2012年9月23日日曜日

Reading for Sept 24

Helen Sheumaker’s Love Entwinded describes relationships between sentimentality and consumerism of hairwork in America. Specifically she focuses on white middle-class women and explores how hairwork connected women’s domestic and public life. Hairwork became popular from 1850s to 1880s, but it ended in early twentieth century because of the idea of cleanliness. In the eighteenth century, hairwork indicated class status and an individual’s sincerity. However, in the nineteenth century, sentimentality was displayed in public. This public display of emotions created mass productions of hairwork in the nineteenth century. Chapter three and five strongly argues about women’s sphere through the fancywork. Although professionals produced most of hairwork as products, armature women created hairwork as fancywork at home. Emotional integrity of armature women’s handworks evaluated in markets, because people considered hairwork as sentimental objects. One of the virtues of women at that time was stay at home and do not work in outside. Therefore many women expressed themselves through fancywork. Fancyworks helped women to connect to public and markets.
   She also discuss about ethnic and racial perspectives of hairwork. Racial hierarchy of hair trades are interesting points. Because of expansions of hairwork, hair trades markets became bigger. Caucasian hairs were in great deal compare with undeveloped countries’ hair. It is interesting to consider not only hairwork was a culture of white middle-class society, but also Caucasian hairs were preferred as materials for their culture. In 1860s, hairwork was open job opportunities for African Americans, because it did not require initial investments. However those expansions of markets threated hairwork’s sincerity and authenticity. When she points out three elements of hairwork as human hair, handmade, and true sentimentality, it implied white women’s human hair, handmade by white women, and true sentimentality within white society.
When Karin Dannehl argues in Object biographies, objects change their meanings and contexts in different stages. Sheumaker exactly describes changing meanings of hairwork in different contexts. Her historical and material cultural approaches show new perspectives of race and gender relationships through hairwork. Kenneth L. Ames’ Meaning in Artifacts also follows material culture methodology as Sheumaker did. She analyzes Victorian America’s hall furnishings with a horizontal constellation approach. She focuses on the nineteenth century, north, urban area, upper middle class society and explores physical environment and mentality through furnishings. Her pictorial analysis of hallstand reveals upper middle class culture in Victorian America. She also established different meanings of furnishings in different time periods, classes, and areas.  

2012年9月18日火曜日

Material Descriptions


My objects are two wedding dresses and one pair of wedding shoes. Although people tend to imagine wedding dresses as white, those two early 19th century dresses are not white. History of white wedding dresses started in 1840 when queen of Victoria first wore a white dress in her wedding ceremony in England. Until then, colors of wedding dresses were not typically white. Especially for working class brides, wedding dresses should be remake for daily dresses after the wedding ceremony. White was not practical color for them considering daily works. In that sense, one of my objects from 1837 might be for a working class bride. Although once white dresses became popular after queen Victoria’s wedding, not all of brides could afford white dresses. Only for upper class brides could imitate Victoria’s new style of white dresses. The dress from 1845 seems more upper class brides’, not only because of rich details and materials, but also the color of ivory which close to white.
One of the dresses was made in 1837. This dress has flower needle works on striped silk fabric. Pattern of the fabric is beautiful. Flower needlework has five colors of pink, light pink, green, light green, and white. These small follower needle works were connected by ivory colored art nouveau style line. Fabric has colored strip print of dark brown, ivory, and light ivory. The fabric use a lot of colors, but all colors matches each other. On the top of the dress, there are fringes crossing from each shoulder. The fringes and needlework on tops create inverted triangle shaped sharp style. Two sleeves are long covers whole arms. On top of the arms, there are detailed shirring, which makes brides’ arm thinner. Neck cut is widely open, which might show brides’ collarbone. Compare to the volume of the bottoms, tops are very small. Length of tops is 12 inches and waist is only 24 inches. On the other hand, the length of skirt is 38 inches long. There are wires to hold body shape on tops. However, since this dress was a remade of bride’s grandmother’s dress, this small tops style were design of the eighteen century. 
Another dress was made in 1845. This is a one color beautiful silk dress. There are white flower needle works round on skirt of ivory fabric. Significance of this dress is a lot of fringes. On the bottom of the skirt, there are two lines of ivory colored fringes. This is unusual for wedding dresses, but those fringes make a skirt bigger. This dress also has small tops. Shape of neck line is v-line cut and widely open. There are fringes on tops too and shapes like inverted triangle. Length of the tops is 15 inches and waist is 20 inches. Compare with 42 inches length of skirt, this dress also designed with small tops. There are two breast pads inside of the dress. Since the dress has only 20 inches waist, the bride must be very tiny shaped and needed to make her breast bigger with those pads. It is interesting to know ideal women’s body images have not changed since early 19th century. On the back of this dress, there are small buttons. There are 14 buttons from top to bottom of upper body. Those small buttons are covered by silk ivory fabrics too. Since it is hard to wear by her with those a lot of back buttons, this dress was for an upper class bride who can have helper to wear. Also this dress does not have wires to hold body, so bride had to wear a corset inside. Differ from the flower dress, this dress has short sleeves. Sleeves go down till middle of upper arms, and have white flower needle works on edges. Short sleeves are trend in the 1840s.
Finally this ivory fringed dress has pair of ivory shoes. This shoes covered laces which are same materials of entire shoes. Shiny ivory fabric matches with ivory dress. This pair of shoes has short heels. Compare with contemporary time, height of heels are not that high. However considering the time period of 1840s when most of people wearing flat shoes, this pair of shoes with heels were made for special occasion. 

2012年9月17日月曜日

Reading for Sept 17


     Both Kniffen and Glassie’s article of Building in Wood in the Eastern United States: A Time-Place Perspective and Deetz’s In Small Things Forgotten describe the way objects as a part of material culture reconstruct past. Kniffen and Glassie more focused on descriptions of objects and how those objects change in different time and places. Deetz applied more historical and cultural perspectives toward material culture.
   Kniffien and Glassie’s article analyze details of log constructions. They describe early Americans’ houses through materials, techniques, and methods of constructions. Since last weeks’ reading of methods of object analysis suggested, their analysis of log constructions follow the first part of Fleming’s method of material analysis. Identifications and descriptions of log cabins were well examined within the context of early American society and culture. Although they mentioned their next task would be focusing on cultural meaning of the several methods of timber construction in communities, their examination of log constructions made me considered cultural meaning of constructions. Their ideas of construction analysis added important perspective of culture and living space.
   Deetz’s explanations of historical archaeology intrigued me. Since archaeology was defined as study of past peoples based on the things they left behind (4), historical archaeology gives new standpoints of cultural interaction with global point of views. The methodology of historical archaeology, which analyzes objects connecting to culture, society, and people, reminds me cultural studies. This interdisciplinary approach toward historical archaeology widens possibilities of material and objects analysis. He uses ceramics, houses, and gravestones as objects of material culture and examining early seventeenth century’s people’s life from three different perspectives. Although approaches of three objects analysis were different, all three provide direct reflections of those people’s lives (166). He also points out the necessity of recognition of bias. Historians are tending to rely on a primary source, but having been written by one individual must reflect that person’s interests, biases, and attitude (259). Researchers need to be careful when they deal with object in cultural context, since there is no culture without any biases.
   When I apply their studies into my objects analysis, I figured wedding dresses are quite creations of culture. Since weddings are rituals which were created by different cultures and societies, analyzing dresses help to understand exact time, people, and society of that period. While exploring my research, I should recognize what kinds of biases and cultural attitudes I already hold, and carefully analyze objects as primary sources.  

2012年9月10日月曜日

Object Analysis Method


My objects are two wedding gowns. One is from 1845, which made of taffeta, and the other one is a pointed waistline style, wide neckline and long sleeves from 1837. In order to analyze my objects, I would like to suggest my own methodology based on E. MacClung Fleming’s method in addition to gender and cultural perspectives. As Fleming proposed in his model of artifact study, I would like to follow his four operations, which are identification, evaluation, cultural analysis and interpretation. However, his model of object analysis applicable to broader examination of artifacts, but not specifically costumes. Since my objects are wedding gowns, I would like to adopt other perspectives of costumes as material culture which Joan Severa and Merrill Horswill proposed. They focused on the relationship between costumes and bodies. Costumes have special connection with the personalities of people who wear them. Those integrated forms of costumes and personalities need to be looked at more specifically while analyzing costumes. As for my own perspective, I would also like to focus on invisible cultural contexts. It is important to explore how objects suggest status, values, and ideas especially in gender perspectives.
Basically I would like to follow the methodology below to analyze my wedding gowns. Then I will explain what each step means when applying to objects.

<Outline of Methodology>
I.      Identification/Description of objects
1.      Materials (Fabric, thread, adornment) 
2.      Workmanship
                i.          Machine made/ Handmade
               ii.          Details of skills
3.      Design (Top, waist, bottom, size)
II.    History
1.      Date/ Owner/ Creator  
2.      Social/historical background
III.  Evaluation
1.      Comparison of objects
2.      Quality, cost, and function
IV.   Cultural Analysis
1.      Gender, body and personality
                i.          Visible analysis
               ii.          Invisible analysis
V.     Interpretation
1.      Objects in present
2.      Trend/ Fashion

I.      Identification/Description of objects
During identification and description of objects, I would like to explore three different points of view, which are material, workmanship, and design. By analyzing what kinds of materials objects use with which techniques, the audience grasps the whole image of objects. Looking through fabrics, thread, and adornment, classifies what are those object made by and what kind of skills are needed to create. The next step is examining designs of dresses. To compare two different dresses, I will explore details of color, length, and shape of designs.
II.    Historical background
In the historical background, I would like to look at when and what social circumstances created those objects. Social background is one of the important facts to consider those objects. To understand social background, we can see the reasons why those objects were needed and appeared in that specific time period. Also including where and who kept objects with this condition and function would explore successive ownership within history.
III.  Evaluation
In the evaluation process, there are two kinds of evaluation systems. One is comparison of objects, which distinguish similarities and differences between two different objects. Comparing two different objects, reveals what aspects are lacking or sufficient. Other one is a perspective of connoisseurship. Through the connoisseurship of point of views, objects need to be analyzed for their quality, cost, and function.
IV.   Cultural Analysis
Cultural analysis would be the most important part of all steps in methodology. There are also two steps of visible and invisible analysis. During visible analysis, I would like to focus on the relationship between objects and perceivers. Here actual objects would be subject to analysis in cultural context. Analyzing how objects have aspects of gender and femininity in specific period of historical and cultural context. Closely looking at objects’ laceworks and bijous, and analyze how those adornments indicate femininity and define gender in those clothes. Another method would be an invisible analysis. Differ from visible analysis, invisible analysis will emphasis on what objects imply and represent cultural standard. For instance, considering why dresses cover most of women’s body, why the size of dresses are all shaping slim, and why wedding gowns supposed to be white would be discover unsealed cultural and social norm through objects.
V.     Interpretation
Finally, interpretation of objects will support how to fit objects into contemporary context. We have looked through objects in historical and cultural contexts in the time when objects were created. In the interpretation step, I would like to place the objects in present time, and attempt to combine its historical importance. Throughout the historical analysis of object, we could see what we call “fashions” and “trends” in each time period. I am going to explore how different time periods’ “fashions” and “trends” apply to the present time, and consider the contrast between gaps of historical perspectives to significantly interpret objects.
   

2012年9月1日土曜日

Personal Statement

Throughout my experience of studying at two women’s colleges both in Japan and America and working in the business field in Japan, I became intrigued by the fact that many women seemed to simultaneously hold two opposite images of modern and traditional women. I discovered that despite greater numbers of Japanese women in the workplace, many of them believe that these jobs are the best way to enter into a rewarding and financially stable marriage. Although many women no longer consider themselves as property of men, the traditional image of a submissive woman still remains within both men and women. I have seen many women struggling with how to deal with these traditional images and their own identity.
For my research, I am especially interested in how biased images of “femininity” were created in modern American society through media and culture. I would like to focus on representation of wedding ceremony and explore a process of transformation of images from princesses to brides looking at various women’s life stages.
As an MA student of American Studies at Doshisha University, Japan and Smith College, Massachusetts, I studied about representation of Jewish identities in Broadway Musicals from the 1940s to 1960s. I learned how Jewish Americans represented themselves in Broadway musicals as both assimilated and non-assimilated Americans. Their expression of “Jewishness” gradually changed within the atmosphere of society from the 1940s to 1960s. I analyzed Oklahoma and South Pacific as 1940s musicals, and Westside Story and Fiddler on the Roof as 1960s musicals. In the earlier shows, Jewishness was more invisible. Within the context of World War II, Jewish immigrants emphasized their whiteness and tried to show their assimilation as “Americans”. In contrast, in the 1960s musicals, they celebrated their Jewishness. The atmosphere of the civil rights movement and their confidence in their identity as “Americans” encouraged them to embrace and dramatize Jewishness on stage.
After I receiving my MA, I started working at an IT consulting company in Tokyo, Japan and Munich, Germany. Although my final goal is to become a teacher and researcher in higher education, I wanted to experience working in the business sector before entirely devoting myself to the academic world. I believe my experience working in both academic and business fields prepares me to be an effective educator, especially since many of my future students will themselves go into business fields after they graduate.
What my hope to achieve by participating in this course is learning methodology of public history. Although I see myself as a historian, I am very interested in interdisciplinary approach for my research. Since my research interests are wedding culture in gender perspective, I need to analyze a lot of objects in material culture which are like wedding dresses, princess toys, museums and theme parks. From this course, I am looking forward to learn how objects and consumer culture speak to American society and create gender identity.