The Fashion Historian: 2010

Fashion in Reynolds and Gainsborough: Part 2

Hope everyone has been enjoying the holidays!!

Part 1

Reynolds did not always reference contemporary fashion so directly in his draped garments. His portrait of Elizabeth Hamilton, Duchess of Hamilton and Argyll from 1758-9 shows no sign of the contemporary silhouette given by the fashionable robe a la francaise. The silhouette given by the robe a la francaise is the one most traditionally associated with the eighteenth century. The skirt extends in a wide horizontal from the waist, the shape given by panniers. The back of the dress is draped in double box pleats which creates a flowing cascade of fabric, seamlessly connecting the top of the outer robe to the bottom, called a sack back or Watteau back, as Watteau painted numerous ladies wearing gowns with this feature. A robe a la francaise takes at least eight yards of fabric to make, not including the fabric needed for trimming and decoration, and thus was an enormously expensive item of clothing. To feature one in a portrait would not only show the stylishness of the sitter but also her wealth, especially if her gown was highly decorated.

But like the Duchess of Devonshire, the Duchess of Hamilton and Argyll chose a classical look instead, even taking it one step further and removing all references to contemporary fashion altogether. Even her hair is classicized, hanging around her body in luxurious tendrils as opposed to being swept back and styled in an arrangement of curls as was the contemporary fashion. The only nod to contemporary styles at all is the coronation kirtle loosely draped around her, signifying her as a duchess. By removing almost all references to contemporary fashion, the Duchess becomes a figure of classical antiquity, implying that, like the statues of antiquity still admired today, the Duchess will be admired centuries later as well. While fashions come and go, Ancient Greece and Rome seem to always be in style and held up as the pinnacle of great art and society. The Duchess chooses to associate herself with those ideals, as opposed to being seen as a figure from her own time, and thus becomes a timeless beauty like the Venus de Milo. Reynolds strengthens this connection to classical beauties like Venus, having the Duchess lean on a plinth decorated with the scene of the Judgment of Paris, as well as placing two white doves to the side of the painting, both references to the goddess of beauty.

3 comments

, by Katy

17th century

Historic Influence

4 comments

, by Katy

18th century

Fashion in Reynolds and Gainsborough: Part 1

OK, I'm cheating a little here. This is a paper I wrote for my 18th Century Art class. But I got a 100 on it so hopefully you will like it as much as my professor did! It's about 13 pages long, so I will be posting it in parts throughout the next few weeks.

Sir Joshua Reynolds wrote several discourses on painting, many of which addressed his views on how the sitter should be dressed. In his Seventh Discourse (1776), he supported his views that sitters should be dressed in classical drapery which evokes ancient Greece and Rome, describing these civilizations as “the fountains from whence have flowed all kinds of excellence… we voluntarily add our approbation of every ornament that belonged to them, even to the fashion of their dress.” He felt that contemporary dress was undignified, and while the clothing of his sitters often retained the general shapes and lines of contemporary dress, overall it has an “air of the antique”, as Reynolds called it.

His portrait Gerogiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire from c. 1775-6 shows the idea of a modern silhouette crossed with antique drapery. Although the dominant style of this time was still the robe a la francaise, the Duchess’s draped outfit carries a similar silhouette to the robe a la polonaise. The defining feature of the polonaise is the shape of the skirt, which is draped into three swags in the back, allowing the petticoat to be seen underneath. In Reynolds’ painting, the Duchess wears a gown with a fitted bodice, and an overskirt draped in swags, calling to mind the drapery of the polonaise. As the polonaise was still relatively new to the fashion scene, evoking this style allowed the Duchess to assert herself as the top fashionista, an idea heightened by her highly fashionable tall hairstyle. Additionally, Reynolds highlighted those features such as the neck and breasts that were considered the most beautiful and feminine in the period, giving promotion not only to the Duchess’s sense of style but to her personal beauty.

Despite all the elements of high fashion in his portrait, more prominent is the classicized view favored by Reynolds. The fabric of the Duchess’s draped gown has no luster, suggesting that it is not made of the highly fashionable silk taffeta or satin of the period, but a more simple material favored by the ancients. This aligns with Reynolds’ theory of fabric in historic painting, addressed in his Fifth Discourse (1772), where he writes “if the draperies were like cloth or silk of our manufacture, if the landskip had the appearance of a modern view, how ridiculous would Apollo appear instead of the sun, or an old Man with an Urn to represent a river or a lake.” The Duchess does not convey her wealth through the luxurious materials of her clothing, and instead reaches for the higher ideal of conveying a sense of timelessness. Her classicized dress and marble pale skin call to mind ancient statues of beautiful nymphs and goddesses, allowing the Duchess to take a rank amongst the great beauties that will never go out of style. The vague pastoral setting heightens this idea. By removing any references to modern architecture or other structures that would date the painting, the Duchess could be posing in any time and any place.

2 comments

, by Katy

17th century

Red Heels

When Louis XIV came to the throne at the age of four in 1643, French kings had already begun the process of turning France into an absolutist state where the monarch was the absolute authority, his power coming from divine right. Throughout Louis' reign he continued transforming France, especially focusing on reigning in the aristocracy. Traditionally, the aristocracy held a great deal of power, and because France was such a vast territory they were not easily monitored. Aristocrats ruled over their lands like unofficial Kings, thus threatening the power of the actual monarch himself. Louis had several methods for dealing with the aristocracy, giving them privilege but not power. He moved the royal court to the palace at Versailles, and the aristocracy was constantly at court, vying for his royal favor and subsequently staying under his watchful eye.

A perfect example of this system of monitoring the aristocracy is red heels on shoes. Louis declared that only those in the royal favor were allowed the privilege of having red heels on their shoes, allowing everyone to show off when they were in favor. Red heels was like sitting at the popular kids table in school, only the very coolest kids could wear them.

Louis XIV, painted by Hyacinthe Rigaud in 1701.

Suddenly, if you fell out of the royal favor, everyone would know. It's bad enough to be out of the royal favor, it's even worse when you have to advertise it to the world. It was the perfect method for controlling a once unruly upper class. Aristocrats behaved themselves and they didn't have to face the shame of not having red heels on their shoes.

Louis XIV and his family, c. 1715-1720

Notice Louis' grandson, dressed in red and standing to the right. While Louis and his son (standing to the left) are wearing red heels on their shoes, his grandson is not, signaling that he was out of favor around the time this picture was created.

The connection between red heels and the monarchy lasted well past Louis XIV. In 1780 a pamphlet attacking Marie Antoinette was released, entitled Portefeuille d'un talon rouge (the wallet of a red heel). Red heels had become just one more symbol of the absolutist system that was beginning to tear the country apart.

Shoes by Christian Louboutin

Here are some fierce Christian Louboutin shoes. All Louboutin shoes have the inside of the heels and the sole painted red, perhaps a nod to the flashy cabaret girls that originally inspired the designer. For me, I always connect these modern red heels with Louis XIV. After all, wearing a pair of Louboutin shoes expresses the same ideals as wearing red heels in the 17th and 18th centuries- wealth, privilege, and a place in the choicest of social circles.

11 comments

, by Katy

19th century

Historic Influence

6 comments

, by Katy

19th century

MythBusters: Fashion History Edition

Myth: Did some Victorian women really have their lower ribs removed in order to have a smaller waist?

Short Answer: No.

Long Answer:

The idea of using surgery to fix some unsatisfactory part of the physical appearance is extremely new. Unnecessary surgery is only possible with highly developed, modern surgical practices.

In the early 19th century, surgery was mainly confined to amputations and the removal of external problems. Anesthesia of any kind was first used around the 1840s, which allowed surgeons to start fixing internal problems. The risk of infection was also extremely high, with the germ theory of disease first being applied to surgery by Joseph Lister around the 1870s. However, it would take quite some time for surgery to become as sterile as we know it today. Instruments were beginning to be sterilized, but there were still plenty of ways for bacteria to enter the body. Antibiotics were only just starting to be discovered around the same time, but the science wouldn't really take off until the 20th century.

The Gross Clinic by Thomas Eakins, 1875
In the collection of the Philadelphia Museum of Art

Eakins' famous picture, The Gross Clinic, shows a typical Victorian surgical scene. The surgery is performed in an open auditorium with several spectators, and the doctors themselves are wearing street clothes and working with their bare hands. Even if the instruments were sterilized, it would still be extremely easy for an infection to take hold and the poor man being operated on to die.

If you survived all of that, there is still the pain that comes post surgery. Painkillers as we know them didn't really exist in the Victorian period, so for pain control a person had to turn to some sort of drug that was probably not very safe. For a point of comparison, remember when you had your wisdom teeth out? I recently had mine taken out, and even with my sophisticated, modern pain medication I was still pretty miserable for a few days afterwords. Now imagine an operation that didn't use modern surgical practices, and didn't involve modern painkillers to control post-operative pain.

No one in their right mind in the 19th century would voluntarily go under the knife unless it was absolutely necessary for their survival.

On the next episode of MythBusters: Fashion History Edition, underwear myths! Is it true that only lewd women wore underwear before the 20th century? Did Joan of Arc wear anything under all that armor? Find out soon! As always, if you have a myth you'd like to see busted, leave a comment and I'll research it!

3 comments

, by Katy

19th century

The Cage Crinoline as a Social Metaphor

As a sort of followup to my last head-to-toe post, where the cage crinoline was mentioned, I thought I'd write a bit about the social symbolism of the crinoline.

The cage crinoline first appeared in the mid 1850s and would continue to be popular until the 1870s, when it transformed into a bustle. At this time in history, women had very few rights and were generally second class citizens. They were seen as delicate, frivolous, submissive, and intellectually inferior to men. A woman was an ornament. They dressed in more colorful and decorative clothing (as opposed to men who wore dark, plain suits) to show off the wealth of either their fathers or their husbands. This stifling atmosphere did its best to confine a woman to the role of dutiful daughter and then dutiful wife, leaving little room for any other aspirations. You probably see where I'm going with this. Women were, metaphorically, caged by their society, just as their bodies were literally caged by a cage crinoline.

Modern fashion historians aren't the only ones who picked up on the idea of the cage crinoline as a literal cage. Here a cartoonist from the period shows how useful this cage can be for men.

Just as this was a period of female intellectual and social repression, it was also a period of sexual repression (although sexual repression was a hallmark of Victorian society as a whole, not just the women of the period). With the crinoline covering the lower half of the body, a woman's sexuality was literally in a cage, inaccessible to anyone except a husband. Interestingly, historically men weren't seen as the more sexual beings. Women were the sexually rapacious gender, and men were simply poor victims lured in by those pesky horny females. Thus the crinoline can be seen as a cage confining a woman's sexuality for the protection of men, just as one would put a ravenous animal in a cage for the protection of the people around it.

Interestingly, with all of it's symbols of female repression, many men thought the crinoline was incredibly stupid. It was way too big, taking up all of the room in carriages and making it that much harder to get close to a woman. Which leads to the other side of the social symbolism. In an increasingly industrialized society, cities were overcrowded and with any large city comes a large crime rate. Wearing a giant cage can be seen as a form of protection against the hundreds and thousands of suspicious strangers a woman might come into contact with walking down the street. Furthermore, caging a woman's sexuality can be seen from another angle. By putting her genitals behind a cage, a woman is at least symbolically protecting herself from sexual predators.

In addition to this social protection, the cage crinoline offered health benefits as well. Before it's invention, women achieved the fashionable wide-skirted silhouette by wearing many layers of heavy petticoats. This was not only uncomfortable but unhealthy. The cage crinoline offered a much better alternative. It was much lighter, wasn't nearly as hot as wearing multiple layers of cloth, and allowed for a greater range of movement. So on the one hand it symbolized female repression, but on the other it provided a sort of female liberation.

I'm no expert on gender studies, but these are just some of my thoughts on the possible symbolism of the cage crinoline. What do you all think? Is it a greater symbol of repression? Of liberation? A combination of both? Let me hear your thoughts!

4 comments

, by Katy

MythBusters

MythBusters: Fashion History Edition

2 comments

, by Katy

19th century

Head to Toe: Mid-1850s Woman

5 comments

, by Katy

14th century

The Gothic Slouch

Oh, times are tough in the middle ages. All the decent young men are fighting in crusades or dying of plague. I mean what's a girl got to do to get a date? Bend over backwards?

Well... yes, actually. BUH DUM CHING!!!!

As the Black Plague killed off millions and millions of people, those remaining alive had the task of repopulation. Thus to be fertile was to be beautiful. To project her fertility, a lady would bend back and stick our her abdomen, mimicking how it looks to be pregnant. This body posture has been called the gothic slouch.

Even as the plague finished doing what it does best, the fertile look continued to be popular.

Here is the famous Arnolfini Wedding Portrait from the 15th century. The woman in the portrait isn't pregnant, but she is holding up some of the extra fabric in her dress to simulate a pregnant belly, symbolizing that she is fertile and will soon give her new husband many sons who will carry on the grand Arnolfini pimp-hat-wearing tradition.

In an age where life expectancy was extremely short and most of your children would die before adulthood, the best thing a woman could be was very fertile. Marriages weren't necessarily about finding some one you love or vaguely get along with, although that was great if that happened. Marriage was most importantly about procreation. The family name had to be carried on, and that meant at least one son who lived to adulthood and had children of his own. That also meant surviving multiple pregnancies (even just having the child could very easily kill you), and your chances of survival would be greater if there was more fat around your lower body. By sticking out your abdomen, you give the illusion of a plump lower body which will help you survive many childbirths.

Compare this to today, where any sign of belly fat is abhorred. With the improvement of medical technology, childbirth is not nearly as dangerous and most children live into adulthood. Therefore a woman does not need to show that she has enough belly fat to survive childbirth, because these days she doesn't need that. And because weight doesn't have as much effect over the ability to survive multiple childbirths, signs of fertility are not tied up in how much belly fat a woman has. Furthermore, many couples choose not to have any children at all, society having developed to a point where having many children is no longer an absolute requirement (mothers desiring grandchildren, however, are another matter entirely). Marriage has become mainly about finding some one you love. So now the ideal for a woman is to stand up straight and suck it in. Unless you're Paris Hilton. She doesn't have bad posture, she's just trying to bring back the gothic slouch!