Fashion/Museum

2011-03-12T11:10:00.003-05:00

I haven't posted in a long time, since working three part-time jobs has seemed to leave me little time for writing-- OR for visiting exhibits! Today I wanted to make note of one at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art that I really wish I could see! It will be closing in a couple of weeks and is on the opposite coast from me, so that's unlikely, but luckily they have a pretty good website here. It's called "Fashioning Fashion: European Dress in Detail, 1700-1915." While I'm not crazy about the title, the show itself should be interesting; it is displaying much of a large, recent acquisition and seems to be a sort of "survey" exhibit, without any specific narrative besides the evolution of European dress from the eighteenth through the early twentieth centuries. I find that fashion exhibits surrounding themes or ideas tend to be most compelling, but as long as the show is well-put-together it can be fun to just bask in a variety of fabulous pieces.

It seems as though this collection ranges from court dress to early haute couture to children's clothing, so it probably includes objects that are important for different reasons (craftsmanship, design quality, textile quality, historical significance, etc.). The key with a show like this is for it to be thoughtfully organized and for the didactics to clearly lead the visitor through each section so that it does not become disjointed. I have faith in LACMA-- they have a great collection and celebrated curators (Sharon Takeda and Kaye Spilker), so it is probably a wonderful exhibition.

Speaking of the curators, there is a great little interview with them here that shows what they do and how they put together an exhibit. They have my dream job! It is making me terribly nostalgic for my time at the Museum at FIT. I also like that the videos show the conservators and mannequin dressers, who are truly crucial to the exhibition and who often go overlooked.

Finally, here is a link to the cute children's game that accompanies the exhibit online. What a great idea!

Have any of you seen the exhibit? What did you think of the video? The children's game?
Tune in before too long when I report back from the Virginia Association of Museums' Annual Conference!

Image, "Mlle. Madeleine Dolley modeling a pale gray ornately embroidered and beaded (with gold) robe du bal, or ball gown made of salome silk designed by Paquin, photographed by Bert, from French periodical Les Modes," 1909, Life magazine.

Summer recap and last chance to see "Art by the Yard" at the Textile Museum

2010-09-10T12:14:00.007-04:00

Photo of myself and a friend at the Mod Madness event, checking out some Lucienne Day tea towels. Photo courtesy of the Textile Museum.

After an extremely eventful summer, I am back and hoping to start posting more regularly again! I have just started work as the new part-time Collections Assistant at Dumbarton House, a Federal-period historic house museum in Georgetown with a great collection of decorative arts. This summer I was cataloging and rehousing Sewall-Belmont House and Museum's phenomenal collection of textiles related to the fight for women's suffrage and the Equal Rights Amendment, including a number of significant banners used for picketing the White House in the nineteen-teens which may be on display before long!

Some of this summer's most interesting textile events have surrounded an exhibit at the Textile Museum on S Street in Washington, D.C. called "Art by the Yard: Women Design Mid-Century Britain." The exhibit closes this Sunday, September 12th, so if you have not yet been to see it I highly recommend that you go! The show focuses on textile designs by Lucienne Day, a pioneering British textile designer in the mid-century Modern style. Beginning with her groundbreakingly abstract "Calyx," the galleries showcase her imaginative, appealing, and sometimes humorous designs with ample yardage. I particularly like the back gallery, which has a room featuring textiles in situ with furniture designed by her equally famous husband, Robin Day and also shows some of her delightful tea towels. Too bad the repros cost such a fortune in the gift shop! The final room also includes the work of two of Mrs. Day's contemporaries, Jacqueline Groag and Marian Mahler.

My only complaint with the exhibit was that I felt there was far too much text-- many of the didactics elicited the dreaded TLDR (too long, didn't read) response, even from me (and I am a big reader of didactics). Still, the pieces were extraordinary, the exhibit arrangement flowed well, and the mounts were fantastic as always (with a salute to my friends in the conservation lab, Anne Ennes and Esther Methe).

The first event I attended this summer that was associated with the exhibit was a lecture by the esteemed Titi Halle, director of Cora Ginsburg LLC (possibly the best dealer of historic costumes and textiles in the country). Her talk, entitled "Cutting Edge: Textile Artists of the 20th Century," was a primer on 20th-century textile design from Raoul Dufy's work for Paul Poiret to the Bauhaus and the Weiner Werkstatte to designers of the fifties and sixties, including Mrs. Day and showed some wonderful images of examples from the Cora Ginsburg collection. It was a great refresher for me and a good basic introduction to the subject for anyone interested.

The second event I attended that was linked to the exhibit was purely for fun-- it was an evening event called "Mod Madness" that linked the mid-century theme of the exhibit to the popular fixation with Mad Men and included a bar, food for sale, a DJ and jazz combo, a silkscreen-your-own T-shirt station, and a "best mid-century dressed" contest (I was a runner-up but not a winner... next time!) It was very heavily attended, by professionals, hipsters, and museum dorks (that's my category) young and older (mostly women, but that seems to be the usual situation with museums!). Tickets were only $10 and included one ticket for a non-premium drink. A great time was had by all and I think it was a great event for the TM, although I have not heard any details from their staff. Hope to see more like it! I have noticed that young professionals are the new hot market for museums, so I expect there will be many such events in the future.

Enjoy the exhibit at the TM this weekend- and remember, they're open 10-5 on Saturday and 1-5 on Sunday and have a suggested donation of $5 (but pay what you can/want).

Did you attend either of these events? Any other great textile or museum-related events this summer? Did you enjoy this exhibit?

Review: American Woman at the Met

2010-05-10T14:01:00.006-04:00

The Met now has a great feature where you can access the collections database records (including images) for all the pieces shown in the exhibition from their website, here (the second link). While it's out of order, it's a good virtual visit to the show!

This weekend's museum visits were very fruitful! We went to American Woman first thing, so we were not swamped by other visitors (although the Picasso exhibit was packed to the gills). Overall, I was very happy with the show. It was extremely different from The Model as Muse in many ways. Model as Muse was a highly academic show, with a lot of text and a lot of garments. I really felt that it contributed to the scholarship of the field-- read my full review here. American Woman at least seemed to be a much smaller exhibit, with fewer garments overall, and much, much less text. Outside of an introductory didactic and an approximately 200-word didactic for each room, there was no instructional text, just "tombstone" labels for each garment. Any additional information was included in the audio guide, which I got just to see how it was. Thankfully, Sarah Jessica Parker's narration was not distracting-- it just sounded like she was reading an audiobook. I'm assuming curator Andrew Bolton wrote the audio guide text, but I didn't see any credits for its author anywhere. The audio guide was pretty nice-- not particularly deep, but offering additional insights and notes on the pieces, and drawing particular attention to certain objects. I wasn't left wondering about the objects, and it was obvious how they all fit into the particular archetype demonstrated in each room (as a reminder, the archetypes were The Heiress, The Gibson Girl, The Bohemian, The Suffragist, The Patriot, The Flapper, and The Screen Siren).

I did want to know more about some of the accessories, including shoes and hats, most of which were not identified. It's possible that they came from the museum's prop collection, of antique but not particularly valuable pieces that are used for display purposes but not accessioned into the permanent collection. Something that totally stymied me was the presence of at least three Fortuny pleated "Delphos" dresses in the Bohemian section that were entirely ignored by the text. They were worn underneath wrappers, by Liberty of London for the most part, which were credited in the labels. The Fortuny tea gown/evening dress, both historicizing and strikingly modern and meant to be worn over an uncorseted body in a time when corsets were generally worn by all proper ladies, would have fit perfectly into the discussion of The Bohemian. It's possible that the Fortunys shown were reproductions, but I doubt that, considering that the Met has at least ten Delphos dresses and that the luminosity and uniqueness of the gowns' colors were characteristic of true Fortuny pieces. My only other guess is that the Fortuny gowns were from the Met's own collection, and as they wanted to feature only pieces that had come from the Brooklyn collection, they didn't mention them. I'm stumped!

The set design (by Nathan Crowley, a Hollywood Production Designer for films such as The Dark Knight) was unbelievable. Each room was painted in an appropriate backdrop for the archetype (for instance, the Heiress section had curved walls-- like most of the rooms-- and was painted to look like Mrs. Astor's ballroom in Newport). As in Model as Muse, some of the sets incorporated pieces from the Met's Decorative Arts collection, such as chairs and chandeliers. I think this is a great idea and assists both in appreciating the garments somewhat in situ and getting a chance to view pieces that might otherwise be stuck in storage. It is a real treat that they have the resources to create such elaborate sets! My only complaint with each room was that the lighting made it very difficult to see some aspects of the costumes. I'm not talking about the overall light levels; although they were low, that is necessary to preserve the pieces. It's that the lighting was spotty, with patches of dark and light, so that there was a subtle mottling to the illumination. This made it hard for me to discern details on some pieces-- although it may have been intentional, as low lighting hides a multitude of problems in damaged or fading garments!

I felt that the sections on The Suffragist and The Patriot, put together in one room, were sadly lacking. The Suffragist section featured about three or four suits from the teens, accessorized with a suffragette banner and some sashes-- not much of a sartorial statement. The Patriot section featured only two ensembles, both of them uniforms. These are interesting pieces and great early examples of women's military service-- but even combined with the Suffragist suits and the large screens showing contemporary video footage, I didn't feel that they really filled their own section. I also don't feel as though these are particularly strong American female archetypes (and I feel somewhat the same way about The Bohemian), although I understand that their depiction of strong, independent working women fits in well with the overarching ideas of American female identity that Bolton is getting at.

The Flapper, and her taboo-breaking sexual and behavioral freedom, is perhaps the best known of the archetypes and certainly had the fullest exhibit room. There were a couple of nice day ensembles, highlighted as appropriate for the career woman (read: working class person) that the Flapper typically was, although I didn't really think they were appropriate work clothes-- more like sportswear. The evening dresses were stunning. This was one room in which Julien d'Ys' hair dressings were NOT distracting-- in others, they were very irritating, particularly in The Heiress and The Gibson Girl, where the pompadours were multiple feet high and wide. I understand wanting to stylize, but I felt that in many cases it took away from the display of the objects.

The exhibit ended with The Screen Siren, which featured some video footage and a number of slinky '30s gowns. I was expecting to see more American designs in this section-- Adrian, perhaps, or some more American film designers. There was a notable piece by Travis Banton, but it was a film costume, and while striking, I wasn't certain it really fit in since it wasn't really "fashion." The other thing that irked me about this section was something that I saw in a few other places in the exhibit: less-than-stellar mannequin dressing. Many of the mannequins were dressed extremely well, but a few caught my eye in a bad way-- a Worth gown or two from The Heiress didn't have smooth, filled-out torsos, and there was a cluster of James gowns in The Screen Siren that made me shudder. James gowns are particularly difficult to dress because they are so sculptural. These gowns were not the most architectural of his pieces-- they were examples of the "Sirene" gown (aka the shrimp dress, see here)-- but they are still meant to fit exceptionally well and, as they are all custom-made, require appropriate mannequin modifications to look right. These appeared as though they had just been placed on the mannequins, which I'm sure is not true, but they were ill-fitting and gapped in a number of places, and I thought it made it difficult to really appreciate their intended look. Perhaps I am biased because FIT has custom mounts for all their James gowns-- but I think that is really the appropriate way to display them. See the difference here.

There is one more point I want to mention. I will not go into detail about Robin Givhan's review of this exhibit, a) because this post is already epic and b) because I don't want my blog to turn into a collection of reviews of Robin Givhan articles, BUT in her review (here), she says, "...based on this exhibition, the beauty ideal has always been slender. Those athletic Gibson Girls were practically waifs. The Flappers -- at least the ones who naturally fit the clothes and did not have to bind their bosoms so they would be fashionably flat -- were small-boned and almost fragile. Even the Screen Sirens, celebrated for their womanly curves, are tiny compared to a contemporary actress.... In our upset with the present, we have re-imagined a past of buxom beauties that mostly did not exist."

She is both right and wrong. While the ideal body of the American female archetypes discussed in the exhibit has frequently been fit and athletic, it is not true that "buxom beauties" were never actual ideal body tpes of the past. The Heiress, while fragile, was probably able to be heavier than today's models thanks to the aid of her corset. The Gibson girl was seen as tall and healthy, if still svelte. The Bohemian, Suffragist and Patriot had some more room to fit in their dresses-- they were ideally busty and shaped like an inverse teardrop, wearing empire-waisted dresses and peg-top skirts. Flappers were boyish and frequently thin, although the emphasis was on a lack of definition of curves and not necessarily on waifishness. The Screen Siren ideal is perhaps the most difficult to fit-- tall and thin but just curvy enough to make a bias-cut dress interesting. The thing is, the pin-up girl of the 40s was certainly voluptuous-- and what about Marilyn Monroe? "Buxom beauties" existed-- just outside of the 1890-1940 time frame.

That aside, Givhan's point is that the ideal bodies seen in the exhibit were no fairer to the everyday woman than is the oft-discussed stick-thin ideal of today. That is true. Fashion isn't fair-- fashion just likes novelty. Ideal bodies will come and go, but if they get any healthier it will not be because fashion has decided that that's the best thing for everybody-- it will be because we're bored.

The final room in the exhibit was an oval with video and still photo projections of well-known "American women," from Katharine Hepburn to Michelle Obama. There was a particularly fabulous juxtaposition of Josephine Baker in her banana skirt with Beyoncé in her "Single Ladies" video. I felt it helped challenge the visitor to think about the characteristics of today's American woman. It also fit well with the concluding didactic, which emphasized that while these archetypes never represented a majority of real women at any point, they all combine to help name the characteristics we associate with American womanhood: vitality, boldness, and sexual, social, and artistic freedom. While I am not sure that this was a significant contribution to research in the field, it was a digestible exhibit that will teach its visitors some interesting social and fashion history and perhaps leave them with the sense it left me-- that American women are, above all, independent.

What did you think of the exhibit? What were your favorite pieces? What thoughts did you depart with?

Photo: Actresses Marlene Dietrich and Anna May Wong w. filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl at Pierre Ball, Berlin, Alfred Eisenstaedt, Life, 1928.

American Woman Hype

2010-05-06T16:21:00.003-04:00

I'm very excited to see "American Woman" at the Met and "Night & Day" at FIT this weekend, although I'm a little apprehensive about the crowds at the former-- and not only because it's opening weekend. This exhibit has received more hype than any other fashion exhibition I've seen in a long time! Last week's Costume Institute Benefit Gala, frequently called "the party of the year," had (as always) a huge celebrity draw and was co-hosted by none other than Oprah, along with Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour (who co-hosts the party every year) and Gap's Executive VP for Global Design, Patrick Robinson. According to the exhibit's press release, the Gala is "The Costume Institute's main source of annual funding for exhibitions, operations, and capital improvements." Most curators I know would happily give up an appendage for a source of funding and publicity like that! Since the party's red carpet shots are shown on news, fashion, and society pages everywhere, the public is more aware of The Costume Institute than usual these days, which draws attention to the new exhibit.

In addition, "American Woman" is being sponsored by Gap, who has released a line of embellished t-shirts inspired by each archetype explored by the exhibit (the heiress, the Gibson Girl, the haute bohemian, the suffragist, the patriot, the flapper, and the screen siren). While the t-shirts are cute enough, I personally find them overpriced for how simple they are. I think the suffragist is my favorite, or perhaps the screen siren-- but I'd be much more likely to consider investing if they were $15 or $20 cheaper.

As if that weren't enough, Gap has also coupled with designers Alexander Wang, Rodarte, Sophie Theallet, and Thakoon to create unique gowns that were worn to the Gala by Vera Farmiga, M.I.A., Kirsten Dunst, Kerry Washington, Jessica Alba, Riley Keogh, Zoe Kravitz, and Jamie Bochert (all this comes from the Gap website). The gowns, now displayed in a Gap pop-up store on Fifth and 54th, are being sold in an online silent auction, with the proceeds benefiting the Costume Institute. Bidding opened yesterday and will last until May 31st.

Goodness gracious, what a lot of publicity for a show! Something about it turns me off, although I should, of course, be happy that a fashion exhibit is getting this much attention. I think that between this and Sarah Jessica Parker's narration of the audio guide, I am afraid it's going to be too fluffy and commercial. I had some of the same worries, however, for "The Model as Muse," and I was stunned by how academic and thorough it was. And, as the Gap was founded in 1969, I don't have the same fears about conflict of interest in content as I would if it were, say, a monographic show being sponsored by the living designer whom it was featuring.
I am ready to plunge in and see how the exhibit is!

Has anyone seen it yet? Did you like it? Do you think it will be too fluffy or will it satisfy pop-culture lovers and museum dorks like me alike?

Image by Charles Dana Gibson, undated (c.1903, I think), from the Time/Life image archive

Upcoming Exhibitions: "American Woman" and "Night & Day"

2010-04-26T18:29:00.005-04:00

My trips to Manhattan for exhibits are much too few and far between, and when I go, I have to pack in as much as I can. In a couple of weeks, I plan on visiting the shows "American Woman: Fashioning a National Identity" and "Night and Day" at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and The Museum at FIT, respectively. "American Woman" features garments from the Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection, now housed at the Met (I discussed the transfer here), and will focus on changing perceptions of American femininity in and through dress. This could be a broad and thought-provoking exhibition because it is not only examining the work of American designers but all designers who dress, and have dressed, archetypal American women. I'm also excited to see it because I have spent a large amount of time discussing American designers and the American market (and their differences from their French and European counterparts) in the course on the great designers that I taught at Marymount this semester. When I met the wonderful Isabel and Ruben Toledo last week (more on that later, once I get pictures!), Ruben laughingly commented to me that he thought it was funny that Andrew Bolton was curating this show, since he is British! But perhaps an "outsider" can more easily recognize those things that are archetypically American. One thing that rubs me the wrong way is that the sample Audio Guide clip on the exhibit website is narrated by Sarah Jessica Parker, but perhaps that has more to do with my views on Sex and the City (which I will keep to myself-- you're welcome) than any hints at "selling out." If costume exhibits were completely divorced from pop culture, I don't know if anyone but me would come, anyway!

The second exhibit, "Night and Day," is a rotation of The Museum at FIT's History Gallery, which is always a chronological display of fashion history from the 18th through the 21st centuries but features different garments and a different theme every 6 months. This one focuses on the rules for appropriate dress according to time of day. I'm particularly curious to see what they come up with for the late 20th and early 21st century, as we no longer have hard-and-fast rules as to what must be worn when. Perhaps there will be some pieces that blur the day/evening line. I'm sorry that I will be catching this exhibit at its tail end. If you have the chance, go now before it's too late!

Has anyone been to "Night and Day?" How about FIT's show "American Beauty," which recently closed but was focused solely on American designers, many of whom are not well known? Are you as excited to see these exhibits as I am?

Photo by Alfred Eisenstaedt, Life, 1941.

Japanese Fashion and Textiles; Isabel and Ruben Toledo at Marymount

2010-04-09T17:33:00.006-04:00

I finally made it to the Textile Museum to see "Contemporary Japanese Fashion: The Mary Baskett Collection," which closes on Sunday (I mentioned it here on the blog before it opened). The exhibit is excellent for many reasons, and if you have the chance to see it this weekend, by all means go.

For a costume exhibit-- or any exhibit, really-- to be successful, it needs to be both scholarly and engaging, which to me means 1) readable didactics and labels, 2) a layout that displays the objects to their best advantage while protecting them from damage and allows for easy viewing and movement within the space and 3) a coherent and digestible "big idea" or takeaway message. This exhibit did quite well on all of these fronts, although I had a few minor complaints.

While at first glance I considered the didactics too long (I prefer 150-200 words or fewer), I found them both concise and informative. There were only four didactic panels: an introductory one that explained the designers featured and the collector of their pieces, and one for each of the featured designers (Yohji Yamamoto, Issey Miyake, and Rei Kawakubo). The label copy was not displayed; instead, it was featured in spiral-bound books that could be taken at the start of the exhibit, and each ensemble was numbered at the base of its mannequin or mount for reference in the catalog. I suppose they chose to do this in order to make the exhibit space as clean as possible, and not clutter it with labels, which are often difficult to place. Still, I had to go back and get the book because I didn't realize it was a necessity at first, and I feel as though many museumgoers would have missed it altogether and simply wandered through the space guided only by the larger didactic panels on the designers. Because of the unorthodox features and enigmatic style of these garments, as well as their connections to the design philosophies of their makers, labels were absolutely necessary in this exhibit and anyone who missed the label copy probably felt more confused than enlightened. My one other gripe with the labels was that some of the objects that seemed the most intriguing were left unexplained (an ensemble on a strangely posed mannequin by Kawakubo, and a shorts suit by Miyake, for example). Otherwise, I felt that the didactics and labels were quite well-written.

Besides the clothing itself, the most striking element of the exhibit for me was the way in which the garments were mounted. Most of them had custom interior mounts that were attached to the ceiling and floor by long wires, which allowed the pieces to take their proper shape as though being worn but also to speak for themselves, uninterrupted by distracting mannequins. My guess is that these mounts were provided by the owner, at least in part-- while the exhibit was sponsored (by the cosmetics company Shisheido, among other organizations), the production and installation of custom mounts for all of these pieces seems as though it would be prohibitive both in time and in cost. There were other pieces mounted on simple, appropriate mannequins, and a few pieces mounted flat or on custom-carved foam mounts. One piece was shown quasi-flat, so that the pattern could be appreciated, but with a subtle body shape in the foam support that suggested its look when worn. I was very impressed by the quality of the mounting in this exhibit, and few things are more important to costume exhibits than proper display!

The exhibit also had irregularly angled white wooden "floors" built up underneath the garments, which served as a kind of "set" and also prevented visitors from walking too close to, or underneath, the pieces on display. While I am certain these were labor-intensive and time-consuming to produce, the result was excellent-- it was just the kind of subtle backdrop that best accents these types of garments and eliminated the need for unsightly stanchions or guardrails.

Finally, one of the smartest things about the exhibit's arrangement was that it began with work by Yohji Yamamoto, continued with Issey Miyake, and finished with Rei Kawakubo (and some of her colleagues at Comme des Garçons). At first, I was suprised that the show did not begin with Mikaye, who is the oldest of the three and considered the field's pioneer. Starting with Yamamoto, however, both made best use of the space (the exhibit starts in a smallish hallway that would not have had room for all of the Miyake pieces) and made conceptual sense. Yamamoto's pieces are the easiest for Westerners to understand; they blend Western and Japanese fashion sensibilities and are the most "wearable." Miyake's are fun and innovative, and a little more difficult to accept aesthetically, and Kawakubo's are the most intellectual and least "beautiful" in a traditional Western sense. By beginning with Yamamoto and ending with Kawakubo, the visitor is introduced to foreign concepts bit-by-bit, and is warmed up by the time he or she reaches the most challenging garments.

While I would have liked to learn a bit more about the Japanese concept of wabi-sabi (beauty in imperfection and transience) that was hinted at, but not named, in the didactics, I felt that the exhibit did an excellent job of introducing both the layman and the fashion scholar to pieces that are at once unfamiliar and important. I appreciated that the didactics emphasized that the collector wears these pieces in her everyday life, showing that the designers are not creating these objects as pure art but as clothing to be worn.

There is much more to say about these designers and why they are so important to contemporary fashion but I will save that for another day. I want to end by saying that Marymount University (where I teach) is soon holding its annual Portfolio in Motion event, where fashion design and fashion merchandising students produce a fashion show and host a eminent designer, who receives an award and reviews the portfolios of the senior design students. I blogged about last year's event and featured designer Peter Som here. This year, the event takes place starting Thursday, April 22nd and continues into the weekend, and our featured designer is none other than Isabel Toledo, who designed Michelle Obama's "Lemongrass" ensemble for the inauguration and an exhibit of whose work I thoroughly enjoyed last year. She will be accompanied by her husband, celebrated illustrator Ruben Toledo. I am beyond excited about their attendance, both for my own sake and for the students'. Tickets for the opening show and cocktail reception are $100, but you can attend the subsequent shows (without the Toledos) for only $15. More information can be found here.

What do you think of these designers? Have you seen the exhibit, and how did you feel about it if you did? What do you think is most important in an exhibit like this?

Photo by Mark Whiting, http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/0MYZE3-pdqbyw0fG7Kqb2Q

Katie Couric in Harper's Bazaar

2010-02-11T10:26:00.005-05:00

I have finally returned from a far-too-long hiatus centered around a trip to Southeast Asia and the subsequent readjustment to normal life, which itself was interrupted by unprecedented snowstorms that have shut down the entire Washington area! Now, however, I'm back, and while my first intention is to write a post on the fabulous textiles I encountered in SE Asia, I've decided to begin instead with a brief post on an article by The Washington Post's Robin Givhan. The article focuses on a story in this month's Harper's Bazaar about CBS anchor (and UVa alumna, I might add) Katie Couric.

I have covered Givhan's reporting in the past (see these posts), and generally admire her writing and obersvation, although I feel that her lack of a fashion studies background is a handicap to her full understanding of some of the topics she covered. The article on Couric centers not on the text of the Bazaar article but on its photography, by François Dischinger. Givhan writes, "(The photos) are an audacious celebration of a powerful woman as a boldly sexy one, too.

There's nothing reserved or hesitant in the sex appeal on display in the four-page story about Couric. The images are a full-throated, even exaggerated, rebuke of the notion that a woman must dress in a prescribed manner -- Suze Orman suits, full-coverage blouses, sensible heels -- to protect her IQ, her résumé and her place in a male-dominated work culture.

Is Couric dressed in a manner appropriate for a network anchor? These images demand that viewers define -- or redefine -- their terms."

There are two main images of Couric that accompany the article (at least in the online coverage): one depicts her in a beige, one-shouldered, above-knee-length Calvin Klein collection dress sitting at a glass desk in a modernist white office, and the other shows her in a short, dark skirt and blazer by Giorgio Armani, black hose, and a pair of Louboutin booties. She clutches the blazer closed at her chest and no shirt is visible underneath. In this second picture, Couric stands boldly atop two TV sets, one showing her (in?)famous interview with Sarah Palin and one showing her interviewing President Obama.

It's obvious that the photographer wanted to convey confidence, power, and yes, sex appeal. Couric is, after all, the first woman to anchor the evening news solo on one of the "big three" broadcast networks. While the article seems to emphasize her interviewing prowess, she is portayed as the anti-Barbara Walters: young, modern, in-charge -- and sexy.

In fact, it seems as though leaving sex appeal out of the picture would diminish her powerful image. In our culture, sex appeal has become an essential part of a woman's strength; asexuality, dowdiness, or even the downplay of one's assets for the sake of propriety smacks of a lack of confidence and creates the sense that a woman is not at home with her femininity. This is not a particularly new idea, especially since Sex and the City brought almost-nymphomaniacally sexually aware third-wave/post-third-wave feminism to the forefront of popular culture.

Givhan takes this sex-appeal-as-power in a different direction, as well, recognizing the difficulties of maintaining this kind of fashionable image (particularly when it comes to shoes):

How can she walk in those? Pure grit-- that's the explanation. And yes, please infer that if those four-inch stilettos don't draw tears from the woman wearing them, then neither will some ambitious colleague's backstabbing ways. Fashion, in this sense, is power.

There is, of course, the depth of the phallic symbolism of high heels to be plumbed here as well, but plenty of articles have already been written on that subject. And, to be honest, I don't think that would be particularly pertinent in an examination of Katie Couric.

As Bazaar fashion/special projects director Laura Borwn phrases it, "When coming up in the industry, you tend to dress the way people think you should dress. (Couric) has earned the right to be sexy if she wants." In these photos, Couric is indeed participating in the dissemination of this idea. Yet Brown adds that, after all, Couric was "doing photos for a fashion magazine, not Newsweek." I think that any analysis of Couric in these photos, and not just the photos themselves, must acknowledge that Couric's participation here was mostly as a fashion model. These are not news photos, nor are they strictly fashion journalism; they are that frequently seen combination of portrait and fashion shoot that combines chosen aspects of a person's personality and appearance with other desirable attributes to create a celebrity image.

Givhan states, "Certainly, some will see the pictures as further proof of why she is all wrong for the job. They will probably be the same people for whom Couric has accumulated a personal work wardrobe of blacks, grays and pinstripes -- a more sophisticated, yet still reserved, alternative to the news-anchor cliché of Crayola-colored blazers." These people, and perhaps Givhan as well, would do better to analyze Couric's personality, and personal image, through the clothing she wears on and off the job in public life. Those "blacks, grays and pinstripes" are far more telling about the real Couric, and her personal idea of what it means to be a powerful woman, than the outfits in which she was dressed by the Bazaar staff. How does sexuality play into this? Only a good look at Couric's wardrobe choices, which deserves more thought that I can give it here, would tell.

What do you think? How do you perceive Couric? How do you think our culture interprets sexuality and its relationship to feminine power?

Photo of Couric by Sylvain Gaboury for Life, 09 Mar 2000.

An Audrey Hepburn Auction, Louboutins, and Jennifer Lopez

2009-12-17T09:36:00.004-05:00

On December 8, Kerry Taylor Auctions, an antique and vintage fashion and textile auction house out of London, held its "Passion for Fashion" sale, including items from the estates of Audrey Hepburn and 70s supermodel Marie Helvin. There were also touring exhibitions of highlights from the Audrey Hepburn collection, in New York and Paris in late November and early December.

Having worked for Augusta Auctions, a comparable American auction house, in the past, I am particularly interested in these items (and their sale prices)! Hepburn was Hubert de Givenchy's muse, so there are understandably a large amount of Givenchy pieces in the sale. There are also a number of earlier pieces, including some early Fortuny and Paquin pieces. Images and descriptions of the lots are available here and the final hammer prices are here. The two highest prices I could find were 20,000 and 50,000 pounds for lots 98 and 293, respectively.

Lot 98 (here) is a stunning Chanel couture cocktail dress from the 1920s made of over-printed lace (where the colors are printed over the floral design on the lace itself). It is listed as in "fine" condition, and this particular kind of lace in Chanels' work is rare. 20,000 is nearly four times the upper estimate of 4400 pounds, which means two people probably wanted this dress very much! I wonder if the Costume Institute at the Met and/or Cora Ginsburg in New York were represented at the sale.

Lot 293 (here) is a Givenchy couture cocktail dress and jacket in black chantilly lace, worn by Hepburn in "How to Steal a Million" (1966). Its 50,000 pound hammer price was over twice its upper estimate. Although a beautiful example of Givenchy's work, it seems as though most of the significace of this piece lies in its connection with the film; therefore, I suspect it was bought by a collector and not a museum (although I could be wrong).

On a sillier note, last night Jennifer Lopez performed her song "Louboutins" on the season finale of So You Think You Can Dance. The routine opened with Lopez (wearing silver or nude Louboutins-- it was hard to tell) on a bed attached to a giant shoe with a red sole. She calls Santa on the phone and asks him for a pair of Louboutins-- "you know, the ones with the high heels and the red bottoms." The song is about leaving a "part-time lover," and the chorus is a repetition of the phrase "I'm throwin' on my Louboutins, I'm throwin' on my Louboutins." While I personally think the song is pretty silly, this is a HUGE popular culture appearance for Loubs. They're quite well-known, for sure, but not only does Lopez use the designer's name as the title for her song and repeats it ad nauseum in the chorus, this performance (on the season finale of a show with an enormous viewership) is also supposed to mark her return to performance after a hiatus of about two years. The focus on Loubs is, as usual, about lifestyle and not quality or even appearance. The character in the song isn't "throwin' on her Louboutins" to go out and look sexy, she's putting them on to walk out the door on her lover (others might choose running shoes). I focus on Louboutins relatively frequently, so I'll not overanalyze all this, but I consider it a big step in the apotheosis of the Louboutin shoe as symbol of conspicuous consumption and glamourous lifestyle.

What do you think? Do you like the song and/or the performance? How do you feel about what this says about Louboutins?

Image of Audrey Hepburn holding her Roman Holiday Oscar by Ralph Morse for Life, 1954.

Report from Boston: Fashion and Popular Culture

2009-11-24T09:07:00.007-05:00

A few weeks ago I attended the Mid-Atlantic Popular and American Culture Association (MAPACA) conference in Boston to give a paper on The Jetsons and Space-Age fashion (for more on space-age fashion, see this post). Being a popular culture conference, there were presentations on all topics from Harry Potter to the decorative arts to popular architecture, and the keynote was on one of Boston's most beautiful cemeteries, Forest Hills. I heard a variety of wonderful presentations, including one on taxidermy in early twentieth-century interiors and one on sociobiology and the protagonists in children's fantasy literature, but I am going to focus my report on some of the research I heard having to do with fashion.

The "area" I was speaking in was called "Fashion, Appearance, and Material Culture," which is a rather broad area but which made for some interesting dialog between presentations. One of my favorite presentations was by an artist and graphic designer named Donna Catanzaro, who collects images and creates digital collages that address topics such as feminism, war, and the environment while remaining riotously funny. The piece on which she focused her presentation was this one, called "Swimsuit Shopping." Catanzaro despises bikinis, and she shows a number of bikini-clad mannequins with their heads separated from their bodies being steamrolled by a group of waitresses in lobster suits (from an old Atlantic City restaurant), along with a mushroom cloud that references the bikini's name (taken from the Bikini Atoll, the site of America's Operation Crossroads nuclear testing in 1947).

Catanzaro commented that at first, she had chosen pictures of women in bikinis rather than mannequins, but when she dismembered them via photoshop for her image, the result looked too much like carnage. She also realized that removing the head from an image of a woman in a bikini depersonalized the image, so that it felt less like there were dead bodies strewn about her picture. The end result is a combination of headless female torsos and mannequins, both feeling equally artificial. Does this imply that the head of a woman is what makes her distinct, or human, and that just her body alone isn't enough to create an identity for her? It's a very interesting idea to explore. A number of her other images are at her website, http://www.donnacat.com/. Check it out!

Victoria Pass, a doctoral student researching fashion and Surrealism at the University of Rochester, discussed Chanel and Marcel Duchamp's female alter ego "Rrose Selavy." She focused on similarities in the ways in which they marketed their personal images in order to market their art and design. Chanel is not a designer that I would immediately connect with Surrealism, so the comparison was a very intriguing one. The idea of marketing the artist or designer themself in order to promote his or her work is one that has pervaded the twentieth century and twenty-first centuries, especially in the past few decades.

While I sometimes feel that Andy Warhol and Edie Sedgwick are overly discussed these days, I very much enjoyed the presentation of Yale doctoral student Madison Moore on Edie Sedgwick and her glamourous image. Moore's work focuses on glamour as performance, a deliberate act combining style and drama that creates an intentional "fabulousness." Instead of being something superficial or simply gaudy, Moore argues that glamour reveals our social and cultural anxieties. He's recently written a wonderful blog entry on Rihanna's image and how she and other style icons dress themselves as if they were on a photo shoot, in a sense creating fashion editorials before they are made. I would love to take a look at style icons throughout the century-- right now I'm thinking of Wallis Simpson, the Duchess of Windsor-- and examining the relationships between their public attire and concurrent, or subsequent, fashion editorials.

Bareket Kezwer, from the Parsons graduate program, gave a presentation on Louis Vuitton's brand image and the global art market. I was fascinated by how far-reaching the LVMH conglomerate is, and how wealthy and powerful its head is. It seems as though every part of LVMH's marketing kicks back to some other branch of the LVMH empire, and they really own a large part of the world's art market. Louis Vuitton itself has an incredible history, beginning in the nineteenth century (and one of the most amusing things about the LV logo is that it was originally conceived in order to prevent counterfeiting--it's now one of the world's most counterfeited logos).

Laura Camerlengo is looking at 19th century miser's purses, particularly examining their representation in a variety of literary sources including Sketches by Boz and Vanity Fair. Using literary sources can be a rich and challenging strategy for a fashion researcher, much like using art-- you must recognize the author's style, context, and creative license in order to glean meaning from their references, but the result can be a deep cultural understanding of fashions and objects that is nearly impossible to gain from other sources.

These notes are just a very shallow gloss on the research that was presented. I'm going to continue to follow all of these researchers in the future, knowing that they will be leading fashion studies down interesting and significant paths.

Which of these researchers' work do you find the most interesting? Are there other topics in fashion and popular culture that you' d like to see explored?

Image of woman in bikini by Alfred Eisenstaedt for Life, 1943. Image of bomb over Bikini Atoll by Frank Scherschel for Life, 1946.

Power Jeans, Isabel Toledo, and Christian Louboutin

2009-11-03T15:30:00.003-05:00

Today's post is a potpourri of sorts, covering a few items of interest that have come up in the last week or so. First, some current events: on Thursday night (11/5), the Textile Museum will host a program sponsored by the Swiss Embassy called "From Switzerland to the White House: The Story Behind the Inauguration Dress." The event will focus on the creation of Isabel Toledo's Lemongrass Coat and Dress, worn by Michelle Obama to her husband's inauguration, following the garment from the fabric stage through the finished product. Toledo, her husband and noted illustrator Ruben Toledo, and the creative director of the Swiss company that produced the fabric will participate in a panel discussion moderated by the Washington Post's Pulitzer Prize-winning fashion journalist Robin Givhan. The event is $25 for TTM members and $45 for non-members and will be followed by a reception with Swiss wine and chocolate (yum!). For more information, check the TTM website here (scroll down to Nov. 5 for the phone number). If I were not already speaking at a conference in Boston on Thursday, you can bet I 'd be there in a heartbeat. I think it will be a great opportunity to hear not only about Toledo's creative process but to think about the designers and creators of the fabric of high-fashion garments, something that is frequently overlooked.

Speaking of Robin Givhan, who is an excellent writer and astute observer (but who does not originally come from a fashion studies background), the Post's Style section recently featured

a short piece by her on Christian Louboutin's first visit to DC. I was intrigued by the fact that he had avoided coming to DC during the Bush administration because he greatly disliked the president-- I'm not surprised, but I do feel as though he ought to recognize that the entire city and its environs aren't governmentally owned (just most of it)! In addition, some of the Marymount students I teach were involved in his shoe-signing event at Neiman Marcus, something he loves to do and an opportunity for fans to witness his very charming (and oh-so-French) personality.

Finally, to some commentary. The Wall Street Journal recently featured a short article by Christina Binkley called "The Relentless Rise of Power Jeans." It focuses on how, in Binkley's words, "jeans are now a legitimate part of the global power-dress lexicon, worn to influential confabs where the wearers want to signal they're serious--but not fussy--and innovative." She then goes on to describe situations in which "power jeans" are successful in sending an appropriate signal, and they ways in which they must be carefully chosen and appropriately accessorized. The article does an excellent job of recognizing the power of "authoritative casual" dressing. In the right instances, a less-formal garment while remaining neat and businesslike instantly sets the tone that you are the one in charge, setting the dress code; you don't need to put on a suit to be powerful. For a man to wear power jeans among his dress-panted peers gives the appearance that he is the most relaxed one of the bunch, that he was confident in the propriety of his clothing and that the others fell to business casual because they weren't sure what the rules were.

In addition, it's a lot harder to get power jeans right than dress pants. Business casual has superseded the suit as most men's everyday workwear, so the oxford shirt/dress pants/matching belt and shoes combo is a no brainer for most guys. Power jeans, however, require more nuance-- they're not just your faded weekend jeans with a slouchy fit. Not only do they need to be dark and well-tailored, they need to have just the right shirt, belt, shoes, and perhaps sport jacket to accompany them. As Binkley says, "getting power jeans right involves lots of no's." So by wearing power jeans successfully, one not only demonstrates that they are at ease and in command of a situation but that they have good taste and well-developed sartorial skills.

One last thing to note is the menswear's gradual march from casual to formal, which has been progressing since the early 19th century. Around 1820, men wore a frock coat (with a "skirt" down to the knees on all sides) for informal daytime events, and a tailcoat for formal daytime and evening events. By the 1860s, the sack coat (effectively our modern suit jacket) had been introduced for very casual daytime wear and the frock coat had been relegated to formal daytime status, while the tailcoat was worn only in the evenings. By the 1880s, the sack coat remained informal, while the morning coat or cutaway was accepted as semi-formal daytime attire and the frock coat was worn only for the most formal daytime occasions. Tailcoats were still worn for evenings. By the turn of the 20th century, tuxedos were added to the mix as a less-formal evening alternative (a dressy form of the sack jacket). By the 20s, American men wore sack-jacket suits for virtually everything and tuxedos or tailcoats for evenings. In this image of King George V in 1927, notice that the man at the far left wears a sack coat, the man greeting the King wears a morning coat, and the King and his friend wear frock coats (extremely stodgy and outdated at this point).

As we are now, virtually no one (but the Brits at Ascot) wears a morning suit (which is a shame, because they're very nice-looking). Only conductors wear white tie and tailcoats. We now no longer wear suits for work. So the power jeans begin to work their way into the rotation. Who knows-- we may be wearing them to gala events in 50 years!

What do you think? How do you feel about the use of power jeans? Do they work in your field, or not? Do you think they'll eventually become the new suit? Would that be good or bad (or simply fashion)?

Photo by Michael Rougier for Life, March 1955.

Fashion and Aspiration: Glamour's Plus-Size Models and Our Body Perceptions

2009-10-14T09:53:00.008-04:00

In this month's Glamour Magazine is a feature on "the new definition of gorgeous," featuring seven plus-size models: Crystal Renn, Lizzie Miller, Amy Lemons, Ashley Graham, Kate Dillon, Anansa Sims, and Jennie Runk. All seven of them pose nude together (strategically covered), showing off the soft smoothness of their bodies and their ample curves. The feature seems to be a result of the dramatic response to the appearance of a nude (again, strategically covered) photo of Lizzie Miller in September's Glamour, sitting, smiling, and sporting a tummy roll. Women all over the country expressed their relief at finding a gorgeous picture of a woman in a magazine who "looked like them," curves and all. This month's article notes that this image was "just one of more than a hundred of full-figured women (they've) run in recent years, so (Glamour's editors) were surprised when it hit a nerve." Their theories? The recession has us in a "back-to-basics" mood, celebrities have recently spoken out against our less-than-perfect-body-hating fashion culture, Michelle Obama takes fashion risks, and perhaps we're finally tired of the bone-thin models we've seen everywhere for ten or so years. I agree with Glamour's editor-in-chief, Cindy Leive, that it was probably the combination of Miller's belly roll and unabashedly confident smile that did it. The photograph's statement was, "I know I have a belly roll. There it is. I haven't chosen a pose that minimizes it. I'm not hiding it. I'm still hot and feel great about my body! Check me out."

The article by Genevieve Field (which I highly encourage you to read) reveals the difficulties models have in being over a size four (and most runway models are closer to 00). First, sample sizes made for fashion photo shoots aren't made above this size (the writer mentions that designers sometimes make a one-off garment for a larger celebrity, which happened when Queen Latifah was Glamour's cover girl).

Second- and a bit of a surprise to me-, most designer fashion labels don't make sizes larger than 10 or 12, and it's not because there isn't a market for it. The article quotes Marshal Cohen, chief industry analyst for market research firm NPD, as saying "We know that larger-size women will pay almost anything for good-quality clothes that fit, and luxury brands could benefit greatly from serving that need. But there remains a deep stigma against going plus-size in the high-end fashion market. Find a brand that's willing to be its image and licensing revenue by doing this, and you will find a progressive company." So while designers know it could increase their sales to offer larger sizes, it's seen as "selling out," in a way- as becoming less fashionable and less exclusive, a stain on their brand image that might affect their prestige and sales among current customers. As it is now, not just any woman can wear Dior- you have to already bring a fashionable body shape and size to the table before you can try on--or model--the garments (that is, unless you are interested in haute couture, which is even more astronomically expensive and has a minuscule market of celebrities and heiresses).

But fashion will always be exclusive and unreasonable, and I don't think there's anything that can be done to change the fact that underweight bodies are our current fashionable ideal. Fashion is driven by novelty and dictated by excess and leisure. High fashion is only accessible to those with enough disposable income to invest in trends that will inevitably become obsolete and that demonstrate a certain level of status. A white dress that's dry-clean-only, four-inch heels that would never allow you to do any manual labor, over-the-top accessories that get in your way and serve no purpose other than decoration-- there's a reason you don't see housekeepers and waitresses wearing these things. These clothes say "I have money to spare, and it's not because I work at a menial job." Similarly, a fashionable body shape might say, "I can afford a gym membership and health food and I choose to limit my intake because maintaining my body shape is a high priority for me." When rail-thin models become unfashionable, it will simply be because the industry is tired of them and wants a new look, not because they've changed their philosophies. I'm not making any value judgments here, saying that fashion is good or bad; I'm simply stating what fashion is and always has been.

But here is where the change can, and perhaps is, happening. The article mentions "aspirational imagery," a marketing strategy that creates in the viewer a connection with a depicted look-- the consumer imagines an ideal situation created by a product they are seeing advertised. Some who commented on the Glamour article argued that the editors were inspiring women to be content with obesity or unhealthy lifestyles and encouraging them to be complacent about their bodies. But I think we, as a society, have confused "healthy" with "fashionable." Many standard models have unhealthy bodies, and these models, while "plus-size" by industry standards, are far from obese; they are actually sizes 10-14. Two of them, Crystal Renn and Kate Dillon, were previously "straight" (standard-size) models, and found success and happiness in their (now plus-size) work once they allowed their bodies to come to their natural sizes. Another, Amy Lemons, is quoted as saying, "every body has its own healthy weight--it's the one you get to by eating and exercising right, not by pushing yourself to the brink."

In my eyes, the big problem with fashion's underweight ideal body is the prevalence of aspirational images that are so far from what many healthy women look like. Almost every woman that is depicted as beautiful or stylish is also a waif, which makes women connect poise, attractiveness, and sex appeal with a very thin body. The wonderful thing about these images of normal-sized women is that they are stunningly beautiful, confident, and well-dressed. They create aspirational imagery that removes the stick-thin factor from the imaginary situation and allows female consumers to imagine themselves as stylish and attractive without having to lose ghastly amounts of weight. This is an important and healthy change, and one that I am confident that Glamour will continue (see their pledge at the end of the article).

Of course, there is still plenty of unattainability and fantasy in models. For one thing, there is still very little representation of models between sizes 4 and 10 and above size 14. Many-- most?-- of us have imperfections absent in the models we see, regardless of size-- a larger nose, stretch marks, ears that stick out, etc. That doesn't mean that we're bad and they're good-- but it does mean that we don't look like most models. That is where body image will always be a bit of a challenge, and where the importance of detaching value from the fashionable ideal is crucial in establishing our self-esteem and that of young women.

So, while I don't predict that Vogue will feature any substantial plus-size spreads in the near future, Glamour has taken an important step in relating to its target audience and helping women everywhere connect to beauty and style. Because, as Field says, "a generous helping of fantasy...is fabulous--as long as it's extended to women of all sizes."

What do you think? I am very curious to hear comments on this issue.

Read the original article here, as well as an interview with Crystal Renn here, and see a slideshow of the photo shoot here.

Photos of Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor, plus-sized by today's modeling industry standards. Photo of Monroe by J.R. Eyerman for Life, February 1946; photo of Taylor by Peter Stackpole for Life, February 1950.

Christian Louboutin Re-releases "Love" Shoes

2009-09-29T11:47:00.003-04:00

My friend and colleague Julie Ann Orsini, who co-curated the exhibit "Sole Desire: The Shoes of Christian Louboutin" with me a couple of years ago at FIT, just brought a very exciting piece of news to my attention: Louboutin has released new versions of the "Love" shoes for fall 2009!

One of our favorite pairs of Louboutins (featured in the exhibit), the love flats were designed in the 90s when Louboutin saw a picture of Princess Diana looking mournfully at her feet. He says that he thought she might smile if she were looking down at these shoes (the Net-A-Porter website says he "wanted her to always have love at her feet"). They were one of the pairs that helped launch his career (and they're even early enough to lack his now-signature red soles, which weren't introduced until later in the 1990s). They're dear, but my complaint with them has always been their rather dowdy and dated shape.

But... drumroll please... they have been revamped (pun intended) and are now for sale again! Net-a-porter carries patent-leather flats, lower-cut and rounder-toed than the originals and with gold lettering instead of beige (here). They also carry suede pumps in a beautiful, classic shape with the letters in rhinestones across the front (here). The CL stores carry black patent pumps with silver lettering, burgundy patent pumps with lilac lettering (ooh!), black flats with bone lettering, and black suede flats with red patent lettering. I have also seen them on Ebay as black pumps with red lettering. I am in LOVE with these (I know, I know)- they are timeless, classy, sweet, and feature an insider reference to his early days of designing.

Do you like them? Would you ever drop the cash? Have you seen them in person?
Which are your favorites? (I think mine are the rhinestone pumps or the black pumps with red lettering).
Photo by Walter Sanders for Life, n.d.

An Unusual Coat at Anderson House and Japanese Fashion at the Textile Museum

2009-09-23T18:32:00.009-04:00

This Friday at 12:30, I'm giving a free 20-minute "Lunch Bite" presentation at the Society of the Cincinnati Museum at Anderson House on Massachusetts Ave., where I recently completed an internship. I'm going to focus on an object in their collection, a coat belonging to an original member of the Society that dates from around the turn of the 19th century. It's very unusual in its materials and construction and has led me down an interesting path, on which I'll elaborate more in my talk. I'll also put the coat in context and talk a little bit about men's summer clothing around this time period.

There are some very interesting things happening at the Textile Museum, just around the corner from Anderson House on S street. I've interned there in the past as well, and I'm a huge fan of this museum. Their Textile Learning Center, on the second floor, has a lot of hands-on features that explore the basics of textiles. Currently on exhibit is a group of their recent acquisitions, and opening in October is an exhibit of contemporary Japanese fashion from the collection of Mary Baskett, focusing on seminal designers Issey Miyake, Rei Kawakubo (of Comme des Garçons) and Yohji Yamamoto. These three designers have been at the head of avant-garde fashion design for the past thirty years and continue to revolutionize the field.

This brings me to a very exciting event taking place from October 16 through 18: the Textile Museum's Fall symposium, titled "From Kimono to Couture: The Evolution of Japanese Fashion." I know I sound like a radio ad for the Museum's fall events calendar, but I think that this symposium is going to be a great commentary of research, analysis, and commentary from some very eminent scholars in the field. Harold Koda, the Curator in Charge at the Met's Costume Institute, is presenting, as well as Sharon Takeda, Senior Curato and Head of the Costume and Textile Department at LACMA (the LA County Museum of Art, which has an excellent collection and great online database). At the end of the Sunday session is a "show-and-tell" of Japanese textiles, where participants can bring in a textile from their collection, which I think is a nice idea to get those who aren't presenting to be involved in the program.

It is a rather expensive event- if you register before October 2nd, it's $220 for Museum members and $265 for non-members, and $180 for students. Being underemployed and no longer a student, I will probably have to live vicariously thorough my colleagues at the Museum, but I would highly recommend that you attend if you can! Complete information is available here.

First photograph by Al Fenn, 1952, Life. Second photograph by Michael Rougier, Life.

Report from NYC: "Fashion and Politics"

2009-09-08T12:58:00.004-04:00

The third exhibit we saw in New York a few weeks ago was also at the Museum at FIT- "Fashion and Politics." The museum maintains a permanent exhibition on the history of fashion in their museum gallery, whose contents and theme change about every six months. Previous rotations have focused on subjects such as garment construction ("The Tailor's Art"), color ("She's Like a Rainbow"), and exoticism ("Exoticism," appropriately). This choice of subject was obviously a timely one, and connects well to Michelle Obama's inaugural ensemble shown downstairs in the Isabel Toledo exhibit (although I didn't note any indications to the visitor connecting the two exhibits).

The museum's extensive collection boasts some relevant and interesting examples of political fashion, including an "I like Ike" dress, and RFK scarf designed by Oscar de la Renta, and--my favorite-- an anti-prohibition handkerchief that reads "More Beer Less Taxes."*

For each history gallery rotation, there are two narratives--one, the development of western fashion from the 18th century through the present day, and two, the rotation's particular focus. The problem with this rotation was that while fashion and politics have intersected for a long time, there are times when it is difficult to find garments or accessories that are overtly political. There were some obvious gaps in the show, especially in the 18th and 19th century sections as well as in parts of the 20th century. The curators dealt with this by incorporating pieces with associations to a particular social movement or group, such as the late-19th-century Aesthetic movement or the mid-20th-century middle class.

This was a bit iffy to me. The definition of "politics" can certainly be broad, but I felt it was stretched in some areas and not in others without a strong overarching cohesion to the whole show. The Aesthetic movement certainly had an impact on fashion and art, and was widely lampooned in the press, but its agenda was entirely nongovernmental, as far as I know. Similarly, while the middle class certainly became a formidable socio-cultural entity during the middle of the 20th century, the exhibit didn't clearly link it to particular political movements in a meaningful way.

So while this was an enjoyable, digestible exhibit, and the garments and accessories were nicely displayed, I felt that the Museum was pushing the show's thematic boundaries to fill holes between its strongest objects. Perhaps if the exhibit text had made mention of the broad definition of "politics" and more clearly connected certain pieces to the theme, the exhibit would have felt a bit stronger.

What do you think? Has anyone seen the exhibit? How would you deal with the issue of objects that connects to an exhibit's theme in a less-than-obvious way? What do you consider "political" fashion?

The exhibit is up through November 7th. For more information, look here.

All photographs by Nina Leen for Life, April 1952.
*I can excuse their grammar this time.

Report from NYC: "Isabel Toledo: Fashion from the Inside Out"

2009-08-24T20:18:00.003-04:00

While we were in NYC, my husband and I stopped in at my old stomping grounds, the Museum at FIT, to see two interesting exhibits. Today's post focuses on what was by far our favorite exhibit of the weekend: "Isabel Toledo: Fashion from the Inside Out."

While Isabel Toledo has recently come into the public eye because of the coat and dress set she designed for Michelle Obama to wear at this year's inauguration ceremony, her work has been exhibited at FIT for years, and her husband Ruben, a noted illustrator, designed the "spinning wheel of fashion" motif used in the Museum at FIT's permanent history gallery.

Specifics of the exhibit, as well as more details about Toledo herself, can be found at the online exhibition webpage here. What I'd like to focus on is why this was the consummate Good Fashion Exhibit, enjoyable both to me and to my "layman" husband.

The exhibit took place in the Museum's downstairs galleries, a large, square, versatile space with a sort of lobby area usually used for an introductory section. The lobby section featured Michelle Obama's inaugural ensemble as well as an opening didactic panel and a wraparound timeline of Toledo's work. The first didactic introduced Toledo and also gave an overview of the structure of the exhibit, telling the visitor what the thematic sections were and how they were arranged. This was one of my favorite elements of the exhibit's text, because it let the visitor know exactly what to expect and helped them orient themselves within the exhibit, so they would never be wondering whether they had missed a section or if they were progressing along the correct path.
Speaking of which, another aspect of the exhibit that I enjoyed was its layout: each corner of the large, square space past the lobby featured a thematic area focusing on one element of Toledo's design. They did not have to be viewed in order, so visitors entering from either side of the space would have an equally coherent experience. There was a central circular area that featured a variety of Toledo's works, arranged to loosely correspond with the thematic section they were facing. This allowed the visitor to easily transition from section to section and see how all of the themes tied together.

Within the sections, didactic text was informative but brief, accessible without being simplistic; my husband read it all and understood each section and its connection to the overall exhibit. In addition, the didactics made reference to specific garments being shown, connecting the thematic ideas to the pieces in concrete ways. Many of the object labels also had silhouettes of the flat patterns of the piece being displayed, allowing the visitor to get a sense of how Toledo sculpts with fabric and turns 2 dimensions into 3 in innovative ways. There were a few garments that were mounted flat in order to display their unique shapes when off the body. The exhibit also featured some of Ruben's illustrations of Isabel's pieces, which were a great complement to the garments.

My only-- and small--gripe was that the mannequins weren't absolutely my favorite- their faces were a little stylized and they had built-in wedge feet, which was a little odd- but frankly, they allowed plenty of attention to be given to the garments and acted as proper bodies underneath them, which is all you can really ask for from a mannequin!

My husband raved about the exhibit when we left, which says a lot considering he knew nothing about Toledo going in and we had already done one fashion exhibit that morning ("The Model as Muse").

This was an A++ exhibit! Kudos to Valerie Steele, Patricia Mears, and the staff at the Museum at FIT.

Has anyone else seen it? How did you feel about the exhibit? What elements are most important to you in a fashion exhibit?

"Isabel Toledo: Fashion from the Inside Out" is up at the Museum at FIT until September 26.

Photo by Master Sgt. Cecilio Ricardo, USAF, January 20, 2009.

Report from NYC: "The Model as Muse"

2009-08-10T20:36:00.003-04:00

I have been terribly delinquent in posting recently, since I've been so busy I've had to resort to Chef Boyardee at home (but that's another story). My hope is to now make up for it with some good posts!

This weekend I went up to New York City to see some great fashion exhibits. My brave and patient husband accompanied me, and was able to give me commentary from the viewpoint of a fashion and museum "layperson." The first exhibit we went to see was "The Model as Muse: Embodying Fashion" at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which closed on Sunday. I blogged about this a while ago in the context of the "sexy" exhibit (here) and I wasn't sure what to expect, thinking perhaps it might kowtow to popular celebrity supermodel obsession.

My fears were unfounded. I thought the exhibit was not only enjoyable and well-designed, but highly academic! I would identify the show's "big idea" as "models have played a vital role in the world of fashion since the 1950s, and that role has changed fundamentally in each decade." Each section of the exhibit examined approximately one decade, explaining the fashion milieu of that time period, exploring the role of the model (sometimes the different roles of different types of models, such as the house or "cabine" models and the magazine models) in that milieu, and highlighting a number of important models and their contributions to the history of fashion design and merchandising. Each room set the stage for the time period in design and mood, using music ("C'est Si Bon" for the 50s, "My Generation" for the 60s, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" for the 90s, etc.) and video clips, usually from fashion-centric movies.

This show faced a major challenge in that it used garments on anonymous, identical mannequins to convey ideas about very distinctive individuals whose appearance and particular way of wearing clothes had a lasting influence on designers, artists, media, and the public. The curators used fashion photography, magazine spreads, and videos to make sure that the models themselves were the exhibit's central focus, while the clothing on mannequins served to reinforce the design side of the equation. The first room re-created a magazine spread of Charles James dresses worn by famous models in a nineteenth-century-esque drawing room scene, putting James dresses from the Costume Institute collection on mannequins in poses similar to those of the original photograph, which was shown behind the mannequins. There was even a cameo appearance of some rococo furniture from the museum's collection as set pieces. Other rooms used a similar method, showing clothing famously worn by models and re-creating iconic scenes. A few conceptual garments really captured the interplay between model and designer: a spread of dresses by John Galliano for Dior that created the look of a Stockman dress form with an evening gown being built upon it, each named for one of Dior's famous cabine models, and two dresses at the very end of the show that were part of a collection by Marc Jacobs for Louis Vuitton, in which the models were masked and wore sheer lab-style coats over their garments, creating a sort of homogenous anonymity.

There were a few flaws with the exhibit. I wasn't crazy about the very stylized mannequins, nor the hair and makeup that had been applied- it worked okay in certain areas, but it was terribly distracting in others (the 1950s room, for instance). The sound clips could have been a little longer so you didn't hear them over and over again when you were going through each room. I wish the Dior dress at the very beginning, in the recreation of "Dovima with the Elephants," wasn't touching the raffia on the ground (mylar please!).

There were some things I really loved- the light fixtures that looked like photo shoot lights, the fact that most of the photos were given space to speak for themselves, the layout and trajectory of the exhibit.

And there was one thing that I both loved and really didn't like: the text. It was beautifully and profoundly written, academic but engaging, almost poetic at times. It really tied the curators' ideas together and provided the conceptual starting point for all the objects in the exhibit.

But there was a LOT of it. Even I, who almost religiously reads every word of didactic text, got tired of reading. My husband commented that while he enjoyed the exhibit, everything he learned from it came from my explanations, because he attempted to read the didactic panels but quickly fell into TLDR (too long, didn't read) mode. The text was crucial to a real understanding of the exhibit's narrative, and yet it was inaccessible to anyone who wasn't willing to put in the time and mental energy to follow.

So the target audience of the exhibit was people like me, which is legitimate- not every exhibit has to be made for multigenerational families, the general public, etc. The Met's visiting public, however, is a broad group composed of a whole lot of tourists and a whole lot of art enthusiasts, and any fashion exhibit is likely to have a big draw for those who don't necessarily have a background in the subject. I wonder if the exhibit might have been more educational if the text had been pared down, and those of us who wanted to delve deeper could have read more in a brochure (which they didn't have) or the catalog.

Overall, B++ exhibit. Enjoyable, educational, relevant to the field- but perhaps it could have been tweaked to be more accessible without compromising too much of its content.

Did any of you see the exhibit? What did you think? How do you feel about didactic text and the balance between depth and readability?

Magazine photo of Naomi Campbell by Brigitte Lacombe, Time Europe 9-18-1991.

Space-Age Fashion, 40 Years Later

2009-07-21T08:02:00.006-04:00

I have a particular fondness for space-age fashion after having written a paper on the Jetsons and space-age Fashion (which, incidentally, I'm presenting at the Mid-Atlantic Popular/American Culture Association in November). Appropriately enough, the Daily Beast's Fashion Beast site features a short article and a slideshow of s pace-age fashion around the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing.

So what, exactly, is space-age fashion, and when did it come about? Suzanne Baldaia gives an excellent definition in her essay "Space Age Fashion" in the book Twentieth-Century American Fashion, ed. Linda Welters and Patricia A. Cunningham (Oxford: Berg, 2005). Her list of “primary visual signifiers” of space-age fashion includes rockets, spaceships, spacesuits, space helmets, spaceboots, astronauts, planets, the moon, and black space with stars. Additional signifiers include the color white and shiny, metallic textures and details, especially in silver, aluminum and steel. These signifiers do not have to be present in order for a garment or accessory to be space-age, but they must be manifest in certain elements of the object, such as a streamlined silhouette, metallic elements, or oversized hardware.

The writer at the Fashion Beast, Renata Espinoza, points out these signifiers and mentions the most seminal designers of space-age fashion: André Courrèges, Pierre Cardin, and Paco Rabanne (who I think is less important than the previous two, although he did design costumes for Barbarella in 1968). Courrèges was known especially for his white "moon boots" and miniskirts, which he introduced in 1965. I think Cardin is the most revolutionary of the three, especially for his 1967 Cosmocorps collection (of which there are some images in the daily beast slideshow- see the children's versions in the picture). Rabanne designed mostly in a chain-mail style with linked pieces of metal, plastic, or other materials.

The current examples in the slideshow are interesting. There's an image of a Louis Vuitton ad, which, rather than being futuristic, evokes a time when we were only dreaming of space travel (although it seems rather backward to be retro when we're considering such a massive accomplishment). The later images in the slideshow show more neutral, minimalistic designs, which the author suggests might be more appropriate for our newest space ambition, Martian travel (she's assuming Mars is a bit like Tatooine, I think). I was skeptical at first, thinking that these outfits (save the YSL dress at the end) had none of Baldaia's signifiers, and were therefore not "space-age" at all. But perhaps "space-age" has a new meaning forty years later, and just as our space destinations evolve, so do our space signifiers. I'm just not a big fan of the schlumpiness of some of the outfits- perhaps a combination of minimalist, technological, and adventure-ready will become our new space-age (inspired by the author's Star Wars idea, I'm thinking something like this- indulge me).

What do you think? What are our new "space-age" signifiers? Will we return to the original styles as a retro kickback? Are we too focused on earthly issues right now to be space-age, or will we look to space as an escape? How do you feel about these fashions?

First image, Pierre Cardin "Cosmocorps" collection for children, photo by Pierre Boulat, Life, 1967.
Second image, André Courreges fashions, photo by Bill Ray, Life, 1968.

Smithsonian Conference Report Part II- Objects, Ideas, People

2009-07-14T08:05:00.005-04:00

Tuesday morning at the Smithsonian workshop I attended a few weeks ago began at the National Museum of American History, one of my all-time favorites. We met with an exhibition development team who had finished a 10% plan for a possible upcoming exhibit and shared their process with us. One of their tips for making a compelling exhibit is lesson number two from the workshop:

There are object people, idea people, and people people.

There are, of course, infinite ways to classify and categorize museum visitors. For the purposes of writing text, one usually focuses on three levels of interest: the person who literally walked in to come out of the cold and has no interest in your topic, the person who is curious and knows a little about your topic but is not formally educated in it, and scholars of the topic who have come to learn more (or to catch your errors). The "object/idea/people" people classification basically means that when visitors come to a museum, they are primarily motivated by one of three things: they want to see interesting artifacts ("the real thing"), they want to learn more about certain ideas and concepts, or they want to learn about and relate to interesting people. Of course most people like all three, but have one primary interest. I would classify myself as an "objects" person: I've got my nose an inch from the glass looking at every detail, I want to know who made it, who sold it, who used it, what mark each of them left on it, I want to know how it fits into the design and aesthetics of its time (or doesn't), etc.

So what does this mean for exhibit development? It helps us remember to maintain balance and connection between the three groups in order to hold the interest of a varied audience. An exhibit that is mainly about objects can keep idea and people people interested by incorporating the stories of the people who made or used them and the ideas behind why they were created or why they are now in a museum, for example. Ideas are perhaps the hardest of the three to exhibit and require some thinking out of the box; our speakers suggested using words in an interactive way, with touch-screens or other AV components that allow the user to manipulate text and connect ideas in a manual and visual way.

What kind of visitor are you? Do you have any good ideas for how to exhibit ideas? Have you been to an exhibit that addresses these three interests well (or doesn't)?

As a side note, the Museum at FIT has opened their exhibit on Fashion and Politics, which will certainly be worth seeing. I'm planning on going in early August to see it and the Model as Muse exhibit at the Met and I'll report back on my thoughts!

Image of the Star-Spangled Banner (before recent conservation), Life, photo by Ralph Crane.

Invitation to the Ball: Marjorie Merriweather Post's Fancy Dress Costumes at Hillwood

2009-07-08T08:13:00.004-04:00

The exhibit on Marjorie Merriweather Post's fancy dress costumes at Hillwood House and Gardens is closing this weekend. I highly recommend going to see it. I was fortunate enough to get a tour from the curator, Mr. Howard Kurtz. While the exhibit only contains five costumes (four of Mrs. Post's and one belonging to one of her husbands, E. F. Hutton), it is a rich and interesting show. The exhibit space is a little unorthodox- it's in the dacha, a small squarish building with freestanding curved walls on the interior- the exhibit flows along the outer walls and the outside of the curved walls, into the space enclosed by the curved walls, and finishes along the outside walls again. Kurtz has done an excellent job arranging the objects so that they are accessible and make narrative sense- there are costumes located in three of the corners and inside the curved walls, didactic panels along the outside walls, and ephemera throughout. For me, the ephemera really makes this exhibit, even though the costumes are the most visually exciting part- Mr. Kurtz has found objects, such as invitations, photographs, costume patterns, etc. that put the garments in context and help familiarize the concept of the fancy dress ball, something fairly far removed from us today. The visitor understands not only what a fancy dress ball was but how it was a part of the lavish escapism of the disillusioned 1920s. Mrs. Post herself helped create the narrative by keeping only four of her fancy dress costumes, each of which happens to fit into one of the four main categories of fancy dress (these may not be worded exactly the way Mr. Kurtz words them, but the gist is the same): Literary , Historical , Allegorical, and Folk/Ethnic.

Get to the show before it's gone! For more information, visit the Hillwood website.

"Mab's Fashions," showing fancy dress costumes, Life, 1924.

Smithsonian Conference Report Part I- Making Exhibits into Positive Social Experiences

2009-06-29T19:46:00.005-04:00

I spent last week at a workshop run by the Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibit Service and Smithsonian Affiliations called "Creating Museum Exhibitions." The workshop was attended by a group of museum professionals and students from Puerto Rico and some members of the Maryland Association of Museums, the Virginia Association of Museums, and Humanities Councils that participate in the Smithsonian's "Museum on Main Street" program. The workshop was exhausting- we went to two museums a day for lectures, tours, and discussions, had homework (evaluating certain exhibits), and were assigned a group exhibit design project, which we mostly worked on at lunch and at the end of the day.

The week was very well spent. While I'd learned a fair amount of exhibit planning in grad school, hearing fresh ideas and reexamining old ones was great. I think the best part about the week was getting to meet all the curators/designers/educators/exhibit planners/fabricators/collections managers/exhibit writers/etc. etc. that work at the various Smithsonian museums and have a window into their work. Everyone we met with was generous with information and advice and happy to help us take what we saw and put it into practice at our institutions.

The first exhibit we took a look at was the new permanent Commercial Aviation Hall on the ground floor of the Air and Space Museum. I actually went to this museum so many times when I was a kid that we had to put a moratorium on visits, since it was the only place my brother ever wanted to go. I hadn't been in many years and didn't remember the old aviation hall much- apparently it was pretty forgettable. This one is not. The thing that stood out to me the most about this particular exhibit was how engaging it was, which brings me to my first "lesson of the week:"

Exhibits should be positive social experiences.

The designer for this exhibit emphasized that people learn best when they're having a good social experience, so for an exhibit to be successful, it should foster interaction and be a good thing to attend with others. That's not to say there aren't great exhibits that can be appreciated alone in quietude, but especially for this kind of show, the opportunity for engagement with others is key. One of our instructors during the week put it this way: most people who attend exhibits (especially at the Smithsonian) aren't necessarily looking for a grand learning experience or an opportunity to ponder the world-- they're looking for a successful family outing. If no one fought, fussed, or got tired, bored, or overwhelmed, then the exhibit served its purpose for them. Again, the scenario is slightly different with a different target audience, but multigenerational families are the demographic to which many museums reach out, and perhaps the one on which they can make the greatest impact.

The Commercial Aviation Hall accomplishes this on a variety of levels. It has two screens on some of its interactive touch-screen activities, so others can watch while one person plays. It has a large mirror with a "checklist" of everything required to be a stewardess in the 1950s (and it's amazing how much visitors interact with mirrors!). It has a platform you can stand on to simulate flying in a 1930s airplane-- when you press a button, the platform shakes and rattles and makes noise. It's probably big enough for two kids, but there's also plenty of room around for people to watch.

Plus, the exhibit has all the other features I like in a good air and space show- a clear narrative, cool engines, stewardess costumes (although it would be awesome if they could get the American Indian Museum to make them some mannequins), ephemera, and they even address a controversial topic- segregation in airports and on airlines. We were discussing how the exhibit could also help visitors address their fears of flying. There's a personal section at the end about current air travel that features a number of suitcases you can open and close (and I was excited to hear that even the Smithsonian sometimes buys props from Goodwill!). And to keep it current, they have a "leading edge" section at the end which is updated with the latest aviation news.

Have you been? Did you have a positive social experience? How do you feel about exhibits as "successful family outings?"

I think it's a wonderful exhibit, made even better by my chance to see the educator, curator, and designer share their thought processes. I can't wait to take my family.

And as a treat, here's a link to the youtube video of the installation of the nose of a 747 into the gallery. It's lots of fun to watch.

Photo by Thomas D. McEvoy of the "Spirit of Saint Louis" undergoing conservation at the Smithsonian in 1948, Life.

Smithsonian Creating Museum Exhibitions Workshop

2009-06-25T17:51:00.003-04:00

Just a quick note to say that my post will be late this week, since I've been at a workshop offered by Smithsonian Affiliations and SITES on creating museum exhibitions. It has been wonderful and I can't wait to post on it-- but it is taking up absolutely all of my time! So in the meantime, get to the Smithsonian Folklife Festival if you can, and I'll blog soon on this week's experiences.

Dumbarton House Lecture and Dior Resort 2010

2009-06-18T08:23:00.004-04:00

Last night's lecture by Mary Doering at Dumbarton House was excellent and a wonderful accompaniment to the current exhibit there, Preparing for the Ball (see these previous posts). Mary discussed a number of interesting topics relating to the development of textile design and production, trade, women's and men's fashion, women's and men's everyday dress, and hygiene. I ended up feeling sad that it was only an hour long. I would have loved to hear her delve more into menswear and the shift from visual ostentation to luxury defined by quality of material and construction, which began in the eighteenth century and became a definitive change after the French Revolution. Mary did not focus solely on the United States, but explored the trade network that surrounded America and western Europe during this time (England, France, India, China, the Carribean as a port, etc.). Textile trading and manufacturing really drove global trade and technology in many ways: the British, for example, tried to create a cotton weaving and printing industry to rival India's, but struggled to make their dyes colorfast (a trick the Indians had mastered by understanding mordants, the metallic compounds added to many dyes that make them bond to their substrate textiles). Every garment and textile from this time period is a mystery to interpret, since they could have been woven in one place, printed in another, sewn in yet another, and then sold somewhere else.

On a different topic, I am very enamored of John Galliano's Resort 2010 collection for Dior. While I'm not crazy about the model's hair, the clothing is very reminiscent of traditional 1950s Dior daywear. It may not be the most avant-garde of collections, but I would love to wear pretty much everything in it. Some of the pieces could be interpreted as a little mature, but I think it's all downright classy.

What do you think? Do you like the collection or is it too stodgy for you? What fashion events are you planning on attending this summer?

A Revolution in Fashion: Clothing of the Federal Era Lecture at Dumbarton House

2009-06-17T09:30:00.002-04:00

Tonight from 7:00-8:30 I'm heading to Dumbarton House in Georgetown for a lecture by collector Mary Doering on Federal Era costume (see this post). I am looking forward to seeing what she talks about! I wonder if she's going to focus on America, since that is the region to which "Federal Period (approx. 1780-1820)" really applies-- it encompasses Directoire (1795-1799), Consulat (1799-1804) and Empire (1804-1814) in France. It was truly a "revolutionary" period in many ways, since the French revolution had a huge impact on fashion in the West-- Fashion had previously been closely associated with the French luxury industries, which were in turn closely associated with the aristocracy, which was not "in style" during or just after the revolution!
I will update after the lecture. Is anyone else attending tonight?

Vintage Clothing on the Internet

2009-06-11T07:28:00.004-04:00

Today I wanted to write on the many sources of historical clothing on the internet, as part guide and part commentary. As with all internet-sold products, prices and quality run the gamut, so it's good to know where to look. In addition, these sites can serve as good research sources, for valuation (of course) and simply as a guide to what's out there (i.e. how many Paquin bodices are for sale, does anyone else own a dress from Abraham and Straus at the turn of the 20th century, etc.).

A few guidelines for buying or researching historical/vintage clothing on the web:

- Except for certain websites (which I will note), take all dates with a grain of salt. Photos are your best source of information, but even they can be misleading. Compare sites to one another and do your own research before you decide what a piece is and how much it is worth.

-Prices can vary wildly, from a few dollars to thousands, and they don't always correlate with actual value. Bear in mind rarity, condition, design quality, and design recognition, as well as the market- certain types of pieces go in and out of vogue for collecting.

-There are different types of collectors (those who want to wear the clothes they buy, those who collect, including museums, and those who deal) and certain sites are geared toward each, which will affect pricing and stock.

-Check each site for a Museum or Archive section, where they list some of the best pieces they've sold. It's a good research resource.

There are innumerable "vintage clothing" sites on the web, so I will only list some significant highlights.

Ebay: Ebay can be a great source for all types of buyers. The best clothing is not usually on Ebay, although sometimes high-quailty live auctions will concurrently auction on Ebay. If you are aiming to wear the piece and are willing to make a final purchase (many sellers don't have return policies), this can be a great place to start as the prices are often significantly lower than elsewhere. Because sellers are not always specialists and pictures are not always complete or clear, be sure to do your own research and be willing to deal with a few surprises. Caveat emptor: here, and at other generic vintage dealers, you will have to put up with labels like "ROCKABILLY/mod/wiggle dress/HARLOW era/Lucille Ball/MUST SEE!!!!111," which drive me crazy.

Generic vintage dealers: If you type in "vintage clothing" to Google, a huge variety of sites come up. Some of these have high-end pieces, but most of them are average quality (which is what most people look for when shopping vintage). The prices tend to be higher than Ebay's, sometimes significantly. Frankly, if you're just looking for some fun vintage pieces to wear, I suggest you go to a nearby vintage store or buy cheap on Ebay rather than shop at these sites. The irregularity of sizes makes trying on pieces a necessity if you're going to drop some cash on them.

TheFrock.com: This website is for very serious collectors or for research (most of the pieces are over $1000). It features very high-quality garments, many by designers, with good pictures. The interface is a little bit clunky and searching for the work of a specific designer is hard, but it's easy to spend hours looking at pieces. There's also a celebrity wardrobe section for collectors of that genre.

www.Antique-Fashion.com/Karen Augusta: For the purposes of full disclosure, the owner and operator of this site is a friend of mine and I have worked for her auction company in the past. Ms. Augusta's website isn't currently carrying a large amount of pieces, but what she has is excellent. She is extremely knowledgeable and her dates and descriptions can always be trusted. For a bigger selection, take a look at the "Auctions" section of her website- Augusta Auctions hosts fashion auctions about twice a year where one can buy a variety of clothing at textiles at a wide range of prices.

Vintage Textile: While I'm not nuts for their mannequins, Vintage Textile sells a variety of rare garments in good condition (museums have been known to purchase from them). Most of the dates are reliable, although not as solid as at Antique-Fashion. Most pieces are very expensive unless you look in the "treasure hunt" section.

Cora Ginsburg: The crème de la crème. This doesn't count as true internet historical clothing, since you can't buy from them over the internet. Owned by the widely respected expert Titi Halle, the Cora Ginsburg showroom in NYC is open by appointment for serious collectors and frequently sells to museums. The website has some beautiful costumes and textiles that are very useful for research and browsing, and the dates and descriptions are always accurate.

Happy hunting!

Marymount Portfolio in Motion/Peter Som on Teen Vogue website

2009-06-06T18:10:00.002-04:00

Marymount University's Portfolio in Motion fashion show, which I blogged about here, was recently featured on Teen Vogue's website. The picture includes some of my students along with Peter Som. Enjoy!

Upcoming events at Dumbarton House and Hillwood Museum

2009-06-05T18:19:00.003-04:00

The Dupont-Kalorama Museum Consortium, a group of 10 museums in the Dupont Circle/Kalorama area of Washington, D.C. (near Embassy Row- easily accessibly by Metro from the Dupont Circle stop) is hosting a Dupont-Kalorama Museum Walk weekend tomorrow, June 6, from 10-4 and Sunday the 7th from 1-5. The walk features free admission to all 10 museums and a variety of special activities, including one that I would have loved as a child and would be going to if I were in town this weekend. It's Dumbarton House's Costume Family Days, with kid-friendly costume-themed activities including turban-making and block-printing, a fiber artist on Saturday, and a visit from "Dolley Madison" on Sunday, as well as access to "Preparing for the Ball," the excellent costume-focused exhibition which I wrote about here.

Later this month, on Wednesday, June 17, collector and scholar Mary Doering (who lent a number of objects for "Preparing for the Ball") will be giving a lecture titled "A Revolution in Fashion: Clothing of the Federal Era" at Dumbarton House for $8 ($5 for students). The DH website gives quotes of "historical context" for her lecture on menswear and womenswear. The quote pertaining to menswear reads:
The nineteenth-century preference for wool…over elaborately embroidered or decorative silks conveyed a growing professional sobriety appropriate for commercial centers such as Georgetown and the developing Federal City of Washington. These dark wool suits were the precursors of the standard male business attire worn today….

This is a topic near to my heart, since I wrote my thesis on George Washington's attire and contrasted his sartorial choices to those of his European contemporaries (as well as the impact of import and manufacturing on fabric availability in early America, the growing informality of English clothing throughout the 18th century, the differences between Washington's everyday and portrait dress, his clothing and accessory choices as President and as former president, etc. etc. etc.). I will be very interested in hearing what she has to say!

Finally, on June 24th at lunchtime (12:30-1:15), curator of costumes and textiles Howard Kurtz will give a curatorial talk at Hillwood Museum on Marjorie Merriweather Post's dresses from the 1920s that will be on display at the house. Kurtz is also Associate Professor of Theater at George Mason University and Production Manager for the GMU Players Mainstage Season, as well as the costume designer for Olney theatre in Olney, Maryland.

Are any of you attending these events? Let me know and I will see you there!

Photograph of Marjorie Merriweather Post at Hillwood in 1965 by Alfred Eisenstaedt, Life Magazine.

"The Model as Muse" and the Challenges of a "Sexy" Exhibition

2009-05-28T09:46:00.005-04:00

I'm dying to get up to New York to see a few exhibits, chiefly the Met's Costume Institute exhibit "The Model as Muse." "Model as Muse" was also the theme for the Costume Institute Gala, an enormous celebrity-studded fundraiser that happens every year (this one was headlined by Kate Moss and Marc Jacobs). The topic is very thought-provoking and one that should make for a good exhibition, incorporating photography, art, and fashion design. It also happens to be a "sexy" topic that appeals to our celebrity-crazed popular culture, where supermodels are just as well-known as the fashion designers whose work they wear.

Exhibitions on "sexy" topics present their own set of challenges. While museums frequently struggle for funding and visitors, exhibits on topics relating to pop culture and current fashion often attract big-ticket sponsors and hordes of museumgoers outside the usual demographic. This not only boosts the museum's bottom line, it has the potential to expose visitors who have come to see a single exhibit to the museum's permanent collection, advancing the institution's mission and setting the stage for repeat visits-- all a dream come true for any museum director.

But it gets more complicated than that. Fashion exhibits almost always run the risk of over-emphasizing display, becoming more like retail windows than museum galleries. In any exhibit, the objects must speak for themselves and have appropriate visual context and arrangement, and the best fashion exhibitons remind the viewers that there are more layers to fashion than simply the merchandising and consumption stages.

Secondly, while I am all for the incorporation of multimedia elements (especially interactive ones) into museum exhibits, I hate to attend shows that make me feel like I've just walked into an Abercrombie and Fitch store, with music blaring and videos flashing at me from every side. Multimedia elements should complement and reinforce the exhibit's narrative, not distract from it. This applies, of course, to all exhibits, but it can be particularly enticing for designers of "sexy" exhibits to incorporate multimedia and sound elements more than usual.

There is also the issue of strings attached to exhibit funding, although this is more of a problem with monographic shows being underwritten by living designers or current fashion houses. Conflicts of interest between designer PR and a museum's ethical obligation to be neutral--I think museum text is a type of journalism--can become an issue when the museum is relying on the design house for the resources to create the show. Even if there is no money attached, it never benefits a museum to displease a designer or design house, so negative or critical commentary must always be tempered with a certain level of deference (in some ways, dead artists and defunct houses are far simpler to work with!).

Finally, the curators and exhibit designers must remember the mission of their institution, which, for the Met, is "to collect, preserve, study, exhibit, and stimulate appreciation for and advance knowledge of works of art that collectively represent the broadest spectrum of human achievement at the highest level of quality, all in the service of the public and in accordance with the highest professional standards." That means that exhibits of current fashion can (and should!) be exciting, stimulating, attractive, and "sexy" while also being in-depth, contextualized, well-researched, unbiased, and relevant, reminding the viewer that the pieces exhibited are works of art of "the highest level of quality."

I am excited to see what the Met has done with such a loaded topic, and how they've handled all these challenges! Take a look at the exhibit's website, including a video overview of the gallery (I love the opening vista, a recreation of Richard Avedon's famous photo for Dior, "Dovima with Elephants").

Photo of model Catherine Deneuve by Loomis Dean for Life, 1961.

Chanel's Resort 2010 Collection

2009-05-19T16:38:00.012-04:00

Chanel presented their 2010 Cruise/Resort collection on May 14th in Venice, once a favorite beachside haunt of Coco's. Resort collections, now frequently called Cruise collections, fall between Fall/Winter and Spring/Summer seasons and were traditionally aimed at the socialites headed off to spend their winters at a sunny and chic resort town. Lagerfeld's Chanel show was quite an event, taking place on the sand with a boardwalk for a runway. The pieces are a creative blend of traditional Venetian motifs (the cocked hat, the lorgnette sunglasses referencing carnival masks), 30s café society (the wigs, for one thing), and classic Chanel (striped sweaters, simple and elegant evening dresses, etc.). Since Chanel really made a name for herself in the French resort town of Deauville by adapting seaside sportswear for an upscale clientele, this collection (like Lagerfeld's Spring/Summer 09 Couture collection) harkens back to Coco's original visions.

This dress (and its accompanying hat) nod strongly to the nineteen-teens, when Chanel had her first commercial successes, as a milliner as well as a designer.
Here, a 20s-style dress (see one of Coco's originals at the Met here).
This men's look is very 30s Palm Beach with a few Edwardian touches thrown in- the high collar, the hair parted at the side, the close fit of the jacket.

There are many more interesting looks in the collection. What do you think? Are they wearable? Appropriate? True to Chanel? Or is a Cruise collection irrelevant right now?

Speaking of resorts, I'm off to the beach (although it's not a fancy one). More next week!

Marymount's Portfolio in Motion and Peter Som

2009-05-14T11:27:00.010-04:00

Friday, April 24th was Marymount University's annual Portfolio in Motion fashion show, featuring designs by students in the Fashion Design B.A. program (including the "senior lines" of three garments by each of the graduating design majors). The show was staffed and coordinated by students in the Fashion Merchandizing B.A. and the garments were modeled by Marymount students, so it was a great opportunity for students all around. As faculty, I was able to attend the Friday afternoon reception, luncheon, and fashion show and meet this year's featured designer, Peter Som. Every year, an eminent fashion designer comes to Portfolio in Motion, watches the show, says a few words, and then sits with the graduating designers and gives them individual feedback on their portfolios. Past designers have included Michael Kors, Cynthia Rowley, Carolina Hererra, and Pauline Trigere, to name a few (there is a complete list and more information on PIM here).

Peter Som is a young designer and graduate of Parsons who began his career at Bill Blass before starting his own label in 2001. While Som's bio describes his style as one of "unstudied elegance and refined sensuality," I prefer Style.com's description of his Fall 2009 collection: "upbeat... ladylike without being stiff, and full of optimistic color and tactile interest." Som aims to create ladylike but unfussy clothes and enjoys mixing prints and patterns; in his own words, he explores "the clash of delicate/feminine with bold and graphic."

I particularly like this dress, this coat and this outfit from the Fall 2009 collection, which was apparently shown by appointment since he is no longer working with his financial backer (according to Style.com). The design quality is there for sure, so hopefully it won't have too negative an impact on business.

Peter himself was a delight- professional, kind, humorous, and relaxed. He took his time with each student's portfolio, dispensing helpful comments, gentle criticisms, and encouraging praise and really helping them create the strongest possible portfolio for interviewing. I learned a great amount from listening to him and I am very grateful for how helpful and considerate he was with each student!

The entire Portfolio in Motion event was exquisite: the catwalk design, music, modeling, and (of course) the clothing were all great. It's not meant to be a carbon-copy of an industry show, and while I can't say I've ever been to one of those, I think I'd prefer this kind for sure- it was upbeat, with sharply choreographed modeling by women of a variety of shapes and sizes who were really owning the garments they wore. I think it really highlighted all of the students that worked on putting the show together.

The theme of this year's show was "Enchanted Garden" (which, coincidentally, is an idea that meshes well with Som's aesthetic).

Here are some highlights:

The last shot is of some faculty and students with Som as he reviews a student's portfolio. I'm fourth to the right of Som, in the green suit (sticking out my purple shoes next to my purse under the table).

Coco Avant Chanel

2009-05-08T12:58:00.005-04:00

April 22 marked the French release of the film Coco Avant Chanel, a Warner Bros./Sony Pictures movie about Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel's early years. Chanel is played by Audrey Tatou, of Amelie and Da Vinci Code fame. The screenplay is based on Edmonde Charles-Roux's biography of Chanel titled "l'Irreguliere" (The Non-Conformist), considered to be the authoritative work on the "true" Chanel story (Mademoiselle Coco loved to cultivate flowery stories about her life, and the house of Chanel sometimes maintains intrigue about certain uncertainties surrounding elements of her designs). It will be interesting to see a movie-industry take on the story (a good, if not entirely complete, synopsis of which can be found on Wikipedia here); there may be an interesting dialogue between the almost-inevitable additions and embellishments added to make the movie interesting and the fictitious claims made by Chanel in her lifetime.

Apparently Karl Lagerfeld, who is the current designer for Chanel, is overseeing (but not creating) the costume designs. I think he does a wonderful job of reinterpreting Mademoiselle Coco's design ideology for the 21st century, so his understanding of her work will be an asset, I'm sure.

I'm not sure yet where the movie ends; I wonder if the film will touch on the break in her design history. She shacked up with a Nazi during World War II (which damaged her PR in France...) and reopened her house in 1954, gaining widespread success- especially in the United States-in the early 1960s.

Younger fashionistas and the public, who tend to associate Chanel with Lagerfeld's designs, the Chanel suit, and the quilted bag, will hopefully be educated on the more complex and nontraditional elements of Chanel's design credo- sportswear, the appropriation of "lower-class" materials in haute couture, impeccable tailoring skills, and the stripping away of excess adornment, to name a few. These are the things that I really love about Chanel, much more than two-tone shoes and tweed cardigan jackets. Also, every Chanel design incorporates some element that is personally important to her-- the black and white, the camellia, etc.-- all of which are more significant after learning about her history.

If you're interested in more reading, Cecil Beaton's diary includes notes on his lunch dates with Mademoiselle Coco, at that point a relatively elderly woman. Talk about a fiesty old lady- she seems to have been quite the piece of work (which is no surprise).

I have yet to figure out where the film is showing in the states, since it's in French and seems to be appearing only in select theatres. If anyone finds it, let me know!

Here are a few links:
The NY Times review
The trailer (in French)
S ome stills from the movie, courtesy of Fashionologie. Looks great!

Undated photo of Gabrielle Chanel, c.1920, from the Life Photo Archive.

Marymount Portfolio in Motion and Peter Som

2009-05-07T20:04:00.003-04:00

I can't wait to blog about Marymount's 2009 Portfolio in Motion fashion show and its guest designer, Peter Som- but I would like to do so with lots of juicy pictures, which I don't have yet! So watch in the next few days for some great shots of the students' work and some comments on one of my new favorite designers (Som, of course).

Garments and Textiles from the Federal Period at Dumbarton House

2009-04-29T09:02:00.004-04:00

Before I write about yesterday's Dumbarton House tour, I want to cover Linda Eaton's excellent presentation on the textile trade and the federal period from last Thursday. Gleaning the most interesting tidbits from my copious notes was difficult, since everything she spoke about was fascinating to me (I did, after all, write my thesis on George Washington's attire...), but here are some of the most insightful bits:

-the textile industry comprises both agriculture and manufacturing, since it includes both the farming process (cotton, linen, wool) and the weaving/finishing/printing processes . It therefore serves a unique place in the development of a fledgling nation like the United States during the federal period.

-Because textiles were frequently woven, finished, and worn in different places, tracing the origins of a garment or textile can be particularly tricky. Even the subject matter of a textile's imagery can be deceiving-- textiles with motifs of American Independence were printed for the French market in the mid-1780s!
- City directories can be a useful source of research information. Eaton used the New York City directory, which identifies trades, to find 8 calico printers in the city in 1811.

Eaton spoke about dyestuffs, printing methods, types of textiles, and a number of other fascinating and specialized topics that I won't recount here- but needless to say, it left me with many ideas for research and a deeper appreciation for Federal Period garments and textiles that leads me to the next topic- last night's tour!

Yesterday evening, I attended a Curator's Tour of the exhibit "Preparing for the Ball: Costume of the Early Nation" at Dumbarton House, led by curators Scott Scholz and Mary Doering. Mr. Scholz is the curator at Dumbarton House, and Ms. Doering is a celebrated costume collector whose pieces comprise the majority of the exhibition. It was a delight for a number of reasons. First, Dumbarton House is a beautiful building with nicely appointed period rooms (Scholz told us that they are aiming to phase the rooms into an approximation of their appearance at the time of residence of the house's first owner, Joseph Nourse). Second, the combination of insights from Scholz, who focused on objects in the House's collection, and Doering, who focused on attire and textiles from her collection, was very enlightening. Finally, our small tour, made up mostly of costume enthusiasts, was treated to the additional expertise of two costume curators/conservators from the Smithsonian Instititute who had come to see Doering and join the tour and generously shared their knowledge with us.

My only gripe was that we didn't have enough time! There were a number of objects of interest in the house both within the exhibition and as part of the period rooms, but because we were running behind I didn't have enough time to take a good look at them all. Many of the costumes from Doering's collection had been purchased from Cora Ginsburg, the premier garment and textile dealer in the United States (now Cora Ginsburg LLC, run by Titi Halle). A quick aside- an associate at Cora Ginsburg, Leigh Wishner, sometimes guest lectures in the FIT Fashion and Textile Studies program and lent us a pair of her Louboutins for our exhibit!

My favorite pieces from the exhibit were a blue damask man's banyan (dressing gown), a green wool morning dress from about 1800-1815 (I need another look to tell more specifically!), and a white silk evening gown in Dumbarton House's collection. There are also a number of fashion plates from the federal period, many from Ackermann's Repository of Fashion (LACMA has a number of these as well).

Photo of Dumbarton House by dbking on Wikimedia Commons, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0.

Curator's Tour at Dumbarton House

2009-04-28T10:07:00.002-04:00

Last Thursday night, I had the pleasure of attending the Curator's Choice Lecture at Dumbarton House in Georgetown. The presenter was Linda Eaton, curator of textiles for Winterthur Museum and Gardens, and she spoke about the textile trade and the federal period. It was an engaging and fascinating lecture and I will write all about it in conjunction with a post on another Dumbarton House event that I am planning to attend tonight, the "Dumbarton at Dusk" Curator's Tour led by Scott Scholz and Mary Doering. I will be at the 6 o'clock- there's one at 7 as well.
Look for a new post on both of these events in the next day or so!

Hats, Milliners, and New Orleans (plus Aretha Franklin, Paris Hilton, and SJP)

2009-04-23T16:27:00.013-04:00

Hats have been out of fashion since the late 1960s, when all of the traditional rules of couture and propriety were thrown out the proverbial window and replaced with a combination of anti-fashion and ready-to-wear that wasn't interested in following anyone's established dictates. Toppers have survived in some African-American churches and in Britain to some extent, but--even as creative accessories at the racetrack-- they are essentially worn as nods to the fashion rules of the earlier part of the century.Aretha Franklin's inaugural hat and thes e fanciful numbers worn by Paris Hilton and Sarah Jessica Parker are examples of hats making their way into the fashion scene this year, but I'm not expecting them to pick up any time soon. We're still too focused on bags and shoes as our accessories du jour, and they're easier to pull off with our current (very casual) hairstyles.

Millinery is, therefore, an all-but-lost art, which makes it exciting to find the rare example of a skilled milliner who designs and produces her own hats and maintains her own shop as well! New Orleans' French Quarter boasts Fleur de Paris, a custom millinery shop that also does couture and ready-to-wear (although the shop is mainly hats). I had a chance to chat a bit with milliner Kimberly Benn about her pieces, which she makes in a variety of materials (felt, straw, etc.), blocks to size, and embellishes, either to the customer's taste or to be purchased off the rack. Hats are worn for Mardi Gras balls, high school Homecoming courts, and other formal events in New Orleans, so she has more of a clientèle than she might in a location like Washington. Here are a few of her pieces that I particularly like:
White Rider with Black and White Trim
Brown 5-inch with Brown and White Trim (beautiful on)
Orange, Rust, and Gold Cocktail Hat
There are many more on the site, which I encourage you to explore. Wish I could have gotten one!

While I think this kind of millinery is classic and beautiful, and I wish more people were brave (and wealthy) enough to wear it, it's not fashionable. Her designs don't change much, not because of a lack of creativity, but because they're not dependent on fast-moving, broad-reaching changes in fashion trends. When hats were in fashion, designers created new pieces every season and styles in millinery changed as quickly as- or more quickly than- looks in clothing (much like shoes and handbags today).

What do you think- will hats ever become fashionable again? When and where will we wear them? Do their appearances on celebrities mark a change in accessory focus or merely a creative vintage look?

Tune in soon for news on the Marymount University Portfolio in Motion Show with guest designer Peter Som (starting tomorrow)!

Images of hats and sign from front window display of Fleur de Paris, taken with permission by Whitney Robertson. Ad for Stewart and Co. Paris Millinery from the New York Times, 1924.

All photographs by W. Robertson licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Interview at "The Curated Object"

2009-04-21T09:58:00.006-04:00

I recently had the privilege of being interviewed for Joanne Molina's excellent blog, "The Curated Object: Decorative Arts Exhibitions and Curiosities." Joanne asked me some really thought-provoking questions about costume history, exhibitions, and fashion. Here is the interview. Check out the rest of her blog, too!

I will post on my trip to New Orleans, especially my visit to a fine milliner's shop, later this week.

Fashion and the Recession

2009-04-16T16:24:00.004-04:00

I've been trying to predict a bit how the recession and fashion will interact, and have been thinking that two factors would prevail- austerity (with luxury still there, just quietly, in the details) and escapism/fantasy. Style.com has a feature called "The Cool and the Crazy," looking at how runway trends for Fall 09 have seemed to go in one of those two directions: "[Designers] either strip things down to the essentials and concentrate on core values, or they throw caution to the wind and go deliriously wild."

Fun to look at, but a little disappointing. Frankly, none of the design choices are particularly surprising considering the designers who made them- more traditional designers for the "Trad" features, and bolder ones for the "Rad" pieces. Also, watch out for a particularly snotty comment about "Rad" model Lara Stone. I have a difficult time taking catty journalism seriously. Ick.

Have you noticed these trends surfacing in fashion? Do you see other relationships between fashion and the recession?

This weekend I'm going to visit some wonderful shops and a fabulous milliner in the French Quarter. I'll report back next week!

Louboutin- Fetish and a New Website

2009-04-09T11:02:00.007-04:00

David Lynch and Christian Louboutin took their Fetish shoe and photography exhibit to the Garage Center for Contemporary Culture in Moscow, and were both present for the recent opening party. The exhibit first took place in 2007 at the Galerie du Passage in Paris. We exhibited one of the fetish shoes created for the exhibit, a black ballet shoe with a heel so high that the toe of the shoe rests on the ground, in the Louboutin exhibit at FIT in March of 2008 (co-curated by yours truly and the wonderful Julie Ann Orsini). I find it interesting that the women in the Style.com slideshow of the Moscow opening are wearing relatively tame Louboutins- I would think you'd go all out for the Fetish party instead of wearing the Decolleté or Simple Pump, which are pretty basic as far as Loub shoes go.

Take a look at Louboutin's relatively new website. It's sort of Alice in Wonderland meets Baz Luhrmann- very quirky. Very him. There is plenty of great information on Louboutin himself in the "Louboutin World" section, but my favorite part is, of course, the collection. The "total madness" page has the shoes in little glass cases with butterflies, which is very much in accordance with his approach to the shoes; he has said that he likes to display them like little lovebirds in a pair.

As for the shoes themselves, my favorites are:
Under High Heels, the Escatin in cherry patent with gold trim- very fun, flattering, creative shape
Under Extremely High, the Jefferson Plato in Navy lizard- it's a peep-toe slingback boat shoe in lizard! I like the navy because the color scheme is preppy and traditional but there's so much funk to the whole look, and the navy and white look great with the red soles.
Under Flats, the Adona Lim Flat in any of the colors, especially the Python. I'm not usually crazy for his flats since he's so known for the red sole, which you can see better in the heels, but these are very attractive, eye-catching and wearable.
Under Total Madness, I love the Marie Antoinette shoe, which even has an eighteenth-century hairstyle complete with sailboat on the ankle strap!
Finally, under Total Madness, there is a fetish shoe from the David Lynch exhibit that is for sale- a burgundy patent pump with a 14cm heel. Not the craziest of the fetish shoes but probably the only one that is marketable.

What do you think? Which shoes are your favorites? Do you enjoy the new website?

Photo for Life Magazine by Nina Leen, April 1948. Louboutin would love these shoes, since he knows all about using toe cleavage to be provocative.

Muriel King, Dumbarton House, and Marjorie Merriweather Post

2009-04-02T10:48:00.010-04:00

Today's your last day to go see the Muriel King exhibit in NYC! If you can't make it (like me, unfortunately), explore the online exhibit.

Also, there are some great exhibits going on in the DC area that I will be trying to get to soon and blog about! The first is at Dumbarton House in Georgetown and it is called "Preparing for the Ball: Costume of the Early Nation." The exhibition features the collection of Mary Doering and is co-curated by Doering and Scott Scholtz. It runs until July 4, and there are two exciting special events that accompany it: First, curator's tours at 6 and 7 on April 28th ($5 or free for students with IDs- kudos to them for offering a student discount!). Second, there is a Curator's Choice Evening Lecture on Thursday, April 23 at 7:30 for $10 ($5 for students with ID) featuring Linda Eaton, Curator of Textiles for Winterthur Museum and Gardens. I plan on attending both, so if you're going, send me a comment and we can say hi!

The second exhibit is at Hillwood Estate, Museum, and Gardens (tagline: Where Fabulous Lives- I love it!) in NW Washington. It is called "An Invitation to the Ball: Marjorie Post's Fancy Dress Costumes of the 1920s" and will be up until July 12 (suggested donation $12, full-time college students $7). There is also a lecture by Caroline Weber, author of Queen of Fashion, on "the social aspects of costuming, especially those employed by Mrs. Post. Ms. Weber will speak about the social history of 1920s costumes and the ways that fashion has been used as a tool to assert legitimacy and power over time." The lecture is $15 for the public and $7 for students. Sounds great! Again, I plan on attending.
Finally, keep your eyes open for what Michelle Obama is wearing in Britain. I wasn't nuts about her Isabel Toledo outfit worn to see the queen- a little boring- but I loved her chartreuse Jason Wu coat and her J.Crew outfit with the celery-green skirt. I think celery is going to be a big color this summer.

Image of dancing dress, Europe, 1909, from Wikimedia Commons.

Coach and Bonnie Cashin

2009-03-27T11:43:00.006-04:00

Coach has just introduced a new line based on the designs of Bonnie Cashin, one of America's preeminent 20th-century sportswear designers. Cashin designed for Coach starting in 1962 and was known for incorporating hardware into her designs (including the characteristic Coach turnlock) and using bright candy colors. Her designs were functional and fashionable at once, and like Claire McCardell, she made garments and accessories that were stylish and comfortable.

I LOVE this collection. It has a lot of the creative and useful aspects of Cashin's designs as well as some of her sketches. They often use her candy colors but also come in neutrals that might be a bit more versatile for everyday use. Here are some great pieces- it all links to the same page, unfortunately, but the items I name are some of my favorites. I love the really pricey ones too, but didn't list them because they are so expensive. Sorry I can't use the photos!

Applique-top handle pouch , Bonnie Leather Satchel , Bonnie Straw Large Zip Satchel (possibly my favorite!), Leather Olive , Bonnie Mini Crossbody (the one I come closest to being able to afford...) Bonnie Foldover Crossbody (another fave- check out "more views").

I think they're true to Bonnie- fun, fashionable, and functional . Wish they weren't so pricey!

A Few Fun Things

2009-03-27T08:29:00.003-04:00

Just a few nice things I found: First, these really great gloves by Jacques Fath from 1949. Also, on the front page of style.com, there's a picture of a Stella McCartney jacket and a note that says "Beth Ditto has dibs." A good example of how she's serving as a fashion example. The jacket is fun- punky and metallic.

Enjoy!

Photo by Herbert Gehr, Life Magazine, 1949.

2009-03-19T21:36:00.008-04:00

Givhan cites an Alexander McQueen retrospective in her essay, mentioning his design talent and tailoring skills as well as many of the "misogynistic" elements of his designs. She writes, "There were many things recycled on his runway Tuesday night that one hoped never to see again: metal neck braces, metal "yashmak" or head coverings, hobbling skirts and ankle-breaking platform shoes. One doesn't have to be a graduate of a women's studies program to find these things disturbing." True. But you don't see Obama or Ditto wearing Alexander McQueen! He appeals to a different type of style icon, a punkier one who cares less about comfort and women's rights. So different types of fashions drive, and are driven by, different types of icons.

Later, Givhan writes, "But one can't put the full burden for this kind of fashion on designers. They create it because women respond. Women will do a lot of things to themselves in the name of fashion, including giving up their power, dignity and comfort." Fashion doesn't care about power, dignity and comfort, unless those things are "in vogue." The exciting thing about Obama and Ditto is that they are taking fashion and imbuing it with their power and dignity (and perhaps comfort), making those things more fashionable. That is a positive direction after many years of style icons like Paris Hilton whose priorities are pretty much antithetical to those of these women.

One last thing about the article- Givhan doesn't write about how fashion depends on money. The everyday woman is not targeted by the fashion industry not only because fashion isn't "everyday," but because the everyday woman can't afford to partake in fashion. While many women of modest means participate in fashion through creativity and personal style, the fashion industry is driven forward by designers, and designers produce expensive clothes. You don't have to be attractive to buy haute couture or high-end ready-to-wear, you simply have to have the disposable income to spend on designer clothing. Obama and Ditto do; I, for one, do not.

The beauty of it all is that fashion trickles both up and down, from icon to designer and designer to icon, from industry to the street and from the street to industry. So while I am excited at the prospect of women's power and confidence coming into fashion through icons like Obama and Ditto, and I hope to see designers that celebrate and flatter the female form gaining prominence, I don't think that fashion is ever going to be for "the anonymous face in the crowd," as Givhan writes. That is simply not what fashion is.

This anonymous face is going to continue to participate in fashion to the extent that she can, and wants to- seeking to inspire and to be inspired.

Photo of Michon Schur fashion show in 2007 by Peter Duhon, NYC.

It Girls, the Fashion Industry, and Powerful Women

2009-03-19T19:46:00.012-04:00

The Washington Post featured a thought-provoking article by Robin Givhan, called "Fashion Loves an It Girl, but Still Doesn't Get It." The premise of the article is that while recently, the fashion industry has embraced a broad range of nontraditional style icons (Michelle Obama, singer Beth Ditto), it still refuses to produce wearable clothing for the average woman.

She mentions that today's fashion "it girls" are symbols of "power and fearlessness," women who are unafraid to show their strong personalities to the public and the media. Because Obama is 45 and African-American and Ditto is a plus-size lesbian, Givhan writes that by choosing them as icons, "The fashion industry surprised the naysayers who did not believe it had the capacity -- even when it would be to the industry's financial benefit -- to look beyond its often narrow definition of style, beauty and glamour."

One issue with this statement is that fashion doesn't one-sidedly choose its icons. To be a fashion icon, you have to be invested in fashion to begin with. Obama and Ditto would not be "it girls" if they wore Coldwater Creek (not to bash it, but not the height of fashion)- they have both consciously chosen to invest in up-and-coming designers and take risks in their attire. The fashion industry has returned the favor because they see powerful, nontraditional women who are bringing design to the public eye. While fashion icons are often women with the ideal body type of their time (and this is where Ditto and Obama are nontraditional), those that have really driven fashion throughout history are the ones at the forefront, patronizing designers that make new and fearless choices.

Givhan goes on to write. "...even as the fashion industry honors individual self-awareness and chutzpah, it continues to chip away at the dignity of women as a whole with each model that it sends down a runway. It's difficult to reconcile fashion's slobbering affection for an individual woman who is in the public eye with what they are willing to dole out to women as a group."
Here we have to remember that fashion does not encompass every piece of attire on the market. Fashion itself doesn't really deal with "women as a group"- the phenomenon of fashion (see post on the Brooklyn museum for a definition) has historically been limited to the upper classes, those with enough money to invest in frequently-changing styles and no need to wear clothes that are convenient or comfortable enough to work in. Fashions are not necessarily meant to work for the masses- they are supposed to be noticeable, and above all, new.

That being said, many great designers in the past have respected and celebrated the female form and have made clothes that were both novel and wearable. Chanel's clothes were comfortable and easy to move in, skimming the lines of the body (see this great example). Balenciaga used his mastery of construction to move away from the restrictive shapes of Dior and towards a new silhouette where clothes floated over the body in a graceful and flattering way (see here).

To be continued!

Photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Mark O'Donald, USN

New Post coming very soon!

2009-03-17T23:17:00.003-04:00

I have been delinquent on my posting because I've been a bit OBE (overcome by events) but I am dreaming up something good revolving around this article from the Washington Post. Check back for something within the next couple of days!

Gloves, Michelle Obama, and Mary Todd Lincoln

2009-03-12T09:31:00.012-04:00

I recently read this article from the Daily Beast highlighting how Michelle Obama was not the first first lady to bare her arms on a regular basis. The author mentions Jackie Kennedy, who frequently wore sleeveless sheath dresses, and Mary Todd Lincoln, who "was known for her round, well-proportioned arms and could, on occasion, stun her husband by the depth of her décolletage." The ideal arm in Mary Todd's time was a bit curvier than Michelle's or Jackie's. In any event, these three women found that they possessed a feature that fit with the fashionable ideal, and played it up.

Here's the paragraph that really interested me:
"Mary Todd Lincoln was a major shopaholic, addicted to French fashion. In one extremely bizarre indulgence, she purchased 400 pairs of gloves over a period of four months. Gloves might be an answer for Michelle, too. She could show up on her next magazine cover buff, sculpted, and wearing those same elegant, long white kid ones. Above the elbow, of course. I’m not sure about the warmth factor, but think what she could do for the glove industry!"

First, while a web search brings up frequent references to MT's glove indulgence, I haven't been able to find the original source of this story. Anyone know if it's true? Remember, gloves were important and not always long-lasting. 400 is a large number regardless, but when you think that she probably wore 2-3 pair a day (morning and evening for sure, perhaps also afternoon if she wasn't at home) and that they were made of light-colored fabric or leather, it doesn't seem quite so ridiculous.

Second, I love the idea of reviving the glove trend! Gloves are formal and elegant and can really add a fun touch to an outfit. I have a personal penchant for gloves, but they're difficult to find if they're not the winter type. Vintage stores and estate sales have been my best sources. There is a fabulous glove store on Rue de la Republique in Lyon called Gants Favel, if it's still there (it was about 4 years ago). The process for trying on gloves- where you place your elbow on a pillow and the salesperson smoothes and fits the fingers to your hand- is a treat. There's a branch of the Italian store Sermoneta Gloves on Madison Ave. in NYC. They have a beautiful variety of leather styles, mostly for fall or winter. In NY, LaCrasia has produced handmade gloves for many years, but their website is less than stellar. The best sources for cotton gloves in a variety of designs is Finale gloves, where I got my wedding gloves.

Michelle wore a lovely pair of green gloves from J. Crew for the inauguration, which coordinated with her shoes. Those may have been for warmth, but she can branch out and wear gloves for style now that spring is coming. Opera-length (or for a twist, something like this pair) would be great for a white-tie state dinner, but there are plenty of options for daytime.

So how about it, Michelle? And one last hint- you don't have to have Michelle's arms to wear gloves, especially shorter ones. They draw attention to your hands and lenthen your fingers. Tres elegant!

First photograph: from Life, 1952, by Nina Leen. Second photograph: Model Dorian Leigh wearing pin-point taffeta dress w. full skirt by Mollie Parnis, long black gloves; from Life, 1950, by Gjon Mili.

Muriel King: Artist of Fashion Exhibit

2009-03-10T19:16:00.002-04:00

Just a quick post to say that the Muriel King: Artist of Fashion Graduate exhibit at the Museum at FIT opens tonight, put together by the Fashion and Textile Studies: History, Theory, Museum Practice second-year master's students. I'm sure it will be excellent and I can't wait to see what kind of great press it will get. If you are in or around New York, please go see it! I fully intend to write a lengthy post about the exhibit, hopefully talking to the curators etc. since I can't make it up to NY. It will be up until April 4th at the Museum at FIT, located at 27th St. and 7th Ave. in Manhattan. The Museum is free and open to the public Tue-Fri 12-8, Sat 10-5. The permanent history gallery features its Seduction exhibit right now as well, which is I'm sure worth seeing.
Have you been? Tell me about it!

Brides of the Arab World Exhibit

2009-03-09T16:15:00.014-04:00

This Sunday I went with a fashion-loving friend to see the Brides of the Arab World exhibit at the Kennedy Center, part of their "Arabesque: Arts of the Arab World" festival taking place through the 15th. Luckily, photography was permitted, so I got to be a shutterbug.
The web page says that there are more than 40 gowns from all 22 countries in the League of Arab States, but I only saw about 12 or 15 gowns from about 6 different countries, if I remember correctly. I must have either missed a portion or else they were rotating. Regardless, it was a nice exhibit! The dresses were beautiful and represented a variety of regional and tribal traditions. One of the didactic panels noted that while most of the weddings themselves that take place in these countries are relatively short (prayers, the signing of a contract), the wedding celebrations are often lengthy and elaborate and vary a great deal depending on region.

Here was our favorite western-style gown, an Egyptian court dress that must be from the 1870s or 1880s:

The gold embroidery was stunning, and the lace on the sleeve ruffles was handmade.
Here's a Moroccan caftan I really liked, made of Tussah silk (wild silk) and apparently handwoven, although it seemed machine-woven to me.

Here's one last shot I really like of the first piece in the exhibit, which I think is also Egyptian. The face veil is something worn only by brides, sort of like a Western wedding veil.What a treat! All the pieces made me want to see women moving around in them, with all their drapery and dangling ornaments. Did anyone else go see this? Did you find more garments than I did? Do you think the caftan fabric is handwoven?
Don't miss it if you haven't gone; the exhibit is free and open until the 15th.

First photo of Libyan and Sudanese dresses from the collections of Mrs. Naima Bseikri and Salma Al Assal, respectively. Egyptian wedding dresses from the collection of Shahira Mehrez. Moroccan caftan from the collection of Mr. and Mrs. Boubker Temli.

All photographs by W. Robertson licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Brooklyn Costume Collection Transfers to Met

2009-03-06T15:09:00.007-05:00

This may not be news, but I recently found out that the Brooklyn Museum's extensive and recently-catalogued costume collection is going to be transferred to the Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. You can find the press release here. I had fantasized about the collection going to the Museum at FIT, for which I have a fondness (especially because it's free). Regardless, I'm sure this will be a huge boost to the Costume Institute.

What I'm most excited about is that four thousand of the pieces from the collection have been chosen for photography, presentation through ARTstor (my fave), publishing in a catalog, and online display on a special section of the Met's website. There is also to be an exhibition next year of the Brooklyn pieces, which is going to be the beginning of a series of activities outlined in the press release. Quite the to-do!

I'm excited to see what the collection transfer will do for researchers and students. Apparently the Brooklyn museum will retain its non-Western costumes and non-fashion textiles. That leaves me wondering about any non-fashion attire. The press release makes no distinction between fashion and costume, which is easier for most people to understand but imprecise. Costume is a term used for the attire and aspects of personal appearance (which together make up "dress") particular to a culture or region. Fashion is the progression of styles in dress that are widespread and short-lived. Sometimes we wear fashionable clothing and sometimes we don't; military uniforms, work clothes, traditional attire are dress, but not fashion.

My guess is that if they have any of these items in their collection, they will remain at Brooklyn, as the Costume institute already has plenty of dress pieces in their collection. What do you think? How do you feel about the relationship between dress and fashion? Do you think exhibits of "dress" get sidelined since fashion is a sexier topic? Do curators outside the fashion world even have a clue?

Photo: A "Harvey Girl" uniform on display (dress, not fashion!) at the Arizona Railroad Museum. Taken by Jot Powers, 5/2005.

FIT's Online Collection

2009-03-04T10:00:00.002-05:00

The Museum at FIT now has an "online collection" feature, where you can search and zoom images of some of their garments and textiles. As of now, the collection is relatively small, and mostly consists of images that have been on display in their exhibitions over the past few years. Irving Solero's photographs are stunning, as always. While you can't save the images, they are great sources for research and inspiration. A few of my favorites: this incredible Schiaparelli evening dress, these stunning Givenchy boots by Alexander McQueen, and this 1880s afternoon dress (I love the marabou. So elegant!)

Which are your favorites? Where do you like to find fashion images?

Oscar Goes Vintage

2009-03-04T09:14:00.000-05:00

Did anyone else notice that Miley Cyrus' Zuhair Murad gown for the Oscars was heavily inspired by Dior's Junon Dress from Fall/Winter 1949/50? I've been trying to figure out why I like the Dior dress so much more than the Murad. I think the drape of the petals is softer, and the embroidery (probably by the famed Lesage firm) is more delicate- there's an ethereal feel, true to the dress' name (meaning Juno, the goddess), that the Murad piece lacks. Also, Cyrus' seashell belt seems very "little mermaid."

The late forties to mid-fifties were present in full force at the Oscars this year, what with Sarah Jessica Parker's Dior gown (although I think Monsieur Dior would have cringed at what this does to her breasts...), Marion Cotillard's Dior (beautifully true to his fifties designs) and Penelope Cruz's stunning vintage Balmain. I'm impressed it's in such good shape, especially in that color and with that much embellishment. I need to do more research, but I'd say the dress is somewhere in the 1949-54 range.

The difference between the vintage Balmain and the retro Diors is in the bodice fit- they're all built over plenty of interior structure, for sure, but the Balmain is very close to the ribcage until just under the bust (similar to the Junon dress), while the two Diors have a more continuous curve from bust to waist.

There's plenty more I could say about the Oscars (Marisa Tomei's Erte-esque dress was #1, too much pepto-bismol pink, I loved Heidi Klum's dress but wish it fit her up top, what is it with men and pre-tied bow ties) but I'd better stop here.

Do you think structure and fullness are coming back into fashion? Are boned bodices and petticoats the wave of the future, or are we going to go the way of the grecian gown? What year do you think Cruz's Balmain gown is from?

(Photograph of Pierre Balmain and Ruth Ford by Carl Van Vechten, November 9, 1947)