With Darwinian and Freudian thought being firmly entrenched in cultural studies, it stands to reason that certain related assumptions would begin to be made about fashion’s place as a form of human plumage. Two early theorists of dress, J. C. Flugel and James Laver, were particularly influential in characterizing fashion as a form of decoration like that of animals, playing a part in mating rituals. Their emphasis on the female as the decorative, erotic half of the human species (Flugel 1930; Laver and de la Haye 1995) continued to be referenced in fashion exhibitions long after their essentialization of sex and gender ceased to be broadly accepted in scholarly literature. Men, it was reasoned, were less flamboyant in their display and were thus less interesting visually and in analysis.
This, as well as the relative paucity of surviving examples, explains why, while the history of female fashion can be presented in numerous ways, menswear, on the other hand, tends to be treated wholesale in a single exhibition. Indeed, Jeffrey Horsley has statistically demonstrated that exhibitions devoted to, or even including examples of, menswear are a small exception to the majority staged, and those displays devoted to the topic treat it as a space to discuss how the tension between conformity and extravagance in tailoring reflects masculinity (2017:15). Thus, the generic man, whose outside appearance Figure 3.7 Installation view of Form and Fashion: Nineteenth-Century Feminine Dress, May 9, 1992–January 15, 1993 © McCord Museum.
changes only occasionally, has appeared very infrequently in galleries. From the prosaic Male Costume (V&A, 1947–1948), the Biblical Adam in the Looking Glass (Met 1950), the exclusive Of Men Only (Brooklyn 1976), all the way up to the punning Reigning Men (LACMA 2016 and traveling), exhibits on menswear set up a binary between male and female dress. Indeed, the tensions and differences between the sexes’ taste in dress were a major thematic component of Adam in the Looking Glass, which contained a section where female designers attempted to reform male dress (see Maglio 2017). It is likely that the class and power structures of patriarchal society make it difficult to objectively critique male fashion, as opposed to the more obviously “othered”
female variety: men’s dress is fashionable as an exception but is nevertheless the dominant mode from which womenswear “borrows.” In exhibitions of male clothing, then, fashion is shown to be a marker of gender dimorphism; however, the entrenched social and cultural norms that led to this perceived division are rarely challenged.
In particular, the long-standing Western cultural association of women with flowers—the sexual part of the plant—is a recurring exhibition theme that positions women as closer to nature (as opposed to men and civilization) (Figure 3.8). Indeed, the 1995 Costume Institute exhibition Bloom featured, among its floral themes, a section on metamorphoses, a “garden of women virtually transformed into flowers … Ultimately, flower and woman seemed to be united:
floral and feminine beauty reflected one another” (Martin and Koda 1995b: 4). A gallery label for a 1978 evening ensemble by Yves Saint Laurent (2006.420.50a,b) likewise drew the connection between flowers and the female: “Planting the flower at the jacket’s center front, Saint Laurent makes the rose both a corsage and an emblematic transfiguration of the wearer. In the latter role, the stem with leaves as vertebra and flower as head reinforce an anthropomorphic vocabulary of flowers” (Martin and Koda 1995a: n.p.). This idea was also referenced more recently at the FIDM Museum in Los Angeles; the floral-themed selections of Fashion Philanthropy: The Linda & Steven Plochocki Collection (2017) were staged in a gallery bedecked with paper flowers blossoming from the walls, on mannequins adorned with floral crowns, seemingly camouflaged in their natural environment.
Martin and Koda’s successor at the Costume Institute, Andrew Bolton, organized a major exhibition on a related topic: the association of female sexuality with animal characteristics. Wild: Fashion Untamed (2004–2005) focused on the primal associations of feathers, fur, and leather, and their use in fashion across time to construct an ideal of the sexually savage woman who threatened civilized and polite society (Bolton 2004). It is clear that cultural ideas about the monstrous-feminine (Creed 1986) are present not just in film but in fashion exhibitions also. This conflation of sex, nature, and the feminine presents biological reasons behind cultural expression, suggesting that fashion
Figure 3.8 Undated postcard from the Valentine Museum, showing a mannequin in a floral gown with a floral reticule in a “garden.” Author’s collection.
follows some innate imperative toward biomimicry and the mating ritual. The 2017 Museum at FIT exhibition, Force of Nature, also addressed these ideas across ten thematic sections, demonstrating how principles from the natural sciences, especially around sexual selection, were expressed in floral and animal symbolism in fashion. The 2018 V&A exhibition Fashioned from Nature went even further, displaying scientific specimens and new technologies alongside fashionable dress to illustrate the deep and enduring connections between the materials of the natural world and their expression in fashion. The insatiable
consumer desire for fashion, it was argued, had devastating effects on the beauty and wonder of nature from which its inspiration and materials were drawn.
The design of the show, while sparse and clinically white overall, introduced some botanical elements in acrylic panels with grasses and flowers suspended within the medium to visually divide large glass cases. These also echoed the historical garments that incorporated vegetable fibers and animal parts into their manufacture and decoration. As the underlying message of the show was to incite consumers to become more aware of the environmental impact of fashion, the artifacts on display also included ones that took inspiration from the sustainable and renewable resources of nature, such as a dress cultivated from tree roots by artist Diana Scherer.
The principles of these exhibitions are more often ideological than overtly expressed in their design. Before such themed exhibitions were the norm, museums alluded to the organic relationship of fashion to nature through the use of what may be referred to as specimen mounts. Garments and accessories pinned like entomological specimens divorce the garment from its social context. The lightly padded flattened forms used in the V&A Costume Court throughout the 1970s drew attention to the surface decoration and silhouette of the fashionable carapace (Figure 3.9). Menswear in particular, with its highly tailored linear form, lends itself well to this type of display—splayed open with the arms hanging in front, the appearance of a coat is very reminiscent of an animal skin (see Figure 2.4).
Yet the layout of some fashion exhibitions also owes much to the assumptions made about the principles behind human fashionable behavior. One exhibition that put together sociology, science, and fashion in its design is the Pleasure Garden gallery in the Museum of London (Figure 3.10). One of the few display areas in this social history museum to focus almost exclusively on fashion (the collections are integrated by period, rather than separated by material), the gallery emulates the popular eighteenth-century entertainment venues that brought together gardens, music, theater, and sex: Georgian visitors to pleasure gardens would promenade among the plantings after dark, listening to music, indulging in sensuous meals, and meeting for assignations with lovers or even prostitutes. Accompanied by a soundtrack of snatches of music and conversation, museum visitors walk a narrow pebbled path between an open display and a mirrored vitrine painted with tree branches and grass. Behind the glass on one side and a latticed fence with artificial trees on the other are mannequins painted charcoal (the dim lighting in the room makes them appear like shadowy silhouettes), wearing Georgian fashion and costumes from the museum collection. The female figures wear elaborate headdresses, designed by contemporary couture milliner Phillip Treacy; the hats are decorated with flowers that echo the brocaded designs on the historic costumes or the flora that is typically cultivated in England’s public gardens. One figure sports large antlers
Figure 3.9 Unknown photographer, slide views of V&A Costume Court flat mounts for eighteenth-century gowns, c. 1980. Author’s collection.
sprouting from her wig, which seem to merge with the branches of the tree under which she is posed. Like exotic animals spotted on safari, the mannequins are camouflaged in their surroundings, but also enact period mating rituals while displaying their human finery. In this way, the Pleasure Garden functions like a natural history diorama, with fashion as the material expression of the human drive to survive.