2012年10月29日月曜日

Object Exercise 3

   Fashion and women strongly connected each other over history. Fashion not only expresses senses, status, and identities of people, but also explains social, cultural, and economical situations of their history. My two dresses came from 1837 and 1845. They are not only beautiful objects, but also reflect women’s social situations in each time periods. This paper explore how fashion connected to social and cultural situations of women in early nineteenth century America.
   From the research at Historical Society in Pennsylvania, I found information related to my objects. Samuel K. Reeves was the donor of the ivory wedding dress from 1845. It was hard to find out who wore the dress, but Reeves family was one of the prestigious families having long history. In Thomas Reeves and his Descendants, Emma M. Reeves describes six generations of Reeves family. Thomas Reeves first came to America from Southampton, England in the “Beves” in 1638 as the servant of Henry Byley of Salesbury.[i] Thomas started his new life in America as a servant, but he became free in 1644 and married Hannah Rowe in next year. In Ancestral Sketches, Le Roy Reeves describes history of her family in early nineteenth century.[ii] Since I could not find the exact wedding of 1845, I tried to analyze the same time period of Reeves family and see their social and cultural background. There are two brothers Peter Miller Reeves and William Miller Reeves married in 1831 and 1836 with two sisters of de Vault family. Le Roy describes those brothers’ works that “In 1838 the brothers purchased together for $5500 a tract of 400 acres of land. They made their home, each operating a part of the farm; that part of the farm containing the buildings being known in later years as “Wheatland”.” Her descriptions tell their prosperity and success in business. Their wives also described as “They were model wives and mothers. Their homes were homes of comfort and plenty. Both survived their husbands and were tenderly cared for by their children in their declining years.” They were very religious women and embodied ideal wives and mothers.
The dress from 1837 has specific trend at that time. In the 1830s, trends of dresses were short bodice, tight skirt, and ‘ham-shaped’ sleeves. In “A History of Costume”, Carl Kohler described specific trend of sleeves that “A characteristic feature at the beginning of the thirties was the so-called ‘ham-shaped’ sleeves; there were long and enormously wide at the top, narrower from the elbow down, and tight at the wrists.”[iii] In “Gody’s Lady’s book” which was published in Philadelphia in 1830 also shows the image of ‘ham-shaped’ sleeves. The descriptions of the image says that “the corsage tight to the shapes; is trimmed with a fancy silk cord; the sleeves are ornamented with the same, and the skirt and border are also trimmed with the same.” [iv]The dress of 1837 has exactly same short bodice and ‘ham-shaped’ sleeves. Since this dress was worn by Appleton’s wedding which was one of famous family, we can assume that the dress was the latest fashion in the 1830s. Although the other dress was worn only after 8 years, there are differences of trends between them. In the 1840s, trends of dresses changed dramatically. Sleeves decreased, skirts increased, and their growing volume required artificial means of extension.[v] Compared to the dress of 1836, the dress of 1845 has short sleeves and huge fringed skirt.
Relationships between dresses and owners describes social and cultural situation in the nineteenth century America. Virtues of women were important facts for women from prestigious families. And those rich women could afford the latest trend dresses. Wedding dresses has a long history, but white wedding dresses became popular in 1840 when Queen Victoria first wore white wedding dress at her wedding. White became a coveted choice for brides of higher social position, but it were not for purity but wealth. However, for poor women white were not preferred choices. [vi] It clearly expresses that the woman who wore the dress from 1845 was a part of rich family. Her white (ivory), silk ringed dress was a symbol of their family status.
In Fashion and Women’s attitudes in the Nineteenth Century, Willet Cunnington discuss women’s situations that “The 19th century woman, whose economic position was still largely dependent on her powers of sex-attraction, made a virtue of necessity, and her hands modesty became a fine art.”[vii] She explains Sentimentalism and Exhibitionism as women’s approach to attract men. The Sentimentalist attracted men with emotional tie. On the other hand the Exhibitionist herself, body, and mind. Those two attitudes changes overtime and balance together depends on social situation. For those women who owned the dresses seems to tie with sentimentalism. Although they wore the latest trend dress and express their high status, they had to wore corset and cover their bodies with long skirt. Those dresses showed their good images of women who has virtues and morals in good families.


[i] Emma M. Reeves, Thomas Reeves and his Descendants, (New Jersey: Privately Mimeographed Salem).
[ii] Le Roy Reeves, Ancestral Sketches, (Virginia: J.P. Bell Company Lynchburg, 1951).
[iii] Carl Kohler, A History of Costume, (New York: Dover Publications Inc., 1963), 422.
[iv] Godey's Lady's Book and Magazine, 1840.
[v] Norah Waugh, The Cut of Women’s Clothes 1600-1930, (New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1968).
[vi] Mead Rebecca, One Perfect Day: The Selling of the American Wedding, (New York: Penguin Books, 2007), 79.
[vii] Willett C. Cunnington, Fashion and Women’s Attitudes in the Nineteenth Century, (New York: Dover Publications Inc., 2003). 

Reading for Oct 28

   In “Clothing as Language”, Grant McKtracken discusses clothing as an expressive medium and explores how clothing constituted parts of history.[i] His analysis of relationships between clothes and languages explores expressions of clothes as materials are limited. Clothing shares space and time with people who live in the same time periods. In that sense, clothing shares social customs and habits within history. Considering with two wedding dresses of the 1837’s and the 1845’s, they interacts with social and cultural backgrounds within each time periods. Those two dresses are the latest fashion of each time periods. The dress of 1837 has special ham-shaped sleeves and the dress of 1845 has fringes and short sleeves, both of which are the specific designs of the 1830s and the 1840s. Those dresses expressed women’s status and social backgrounds. They also can tell that women who own those dresses at the time were sensitive for fashion and could afford to have the latest dresses. However, it is hard to tell specific languages of women who wore those dresses in specific occasions and how they expressed their identities. Material culture reveals relationships between objects and social/cultural situations of the past. However, it is sometimes hard to describe specific ordinal and daily languages of owners.    
   In “Marx’s Coat”, Peter Stallybrass explores the idea of fetish for objects.[ii] Within the concept of capitalism, he analyzes how possessions of clothing influence people’s social status. He describes that “Marx’s overcoat was to go in and out of the pawnshop…and his overcoat directly determined what work he could or could not do.” [iii]Without the overcoat in winter, he labeled as a poor man and hard to be a part of society. A wedding dress also works as a symbol of status. It does not affect people’s occupation, but definitely tells family’s status and power in communities. When a bride wore the dress with latest fashion, expensive material, and designer’s label, that expresses how her family has authority and status in the community. Since wedding is a family involved ritual, it became a place to show their power to relatives and community members. Fetish to the commodity shows social attitude in the capitalistic society.


[i] Grant McKracken, “Clothing as Languages: An Object Lesson in the Study of the Expressive Properties of Material Culture,” in Culture and Consumption (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988).
[ii] Peter Stallybrass, “Marx’s Coat,” in Patricia Spyer, ed., Border Fetishisms: Material Objects in Unstable Spaces (New York: Routledge, 1998).
[iii] Stallybrass, 187.

2012年10月15日月曜日

Reading for Oct 15


   Clothing displays social situation of class and gender in its history. In the book of Fashioning the Bourgeoisie, the historian Philippe Perrot explores history of clothing and its relationships between elites and middle, lower class people, men and women. Although he deals with fashion and clothing, his approach is more close to social history rather than material culture. Not only he focuses on history of women’s body and clothing, but also he describes men’s clothing and social changes in the nineteenth century Europe.
   He points out three aspects of the ideal definitions as social strategies, cleanliness, simplicity, and propriety, and connects how clothing changed with those new aspects. Especially I was interested in the part of cleanliness. He argues that society focused on hygiene and cleanliness became a virtue. In his earlier chapter, he talks that “As white became the obligatory nuptial color, even wedding ceremonies ceased being an occasion for diverse vestimentary manifestations.” [i]This idea of cleanliness not only encouraged people to use underwear as invisible clothing to keep clothes clean, but also helped to wear white as daily dresses. For working class people, wearing white clothes were not practical since they had to work in daily bases. In that sense, clean white color dresses represented upper class women who did not need to work.  
   My two wedding dresses showed interesting contrasts when consider about those cleanliness and class perspectives. White wedding dresses became popular after queen Victoria of England wore a white dress in her wedding in 1840 at first time within bourgeoisies. Eventually middle class women imitated this new trend of bourgeoisies. However, white dresses were not practical for working class women since they remake the dress after the wedding for daily use.[ii] One of my wedding dresses from 1837 is not white and remade of grandmother’s dress. White wedding dresses were not yet popular in all classes at that time. Perrot approach to understanding meaning of clothing in social structures helps to analyze my objects in the nineteenth century.  


[i] Philippe Perrot, Fashioning the Bourgeoisie: A History of Clothing in the Nineteenth Century (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994.) p.78.
[ii] Sakai Taeko, Wedding Dress ha Naze Shiroi noka [Why Wedding Dresses are White] (Keisou Shobou, 1997.)

2012年10月8日月曜日

Reading for Oct 8

   I really enjoyed this week’s readings. All readings described meanings of exhibitions. Some of them are theoretically analyze what exhibitions are and some of them are practically explore how to constitute exhibitions.
   Alice Parman describes in her article, “Exhibit Makeover”, constructions of exhibitions with step by step procedures. I intrigued her ideas of "romance" as mind opening experiences for audiences. She uses Whiteheads concepts of three important facts to appeal visitors in exhibitions which are romance, precision, and generalization. Romance is a first step to attract visitors for exhibitions. Learning something new and fall in love to the objects are important steps to get into the world of exhibitions. Then what he calls precision is, visitors absorb information and hungry for learning. Finally generalization is the stage that visitors can learn principles of life from exhibitions. When I first met my wedding dresses, I certainly felt a romance. Those dresses inspired me to search their history, culture, and social background. By searching information, I would like to apply historical meanings of wedding dresses to present time. Parman’s approach showed clear purposes and processes for my wedding dresses analysis.
   Beverly Serrell also showed practical approaches of creating labels in his book, Exhibit Labels. He argues connections between labels and objects that “labels help readers look back and forth between the label and the object, following the details of the narrative.” It is difficult to catch visitors’ interests within limited words and simple descriptions. However, labels and objects interact with each other and create new meanings of objects. If the exhibition only display wedding dresses without any labels, it might be beautiful and enjoyable. However by adding personal histories of dresses' owner and social background of wedding ceremonies in the eighteenth century America, visitors could understand why dresses are there and sense romance.
   Perspectives of exhibitions' ethics that Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett and Ken Yellis display were really interesting for me. Museums have multiple roles not only display history, but also recreate history. Museums often displayed controversial objects such as people’s bodies, primitive people, and wartime objects. Yellis talks about discussions through the exhibition of the Enola Gay. Because of objections and political reasons, the Enola Gay exhibition no longer has historical observation labels with the display. This action made real history invisible. Since power politics work in many museums, those ethics of exhibitions need to be carefully considered by creators. This idea connected to think about biases when creating exhibitions. Since dominated higher classes with powers created common sense within a society, it is important to consider diversities and see objects with multiple perspectives. Although displaying bones of Inuit is significant in ethnographic perspective, it is not appreciate for descendants. I have learned from this weeks' readings that preparing exhibitions and creating labels are part of creating history.  

2012年10月1日月曜日

Reading for Oct 1


Relationships between objects and social issues are fundamental subjects for this week’s readings. Through small objects, spaces, and architectures, four authors describe the issues of race, class, and gender in their articles and book.  
   Ulrich explores in her book, The Age of Homespun, the New England republicans’ identity through objects. In her chapter 8, she talks about a role of linen tablecloths in eighteenth century. The invention of waterpower spinning and cotton gin in the 1790s created the new industrial economy.  Following the agricultural development in south, cloth making industry developed in north. She describes how the roles of house works of flex productions changed women’s characteristics during the time period. The spinning meetings created the public space for women. Their work diaries and participating meetings created women’s identity as an industrious worker. Also women connected each other within neighbors because they shared labors and equipment for their works. Not only they shared materials, but also they shared social and cultural ties within women. Their connections between neighbors and ties of women created collective women’s identity as sisterhood.
   Przybysz also analyzes gender roles through colonial kitchens and quilts in her article, “Quilts, Old Kitchens, and the Social Geography of Gender”. She explores how old kitchens publicly focused in the nineteenth century through feminist historiographical perspectives. She analyzes Harriet Beecher Stowe’s stories and insists romantic and nostalgic features of kitchens’ functions in the nineteenth century middle-class females. Colonial kitchens worked as private and public spaces, and created moral, productive, and intellectual roles.
   Both Weyeneth and Upton describe relationships between race and architectures in their articles, “The Architecture of Racial Segregation” and “White and Black Landscapes in Eighteenth-Century Virginia”. It is interesting approach to analyze race from how architecture build. Especially Weyeneth’s detailed analysis of architecture of racial segregation showed how those buildings took the roles of segregation from late nineteenth to twentieth century. Upton focuses on the time of slavery in Virginia. He explores the landscape of slavery and separation from whites created strongly ties in African Americans communities.
   All articles and book talk about different time periods and places, but their methodologies of cultural analysis from objects are common. From tablecloths, kitchens, quilts, and architectures, they analyze complex system of social and cultural issues of race, class, and gender.