This week, I’m pleased to bring you a useful review of Patrik Aspers new book,Orderly Fashion: A Sociology of Markets(July 2010, Princeton University Press). It was written by Joseph H. Hancock, II who is an Associate Professor in the Department of Fashion, Design & Merchandising, Drexel University. He has a twenty-year retailing background (The Gap Corporation, The Limited, Inc., and the Target Corporation) and a PhD from The Ohio State University. He is currently authoring an Introduction to Fashion textbook for Berg Publishers and a work on contemporary fashion for Texas Tech University Press.
Orderly Fashion: A Sociology of Markets is divided into seven chapters and five appendices. Stockholm University sociology faculty member, Patrik Aspers believes that there has been little research conducted from a social science perspective (5). This book attempts to give the reader a sociological perspective of the fashion industry. The author has obviously neglected to engage in American scholarship on fashion and consumer science that is oversaturated with this sort of work. Had he read Dr. Susan Kaiser’s (1996) landmark book, The Social Psychology of Clothing: Symbolic Appearances in Context, or any issue of the Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, he would have known that he was not a pioneer in this area.
At first, the text appears to be a new perspective on how the fashion system operates and is an ordered structure. The goal of the author is to “zoom in on branded garment retailers…to investigate order in relation to their activities in markets. It is the order of the branded garment retailers (BGRs) and the markets in which they operate that is the central empirical object of this study (1).” Aspers believes that fashion markets must work in an orderly fashion in order to survive and prosper. His idea is to connect the various organizations involved in the fashion process such as manufacturers, retailers and consumers. However, after many struggles to move through his misuse of retailing and business terminology and the lack of background information on each of the mass fashion retailers used in the “Introduction” of the text, it becomes apparent that the author really does not understand how the various aspects of the fashion industry work, nor that each company has its own corporate cultural characteristics and thematic concepts of order.
Additionally, his thesis statement is not well defined nor specifically designated to his final outcome. Aspers states that he is focusing on “large and medium-sized branded retailers in the global fashion industry, such as C&A, Gap, H&M, Macy’s, Old Navy, Topshop, Next, French Connection UK, Marks and Spencer, and Zara, as well as smaller retailers (2).” Clumping such a group of stores together as a single-type or entity clearly indicates that the author may not understand retail store categories. Retailers like Macy’s cannot be explicitly identified as a “branded retailer” in the same spirit of the Gap – these stores are not the same! It appears Aspers would like to create a well-defined ordered thematic ideal of how fashion works. But in order to do this he must realize that most vertically integrated manufactured based specialty retailers such as Gap Inc., (who also owns Old Navy, which the author does not mention) cannot easily be lumped into the same category as a full-line department store like Macy’s. Aspers clearly needs to make these differentiations in the “Introduction” to keep the reader from thinking he does not know what he is writing about – this does not happen. And many readers, like this reviewer may not be able to overlook the lack of definitions in this section.
Aspers focuses his study on the retailers of Great Britain, Sweden and the manufacturers of India and Turkey (2), but does not include the United States – which is the largest retailed nation in the world. This becomes confusing as Apers previously mentions the retailer Macy’s, which has no branches in Great Britain or Sweden. His reasons for the exclusions of the United States are the demands for production of a larger scale and because the United States puts a lower emphasis on fashionable clothes than that of Great Britain and Sweden (2). But what the author immediately does not do is define fashionable, and the differences between styles for each of the countries, until the next chapter. Additionally, to compare the entire United States to Britain and Sweden is like comparing an apple to an orange. It becomes clear that Aspers has never traveled to the United States and if he has, he does not grasp American fashionable styles. Or that regions of the United States have fashion centers that are much larger than those of Great Britain and Sweden, such as New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles whose volumes in fashionable style outweigh that of both those countries. There is no comparison.
Although this is Aspers second book on fashion (his first book was Markets in Fashion in 2006), it reads like a dissertation written without academic mentoring by someone who was versed in discipline of fashion studies or that understood how the retailing and manufacturing industry worked. This text is a futile attempt by a non-fashion scholar to re-invent the wheel of scholarly theory while neglecting what has already been done. It ignores previous works of how fashion operates, without truly understanding fashion and the detailed nature of the business of retailing. While the target audience for this text is scholars engaged in sociology, fashion, and retailing, I would suggest that a reader predispose themselves to other books that might give them a better understanding of fashion systems and how they work. Such books would include:
The March of Time 75th Anniversary September 1st – September 10th Presented by the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA), New York and HBO Archives Free with MOMA admission; Film screening only, adults $10, student (with ID) $6.
In the spring of 1935 a remarkable short-subject film series called The March Of Time premiered in American movie theaters. Released every four weeks to a monthly audience that by 1938 totaled more than 20 million in the United States and millions more abroad, its 20-minute films addressed issues never before touched upon in the American cinema. A cross between confrontational journalism and docudrama, The March Of Time series was provocative, amusing and sometimes outrageous. It was banned in Germany, Italy, Japan and the Soviet Union, and censored widely even in democratic societies. Miraculously, the series survived in the United States for 16 years—from 1935 through 1951.
A product of Time, Inc., publisher of Time, Life and Fortune magazines, The March Of Time first aired in March 1931 as a CBS radio series, in which the news of the day was dramatized using professional New York actors. Regulars included Art Carney, who portrayed Franklin Roosevelt; Agnes Moorehead, who played Eleanor Roosevelt; Dwight Weist, who played Hitler; and Orson Welles, who performed from time to time in a variety of parts. The creator was Roy Larsen, originally the circulation manager at Time and later the publisher of Life. Larsen decided to adapt the radio series for motion picture production and hired Louis de Rochemont—a veteran newsreel cameraman and producer—to do so.
The most unusual feature of the films in The March Of Time series was the re-creation or staging of events that had taken place, but had not been photographed by newsreel cameras. De Rochemont argued that he had the same right to clarify news events with staged scenes as a re-write man on a newspaper had with words to make sense out of a reporter’s notes. He used both professional and amateur actors to impersonate famous people on the screen, and then blended the staged scenes with newsreel footage. By 1940 the series was so well known that it was parodied by Orson Welles in his production of “Citizen Kane,” including an imitation of Westbrook Van Voorhis, the “Voice Of Time.”
MOMA will screen this unique event at various times from September 1st to September 10th. Film topics include “American Culture,” “A World At War,” and “Beauty and Fashion.”
Program #2, “Beauty and Fashion,” will screen on Thursday September 2nd at 4:00PM and Friday September 10th at 7:00PM in MoMA’s T2 theater.
The 4 titles being shown are:
1. American Beauty (1945, 18 minutes) – the beauty routines, spas, exercises and hairstyles that women obsess over as they strive to maintain their looks in preparation for their soldiers returning from World War II.
2. The Male Look (1950, 16 minutes) – a lighthearted look at men and the women who dress them throughout their life. This episode features footage of the “Eve Dresses Adam” exhibition from the Met Costume Institute.
3. Beauty at Work (1950, 18 minutes) – Print, runway and store modeling in New York City; the beauty regimes and modeling agencies, along with several supermodels of the 50’s (Lisa Fonssagrives, Anita Colby) and other major players in the industry.
4. Fashion Means Business (1947, 17 minutes) – Examining the garment industry – the dresses and designers, companies, mass market appeal and influences. Go Inside: Martin’s Department Store, Macy’s, Bergdorf Goodman, the Women’s Wear Daily offices, the design houses of Lelon, Lanvin, Piguet, Fath, Dior, Teller, Carnegie, Valentina and Jean. Also featuring accessories designers, a Vogue photo shoot, the Garment District, the ILGWU, and the New York fashion shows of Claire Potter and Nettie Rosenstein.
Click here for a PDF version of the complete program guide.
*The first person to email Monica will receive two FREE tickets to the “Beauty and Fashion” screening on Friday, September 10th at 7pm.*
FILM SCREENING Date: Friday, September 17th Time: 8pm Location: Observatory (Brooklyn, NY) Admission: $10
Presented by Phantasmaphile
Special screening of BEYOND BIBA: A PORTRAIT OF BARBARA HULANICKI (November Films), about the fashion icon and mastermind behind BIBA, once the world’s most decadent and innovative clothing store. BIBA remains one of the most evocative names in British design history; it pioneered a new style, mixing the contemporary with Art Nouveau, Art Deco and the golden age of Hollywood, dressing itself in the richly luxuriant colors of a bygone time.
Barbara Hulanicki will always be remembered for BIBA, the shop that changed the face of UK fashion in the 1960s and 70s. A phenomenon in the truest sense of the word, BIBA would leave an indelible mark on the minds and wardrobes of the customers who ventured through its doors.
Just as Barbara was a key ingredient in the cultural explosion that occurred in London during the 1960s, she also found herself at the birth of the incredible regeneration of Miami Beach in the late 1980s and 90s. This is where she still resides, and continues to work as one of the most respected interior designers in the United States.
The film provides an invaluable glimpse into Barbara Hulanicki today. A rare insight into the woman herself, her memories of her father’s murder, the impossible glamour of Biba, the impact of her husband Fitz on her life, her thoughts on modern America and her refusal to give up and live in the shadow of the past. The film focuses on these elements, and more, to create an all access portrait of an overlooked and elusive artist.
Over the past 3 yearsWorn Through has focused on providing educational, fun, and useful content about fashion history and culture. Now we’d love to hear from you!
We’re requesting our readers complete the following survey in order to gain valuable feedback on the blog. With your feedback, not only will we be able to maintain the things you enjoy about Worn Through, but we’re also excited to work with your suggestions to make improvements! We’ve developed a very brief survey that takes less than 5 minutes to do.
Thank you very much in advance for taking the time to participate. To show our appreciation, two individuals who participate will be selected in a drawing to win a fabulous fashion book sent to you for free!
We’re so excited to read the responses and continue to grow Worn Through.
“THE GOLDEN AGE OF COUTURE: PARIS & LONDON 1947 – 1957″ Through September 12 The Frist Center [Nashville, TN]
This exhibit transports visitors to the most glamorous fashion houses of Paris and London in the years after WWII. It celebrates an important decade in fashion history that began with the launch of Christian Dior’s famous New Look in 1947 and ended with his death in 1957.
“PATTERN, COSTUME AND ORNAMENT” Through September 12 The Birmingham Museum of Art [Birmingham, AL]
Works by artists Fred Wilson, Odili Donald Odita, Jeff Donaldson, Carrie Mae Weems, and others will reveal how African-American artists incorporate design and decoration into their work for a variety of reasons. Among the works on view will be a Nick Cave Sound Suit, a beaded and sequined Haitianflag, AFRICOBRA founder Jeff Donaldson’s family portrait, and a Gee’s Bend quilt.
“ART BY THE YARD: WOMEN DESIGN MID-CENTURY BRITAIN” Through September 12 The Textile Museum [Washington DC]
This exhibit will showcase the work of groundbreaking women designers through the display of textiles together with preliminary drawings and collages, ceramics and period furniture. The art of textile design changed radically after World War II as Britain was transformed from a country devastated by war into an optimistic consumer society. Three women designers were pivotal in this artistic revolution: Lucienne Day, Jacqueline Groag and Marian Mahler. Incorporating dramatic saturated colors and bold motifs inspired by artists like Alexander Calder and Joan Miro, these young designers transformed the market by inspiring elegant yet affordable product lines that brought the world of contemporary art into everyone’s homes.
It’s been a little while since I posted anything on film costume history. To that end, here are some tasty tidbits on Claudette Colbert and her costumes for the 1934 version of Cleopatra. Speaking to the often difficult task of costuming a mega-star Like Colbert, writer Leon Surmelian explained what happened in an article for a fan magazine in 1938:
“The toughest spot he [costume designer, Travis Banton] ever found himself in was when Cecil B. De Mille started shooting ‘Cleopatra,’ and Claudette Colbert refused to wear the gowns made for her. De Mille had his own staff at Paramount and Banton was in no way responsible for the dresses La Colbert didn’t like. He hadn’t designed them. When shooting starts on a picture of such magnitude, a delay of a few hours would cost the producer thousands of dollars. You can imagine the state of affairs when Cleopatra-Colbert did not choose to go on the set. Banton was called in to design an entirely new wardrobe for her, and the very next day he had the first dress ready. In fact, from day to day he produced the various items of one of the most extravagant wardrobes in the history of movies, while the cameras recorded scenes of ancient Egypt as conceived by De Mille.” (Surmelian, Leon. “Studio Designer Confesses.” Motion Picture. December 1938. 56(5): 67.)
It seems Ms. Colbert had specific ideas about how she should look in this film, and being something of a perfectionist her motives reveal some of her own insecurities. Author Annet Talpert explains this incident, and Colbert’s habit of being difficult (as well as a slightly different version of the story):
“During the making of Cleopatra, she insisted that Travis Banton bare as much of her bosom as possible. Though she had one of screenland’s best figures, she thought her waist was too thick, and she wanted Banton to place all the emphasis above her middle. By calling attention to her chest she also reasoned that it would divert attention from here unusually short neck. Banton gave in to her demands, but the day before shooting began she refused to wear the costumes she’d approved. Banton went back to the workroom. In 24 hours he had the first elaborate costume ready for filming.” (Tapert, A., The Power of Glamour: The Women Who Defined the Magic of Stardom, New York: Crown, 1998. 177)
“Banton wasn’t the only one who had problems with her. ‘She once slapped a fitter at Western Costume who kept insisting her costume fit properly,’ says Leonard Gershe. ‘Claudette knew it wasn’t exactly right and finally got exasperated with her. The woman had treated her as if she was stupid, which was a mistake . . .’ Edith Head, Banton’s successor at Paramount, suggested she find another costume designer who would be more willing to give in to her demands. Colbert brought in Irene who was then a fashion designer with her own salon and designed for Colbert off-screen.” (Tapert, A., The Power of Glamour: The Women Who Defined the Magic of Stardom, New York: Crown, 1998. 177)
Despite these difficulties, the final product got quite a bit of coverage in the popular press, and Shadowplay suggests the designs had an effect on fashion trends:
“Already De Mille’s ‘Cleopatra’ opus is starting fashion trends. Around Hollywood, clips of burnished gold in Lotus flower motifs are worn on filmy lace evening gowns. An Egyptian collar effect is seen here and there. And most interesting of all, the winged bandeaus worn by Claudette Colbert promise to replace the tiara as an evening headdress.” (Whitney, Diane. “Designer’s Say Shorter Skirts!” Shadoplay. July 1934 3(5): 16.)
I’m happy to report that a costume from Cleopatra is currently was on view (along with many others) at the Oklahoma City Museum of Art until August 15. In case you missed it, BAM’s Blog has a lovely overview.
(Claudette Colbert in title role of Cecil B. DeMille’s film Cleopatra. sources from, chuckpalahniuk.net, this image was also published in Life Magazine, Jan 01, 1934)
If you’ve not seen the film, I highly recommend it, it’s opulent and over-the top (watch a clip here at TCM). The costumes are especially beautiful to watch in motion.
*(Image via Vogue.com, John Kobal Foundation/Getty Images)
The Thoughtful Dresser, a new book by the British writer Linda Grant, seeks to uncover the importance that clothes have in our lives. From the outset Grant clearly defines herself as just a fan of fashion—“I am not a fashion writer just an amateur enthusiast… I think about clothes and fashion in two ways. With the attention of the average person who simply wants to know what next to wear… but also with the interest of a writer who is curious about all our human dimensions, our comedy and our tragedy…”[i] Known as a novelist, in this book Linda Grant tries to prove that fashion is not trivial by looking at it through a strictly non-academic lens and by attempting to humanize the study of fashion.
While the book is divided into chapters that address different themes—the act of shopping, shoes and how our clothes become our friends, for example—the themes are pretty loose, and are there to give form to the personal stories she includes. Most of the experiences and thoughts she details are her own; used to show how we create our identities through the clothes we choose to wear. Interwoven into the book is the story of a Holocaust survivor, Catherine Hill, who went on to open a major fashion boutique in Toronto. Grant uses Hill’s tale to show that fashion is an essential part of life, stating, “…it is in the pleasure that we take in clothes that we are at our most elementally human. Wearing clothes, the story of the human race begins.”[ii] In much the same way that she uses Hill’s life to prove fashion’s value, Grant as eagerly uses it as a way to justify her own love of shopping and beautiful things. Though she repeatedly says that she does not care if she is judged for these passions, Grants uses catastrophes, including WWII and 9/11, as examples of how fashion survives in the face of adversity and how it is essential for morale. These ideas are not new, though she does not refer to any earlier studies or books on the subject; the use of which would have benefited The Thoughtful Dresser immensely.
Grant states that she is “not attempting to offer a theory of fashion or an investigation of the academic thinking on the subject. I have only a passing interest in it because what I really care about is what I myself wear, and not so much what it all means.”[iii] Seeking to maintain her personal approach to the subject of dress, Grant disregards almost all prior work done in the field, with Barthes’ The Fashion System drawing most of her ire, and upholds Elizabeth Wilson’s 1985 book Adorned in Dreams for its precise dissection of fashion theory. Though Grant apparently has little time for theory, she does pepper her text with references to important events in fashion history, which is limited apparently to Dior, Chanel and Poiret.
When she began writing this book in 2007, Grant set up a blog, also called The Thoughtful Dresser, where she worked through some of her ideas on the subject of clothes. Though this book is supposedly all new material, the connection between the book and the blog can be clearly seen. While Grant is obviously a talented writer—this book is easy to read and engaging—much of it feels more like a collection of articles than a book. A former newspaper columnist, it seems as though she had trouble translating her ideas into the larger scale of a book. She repeats ideas over an over, and for emphasis makes large all-encompassing pronouncements about fashion and clothing, such as “We dress for our lifelong journey through time, the transformation of the self, a recognition that we are in thrall to the ticking clock.”[iv] Rather absolute, these statements can be quite jarring when you come across them in the middle of a discussion of the trends she wore as a teenager. Caroline Weber, the historian, found these, in her review in theNew York Times Book Review, to be a mix of “just-folks aphorisms,” “the language of New Age self-discovery,’ and “glib platitudes.”[v] Weber also takes offense to Grant’s implication of “the reader in her own “lifelong journey” toward “identity””[vi] through her use of ‘you’ pronoun. Other reviewers also found fault with Grant—Zoë Heller, in the Sunday Times of London , calls out her “pose of Paris Hilton style complacency” and her lack of thought about those who are unable to afford the £300 Dolce & Gabbana heels she buys in a fit of lust.[vii]
The Thoughtful Dresser is definitely written more for a sometime follower of fashion, rather than for the fashion historian. While it is a quick and at times enjoyable read, its frustrations in many ways outweigh the good points. Grant’s wish to keep it personal at all costs means that many interesting ideas on the culture of fashion are sometimes backed up with little more than someone’s reminiscence of their mother. Nothing in the book has any academic validity, though I doubt she would care. Looking over public reviews on Amazon, the consensus is overwhelming positive—hopefully those who are attracted to this book because of her engaging writing style and personal approach will agree with her thesis on the importance of fashion and seek to learn more of the theory and history.
Bibliography
Barthes, Roland. The Fashion System. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990.
A friend of mine sent me a link to Janelle Monáe’s “Tightrope” video earlier this summer, and I have been obsessed with the dame ever since (I give you permission to play it when you want to cheer yourself up, and/or have an impromptu dance party, as I do). Not only are her pipes amazing (her concept CDs Metropolis: the Chase Suite, and the sequel The ArchAndroid, are testament to her vocal and style range), but her look! — it’s quirky, fun, formal, and has a healthy dash of what I must assume are her professional singer / performer icons, who mostly appear to be men (James Brown and Michael Jackson high up there). Metropolis is obviously an homage to Fritz Lang’s 1927 classic, and both Lang’s and Monáe’s are futuristic tales of class struggle and oppression; in Monáe’s case, it’s more explicitly about race, with a healthy smattering of gender twisting in there.
Janelle’s first video “Many Moons” depicts an android auction of Janelles, each robot primped and dressed and coiffed for different personalities; bidding wars take place among the underworld elite members of the audience as they compete for the Janelle version they desire, while the prototype Janelle performs live while her sisters are sold off.
The Chicago Tribune wrote of the sequel album (which can just as easily be applied to the premier):
“‘The ArchAndroid’ has ambition to burn. It’s a self-empowerment manifesto couched inside a futuristic “emotion-picture” about an android’s battle to overcome oppression. The notion of space travel and “new worlds” becomes a metaphor for breaking out of the oppression that enslaves minorities of all types in the present one — a theme that has a long tradition in African-American music, from Sun Ra and Parliament-Funkadelic to Cannibal Ox and OutKast.”
What I couldn’t help noticing was an uncomfortable similarity to modern-day fashion shows the auction block was. The chic foreign announcer, Lady Maxxa, introduces auction show with live performer Cindy Mayweather (Janelle), who is the prototype of the Alpha Platinum 9000 droid line. Cindy Mayweather performs the song we’re listening to, to the enthusiastic concert-like crowd’s cheers, dressed in Janelle’s staple white dinner jacket with black silk ribbon tie and nouveau saddle shoes shown to their advantage by highwater tuxedo pants, topped by Janelle’s ever-amazing pompadour.
The introductory celebrity shots of crowd members in the video mimic the paparazzi shots of the front rows at runway shows (which actually have their own photo section on Style.com), giving perhaps undeserved clout and prestige to the designer who snags A-listers attendees, regardless of the strength of the collection on display. The photo below of Jennifer Lopez and Eva Longoria literally cuts off the actual model in favor of the famous attendees:
Jennfier Lopez and Eva Longoria at Diane Von Furstenberg, Spring09
When Cindy Mayweather throws her jacket off in a burst of enthusiastic performing (2:06), revealing her cinched cummerbund, girls in the mosh pit shriek in ecstasy, upsetting the typical gender divide of girls shrieking for male sex symbols. This is only mildly surprising, since the outfit, high hair, and energetic mic moves are very much in the vein of James Brown (whom Janelle readily claims as a primary inspiration):
Over the years, fashion shows have moved from private parlors of the fashion house to larger and more ornate venues, often bombarding the larger audiences with light shows, video installments (Steve McQueen famously used holograms one year), and live musical performers, increasing the fashion spectacle to performance art highs. Below is the delightfully quirky Tori Amos performing for one of my favorite Viktor & Rolf runway shows, Autumn/Winter 05:
The theme of multiplicity and interchangeability of non-Caucasian ethnicities (“they all look the same”) is explored too (see my earlier post on multiplicity in Coraline). All androids, including the performer Cindy Mayweather, are part of the same line of androids, but are dressed up differently. Their shared roots are only made explicit in shots of the chorus backstage, when they’re all wearing identical tuxes (but different from Cindy Mayweather’s tux):
Monae has turned the fashion industry’s standard of racial desirability on its head here, since in our world, models of color are notoriously overlooked and under-employed. In a rather shocking NYTimes article about model scouts who seek recessive white gene pools in Brazil it was noted, “The goal, he and other model scouts say, is to find the right genetic cocktail of German and Italian ancestry, perhaps with some Russian or other Slavic blood thrown in. Such a mix, they say, helps produce the tall, thin girls with straight hair, fair skin and light eyes that Brazil exports to the runways of New York, Milan and Paris with stunning success.” Janelle has tipped the scales so in her futuristic world there is the unapologetic presentation of beautiful women of color on the runway, but with the uneasy narrative of an android (slave) sale. Below is an etching of an actual slave auction; you can see there is the auctioneer (not a stunning, fashionable black woman but a white man), the dapper white men looking to buy a human being (some of whom have switches in their hands already), and an upsettingly orderly clump of black men, women and children behind the stage awaiting their turn to be put on the auction block:
The advertised prices of the androids could just as easily be pricetags of designer clothes…
and Monae’s androids aren’t so meek. The fierce faces the various androids make are taken directly from the fashion runways: no smiles allowed, just sexy, defiant snarls.
And traditional gender and racial stereotypes are questioned subtly again in the backstage primping, when a white male adjusts the corset and hair of one of the androids;
The image most common in European and American art is that of a black servant or maid doting on his/her alabaster employer. One of the most famous is that classic depiction of enslaved Mammy from Gone with the Wind (1939), lacing Scarlett’s stays for a picnic she herself will not attend:
Interestingly, the costumes the various androids parade in aren’t typical slave rags, but are archetypes of wealthy white men pastimes. The jockey,
The gentleman hunter,
The slick banker,
and the flaneur dandy.
The exception is a clear homage to Amelia Earhart — who excelled in a male-dominated profession in male clothes (see my post on Women, Pants & Politics) — and whose photo is actually projected behind the android who wears a similar pilot jumpsuit and goggles. Distinctly not glamorous, with a clomping booted gait, the low camera angle emphasizes the android’s strength, stature and importance:
All told, I’m not sure that Janelle Monáe intended this to be commentary on the fashion industry per se, but it’s undeniable that she took heavy inspiration from designer runways to develop her racial / social / gender agenda with these concept albums. Deliberate or not, it’s frankly a bit disturbing to me that the fashion runway format lends itself so perfectly to this tale of oppression, the stink of slavery and continued female oppression in a glossy, modern, eerily familiar context.
Over the past 3 yearsWorn Through has focused on providing educational, fun, and useful content about fashion history and culture. Now we’d love to hear from you!
We’re requesting our readers complete the following survey in order to gain valuable feedback on the blog. With your feedback, not only will we be able to maintain the things you enjoy about Worn Through, but we’re also excited to work with your suggestions to make improvements! We’ve developed a very brief survey that takes less than 5 minutes to do.
Thank you very much in advance for taking the time to participate. To show our appreciation, two individuals who participate will be selected in a drawing to win a fabulous fashion book sent to you for free!
We’re so excited to read the responses and continue to grow Worn Through.
The Textile Curator will be responsible for the textile, gold-tooled leather and wallpaper collection. European tapestries, linen damasks, oriental carpets, upholstered interior elements, European textiles (including silk fabrics) and lace represent key sub-collections. The curator should have a vision for the development of this collection, make proposals for acquisition, and implement policy with respect to the formation, maintenance/preservation and management of this sub-collection. This position falls under the Department of Fine and Decorative Arts, which comprises curators, academic staff, project employees and trainees in the area of European and Asian painting, sculpture and applied arts. The curator will make a professional impression and can communicate his or her knowledge of the collection with enthusiasm, with the aim of increasing awareness of the wealth of textile ornament and iconography and the visually prominent role textile plays in European interiors.
For more information, please see the official job description or contact Gregor Weber, Head of Department of Fine and Decorative Arts, by phone on +31 (0)20 674 7282. For questions regarding the application procedure, phone Anita Jansen, Human Resources Manager, on +31 (0)20 674 7326.
*Wedding Dress, ca 1759. Rijksmuseum – Netherlands
*
, or any issue of the Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, he would have known that he was not a pioneer in this area.
(2005) by Grant McCracken
(2009) by Joseph Hancock
*
, New York: Crown, 1998. 177)
.jpg)
.
. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1990.
. Piscataway, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2003.
*
