Elisabeth Wilson: "Reform Dress"

Lecture notes from September 11, 2007

Reform dress is an important conclusion of the 20th (19th?) century because from that comes pretty much everything that we think and assume about fashion these days.

If to go back to 1789, the advent of the French Revolution we start to find fashion criticism - the issues about sex, gender and class. The use of a dress. The criticism of fashion lasted until the 19th century when it started to intersect with the perspectives of philosophy and political science. For instance, Marie Antoinette represented the strong political attitude when presenting herself in an informal dress. And then, moving on in time, socialist communities started to create their own image of a dress. Early 19th century groups of socialists expressed the new ideas, new ways of living and also new dresses. The most radical idea of that time was the trousered tress for both sexes.

And, another interesting exsample - an influence coming from Turkey were trousers under the dress. Then the political ideas of feminism influenced dressing. Although the agricultural working women had worn trousers before this was tied with immorality and lower classes before it became fashion.

One joke spread out - woman as a trouser-wearer - should she now also act like a man and ask her father-in-law the hand of her groom?

Fighting against the corset - why oh why should a woman wear a corset? Political rebellions through fashion/dressing. Women becoming free of corset that had crippled them for centuries. Clothes as a tool to express oneself and also a tool to fight for women's rights. Today it is all about fashion following, it's the eternal fight in business. This breaking from the "prisoning" ended the criticism on fashion.

Another aspect that stopped the criticism was the aesthetics movement. The simple form of dress and embroidery as a craft was very important. And then there was William Morris' arts and crafts movement which became popular in Europe, especially in Germany. W. M. was a socialist, marxist, but despite of that he became a businessman who was engaged in embroidery production and brought the flower-patterns into fashion.

In 1875 Liberty's in London started to sell reform dress. Japan became very popular. Hygiene matters got a new meaning. The dirt and air pollution also influence dressing. Sport appeared in women's daily agendas, mostly tennis and riding. In the beginning they played tennis in corsets, that made the skin itchy, in turn to scratch and ended with blood on dress. After that there was the manifest-protest against everything that deforms the figure or size of the body. We want reform dress!

Another new dimension in clothing was that women started to work. Women became more similar to men. In 1899 the "Critique of society" included the critique of a dress and fashion cycle. The main argument was that people don't need all these clothes - it's wasting resources, labor etc. No one needs fashion cycle! Fashion in turn demands things we don't have/ who we are not/ what we don't need!

Anyhow, heavy clothing was unhygienic. The most influencial designer of the time was Paul Poiret. He brought up high waist-line, short curly hair, revolutionary silhouette, straight lines and a trousered dress.

Until the 1914 is considered the ending of the 19th century. Imperial tensions from Russia, the women's movement and history took their shape.

From these days everything can become fashionable. Theories, food, politics, interior design - there are thousands of matters than have become, are becoming and will become fashionable. There is fashion in everything that humans do.

For discussion
Is fashion inherently anti-feminist? - The dressing of females. To whom we dress? Maybe women don't dress so much for men any more, but dressing up has become a competition with other women.

Fashion industry is everywhere. Do we dress to be individual? But then how come we all look exactly the same? Well, this is the thing - this is fashion industry.

What would happen if there was no fashion? When there was no fashion cycle? When the fashion wouldn't ever change? Let's take jeans - they are always just jeans, so what the shape and color can vary, they are just jeans! Nothing ever really changes, it's just the conspiracy of capitalism to remind us that whether in clothes or other fashionable things - it's all a cycle that never changes. There are always influences and modifications, but the idea is the same, the capitalism, the capitalist.

For Wilson, the most ideological absurd is the school uniform. Clothing in school should not be so important, fashion has too much power, but uniforming children doesn't take that power off. She considers school uniforms as ugly, therefore questions why should children wear an ugly dress? Fashion in general provides an opportunity for self-expression: you can express rationality, ecological thinking, irrationality...