Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Museum of Fashion Is More Than A Clothes-Bag
A Museum of Fashion Is More Than A Clothes-Bag
327
IMAGE
AVAILABLE
ON HARD
COPY
Valerie Steele
A Museum of
Fashion Is
More Than a
Clothes-Bag
Because intellectuals live by the word, many scholars tend to ignore the
important role that objects can play in the creation of knowledge. Even
many fashion historians spend little or no time examining actual
garments, preferring to rely exclusively on written sources and visual
representations. Yet of all the methodologies used to study fashion
history, one of the most valuable is the interpretation of objects.
Naturally, scholars must also employ standard historical research
methods (working in the library), but object-based research provides
unique insights into the historic and aesthetic development of fashion.
Unfortunately, relatively few historians of dress seem to be aware of the
specific methodology devised by Jules Prown, and articulated some years
ago in the Winterthur Portfolio.
328
Valerie Steele
Figure 1
From the Wadsworth
Atheneum in Hartford,
Connecticut.
329
330
Valerie Steele
engagement, as you consider what the object does and how it does it.
As Prown says, It is unnecessary to ignore what one knows and feign
innocence for the appearance of objectivity, but it is desirable to test
ones external knowledge to see if it can be deduced from the object itself
and, if it cannot, to set that knowledge aside until the next stage (Prown
1982: 9). Common assumptions are often wrong, especially in the field
of fashion history, where myths can persist unchallenged for years.
In practice, I have found that if students write up the deduction stage,
it frequently sounds self-indulgent, as they muse about how they would
love (or hate) to wear a particular garment. On the positive side,
however, students often become aware during this stage how much of
their knowledge they must put aside as conjecture or subjective
feelings. Ideally, not only do they become aware of their cultural biases,
but they can use them to fuel the creative work that must now take
place in the third and final stage, speculation (Prown 1982: 10).
Although Prown does not explicitly say so, the comparison of objects
is also an important part of this methodology. While it is certainly
necessary to examine written (and visual) sources, it is also crucial to
compare the artifact with others more-or-less like it. Fleming, however,
specifies that during the second operation, evaluation, it will be necessary
to obtain external information by comparisons with other objects.
Among the questions he raises are the following: Is the artifact
typical or unusual? Is it an excellent or a mediocre example of its
kind?
When I was a graduate student in Jules Prowns class, I chose to study
a womans dress in the collection of the Wadsworth Atheneum in
Hartford, Connecticut. It consisted of a bodice and skirt, both of yellow
silk, decorated with dark brown velvet bands and bows. A shirred apron
overskirt covered most of the front of the skirt, which was full and backswept with a train. The velvet bands went vertically up the front of the
bodice and down the back, ending in triangular tabs, which were further
ornamented with yellow Vs and yellow silk tassel fringe. The yellow
fringe also decorated the wrists of the sleeves and went along the edge
of the overskirt. The velvet bands were echoed by brown diagonals on
either side of the underskirt. Three brown velvet bows descended down
the front of the overskirt, while a slightly smaller bow decorated the
upper center part of the bodice.
Turning from appearance to construction, I noted that the dress was
largely machine-stitched, although the decorations were applied by hand.
The waistband of the skirt, which measured 23 inches, was held together
with heavy hooks and eyes. In my stylistic analysis I observed that
substantial quantities of material went into the making of this dress,
which was also lined and ornamented, making it rather heavy. The silk
was tightly woven, and of a bright golden yellow color. The fabric
was cut and draped in such a way that the line of the dress was one of
exaggerated curves, emphasizing in particular the posterior. The bodice
331
was close-fitting, while the full and voluminous skirt swelled out from
a narrow waist, reaching to the floor.
Depending on the questions asked, one chooses various other objects
for purposes of comparison. Another student might have analyzed the
raw materials and construction techniques used, asking questions about
the trade in silk, the chemical analysis of the dye, or the manufacturing
costs. Because I was interested in issues of gender and the relationship
between clothing and the body, I compared this dress with two other
womens dresses from the same period, as well as two corsets, a bustle,
and a mans suit, all of which were in the collection of The Costume
Institute of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
The next stage, speculation, involves the framing of questions and
hypotheses that then need to be tested against external evidence. In my
own work, as I have noted, these questions have tended to focus on
gender and sexuality and on the bodyclothes unit. Consequently, one
of my primary concerns has been cultural attitudes towards the body,
and, in particular, the female body. This, in turn, is inextricably
connected with cultural perceptions of sexuality and gender. Whatever
questions arise must be thought about until it is possible to frame a
hypothesis. Since I could hardly help observing that my dress would
have covered its original wearer from neck to feet, one of my first
questions was simply: Why did womens clothes cover their legs? Did
they think that the body was sinful? Why did men wear such different
clothes? Why was the womans dress bodice close-fitting and the
posterior padded? Was this to emphasize, even caricature, the female
silhouette? Obviously, these questions are rather nave, but they
eventually helped me formulate an hypothesis about the sexual
significance of high Victorian dress.
In a decade of teaching, I have noticed that this process tends to be
difficult for students, who often conclude an essay on the interpretation
of objects with a string of unanswered questions. The next step, however,
is developing a program of research, thus shifting the inquiry, as Prown
says, from analysis of internal evidence to the search for and investigation of external evidence (Prown 1982: 10).
Like Prown, Fleming stresses that supplementary information must
be obtained from other sources, external to the artifact. However, he
describes the process of speculation somewhat differently. Flemings third
operation is called cultural analysis, and it involves the relationship of
the artifact to its culture. According to Fleming, One important form
of cultural analysis deals with the functions performed by the artifact
in its culture . . . function involves both the concrete and the abstract
aspects of the artifact, . . . its various intended uses, and its unintended
roles (Fleming 1973: 1568). This is also a valid approach, since once
one subtracts function, issues of style may come into focus. It is, of
course, crucial to be aware that clothing is not simply (or, perhaps, even
primarily) functional, at least not in the concrete sense of the word.
332
Valerie Steele
333
334
Valerie Steele
335
References
Fleming, E. McClung. 1973. Artifact Study: A Proposed Model,
Winterthur Portfolio, Vol. 9.
Gay, Peter. 1976. Art and Act: On Causes in HistoryManet, Gropius,
Mondrian. New York: Harper and Row.
Hoelterhoff, Manuela. 1978. Diana Vreelands Off-the-Rack Favorites,
The Wall Street Journal. January 13.
Morris, Bernadine. 1982. Lingerie Exhibition: Vanitys Distortions,
The New York Times, November 10.
Prown, Jules. 1980. Style as Evidence, Winterthur Portfolio, Vol. 15.
. 1982. Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture
Theory and Method The Winterthur Portfolio, Vol. 17.
Storr, Robert. 1987. Unmaking History at the Costume Institute, Art
in America, February.