Societal Shifts and Fashion Fads: American Women’s Fashion 1918-1980

Note: due to the format of this website, images could not be added to this paper, however, they are vital to the argument of this work. If you wish to read a complete version of this paper, email me at maelames@ius.edu and I would be happy to send it to you in a Word document

 

From 1918 to 1980, American women’s fashion underwent vast shifts in style and trends. At 1918, corsets and bustles were normal everyday wear for many women, but by 1960, bikinis were in style. Women’s fashion clearly drastically changed. Societal cultures and social norms also changed significantly, with the Roaring Twenties, the Great Depression, and multiple major wars occurring during this period. By creating a discourse examining the functionality, aesthetic appeal, and the major shifts in trends made during this period, it can be established that these dramatic shifts occurred due to political and social changes. These shifts were often because of or in response to the dominating patriarchal society in America during this time.

In order to effectively study societal shifts and fashion fads, I have divided this time into five distinct periods based on trends in women’s dress and significant events. The first is 1918-1929, covering the span of the Roaring Twenties and ending with the beginning of the Great Depression. The second period is 1930-1939, with the Great Depression. The third period is 1940-1945, examining fashion during World War II. The fourth period is 1946-1960, covering the aftermath of WWII. Finally, we will look at 1961-1980 with the major reform movements of this time.

A Brief Introduction to Fashion Terminology

Before delving into historical fashion, allow me to first define some broad fashion terminology. Waistline refers to the narrowest part of the garment or the point of differentiation between the bodice of a garment and the skirt. Popular waistlines include 1) empire waistline, sitting right beneath the breasts, 2) natural waistline, which sits at the natural waist (the smallest spot on the torso), and 3) drop waistline, falling below the natural waist or even at the hips.

Several skirt styles and lengths were popular during the time periods under study. A full-length skirt reaches the floor, sometimes with a train in the back. Tea length skirts reach mid-calf, just below the knee. Knee-length and ankle-length skirts also came into fashion, but perhaps those terms should be self-explanatory.

Waistlines along with skirt styles contribute to silhouette shapes. A sheath silhouette is comprised of a straight, often flowy (but not always) skirt. A sheath silhouette can be accompanied by any waistline and skirt length. An A-line skirt is fuller and has more structure than a sheath silhouette. It often has a natural waistline and a full-length skirt, but that is not a hard rule. A ballgown silhouette presents a very full skirt with many layers. The ballgown skirt is always full-length and hits at the natural or drop waistline. Some silhouettes examined in this study do not fall into one of these categories, however, I will address these as we come across them.

Historiography

The study of fashion has been around for decades in studies done by both industry experts and by historians. Designers would often look to the past for inspiration for new designs. For example, take a look at the blue dress on page 7. The designer clearly looked to classical Egyptian artwork to find inspiration for this piece. In the dress pictured at right, made in 1946, reflects the empire waistband that was popular in the early 1800s. The designer incorporates new ideas, such as the ties at the waistband and at the neckline, but they clearly drew significant inspiration from the fashion of the past.

The piece from the 1970s pictured at right reflects the design impact of the past. The removable floral jacket is reminiscent of an article of clothing called a “spencer”, also popular in the early 1800s. The spencer allowed the wearer to have two looks in one article of clothing.

In the field of history, the study of the fashion of the past has shifted significantly since its origin in the 1950s and 1960s. What began as straightforward studies to merely recount the popular styles of various periods has now evolved to more comprehensive studies examining fashion’s interconnectivity with other realms of society.

In 1956, Henny Harald Hansen published Costumes and Styles. In a book of primarily illustrations, Hansen recounted centuries of fashion, from Egyptians in 3000 BC to Americans in 1954. The author presented no argument, only a regurgitation of facts about styles and silhouettes. This book is still useful however as it presents primary sources and many illustrations and images throughout.[1]

Closely following in 1967, Margot Hamilton Hill and Peter A Bucknell published their Evolution of Fashion. This substantial book covered fashion from 1066 to 1930, framed around British monarchs. For each monarch during their time period, they included an image of clothing during their reign as well as some notes on the styles depicted. They included sections on popular fabrics, colors, and structure. In their notes on patterns for men and women of each time period, they go into so much detail as to include construction notes (ie what type of pleat would be used to create Elizabethan ruffs). Again a book of no strong argument, they do present a comprehensive guide to fashion in England from 1066 to 1930. The information provided gives the reader lots of knowledge that can be used to connect fashion to broader social contexts. The fabrics utilised and styles used, as described in this work, can be used to reach conclusions about the broader society surrounding the given time period.[2]

In 1995, Christopher Breward shifted fashion history significantly. In his book, The Culture of Fashion, Breward endeavors to connect fashion history to its broader historical contexts, particularly to the cultural and social significances of fashion. In order to present the “cultural significance of fashion,” Breward takes perspectives from art history, design history, economic studies, and literary theory. For the purposes of his study, he defines fashion as “ clothing designed primarily for its expressive and decorative qualities, related closely to the current short-term dictates of the market, rather than for work or ceremonial functions.” In studying the cultural significance of fashion, Breward contends that fashion plays a “largely uncredited role” in the juxtapositions between demographics in society, such as that between men and women, Protestants and Catholics, generations, and occupations. Breward says that the time is ripe for new fashion studies following the “new art history of the late 1970s…which drew on ideas from Marxism, feminism, psychoanalysis and structuralism” and therefore “encouraged a fresh prominence for debates incorporating problems of identity, gender and appearance, central to any definition of fashion.”[3] Breward organizes his book with a chronological approach, focuses each chapter on a historical debate or problem and further exploring the implications that fashion history has upon it. He looks at medieval, Renaissance, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries of fashion. This book throughout has demonstrated a cyclical cycle to fashion trends and the author, therefore, proposes that a look at contemporary fashion is beneficial, especially given designers’ new takes on history and culture. He shows that fashion tends to follow a progression through consumer styles, which is also reflective of economic and social trends.

In 2009, Rebecca Arnold builds on Breward’s study by not only connecting fashion to culture, but also viewing fashion more broadly as art and an economic industry. In Fashion: A Very Short Introduction, Arnold strives to resolve what fashion is and how it connects to broader economic and cultural circumstances. Arnold examines fashion as an economic industry and as an art form, interweaving her study of cultural connections with fashion throughout.[4]

This study continues to build upon the works done in the past. In providing information on style, it reflects the very early studies on fashion trends. In connecting fashion to culture, it builds upon the works of Breward and Arnold. In viewing fashion through a feminist lens and studying its interactions with critics, this study moves beyond these previous studies.

Background on Fashion

Because fashion is an ever-evolving and shifting concept, we must look to times before 1918, when this study commences. You will see that trends fluidly shift and therefore beginning to look at the 1800s will prove beneficial to this study. Before 1918, women’s fashion was fairly conservative. In the early 1800s, empire waistlines and ankle-length skirts were popular during the Regency period. These skirts were a structured sheath silhouette, with at least one petticoat giving the skirt structure. Lighter colors were popular and simple patterns provided interesting designs. As more petticoats were added over time, ballgowns with natural waistlines grew popular into the 1860s. During this time, darker and bolder colors came into popularity. Into the late nineteenth century, skirts became less full, although bustles in the back of skirts stayed in style (see image at left).[5] These Victorian dresses also had fitted bodices that emphasized the natural waist, aided by corsets. As the twentieth century emerged, Edwardian styles closely imitated the Victorian with the fitted bodice and trained skirts, although bustles shrunk in size (see image at right).[6] This dress’s high cut bodice and A-line skirt with accompanying bustle were very popular during the early 1900s. Because this was created before the rise of mass-produced fashion, this dress is meant to convey opulence and social status. The lace trim was likely created by hand and the silk would have been an expensive fabric to acquire. The layers of silk and lace in this dress create an elegant ensemble popular with upper-class Americans. As time went on, dresses had smaller skirts with fewer underlayers, creating a sheath style skirt that would remain popular through the 1920s.

The Roaring Twenties (1918-1929)

The Roaring Twenties were a time of economic boom and general prosperity in the US. The 1920s are characterized by a carefree spirit throughout the American population. The fashion of the 1920s functioned to celebrate the culture of the Roaring Twenties, and the aesthetic appeal reflects the economy that flourished.

Dresses in the 1920s became looser than their Victorian counterparts and waistlines dropped as a result. Dresses also became shorter to accommodate carefree dancing. Many dresses were also sleeveless, resulting in a backlash against the flapper style.

Take a look, for example at this dress (left) created in 1925 and sold at the Martha Weathered retail clothing store in Chicago. The flashy materials create the appearance of expensive eveningwear, but its appearance in stores made the style widely available to consumers. Made of silk, metal, and rhinestones, the glitter of this dress would have made a statement in dance halls of the 1920s. Compared to earlier periods, this dress has a looser bodice and shorter skirt, showing the carefree lifestyle many enjoyed during the Roaring Twenties.[7]

Another dress (right) also dates to the 1920s, specifically 1923-6, according to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It is made mostly of silk, with metal beading accents. This dress emulates Egyptian styles, reflective of the fact that King Tutankhamen’s tomb was discovered in 1922, creating a revitalized interest in Egypt. The dress also features a flowy, column/sheath silhouette which lent itself to the popular dances at the time, which is the context in which this dress would likely be worn.[8]

These new shorter and more revealing styles faced significant backlash from older generations, as did many cultural trends popular with the young people of the 1920s. One flapper argues that although “I adore to dance…I attend hops and proms,” that the younger generations in the 1920s were “further advanced and more thoroughly developed mentally, physically, and vocationally than were our parents at our age.” This backlash however perhaps spurred flappers on in their rebellion against old school norms and the culture of their parents.[9]

Fashion of the 1920s included bob hairstyles which were met with much backlash. Irene Treadman recalls that when she cut her hair at boarding school and other girls followed suit, “irate parents wrote indignant letters to the principal, so that the joy and comfort I had found in my short hair became short-lived.”[10] This idea of rebellion and progress encouraged other women to cut their hair, as Mary Garden recalled: “I had my hair cut short because, to me, it typified a progressive step, in keeping with the inner spirit that animates my whole existence…I consider getting rid of our long hair one of the many little shackles that women have cast aside in their passage to freedom. Whatever helps their emancipation, however small it may seen, is well worth while.”[11]

Prohibition in America lasted from 1920-1933, during the time of the flappers. In keeping with their rebellion in clothing and in hairstyles, they also rebelled against the Eighteenth Amendment. In the image at right, a woman utilizes her fashion to drink alcohol. Using her garter to hold her flask, she allows herself to drink discreetly.[12]

Scott Fitzgerald highlights this rebellion and the overall spirit of the flapper movement in his 1920 work, This Side of Paradise. He says “None of the Victorian mothers – and most of the mothers were Victorian-had any idea how casually their daughters were accustomed to be kissed.” One of his female characters says “I’ve kissed dozens of men. I suppose I’ll kiss dozens more.” One of Fitzgerald’s male characters recalls that he saw girls doing “…things that even in his memory would have been impossible: eating three-o’clock, after- dance suppers in impossible cafes, talking of every side of life with an air half of earnestness, half of mockery, yet with a furtive excitement that Amory considered stood for a real moral let-down. But he never realized how widespread it was until he saw the cities between New York and Chicago as one vast juvenile intrigue.”[13]

Women’s fashion of the 920s shifted dramatically as skirts got shorter and young women grew more rebellious. Although the Roaring Twenties were a time of high fashion awareness in the midst of economic growth and cultural liveliness, the good times soon came to an end in 1929 when the stock market crashed.

The Great Depression (1929-1939)

The Great Depression is the period following the stock market crash of 1929 as America and the world plunged into dark economic times. Unemployment skyrocketed and the Dust Bowl exacerbated issues. Fashion also changed accordingly.

This dress was created in late 1934 or early 1935. Its styles are reflective of the Great Depression period, with its shorter skirt showing the budgeting of the designer.[14] Its simplistic design shows not a lack of creativity of the designer, but instead an awareness of the consumer’s needs during this period. The lace on the back of the dress and the silk material still provide an air of elegance during difficult economic times. Elizabeth Hawes, the designer of this dress believed that fashion should be created based on consumer needs, as demonstrated in her book Fashion is Spinach. She thought that popular clothing styles should not be dictated to the consumer, which I think is seen in this piece.[15]

High end styles during the Depression showed some underlying 1920s styles that continued to be popular. Sheath silhouettes continued to be popular, although waistlines moved up to the natural waistline. The shorter 1920s skirts became full-length and bright greens and blues became popular. These styles served as an indicator of class and status for only the most wealthy could afford the extra fabric and dyes these styles required. The dress pictured at left was also designed by Elizabeth Hawes.[16] It uses simple elegance as a defining characteristic. The beadwork provides a simple opulence, also showing that the beadwork popular in the 1920s carried over to the Great Depression era for those who could afford to pay for the extra cost of materials and labor.

Wedding gowns of the 1930s were equally as simple and affordable as other 1930s styles. This dress features no decoration, instead allowing the timeless silhouette to provide a simple elegance to the garment. Although some consumers would be hesitant to purchase a garment with as much excess fabric in the train as this one, the fabric in the train could easily be removed by the thrifty consumer and be used to create entirely new garments of clothing.

During the Great Depression, style took a back seat to functionality as many people made their own clothing to save money. Others reused clothing as much as possible, so everyday styles from the 1920s would still be seen on the streets in the 1930s. The Great Depression presented most people with bigger concerns than fashionability, leading to a decline in the fashion industries along with many others. The Great Depression period of fashion lacks a truly distinct style exclusive to this period, unlike early and later periods of fashion, because of the unfortunate circumstances people were placed under as a result of the stock market crash.

World War II (1940-1945)

During World War II, American society saw many significant shifts. War rationing and military service influenced women’s fashion during this period.

Perhaps the most significant change that occurred as a result of World War II is the popularity of pants for women. As men were drafted and fought abroad, women filled their jobs in factories. In order to effectively do their jobs, many women adopted pants as their primary work clothing. Functionality was clearly at the forefront of their minds. Some women chose to wear their husbands’ pants to work so they did not have to purchase new clothing and hurt the war effort in the process. Other women made their clothing, as evidenced by this pants pattern from 1942.

Seeing these new trends towards pants, some designers adapted the style into more “feminine” forms. Charles James, a well-renowned designer of the time and an innovator of design created the bifurcated skirt pictured below. The skirt’s wraparound style hides pants beneath the drape of the fabric. James draped his designs instead of relying on patterns and thus invented holely new designs. This skirt had functionality in the form of pants but also served an aesthetic purpose. The lightweight silk it is made of would flow with the wearer’s steps, creating an illusion of an ethereal lightness.[17]

However, some women still preferred dresses and skirts for everyday wear. This Claire McCardell dress (on page 11) evidences that. The wraparound style of the dress reflects wartime rationing. When looking closely at the dress, it is buttons, not zippers which fasten the dress in place. Buttons could be reused, whereas zippers use up the precious metal and plastic collected to support the war effort. This dress also shows that not all women supported the war effort by entering factory work. Some chose to support the community by remaining at home and fulfilling housewife duties, as shown by the attached potholder and practical pocket on the dress.[18]

Gender norms affected fashion not only in the new styles introduced but also in the items not available during the war. Silk and Nylon were not available for sticking and pantyhose because they were being used for parachutes. However women still felt a societal pressure to be beautiful and in the 1940s, beautiful meant wearing stockings. Although other materials were used for stockings, they were not practical as they did not stretch and could tear easily, leading to the “Stocking Panic”. So women turned to makeup, opting for a cream that gave the appearance of stockings or drawing stocking seams with eyeliner, or both. In the picture at left, a Hollywood starlet applies her stocking seam with an eyebrow pencil and a homemade contraption.[19]

Women in uniform also felt pressures to be beautiful, even when on duty. This advertisement is for a lipstick that matches a women’s natural coloring, allowing her to look “smart- but never painted.” Women in uniform had to live up to the standard to look pretty, but they paradoxically could not look like they tried too hard or wore heavy makeup. It is also interesting to notes the recycling options at the bottom of the advertisement, offering options to refill lipstick rather than throw the empty tube away.

Rationing significantly impacted the fashion of the 1940s. Red dyes became more popular as the military used more green and brown dyes. In Europe the rationing of fabrics and articles of clothing fell on the consumer, with ration coupon books being issued for clothing. In the United States, however, this rationing fell upon the manufacturers. The War Production Board had a textiles department which placed restrictions on designers and manufacturers of clothing. Because the US entered WWII in 1941, 1941’s silhouettes remained in place throughout the war because 1941 styles were used as the baseline upon which to restrict the amount of fabrics to be used in clothing. Limitation Order 85 set the regulations for women’s clothing and fines were a potential punishment for those not in compliance with them. In their restrictions on blouses, L-85 said no hoods could be allowed and no more than one pocket and pockets could not use more than 25 square inches of materials. Skirt waistbands could not be wider than 3 inches.[20]

Shoes were among the more heavily rationed items because of the leather they were frequently made of. Some companies such as Lane Bryant ran advertisements for non-rationed shoes, thus bringing the wedge heel into popularity. Wedge heels utilized cork instead of leather and thus were not rationed.

Post-War Era (1946-1960)

The time after World War II allowed Americans to return to a stronger sense of normalcy that had not been felt since the 1920s. American economy was again prospering and American settled into a new way of life. Although there were certainly exceptions to the rule, the 1950s stereotype does still ring true. The idea of a breadwinner of a husband who provides for his stay-at-home wife is an accurate depiction of life for many Americans. Some women chose to stay at work, but many took on more “feminine” jobs such as being secretaries than their wartime careers as factory workers.

Women’s fashion too returned to a more traditional style. Pants were not totally uncommon after the war, but skirts rose in popularity again. Silhouettes became more feminine with fuller, tea-length skirts and natural waistlines emphasizing the ideal hourglass figure.

This dress (at right) was made in 1954 and is comprised of a bright floral cotton and a leather belt. Its silhouette remains conservative, yet highlights the feminine curves of the wearer. This dress shows the change between fashion of the 1950s and the 1940s because its skirt is fuller and uses more fabric than that of the 1940s, reflecting the lack of wartime rationing and growth in the American economy. Brighter colors were also more popular in the 1950s because companies could use dyes without the fear that their consumers would not pay the extra markup required. This dress would be fitting for the host of a party because it has a celebratory print and color, while being designed to be comfortable and fully functional. The designer of this dress was Norman Norwell, who was known for his clear and elegant silhouettes.[21]

This Claire McCardell dress shows an interest in Asia following World War II. The bright crimson color is reflective of the color popular in the 1950s, but the smaller skirt reminds us of Asian styles. The waistline of the dress still draws attention to the wearer’s waist, making it appear smaller and emphasizing the idealized hourglass figure. Claire McCardell also designed the wrap dress discussed in the World War II section of this essay, and perhaps she was also influenced in designing this red dress by the wraparound style she had previously used during the wartime period.[22]

Charles James, the creator of the bifurcated skirt previously examined, created this dress, aptly titled “Butterfly,” in 1955. In turning to styles of the Victorian era, he created his idea of a bustled skirt. This dress again emphasized the curves of the wearer and dramatized the curve of the waist into the hips with the tulle skirt.[23]

In contrast to these dresses created for the domestic wife or wealthy socialite, Carolyn Schnurer designed for the active young woman. She created this dress in 1950, intending it for women on the go. The dress is loose-fitting and comfortable, requiring no restrictive undergarments to be worn effectively. Her silhouette is distinctively American, again emphasizing the hourglass idea as we have seen previously. Her patterns are evocative of Indian saris, however, showing a more worldwide awareness than in previous decades.[24]

Gilbert Adrian argued that women who have small shoulders look best with small waists. Upon noticing that most women do not have narrow waists, he decided to add shoulder pads to make the shoulders look proportionately larger. In this suit he designed, he drew from the popularity of the Eisenhower jacket, a style popular during the war, which resembled a man’s military jacket. Many other designers who idealized the hourglass figure did so by drawing attention to the natural waist and allowing skirts to flow outwards the emphasize the hips, thus allowing the fit of a garment to create the shape they desired rather than try to actually change the existing shape of the body. Adrian, on the other hand, attempted to actually change the shape of a woman’s body by adding the shoulder pads. One would normally think of the shoulder pads as a style that grew in popularity for the 1980s businesswoman, it was a style that has its roots in the 1950s.[25]

Era of Reform (1961-1980)

During a time of significant social changes, fashion also changed by leaps and bounds. Silhouettes changed in the 1960s and patterns continued to be popular. Into the 1970s, denim jeans and floral prints were popular. This period shows shifts from the housewife dresses of the 1950s to the bold colors of the 1980s.

The early 1960s still showed a strong affinity with the 1950s styles. Skirts became longer but retained the A-line silhouette. Popular colors shifted to warmer tones and earth hues, such as reds, yellows, and oranges. The hippie culture and peace movements in reaction to the Vietnam War emerged in the mid-1960s and shifted fashion to sheath style skirts and lightweight pants as well as floral prints and lighter and pastel colors. As the 1970s emerged, denim rose in popularity and was made to create jeans and skirts. By the late 1970s, color became more prominent, soon giving way to the bold trends of the 1980s.

This skirt (left) from 1960 is reflective of the period of transition from distinct 1950s styles to 1960s trends. The subdued color and intricate pattern are characteristic of 1960s styles but the gathered skirt that creates an A-line silhouette looks like the 1950s skirts. The skirt length is also a balance of the tea-length skirts of the 1950s and the full length ones of the 1970s.[26]

Shift dresses, such as the “Souper” dress pictured on the right, were popular in the 1960s as well.[27] These dress eliminated the waistline and had very little distinct silhouettes. Drawing their names from the 1800s undergarment of the same name, these dresses were often basic, utilizing simpler colors and straightforward patterns to provide ornamentation to an otherwise very simple design. Perhaps in response to the women’s liberation movement, women did not feel a need to show their curves when wearing these dresses. As a result of the women’s liberation movement, women’s roles became less defined and they were free to make their own choices more freely than in previous years. This freedom is reflected in the shift dresses, with their silhouettes free of defined waistlines. Women no longer felt a strong need to appeal to men with their curves and grew a confidence to wear clothing with less definition.

With the rise of the shift dress silhouette came the paper dress fad. Companies began to manufacture dresses made out of paper to cater to their consumer’s needs. The Souper Dress above is an example of a paper dress. By creating dresses made of paper, companies could keep costs low while allowing the everyday wearer to afford new styles regularly. The paper dress allowed fashion forward individuals to always have the latest and greatest designs in their closets. New technologies allowed these dress to be made of wood pulp mixed with synthetic fibers, therefore requiring little maintenance. Keeping in tone with the fascination with space as the space race waged, Julian Tomchin hypothesized that paper dresses would continue to be the rage, given that humanity would soon be traveling to space- “After all, who is going to do laundry in space?”[28] Companies such as Hallmark were the frontrunners of the paper dress idea. This advertisement (at left) for example is from Hallmark, advertising for a line of party supplies that included a paper dress that matched the party’s colors and patterns.

As the Space Age dawned and the race for space was on between the United States and te USSR, designers began to draw inspiration from metals and iridescent materials. This mini dress, designed by Paco Rabanne in 1966 demonstrated this idea. Created in the same style as the shift dressed previously discussed, this dress is covered in metallic rings, bridging a gap between the old and new, being reminiscent of both chainmail and space age aesthetics.[29]

Serendipity 3 designed and manufactured the ensemble pictured at the left. Popular in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the skirt is reflective of the rise of denim in women’s fashion, both in the bellbottom jeans often thought of in discussion of the 1970s and in skirts such as this one.[30] The top with its fringe is reflective of the rise in Native American inspired fashion. Whether in reaction to the Red Power movement or in celebration of Native Americans’ connection with nature, fringe, feathers, and animal hides were used in women’s fashion and accessories. Giorgio di Sant’Angelo designed a line of handbags that look very similar to traditional Native bags, such as the one pictured.[31]

Sant’Angelo also designed the jumpsuit pictured at right. Created in 1970, it shows the natural silhouettes that were popular in the 1960s and 1970s. The flashy fabric and bold colors are also evocative of the disco culture of the 1970s.[32]

The hippie movement of the 1960s and 1970s exerted vast influence on the fashion world. First, as seen previously, floral patterns came into popularity. Loose-fitting clothing also became popular as these “free spirits” sought to express themselves in equally free flowing clothing. Designers also turned to the idea of “flower power” in their designs. Anthony Muto designed the ensemble pictured at right in 1960. The textured dress looks as if it was actually made of flowers, though these flowers are indeed silk rather than organic plant life.[33]

In the 1960s and 1970s, fashion trends shifted more than they had in previous years. Although one can still see the transitions between these decades and others, the changes are more distinct and the 1960s and 1970s had a style all their own.

 

Conclusion

In conclusion, fashion clearly underwent significant changes from 1918 to 1980. From the bustles just before 1918 to the itsy-bitsy-teenie-weenie yellow polka-dot bikini, fashion trends changed more significantly in this 60 year period than any previous period. Looking at a chronological development of fashion allows us to see the effects culture and politics had on fashion trends and styles. These societal shifts and fashion fads had a deep impact on the people of their time and we continue to feel these effects today.

In looking at the functionality, aesthetics, and rebellion exhibited in the fashion of these periods, we can see that changes in fashion were often caused by cultural and political shifts. In taking a feminist perspective and looking at women’s fashion, we see how fashion was impacted by patriarchal society. The five periods under study reflect the major changes happening in America and around the world in the twentieth century. These shifts in society, in turn, led to shifts in trends of fashion. Fashion is clearly a consumer-driven industry, highly volatile and responsive to the buyer. Fashion is not only dictated by the designer but also by the wearer and the circumstances surrounding them both.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

1. Henny Harald Hansen, Costumes and Styles (New York: EP Dutton & Co, 1956).
2. Margot Hamilton Hill and Peter A Bucknell, The Evolution of Fashion: Pattern and Cuts from 1066 to 1930 (New York: Reinhold Publishing Company, 1967).
3. Christopher Breward, The Culture of Fashion (New York: Manchester University Press, 1995), 1-5.
4. Rebecca Arnold, Fashion: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).
5. “Although Less Deadly Than Crinolines, Bustles Were Still a Pain in the Behind,” Smithsonian Magazine, accessed March 11, 2019. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/although-less-deadly-crinolines-bustles-were-still-pain-behind-180962919/.
6. “Ball gown,” Costume Institute at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, accessed January 28, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/106435.
7. Martha Weathered, “Evening gown,” Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, accessed January 28, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/155856.
8. Thurn, “Evening dress,” Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, accessed January 28, 2019.  https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/156093.
9. Ellen Welles Page, “Flapper’s Appeal to Parents,” The Outlook 132, Sept-Dec 1922, accessed March 12, 2019. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293013860097;view=1up;seq=743.
10. Irene Castle Treman, “I Bobbed My Hair and Then—,” Ladies Home Journal, October 1921, 124, accessed April 28, 2019. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5117.
11. Mary Garden, “Why I Bobbed My Hair,” Pictorial Review, April 1927, 8, accessed April 28, 2019. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5117.
12. Latest Thing in flasks, Jan 26, 1926, National Photo Company Collection, Library of Congress, accessed April 28, 2019, http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/90709355/.
13. F. Scott Fitzgerald, This Side of Paradise, 1920. As quoted in Fredrick Lewis Allen, “A Revolution in Manners and Morals,” in Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920s (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997) 1.
14. Elizabeth Hawes, “Santiago, Chile,” Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, accessed January 29, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/175229.
15. Elizabeth Hawes, Fashion is Spinach (New York: Dover, 2015). (Fashion is Spinach was originally published by Random House in 1938).

16.Elizabeth Hawes, “Diamond Horseshoe,” Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, accessed January 29, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/155677.

17. Charles James, “Bifurcated skirt,” Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, accessed March 11, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/19232.
18. Claire McCardell, “Pop-over,” Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed March 11, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/84029.
19. Emily Spivack, “Stocking Series, Pt 1: Wartime Rationing and Nylon Riots,” Smithsonian Magazine, accessed April 9, 2019. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/stocking-series-part-1-wartime-rationing-and-nylon-riots-25391066/.
20. Meghann Manson, “The Impact of World War II on Women’s Fashion in the United States and Britain,” (Masters thesis, University of Nevada, 2011), 18-22.
21. Norman Norwell, “Dress,” Costume Institute at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, accessed January 28, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/97271.
22. Claire McCardell, “Evening dress,” Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, accessed April 13, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/81115.
23. Charles James, “Butterfly,” Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, accessed April 13, 2019, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/81115.
24. Carolyn Schnurer, “Sundress,” Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, accessed April 13, 2019, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/156166.
25. Gilbert Adrian, “Suit,” Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, accessed April 13, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/83118.
26. Bonnie Cashin, “Skirt,” Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, accessed March 12, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/92264.
27. “The Souper Dress,” Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, accessed March 12, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/79778.
28. Helen Carlton, “Answer to Laundry in Space,” LIFE Magazine, 25th November 1966, pg. 136
29. Paco Rabanne, “Dress,” Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, accessed April 28, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/762106.
30. Serendipity 3, “Ensemble,” Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, accessed March 11, 2019.  https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/105207.
31. Giorgio di Sant’Angelo, “Pouch,” Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, accessed March 12, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/145048.
32. Giorgio di Sant’Angelo, “Trousers,” Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, accessed March 12, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/92779.
33. Anthony Muto, “Evening Dress,” Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, accessed April 28, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/80570.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources:

Adrian, Gilbert. “Suit.” Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed April 13, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/83118.

“Ball gown.” Costume Institute at The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed January 28, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/106435.

Carlton, Helen. “Answer to Laundry in Space.” LIFE Magazine. 25th November 1966.

Cashin, Bonnie. “Skirt.” Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed March 12, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/92264.

“Evening dress.” Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed January 28, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/174185.

Fitzgerald, F. Scott Fitzgerald. This Side of Paradise. 1920. As quoted in Allen, Fredrick Lewis. “A Revolution in Manners and Morals.” in Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920s. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1997.

Garden, Mary. “Why I Bobbed My Hair.” Pictorial Review, April 1927. Accessed April 28, 2019. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5117.

Hawes, Elizabeth. “Santiago, Chile.” Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed January 29, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/175229.

—–. “Diamond Horseshoe.” Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed January 29, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/155677.

——. Fashion is Spinach. New York: Dover, 2015. (Fashion is Spinach was originally published by Random House in 1938)

James, Charles. “Bifurcated skirt.” Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed March 11, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/159232.

—–. “Butterfly.” Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed April 13, 2019, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/81115

Latest thing in flasks. Jan 26, 1926. National Photo Company Collection, Library of Congress. Accessed April 28, 2019. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/90709355/.

McCardell, Claire.“Evening dress.” Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed April 13, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/81115.

—–. “Pop-over.” Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed March 11, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/84029

Muto, Anthony. “Evening Dress.” Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed April 28, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/80570.

Norwell, Norman. “Dress.” Costume Institute at The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed January 28, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/97271.

Page, Ellen Welles. “Flapper’s Appeal to Parents.” The Outlook 132, Spet-Dec 1922. Accessed March 12, 2019. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293013860097;view=1up;seq=743.

Rabanne, Paco. “Dress.” Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed April 28, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/762106

Sant’Angelo, Giorgio di. “Pouch.” Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed March 12, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/145048.

—–. “Trousers.” Costume Institute and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed March 12, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/92779.

Schnurer, Carolyn. “Sundress.” Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed April 13, 2019, https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/156166

Serendipity 3. “Ensemble.” Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed March 11, 2019.  https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/105207.

“The Souper Dres.,” Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed March 12, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/79778.

Thurn. “Evening dress.” Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed January 28, 2019.  https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/156093.

Treman, Irene Castle., “I Bobbed My Hair and Then—.” Ladies Home Journal, October 1921, 124. Accessed April 28, 2019. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5117.

Weathered, Martha. “Evening gown.” Brooklyn Museum Costume Collection at The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Accessed January 28, 2019. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/155856.

 

Secondary Sources:

“Although Less Deadly Than Crinolines, Bustles Were Still a Pain in the Behind.” Smithsonian Magazine. Accessed March 11, 2019. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/although-less-deadly-crinolines-bustles-were-still-pain-behind-180962919/.

Arnold, Rebecca. Fashion: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Accessed January 22, 2019. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com.proxyse.uits.iu.edu/lib/ius/detail.action?docID=472189

Aspers, Patrik, and Frédéric Godart. “Sociology of Fashion: Order and Change.” Annual Review of Sociology 39 (2013): 171-92. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43049631.

Breward, Christopher. The Culture of Fashion. Manchester University Press: Manchester. 1995.

Evans, Caroline, and Minna Thornton. “Fashion, Representation, Femininity.” Feminist Review, no. 38 (1991): 48-66. doi:10.2307/1395377.

Hansen, Henny Harald. Costumes and Styles. New York: EP Dutton & Co. 1956.

Hill, Margot Hamilton and Peter A Bucknell. The Evolution of Fashion: Pattern and Cuts from 1066 to 1930. New York: Reinhold Publishing Company, 1967.

Laver, James. Costume and Fashion: A Concise History. Thames and Hudson: London, 2002.

Manson, Meghann. “The Impact of World War II on Women’s Fashion in the United States and Britain.” Masters thesis. University of Nevada, 2011.

Mulvey, Kate. Decades of Beauty. New York: Reed Consumer Books Limited, 1998.

Spivack, Emily. “Stocking Series, Pt 1: Wartime Rationing and Nylon Riots.” Smithsonian Magazine. Accessed April 9, 2019. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/stocking-series-part-1-wartime-rationing-and-nylon-riots-25391066/.

Walford, Jonathan. Forties Fashion: from Siren Suits to the New Look. London: Thames & Hudson, 2008.