I seem to be on a kick with focusing on the works of scholars who have come before us lately. We have a lot to learn from those who have studied before us, if we pay attention. No need to reinvent the wheel when the original is amazing and still works. Stella Mary Newton, an English fashion designer and dress historian, was an advisor to the National Gallery, a guest lecturer for Cambridge University and founded a postgraduate course in the History of dress at the Courtauld Institute of Art. She brought the use of history of fashion to bear in art history to the dating of paintings. In her article, “The Study of Costume in Painting” for Studies in Conservation, Newton discusses the study of dress in works of art. Here are some notes of commentary from the article. There are three primary venues for the study of period dress: literature, extant garments, and works of art. Literature refers to sumptuary laws, letters, diaries, writings of moralists, and inventories. Extant garments referring to any articles of clothing that can be scientifically dated to be within the period studied. Finally, works of art, any creation--sculpture, paintings, drawings, frescos, illumination, etc. (I believe any recreation must consider all three venues of information.) Newton reviews the limitations of each venue. Limitations of Literature 1. In literature, the study of dress is hampered by technical language. Without context, original meaning is lost. Have you ever heard someone refer to an unknown item? It becomes a "Thing", a "Whatisit", or we refer to it by some mashup of words. I think of how we describe pants that are short, i.e. bloomers, pedal pushers, knickers, clam diggers, capris, floods, etc. Some of these terms are related to a purpose for wearing. I can only assume since we attempt to define with a string of descriptive terminology, so did those in the past. 2. Sumptuary laws and the writings of moralists are behind the times and do not often keep up with current fashion. (i.e. By the time the law is made, the fashion has changed.) Never have I seen law makers and moralists as the style icons of the day. In fact, quite the opposite. They are usually those people who resist the fashions of the time period. Their descriptions can therefore be exaggerated for effect and quite inaccurate. 3. No period glossary for inventories exists which may yield precise information. When the managers of noble households were sitting down to do their accounting work and record keeping, there was no how to guide. So, the scribe attempting to account how many of those gloves did the lady of the house own and how to describe them may have been just up to who was present and how knowledgeable those present were. There was no textbook for household record keeping that I am aware of from the period in question. 4. Diaries and letters are often hampered by slang, language blending, and a general lack of sartorial detail. A diary is a sort of, (for a lack of a better term), mental masturbation. They are intended mostly for the owner and those that he or she associates with, not for readers centuries from now. How are we to know what was slang, gibberish, or colloquial expression. I can read letters to the great ladies from solicitors describing what others were wearing and do not find measurements, systematic sartorial description with color wheel and fabric matching. What I find is affectation. What impression did the clothing give the writer and how effective is the writer at description his or her impression changes as well. Limitations of Extant Garments 1. While in some cultures considerable extant garments exist, these garments do not show how they fit the body, nor do they come with a set of measurements for the body in which they may fit, and since we do not have a period body, we may not surmise how the garment may have actually fit during the period and we may also overlook subtle changes in fit and cut through the period. Yes, there are some drawings and renderings of what may have been the perfect period physical human form, but were they typical. How are we to know? We can rely on what the archaeological record or anthropology shares somewhat. 2. Further, we may have the garments or a portion of garment, but without the accompanying undergarments, demonstrating an accurate fit may not be achieved. Underarments from culture to culture are a continuously debated subject. To bloom or not to bloom is the question and will continue to be the question. We aren't really comfortable talking about what underwear we are wearing, so why should I assume that those in period would have been. 3. Clothing generally is not labeled dates of creation. Yes, say it for me again. And again. Come on now people, I know some of you have been hoarding that special fabric since 1975. You can't seriously tell me that the Renaissance noble did not do so as well. "I am just holding on to this special fabric for my daughter's wedding, or for the next coronation. I don't have the right accessories yet" and etc. Sure, we can carbon date, but how do we know that they made the garment at the time the fabric was made. I have pieces of fabric given to me by my great-grandmother that are nearly 100 years old. They are beloved in my home, but I would not call them the fashion of this period. 4. Nothing indicates that the place of retrieval of an extant garment is also the same place that the garment was made. Yes! Again, I say. Stuff travels and we, the human race, have the habit of buying what we like from where ever we can get it and taking it with us. Everybody does it. Limitations of Works of Art 1. A practical knowledge of tailoring and dressmaking and the behavior of dress making materials are essential for proper interpretation from artwork. When looking at artwork, it would be helpful to know how a dress is made so you can determine if that is a dress or a blouse and a skirt? This is not an easy skill to develop and it may take years of observation to hone. 2. A knowledge of artistic schools and periods is necessary to identify the degrees of formalization so that interpretation of clothing can be made. You must know art. You must study art. You must learn art theory. You must know what colors, symbols, designs in art in different periods mean. Was that person really sitting there with a bird on their shoulder or is that a symbol of the household? Too many people look at a few portraits and decide that is what people looked like in that period. Please do not look at a Picasso and assume that is what women looked like, but maybe I could look at a Rockwell and see an accurate depiction of life. You just have to learn the difference. 3. One may not determine a prevalent style from one work of art or from one artist. One example does not a style make. I will say it until I am absolutely blue in the face, from the mountain tops. Show me three examples, from three different artists, in the same place, at roughly the same time frame and I will consider it, but I will probably need more to believe it. How to study costume in paintings? The study of costume becomes a matter of matching dated paintings until a clear idea of each fashion, its modifications, and the way it develops into the next fashion is learned. The benefits of studying costume in Italian paintings “Italians with their classic view of life have always been sensitive to changes of fashion, adopting, as they do today, each new fashion as soon as it appeared. But they have also loved uniformity in dress and avoided the personal eccentricities which are so much a part of the more romantic taste in dress in the north of Europe.” “The custom in Italy from at least as early as the beginning of the fourteenth until towards the end of the eighteenth century, was to dress most of the personages in religious paintings in contemporary Italian dress with modifications according to the social position of the particular character.” Artists in Italy were not specialized. If one were asked to paint a portrait, or to create a design, or to plan a fresco, the artist did it without complaint. Steady work meant steady payment. Several painters were known for creating dress designs for their wealthy patrons. Therefore, the Italian artist had a more intimate knowledge of clothing. Painters instinctively paint the clothes with which they are most familiar. And this is one of the reasons that I love the Italian Renaissance so much, but this one point is definitely another conversation entirely. Until then
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Baronessa Franca DonatoVandy Pacetti-Donelson is a milliner, costumer, illuminator and calligrapher, and researcher who is interested in all that is the Italian Renaissance. A true Florida Native originally from Saint Augustine, she now calls Daphne, Alabama her home. Vandy is known in the Society for Creative Anachronism as Baronessa Franca Donato, OL and resides in the Barony of the Osprey in the Kingdom of Merides. Archives
March 2021
|