgehog style, and her hat is a very fashionable pouf, most likely coming from a Paris marchandes de modes. There are also some elements of seventeenth century fashion, as seen in the soft Vandyke collar and appliqué on the underside of the brim of the hat, as well as the string of pearls dividing the sleeves into two puffs.


These elements of seventeenth century fashion only heighten Lady Sheffield’s status as fashionable, much like many fashionable people wear vintage clothing today. The pale yellow of the dress and simplicity of design and decoration are in line with the toned down fashions of the end of the eighteenth century. The richness of the fabric and decorations shows the wealth of the sitter, as well as her ability to purchase a hat from France. A Parisian hat furthers her role as fashionista, as Paris was the center of the fashion world in the eighteenth century and consequently those who were the most stylish dressed in the Parisian mode. Furthermore, Gainsborough sets his portrait at the edge of a small wooded area, as if Lady Sheffield had gone for a walk amongst nature, referencing Rousseauean ideals of communing with nature.

Head to Toe: A 14th Century Woman

The 14th century is really when fashion began to pick up. The lower classes are beginning to try to imitated the upper classes, so to keep some semblance of social order sumptuary laws are passed, dictating which classes can wear what. But then people began to modify their dress to get around the laws, and fashion really begins.

Hairstyles and headwear began to get more complex in the 14th century. Women could wear a wimple or head veil, or for outdoors activities a hood or hat similar to what a man might wear. Hair was parted in the center and styled into two long braids, which could be coiled over the ear or draped forward in front of the ear and then brought back to the crown of the head. These 'dos could then be topped with a jeweled mesh cage or wire-framed net called a crespine.


An image from Bodleian Library MS Bodl. 264, a mid-fourteenth-century edition of the Romance of Alexander, showing an elaborate hairstyle.

A ladies wardrobe starts with a pair of braies, the medieval version of underwear. They were made of linen, came in many different lengths, and closed around the waist either with a drawstring or a belt. A woman would also cover her legs with hose which came in a variety of colors and were attached to the waistband of the braies. Over top of that she would wear a chemise, a simple linen garment which had a variety of necklines, from the low cut to the high necked.


Detail of February from Les Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, 1412. A lower class woman warms her legs, showing off her hose.

Now for the garment people would actually see. Fabric and therefore clothing was extremely expensive, so if you could afford to wear multiple layers, you wanted to show that off. If that was the case, women wore a kirtle which fit close to the body. The main garment worn by women was the cotehardie, a tightly fitted gown with a low waistline and a wide, scooped neckline. The tight fit was achieved by buttons or lacing up the sides or front. To show off the kirtle underneath, cotehardies could be slit down the sides, or for unslit versions the kirtle could show at the neckline and cuffs.


Another image from Bodleian Library MS Bodl. 264, a mid-fourteenth-century edition of the Romance of Alexander. The woman, so romantically giving away her heart, wears a purple kirtle and green cotehardie.

The sleeves would end at the elbow have a sort of tail coming off of them, called a lappet, if the tail was made out of the extra fabric, and a tippet, if the tail was a separate piece of fabric attached to the sleeve. Gowns were long and dragged on the floor, another way to show off wealth. Because if your dress is that long, it means you aren't working, just sitting around and looking pretty. Fitchets were slits made in the garment so that a lady could reach inside for her purse. Consider fitchets the precursor to the pocket, which wouldn't arrive for several more centuries.


Statue of Joan de la Tour from 1377. She wears a cotehardie with lappets, and has her hands tucked into her fitchets.

Another option for women was the sideless surcoat, a decorative overgown with enormously long armholes, making the gown basically sideless. The Church did not approve, calling these slits the windows to hell. As the century progressed, the band of fabric in the middle became narrower and narrower. A plastron, a stiffened and highly decorated piece of fabric, could be added to the front and back of the garment for some pizazz. The sideless surcoat quickly moved to being a ceremonial garment, leaving the cotehardie as the main fashion choice for women.


Statue of Jean of Bourbon from 1364-1380. She wears a sideless surcoat with a plastron.

It's hard to know what shoes women wore, as their feet rarely show in images from the period. But when feet do show, women seem to be wearing pointy toed shoes similar to what men wore, called crackowes or poulaines.



Special thanks to Got Medieval, a fabulous history blog with a wealth of medieval images for me to kindly borrow (no but seriously, do you know how hard it is to find 1. Medieval images and 2. Medieval images with reliable date and source information?). Go visit it and see more medieval fashion! Also monkeys.

Fashion in Reynolds and Gainsborough: Part 3

Part 1
Part 2




In many of his portraits Reynolds took this referencing of classical deities a step further, portraying his sitter as a goddess or other classical being. His portrait Mrs. Hale as ‘Euphrosyne’ from 1766 casts the sitter as the Ancient Greek figure Euphrosyne, one of the Three Graces and the goddess of joy and good cheer. The Three Graces could often be found dancing together, an idea referenced by Reynolds by the background figures playing musical instruments. Once again almost all references to contemporary fashion are removed, the only remnant being the fitted nature of the top of the gown to the upper body and the wide scooped neckline. Mrs. Hale steps lightly forward in the painting, her foot elegantly outstretched in a dancelike pose. The figures immediately around her dance to the music they are creating, as well as the very small figures on the field in the background of the painting. The scene is set on rolling hills, with most of the background being the sky. All of this suggests Mrs. Hale delighting in a dance through nature, springing lightly over hills and fields and enjoying the wind in her hair, her happy commune with nature reflecting the Rousseauean ideals popular in the period. By casting Mrs. Hale as Euphrosyne, Reynolds suggests that she has all the qualities of this goddess- she spreads joy and good cheer everywhere she goes.




Other references to classical deities are more serious. Reynolds’ portrait Lady Talbot, painted in 1781, shows a much more academic bent. While Mrs. Hale is associated with a goddess of joy and happiness, Lady Talbot is associated with Athena, goddess of wisdom, learning, and the arts. She wears a simple Grecian dress, and has just poured an offering of oil to the statue of Athena in the background. Her dress and action suggests that she is a disciple of Athena, dedicated to knowledge and wisdom. Rather than showing herself to be a slave to the frivolities of fashion, Lady Talbot shows herself as an intelligent and learned woman who is more interested in cultivating her mind than her wardrobe, as seen by the simplicity of her draped garment, and associates with the great minds of the ancient world.

Gigot Sleeves

As a lady of fashion in the 1830s, one must keep up with the latest trends. And nowadays that means really huge enormous big sleeves.



Big sleeves began to come into fashion in the late 1820s, but really hit their stride in the 1830s. Called leg-of-mutton or gigot sleeves (the French translation of leg-of-mutton), they started slightly off the shoulder and puffed out before narrowing again towards the lower arm. In combination with the popular V-neckline and full skirt, gigot sleeves helped to give an illusion of a narrower waist.


From the Metropolitan Museum of Art

Unlike the big sleeves of the 1890s, gigot sleeves did not start directly where the sleeve and shoulder of the dress met. Instead, gigot sleeves began at the top of the arm, helping to create a fashionable sloped shoulder look. The most beautiful lady in the 1830s would have shoulders not extending in a horizontal line from the base of her neck, but sloping in a gentle diagonal down to her arms. This ideal was connected with the romanticism movement popular during the period, making a woman look as though she were pining away for a lover.

Sleeves were cut on the bias of the fabric. Imagine you have a square piece of fabric in front of you. The threads which make up the fabric go horizontally (the weft) and vertically (the warp). If you were to place a pattern diagonally on that piece of fabric, so that it made a diagonal across the warp and weft, that would be cut on the bias. Fabric cut on the bias has greater stretch and movement, allowing for softer curves. But a lot of fabric and a bias cut isn't going to make your sleeves stand out to poofy perfection.


From the LA County Museum of Art

What you need is a pair of sleeve plumpers, worn underneath the dress to help hold out the volume of the sleeves. Women could also use stiff lining on the inside of the sleeves to help keep up the volume.

Once you are armed with your gigot sleeves (BUH DUM CHING!!!), the only thing left to do is fine an equally fashionable man and go showing off to all your friends.

Updates

I'm really excited you guys, I've figured out how to schedule posts to go up! Which means I can write them in advance and then let blogger post them for me. As you probably have guessed, I'm always way too busy for my own good, which is why I often go so long without posting. But now when I do get some free time I can write up a bunch of posts and schedule them to go up periodically. What this means for all of you is more content, more often. Get excited!

I've scheduled the rest of my paper on fashion in Reynolds and Gainsborough paintings to go up over the next few weeks. But for those of you who are getting a little tired of the 18th century, don't despair! I'm on spring break this week and will have plenty of time to write about other centuries.

I'm also planning a special event for those of you who, like me, don't care all that much for sports but would still like to have some fun during March Madness. More info coming soon!

Breaking News in the World of Couture

The breaking news is that John Galliano has been fired from Dior after a video surfaced of him giving anti-Semitic remarks in a drunken rant. Galliano reportedly intends to go to rehab and then fight back, but it seems highly unlikely that the company will retain him.

For me personally, I am extremely saddened and disappointed at this news. John Galliano's designs for Dior are the highlight of every fashion week for me. I always wait with baited breath for pictures to surface of his latest couture creations. His Dior couture so perfectly captures my own aesthetic and has been a big inspiration for my own creative work. Now not only will we loose his brilliant vision on the Dior label, but we now have to contend with the revelation that the man himself is anti-Semitic. And it's hard to know what to think.

I'm Jewish, and proud to be so, so it's especially hurtful to hear some one I admire so deeply insult a fundamental part of who I am. It's like when a good friend suddenly turns their back on you, I feel hurt and betrayed. And I know that this will forever change the way I view the man and subsequently his work.

I have always been a big advocate of separating the art from the personal life of the artist. Great composer Richard Wagner was an anti-Semite, which I do not approve of. But he was also an incredible artist, a genius, and his music is something that should continue to be performed and celebrated throughout the world. In short, love the music, hate the man. For a more recent example, the hoopla over Roman Polanski. He makes great films (I've never seen any but I hear they're quite good), but he's also a child rapist. It's OK to love his art, but just because he's a great artist does not mean his personal crimes should be condoned or forgiven. That's what drove me crazy about everyone rushing to his support recently, I feel like they confused the art and the person. Now with Galliano, I want to make the same separation. I will always love his designs, but I can't admire the man behind them anymore.

But the question then becomes, where is the line of separation between the person and the art? Art is inherently personal and individual. When I'm not being a fashion historian I'm an actress, a singer, a ballet dancer/choreographer, and a costume designer, so I'm constantly surrounded by and study creativity. And it doesn't matter if you're singing some one elses notes, saying some one elses words, or dancing or sewing a creation that is entirely your own. You put yourself into what you create. We can't not put ourselves into our creations, creativity just doesn't work that way. So while it's very easy to say "John Galliano is an artistic genius and while I love his clothes I think the man himself is awful", are not the clothes a part of the man himself? It's hard to connect his fashion with a drunken rant, but even if the incident is so separated from how he expresses himself via fashion, the two things both come from the same person, the same mind, the same soul.

So it's hard to know what to think. Art will inherently have a strong and deep connection to its creator, so what do you do when that creator turns out to be a racist? Do you try and separate the art from the personal beliefs, or take them in together? I think the thing to do is to take the creations with a grain of salt. I can't stop loving John Galliano's designs, they speak to me in a way no others do. But while I can still love them, I must now view them through a different lens. There is now another layer of meaning to the pieces. Because even if not a single anti-Semitic thought went into the creation of the Spring 2010 couture line, the fashion and the thoughts sprang from the same mind and therefore will always have some distant connection.

But I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. It just gives you one more thing to think about. How can a creation so beautiful and thoughts so horrible exist within the same man? Do certain pieces resonate differently when Galliano's racism is taken into consideration? Is it OK to enjoy something created by a person whose personal views disgust you? I think it is. We're all human, and we all have flaws. Now there is a new layer of meaning to Galliano's work. I don't excuse anti-Semitism, or any other prejudice, but I don't think its presence should cause us to discount art. It's still art, it's still expression. Instead, I think its presence should cause us to look at the art in a new and different way.

Of course this raises the question of where do we draw the line between art and not-art. The signs of the Westboro Baptist Church don't seem like art to me, but the people holding them could claim that their signs are art, or their protests performance art. There is no answer to this question. I think we all have to draw the line for ourselves, and yes, we all have to be a bit hypocritical based on our own personal beliefs and feelings. And that's OK.

So I can no longer respect or admire John Galliano the man. I am deeply offended by his remarks, and I have lost my trust in him. I don't think I can ever forgive him for what he said. But I won't discount his designs. I will always love his work for Dior, but I will now consider it through these new revelations about him as a person. Does this change the art? Yes. Does it mean his art must be thrown away? No.