Regular readers of this blog have probably noticed the variety of forms we use to display objects from the FIDM Museum collection. When we photograph an object for in-house documentary purposes, it’s usually dressed on a headless dress form or mannequin. For exhibition and/or publication, we go all out, pairing garments with contemporaneous accessories (shoes, hat, jewelry, etc.) in an effort to present the garment as it might have been seen in its own era. The paper wigs worn by some of our mannequins are another aspect of this contextualization. More recently, we’ve used floating forms to display garments during exhibitions. The decision regarding which type of display to utilize is the result of a complicated equation involving time, resources, space, staff, garment condition and intended usage of the final image or dressed mannequin.
Notice that there is one possible, maybe even logical, way of exhibiting and presenting garments not mentioned–dressing them on a living human form. Within the museum context, garments are never worn because it could easily cause permanent damage, especially to older, fragile and possibly irreplaceable objects. Though it could be argued that separating a garment from the body, its animating foundation, lessens our ability to appreciate and understand the garment, the risk of damage is too great. This intentional separation highlights a common critique of museum fashion exhibitions: the display of garments on static forms deadens or eliminates the informative tension between dress and the human form. Exhibiting Fashion, a blog about fashion and textile museums and collections, discusses this issue in a recent post inspired by this article.
Though contemporary museums would not consider displaying garments on a living body an ethical method of museum exhibition, this wasn’t always the case. In older fashion history exhibition catalogs and texts, you can sometimes find images of a real, live human dressed in historic garb. In retrospect, this probably wasn’t the best choice for the garment, but it was once considered a valid method of documentation and display. Doris Langley Moore, founder of the Fashion Museum at Bath, England, believed that seeing garments on living models facilitated a deeper understanding of the fact “that fashion is largely a series of optical illusions,” created through an almost magical combination of garment, undergarments and body.1 To this end, she wrote two books (The Woman in Fashion and The Child in Fashion) featuring garments from her extensive collection worn by such well-known figures as Vanessa Redgrave, Margot Fonteyn and Vivien Leigh. The image below showcases an 1871-73 day dress as worn by British actress Googie Withers in The Woman in Fashion.
From Doris Langley Moore, The Woman in Fashion London: B.T. Batsford Ltd., 1949: 85.
In 2001, this exact day dress was donated to the FIDM Museum as part of a large donation from the Helen Larson Estate. We photographed it from the same angle as it was seen in The Woman in Fashion. The stiff textile, a wool/silk blend, and interior tapes create the bustle effect. In her book, Doris Langley Moore called the bright blue piping “kingfisher blue.”
Day dress
1871-73
Gift of the Helen Larson Estate
2001.31.12AB
2001.31.12AB Front view
At least one museum, the V&A, has tried to bridge the gap between static and fluid forms of fashion exhibition. Their regular Fashion in Motion events present contemporary fashion in live presentations within their galleries. The garments shown during Fashion in Motion events, however, are not a part of the accessioned collection at the V&A but are provided by the featured designer. Having never had the good fortune to attend one of these events, it’s difficult to know how these events work. Do the “live” garments override the aura of the garments on exhibition? Or do they play off each other, forcing a new understanding of each garment?
Readers, what are your preferences regarding fashion exhibitions? Do you like the suggestion of life provided by a mannequin with features, including hair? Or do you prefer the blank neutrality of a headless or floating form?
1 Moore, Doris Langley. The Woman in Fashion London: B.T. Batsford, Inc.: 85.
It is amazing that you broached this subject now. I have recently been looking at your blog and noticing the forms that you use. I am a retailer and have been trying to decided which forms would be best for photographing items for our web site. Some of your displays have been helpful and this entry was a very interesting discussion of why you make the choices you do. Thanks!
Sharon, glad we could help you out!
I think there is certainly an argument for both sides. On the one hand, clothes were intended to be worn and how a fabric moves IS an integral part of that design. On the other, preservation of the garment from the many hazards of wearing must be a priority.
This is where living history and reproduction garments can help fill that gap. A faithful replica of historic garments is enormously instructive to all participants; the builder, the wearer and the observer. I’d love to see our museum do a special event with some of our signature pieces in collaboration with the Theater Costume program, which has a strong emphasis on historic methods, studies and construction. I am intrigued by the idea of displaying this dress, its photo and a reproduction worn by a model.
Surely there are garments, special ones, which would merit this treatment. Couldn’t our Textile students be involved in producing some Op Art fabric for the reproduction of one of our original Rudis?
In a perfect world, of course the garments would be shown as they were intended to be used – on the human body. But since that is not the case, then museums and exhibitors should take each case individually and base exhibition decisions on the nature of the clothing (I’m assuming this is how such decisions are already being made.)
I find that I prefer as few distractions as possible, and so I like the headless form.
And I love exhibits where the garment is seen in the round, from all angles. To me, lining mannequins in a lifeless row is what contributes to the static nature of many exhibits.
Another thing that helps see the living nature of clothing is the inclusion of period film footage of the garment being worn, but that is not always available.
I don’t know, but couldn’t all the wonderful technological advances that the movies are using be employed? I’m thinking of movies like Alice in Wonderland and Avatar, where the appearance of the actors was altered digitally. Could the clothing not be digitalized in the same way?
Another dimension to the dress form is the viewpoint of the dressmaker, fitter or seamstress who would have seen it displayed that way (and worked on the garment on such a form). Unless the exhibit needs a life-like appearance, say for sports clothes, then I think the floating form is more appropriate.
Sounds like the floating forms win! They do look fantastic, but if you read our blog entry on the process, they’re a lot of work to create. We plan to use them for our next major exhibition…we’re already working on them now!
Kara, really interesting idea! As you know, we have a few repro items (corsets, bustle & petticoat) for students to try on. And the study collection allows students to touch/examine historic garments. But, I think you’re suggesting that students work directly from a garment in our collection to create a reproduction. Email me directly and we can talk further about your ideas! We’re always looking for more ways to integrate FIDM curriculum and the collection.
Lizzie, what you’re suggesting is a great idea. I’m sure there are digital technologies that would allow the simulation of a dress on the body. Unfortunately, I think that integrating those technologies into museum exhibits would require a significant investment. But it would be fascinating!
Christian, you’ve articulated something I’d never thought about. You’re right that sports clothing might look a bit odd on a floating form. They’re meant for movement and wouldn’t read as well in a totally static form.
Indeed, as Christian Esquevin said, the floating form is more pratical at least from the point of view of the dressmaker. The mannequin is more appropriate in other contexts, for example in window dressing.