Machine Age Aesthetics:
An Investigation
of the Significance of Modernism into Cubism in the Modern Era.
What is Modernism?
Modern
is any thing that brakes with the way things have been done before. Change began with the Industrial revolution when
everyday chores were made a little easier and time was left to spend thinking
of other things to do and having more time to do them. The invention of tube paint was a real brake
through for art as this freed the artist from the alchemy of paint making giving
him/her time to express themselves in their art. The first appearance of this is with
impressionism but Cubism is where the radical change from tradition began. In Cubism we see the artist question what
they see and apply this in geometric shapes and muted palette. Altering perspectives to analyse the object
before them to change the three-dimensional object into two-dimensional
canvas. Synthetic Cubism is probably the
ultimate change when as well as abstracting the object they use collage of
everyday materials applied to canvas as well as paint. Picasso and Georges Braque were the main
artists of this movement and could be judged as the founders of modern art, as
many movements derive from their inspiration.
In
1913 just before the Russian revolution (1917), Constructivists in Russia
wanted change their world to a utopian and utilitarian society affecting their
environment as well as their society.
The movement began in 1913 as a reaction to the way Russia was ruled by
the Tsar. Constructivism embraced machine production,
manufactured materials, photography and any mass produced communication, they
believed in easing hardship for the down trodden masses. Theorist Aleksei Gan wrote the ideology of
constructivism.
Constructivism
like Popova had a short time of popularity in fashion and textiles. The ideology is sound but in practise proved
too tricky, the unquenchable thirst of the fashion animal proved to difficult
to keep up with, and so the bright geometric patterns all but disappeared. It was also found that society was not ready
to embrace utility clothing as fashion, clothes that had practical purpose but
looked beautiful.
This
movement led by architects affected sculptors and designers; writers and poets. The aspiration of the movement was to provide
a better life for the majority of the people.
This ideology included clothing and fabric when artist Liubov Popova
entered the world of textile design for mass-production.
Popova
spent some time in Paris and painted in the Golden Fleece salon under Cezanne,
an influence of cubism is noted in her work.
The 1920s was when Popova began in textile design after being invited to
work at the First Textile Factory (Tsindel) in Moscow in 1922. Previous to WWI designs had come straight
from Paris and almost no factory had an in-house designer. Popova was at the height of her creative
ability during this period. Although
prolific her time at the factory was brief it lasted only six months before her
untimely death. About a hundred textile
designs (fig. 1) and several dozen clothing designs (fig. 2 & 3) were found
in her studio; at this time she was also designing posters, books and
magazines, not forget she was teaching in The Material Design of the
Performance.
Popova
said “That no single artistic success gave her such profound satisfaction as
the sight of peasants and workers buying pieces of her material.” ‘And indeed this past spring all Moscow was
wearing fabric with designs by Popova without knowing it – vivid, strong drawings
full of movement, like the artist’s own nature.’ (Dmitri V. Sarabianov : 1990). Her brief success in clothing the masses was
not truly in utility clothing the style and time not ready for this change in class and social system despite the Revolution. Her aim chiefly to bring art to the masses
rather than actual utility clothing is what drove Popova.
Futurists
and Dada influenced Sonia Delaunay, an accomplished painter who took up
embroidery whilst pregnant.
“Embroidery became a means to break free from
the academic traditions of line structure dominating colour, allowing her to
apply colour directly to the ground.”(Matteo de Leauw-de Monti : 2011)(fig.
4)
Delaunay
is said to have had a more prolonged affect on fashion than Stepanova and
Popova as artists in the fashion industry.
These women were artists first and foremost where as Chanel barely
showed any influence from the company she kept such as Picasso.
Social Changes for Women
and their Significance on Utility Clothing
After
the scandal of V-neck/pneumonia blouses, that were denounced form the pulpit
and advised against by doctors in 1913, came an even greater shock – the rise
of the hemline in 1925! Again the clergy
denounced this show of flesh and blamed an earthquake in Amalfi as an act of an
angered god upon this! In America they
fined and imprisoned women for skirt lengths that were more than three inches
above the ankle! Thankfully women
rebelled and continued to follow fashion and went on to shock the men folk
further by cutting their hair.
Shocking
as this seems even crazier to us now that women at that time were not equal to
men and in marriage were lost to their husbands voice and rule (Sir William
Blackstone 1723 – 80).
A
feminist, Mary Wollstone Craft wrote “A Vindication of the Rights of Women” in
1792 to highlight the double standards that were applied to women as reaction
to Thomas Paines “The Rights of Man” that every man was entitled to a pension,
free education and votes for all man. Women’s
liberation trickled forward slowly until 1906 when the Women’s Social and Political
Union, which was formed in Manchester in 1903 by Emmeline Pankhurst and
daughters whose motto was “Deeds not words,” moved to London.
Militant
action ceased in 1914 when the out break of WWI when Emmeline Pankhurst called
a halt to re-focus energies for the more important purpose of the war
effort. It took till 1918 for most women
aged thirty and above to get the vote (Representation of the People Act), this
age was lowered to twenty-one in 1928.
The
empire dress that was freer than the previous corseted figure, no longer
pushing the bust forward, narrowing the hips.
Wider hats gave the illusion of narrowing the hips further. Before war started the silhouettes shifted
towards the looser fitted garment. An
overskirt was worn over a narrower skirt, which was then abandoned during
WWI.
With
men being drafted into the armed forces and in particular the army, women were
left to fill job vacancies, a shift occurred in how clothes were perceived and
worn (fig. 8). This meant that clothing
had to radically change to suit the more active roles that women were
fulfilling, garments with military uniform style was adopted, although certain
dress codes were still adhered to and trousers were never worn. Even in munitions factories dresses were worn
with long overalls and turban-like headscarves to protect themselves from dust
(fig. 9). The only exception appears to be the Land Army women who wore long
tunics with jodhpurs and knee length lace up boots.
All
very unappealing, come the end of the Great War women wanted a radical
change. In came the barrel shape dress
where women were enclosed in a tube with dropped waistlines and flatteners to
minimise the bust appeared (fig. 6).
After
the shackles of ill-designed clothing women wanted clothes that would suit
their needs as well a looked good and make them feel good. The pace of life had sped up women wanted
their clothes to help them not hinder.
Society
was never the same again, where some reverted to previous dress codes some
wanted to retain the freedoms that war had initiated. Rising in Paris at a similar time to Popova,
was Gabrielle ‘Coco’ Chanel who helped change society and radically altered
clothes. Coco was in step with social
pioneers and although from a lowly background had great ambition. Chanel manoeuvred into an elite social
circle and as a self-styled role model affected change from within. Her slender flat chested frame became the
fashion reaction to the corset and ‘s’ figure of previous decades (fig. 5). As an accomplished dressmaker she stripped
clothing design to a simple cut and line taking inspiration from men’s
tailoring and workwear. Her designs
fitted with times, expectations and requirements of modern women who wanted to
move more freely and unencumbered.
Money
was returning along with the rise of middle class, ‘new money,’ affluent times
lay ahead. A business savvy Chanel
purchased a bulk order of jersey fabric that had previously had been used for
navy uniform and sportswear and transformed it into haute couture material. Her position in society allowed her to
encourage informal wear as a way of day-to-day attire that became a fashion,
‘dressing down was the new mode.’ The middle class enjoyed this new more level
field of dress and had the wealth to afford holidays and to pursue a sporting
interest (fig. 7).
Mass Production
An
icon of this time was Edward VII, before abdication was known for his trend
setting style and brought about the popularity of wearing plus-fores both off
and on the golf course. For the most
part women didn’t really take up sports but sportswear a term coined in America
was used to cover all casual clothing in pursuit of leisure, such as swimming,
relaxation and sport. “In 1930 Mary
Bagot founded the Women’s League of Health and Beauty. Her daughter became poster girl of the league
with its motto “Movement is Life”. The
League organised several performances of exercise routines en masse- one
occasion involved 5,000 women. The
official uniform consisted of black satin shorts and a sleeveless white “waist”
(blouse). Apparently members were
advised to shave their armpits and use deodorant.”(Kindersley : 2012)
“Attitudes
to mass produced goods changed in the 1920s, ‘Ready to wear fashion was beginning
to loose its former stigma as a working class necessity, and instead was seen a
modern response to the industrial age.” (English: 2007).
Patou,
Lanvia, Vionnet, LeLong, Molyneux, Piguet and Chanel saw America as the land of
opportunity and took advantage of the wealthy American dollar. Export from Paris fashion was at its highest
in the 1920s with design houses expanding and employing as many a five hundred
people per house. Business stepped in
and with new technologies in fabrics and machinery piracy was not far
behind. Soon the American market was
flooded with cheap copies of Paris originals.
American buyers would purchase dozens of each line to sell at high
prices and make many more in the new synthetic materials. The simplified designs of the 1920s meant
that machines could be altered quickly with minimum effort with the new
standardized sizes.
To
combat piracy and recover control ‘Ready to wear’ and designer labelling
came. Paris designers tried to close the
loopholes by introducing licensing and copyrights, all were swimming against
the tide except Chanel who embraced the new machine age and swam with it
accepting the copies as flattery and knowing her designs had become a fashion.
Her aspirations of no longer wanting to dress a few clients but a desire to
clothe a few thousand were fulfilled in mass production.
When
the depression began with the Wall Street crash in the 1930s America closed
it’s doors to the foreign imports and would only allow small amounts of Paris
fashion in at low duty prices. To
continue to reap the American dollar Paris fashion houses supplied ready cut
pieces with full instructions of assembly.
This further played into the mass market and piracy and the end of haute
couture.
The
ties with Paris severed meant the American designers now had their chance to
demonstrate and hone their abilities.
The perfect place to show their new styles was the new talkie films of
Hollywood (fig. 10). Movies were the Internet
of their day. People would watch entertainment
features and newsreels to learn of world news and escape their austere
lives. Cinema was watched globally and
Hollywood films and fashion promoted American design and ideals
internationally.
Styles
in the late 20s and 30s produced the elongated figure with and aerodynamic feel
and an enhanced smoothing of line. Backs
were exposed, as the rear neckline dropped to reveal it. Clothes were snug across the hips, which
emphasised the bottom for the first time.
Preparations
for war began in the late 1930s silhouettes altered again to conform to leaner
times produced by rationing. 1939 saw the beginning of the Second World War
bringing new restrictions of cloth, as with many other things, but with the
ambition of maintaining morale. Rations
were imposed on almost everything to ensure that provisions that were in short
supply were divided evenly. Clothes and
fabric were strictly controlled because fabric was needed to make uniforms and
parachutes. The ration system where
clothes and fabric was purchased using coupons meant everyone got a share of
what was available. People were encouraged
to patch and darn; to be creative with remnants and old clothes to get them
help themselves during shortages.
A
utility scheme was introduced with arrange of staple wardrobe pieces and label
of ‘CC41’ (Civilian Clothing 1941).
These garment were deigned by the Incorporated Society of London Fashion
Designers of Inc. Soc. headed by
Molyneux.
“Molyneux
was Irish born in 1894, he worked in London with the first ‘Grande Dame’
dressmaker, Lucile, and after a distinguished war career (WWI) he opened his
shop in Paris 1919. In 1930 he opened in
London under the direction of his sister Kathleen. I speak of shops because I cannot bear the
word ‘salon’ – but of course dress houses were like grand private houses. At Molyneux’s at 48 Grosvenor Street you were
greeted by a butler. ‘I remove everything
not necessary’, he said. ‘Plainness is
all.’ But he paid great attention to
cut, finish and above all, proportion.” said Hardy Aimes. (McDowell:
1997). Hardy Aimes, was one of the
designers in Inc.Soc. with Norman
Hartnell, Degby Morton and Victor Stiebel.
The
depression heavily influenced design of WWII wardrobe where costs in production
and change in societies purse meant people couldn’t afford to produce or
purchase volumus clothing or extravagant clothes. Waistlines become high at just above the norm
and hemlines lowered. The brassiere changed from
flattening the bust to support and separation with two formed cups came about
in the 1930s. The look was of square
shoulders nipped in waist and skirt hemlines just below the knee, which had a
military appearance. These designs met the
clothing regulations of features and fastenings (fig. 11).
To
encourage women to enlist in military roles uniforms were designed to flatter
the female figure (fig.14)(fig. 12). It
also helped women to be accepted by men into ‘their world’.
Women
were encouraged to keep up appearances as a form of morale boost for them as
well for their men to come home to. Duty,
pride and a belief in doing the right thing helped women suffer many
restrictions of the war effort. For as
well as being left to look after the home without the husbands many were
stripped of their children with evacuations of cities. Women were expected to work for the war
effort filling the vacancies left by men that had been enlisted into the armed
forces or conscripted into vital war work.
The
Government knew that all would fail if the women of Britain would not step up
and take an active role on the home front.
We should not forget those that actually went to war themselves, maybe
not on the frontline but not far from it in hospitals; in airplanes on test and
transportation, in the blitz as wardens, on the land farming (fig13), factories
making munitions (fig. 17), aircraft, equipment (fig. 16), fabric and garments
(fig. 18). Last but not least at home,
maintaining the family trying to keep it all together for everyone.
The
use of military style is still visible today in fashion, shops such as Urban
Outfitters where the modern uniform of combat gear is clearly used in urban
clothing with cargo trousers and large pockets even epaulettes. Clean line garment construction is used in
the upper end high street and design wear too, where understatement of wealth
is still preferable to outlandish adornment just like Chanel’s first designs
and the utility clothing of WWII. Seen
in retail outlets such as The Loft (Bath), Toast and Jigsaw.
Bibliography
é Dmitri V. Sarabianov, Natalia Adaskina , 1990, Liubov Popova, Thames
& Hudson, London
é Dorling Kindersley, 2012,Fashion – The Ultimate Book
of Costume and Style, DK, printed in China
é James Lever, 1995, Costume and Fashion, Thames &
Hudson, printed in Singapore
é Bonnie English, 2007, A Cultural History of Fashion in
the 20th Century from the Catwalk of the Sidewalk, Berg, printed in
Great Britain.
é Colin McDowell, 1997, Forties Fashion & The New
Look, Bloomsbury, printed in Great Britain.
é Matteo de Leauw-de Monti and Petra Timmer, 2011, Colour Moves Art and Fashion by Sonia Delaunay, Thames & Hudson.
é Christian Lodder, Tate Papers Issue 14, 1 Oct 2010. ww.tate.org.uk 16 January 2013
é Lyubov Popova:-
Her textile and dress design, 10 April 2009,www.queensof
vintage, 16 January 2013
é Pocket histories, Suffragettes,www.
Museumoflondon.org.uk, 16 January 2013
é British History, general Editor Professor Eric Evans,
2002, Parragon. Printed in Indonesia.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment