An entire museum of fashion! Can you believe it? I hardly could. This was a really fun excursion; the only downside was that I didn't realize how quickly time was passing as I were
in the museum, and I accidentally spent over half of our free time in this one place. Oh well, it was worth it! Going into the museum was almost like entering another realm (appropriate, considering yesterday was Alice's Day), as you walk down the little staircase into a dimly-lit basement (to preserve the old items). It felt like a lawless, unregulated land, as the exhibits had many twists and turns and very few people wandering about. On the walls, all along the staircase, were black and white fashion photographs (the only one in which I recognized the model was this photo of Twiggy).
One of the first things I saw in this museum was a large glove display. I actually really don't like old gloves - the proportions of the fingers bother me - so that wasn't
a great start. It got better though! There were lots of historical fashions, including this open robe and closed robe. I hadn't known that there was a difference until I saw this exhibit, but apparently the open robe had a silk petticoat underneath that was mean to e seen, and was the appropriate thing to wear at formal social occasions. The closed robe was an alternative choice, which seemed kind of odd to me. I would think that a closed robe would be more formal than an open robe.
There was a man's suit on display; seeing men's fashion in museums is always interesting, because it is usually much more rare than women's clothing. The plaque accompanying this suit stated that "this silk velvet man's coat, with stiffened side plants and matching breeches, was worn with a powdered wig." I think it's so interesting how much fashion has changed in a relatively short time period. This suit was dated in the 1750s, which is only 250 years ago. That seems like a long time, but compared to the difference in fashion from 1500 to 1750, style has changed exponentially! If anyone left the
house wearing a suit like this, or more hilariously, a powdered wig, they would be laughed off the streets. Although who knows - fashion is cyclic, so perhaps enlightenment fashions will become stylish again. Honestly though, the funniest part of the suit to me wasn't mentioned in the plaque. What made me decide to take a picture of it was how puffed up the suit is - like the man wearing it was imitating a rooster in a cockfight. I don't know if that was the look people were going for back then, or if the suit would look more natural on an actual human as opposed to a mannequin, but the posture seemed odd to me.
There were more gloves after the puffed suit - but these ones did not bother me like the initial creepy long-fingered ones. These glove proportions seemed much more natural to me, and the patterns on them are really cool because some of them were printed, and some were painted. The printed ones from 1800 were "printed using copper-plate processes" and the painted ones from the 1950s were hand-painted in Worcester. I didn't realize that textile printing was around in 1800, and that it was using for such small, personal items as gloves. That was very interesting to learn.
Another pair of gloves that caught my eye were were made of leather so thing that they
could (theoretically) be rolled up and stuffed inside of a walnut shell. They were called Limericks, and originated in Ireland, from the glove-maker Cornelius Lyon. This man made gloves for Queen Victoria! I don't know that I entirely believe that they could fit inside the walnut, considering they were displayed openly, rather than stuffed inside the nut, but I would like to believe that they could. I'm quite intrigued, honestly. How would these gloves feel? They must be extremely flexible and thin, so I wonder if they would provide any warmth at all. I would hazard a guess that they do not, as their purpose is likely more decorative than practical. Either way, I would love to try on a pair of Limericks some day.
I found a gown from 1800 that was made out of muslin. At first I thought this was a mistake,
because in my studio classes, we just use muslin as a mock-up, before creating the actual item. But this dress was intentionally made with muslin, that was printed with a pine cone pattern (I also hadn't realized that people printed on muslin, again, because I thought muslin was only ever used in the brainstorming process). This was particularly cool because the muslin was produced in Scotland, and I was just there! The plaque accompanying this dress noted that there was such a high demand for muslin that "a London warehouseman wrote to a Manchester mill owner: 'Turn all your weavers to muslins...'." It's so cool that people desired this fabric so extensively back then, considering how unwanted muslin is in final products currently. I feel inspired to make things out of muslin now!
Quite possibly my favorite item in the entire museum was this boy's frock. According to the plaque, "In the mid-1800s boys wore frocks, or dresses, until they were about six or seven. The reason was that it was much easier to go to the toilet wearing a dress. It was a big moment in a boy's life when he was 'breached', that is old enough to wear trousers." It definitely makes sense for young children to wear dresses, but in modern times, many parents would be mortified if their son wore a dress. It's interesting how, as a society, we've become more open and tolerant of diverse groups, but the line between masculinity and femininity is thick and unyielding. In the 1800s, all the children would be wearing dresses, but now people are so worried about how their, and their children's, genders are portrayed, they
sacrifice practicality in order to nurture toxic masculinity.
I saw this beaver-fur top hat, which I could honestly take or leave. Wheat I liked about this item was the notes that went along with it: "Satirical magazine Punch, which made fun of many styles of dress I the 1800s, commented that the brim was so narrow that: '... a lady-bird can settle, and that is all.'" Now I really want to find a magazine that solely makes fun of fashions. I think that would be the peak of comical reading. I did look up Punch, and it actually makes fun of much more than just fashion. However, I did find this cartoon that I quite enjoyed, with the accompanying dialogue: "Slaves of Fashion: Ethel: 'Lend me your hanky Mabel." Mabel: 'Haven't you one in your bag?' Ethel: 'Good gracious, my dear girl, do you think I should put anything in this bag? It's as much as I can carry empty!'" I'm not going to explain the joke. If you don't get it, then you're just going to have to live with the knowledge that there's a very funny cartoon out there that you don't understand and never will.
Near the end of my walkthrough, there was the option to draw your own design on croquis. This activity was obviously meant for small children, but that didn't stop me! Unfortunately, I only had a few minutes before I had to leave, so I couldn't make anything good. Instead, I decided to go undercover and draw something that a 5 year old would. I took a picture of the board where the other children and I put up our drawings, so if you want to gaze upon my lovely creation, you are free to do so.
One of the last exhibits was quite ethereal. It was called the Collection of Stories. There were these collections of fashions, organized into these rooms that looked a bit like those rooms in zombie films where the zombies are taken to be experimented on by the government. There were no zombies here however; instead, there were shoes, wedding clothes, detachable collars, and so many other collections that I didn't take pictures of. There were also some creepy dolls that had outfits "matching" a human-sized version. I say "matching" with the quotation marks, because as you'll notice if you look at the pictures, there are some differences between the outfits. For instance, the collar goes all the way down the front and around to the back on the first red human version, but the collar is very short on the accompanying doll. For the blue one, the doll has a ruffle all down the front, and the human one does not. Honestly, there were so many differences that I would not think the outfits were meant to match, if the plaques had not indicated this was the case.
The last exhibit had some more current fashions. This first photo is actually a fashion doll (she's about half a meter tall), and she even had little shoes and cigarettes! The next photo is a look made of plastic, which reminded me of something I made for my college application portfolio. It was a hat I had made out of clear plastic vinyl, and from certain angles looked like I had just mashed some weird garbage onto my head. Everyone I showed it to (friends, family, odd acquaintances) didn't like it and thought it was weird, but I thought it was cool. I'm glad to see that famous designers are taking after me. Haha, I'm kidding, this look was made in 2014 - 3 years before I made my hat. It was made by Gareth Pugh and chosen as Dress of the Year 2014 by Katie Grand, so that bodes well for my future! The last look is just one that I thought looked ridiculously cool. It's a Louis Vuitton.
All in all, the museum was a one in a lifetime experience! Aside from the creepy gloves and dolls, I quite enjoyed everything I saw there. OK, I even enjoyed the creepy stuff - that was cool too.