TVP WEEKLY: What do we need clothing for? How did it enter our heads to even wear something at all?

LUCYNA ROTTER: We have historical examples that show us that some social groups went naked and still do. This wasn’t so long ago. On the contrary, only until quite recently. But the feeling of nakedness has always been with humanity. Even in far-flung places where clothing is a so-called fig leaf. A person feels clothed even if they are clothed in symbolic or modest garb and doesn’t feel the discomfort of nakedness. After a while, we feel either too hot or too cold. Our climactic situation makes us cover up to protect against the cold or sun so it’s a way of achieving a level of comfort for ourselves.

Humanity discovered very quickly that apart from these obvious functions clothing could be aesthetic or symbolic- a social message. The changing aesthetics ensured that we always sought newer more creative designs that could solve things in the clothing area. At this point, fashion began. That which we wear follows beauty or trends that change with the times or technological progress. Each region of the world has its own cultural code, follows the visual messages understood by both sender and receiver. The clothes we wear are a great sign of sending and receiving messages.

Let’s give an example of this communication.

The symbolic function of clothing may be a binary game. We see a definite costume and we have no doubt that the uniform belongs to a soldier or police officer. There are collections of signs that communicate a given situation at a given moment. A woman in a long white dress with a veil is a bride, about to get married. There are dress codes that point to belonging to a social or religious group. It may be more difficult to ascertain the function. A woman who has her head covered may at first glance be a Muslim, but the Christian Orthodox religion also has this habit that women should cover their heads. In the Roman Catholic church, women follow this practice in audiences with the pope. In India the head is covered with a sari by women when they enter a temple. One action may have a muti-layered message.

We should also remember about folk costumes which are a form of message within smaller communities. From the decorative of colour and motif one can surmise if the person is a bachelor or married, rich or poor, if he has children or if the first born is a son or daughter. It’s evident in small communities that everyone know about everyone else. And so no-one who was not yet married could deck himself out in his personal symbolic frills. An unmarried woman could not cover her head which was practice that was meant for the spouse, even if she were a mother. This would be a contradictory message and may lead to possible ostracism from the rest of society.

You mentioned the bridal gown. Was it always white?

Obviously not. It was only in the 20th century that white became the wedding colour. I ask students if a bride could go to her wedding in black. They reply yes. Then I ask if they could imagine dressing like this a century ago. They say, generally no. In those times in Protestant countries and in particular where Protestants and Catholics lived together, Protestant brides went to their wedding dressed in black. In their practice it was a sign of humility, Protestant poverty. The black gown was paired with a white veil. This was the symbol of matrimony not the gown.

    SIGN UP TO OUR PAGE 
  Wedding dress was often multi-coloured In folk cultures certain colours were forbidden, but could appear on wedding costume. Take the colour red for example, which could signify luck, prosperity and fertility. In ancient Rome wedding colours were orange and yellow and the bride had braided in her hair, orange blossom or lovage. The orange skin would smell of magic. In Armenia, this fashion for wedding orange and yellow also appeared. In India fiery colours on the bride symbolised not only passion but prosperity.

It was Queen Victoria who accidentally introduced white as a fashionable colour for weddings. She was not the first bride to wear white but the crowds were amazed. Future brides wanted to look like the queen on their big days. It was one of many things that Queen Victoria launched.

What other fashion innovations could we see?

Today the Victorian style can be seen in the small details such as an embroidered decoration on the cleavage. It used to be full of elegance an panache and took the form of showing off the female form. Long, sweeping gowns were the fashion, with corsets and bustles. Their shape made the figure look slender and emphasised the women’s figure. The Victorians also added decorations in the form of embroidery and hats. Black became fashionable. Costumes followed the maxim ‘the more the better’. Today this is seen as one of the most characteristic and beautiful of styles. But Queen Victoria herself was criticised for her lack of taste and sense of style. One of her innovations was the Chelsea boot for men and women. Extremely comfortable for horse riding.

Have other female leaders been fashion icons?

Certainly. It was notable during wedding ceremonies. Catherine de Medici chose a stiffened ruff collar and wedge-heel shoes. It gave her a majestic and important air. She introduced the first corset and trousers. Although the latter were a part of underwear rather than trousers ( as they were not seen beneath the skirts). They were specially made at her request to ride side-saddle. After her husband’s death she wore only black and white. She impregnated her gloves with perfume, but also poison. Gossip had it that the queen could kill anyone she disliked with a elegant swish of her hand. Elizabeth I wore outfits full of symbolism. The motives of eye and ear showed her subjects that she sees and hears everything around her.

Colours were reserved for specific social groups.

Poland isn’t a good example as these kinds of restrictions were not common. You can say we were more tolerant than other parts of Europe in this regard. Elsewhere colours were every elitist and legally reserved for crowned heads or the nobility, for example red, purples or blues. This was because these three in particular were difficult and expensive to produce. So for financial reasons clothing in these shades were worn chiefly by those who could afford them. Snow white and intense blacks were also difficult to manufacture. For much of the time there was discussion as to whether it was appropriate for the clergy to wear these elegant fabrics. It was seen as contradicting the principle of clerical poverty.

How were these textiles dyed?

Firstly they were difficult to extract. Scarlet for example was taken from female kermes scale insects, czerwiec in Polish. This was our export product. Production of dye stuffs from animal or plant sources was difficult and time consuming. And could involve a lot of money. To dye the textiles snail shells were also used, that lived on the Syrian coast. In this case as in that of other insects , huge numbers were needed to produce a gramme of pigment. Blue was known a thousand years before our era. The formula for Egyptian Blue was jealously guarded and the pigment itself was astronomically expensive. Blue was also extracted from the dwarf birch or the elderberry But they were less intensive and thus cheaper.

But pigments were also synthesised chemically. They were often dangerous for those involved in the production not just for the wearers. Arsenic or zinc white for instance. Cloth dyed in green named after chemist Carl Scheele looks fantastic and could tell much about the social status of the wearer. But this pigment derived from arsenic; it wasn’t exactly indifferent to one’s health.

It was only in the 19th century that the search was started for pigments that were easier to extract and cheaper. In this time reds became more common and less exclusive. Jakub Natanson, a Polish chemist, discovered a synthetic way to produce red.

What about the actual wearing of clothes? Men always wore trousers and women dresses?

For years masculine and feminine dress was governed not just by religious but social norms. In many countries, not least in Europe, it was forbidden to wear elements that did not belong to your own sex. Joan of Arc was condemned not just for her political or military exploits, but because she wore men’s clothing. That was the real reason why she ended up being burnt at the stake.

But there are problems in defining what is masculine and feminine clothing. A dress used to be a very masculine costume. The Scots wear kilts as we know. And the white, wide and pleated fustanellais an integral element of the Greek or Albanian national costume. The Greek version has more pleats and is shorter. In India men wear the dothi, a textile wound like a skirt. Even more dress like is the mundi a much shorter piece of textile that you can wind round and secure at the waist. In India these garments are regarded as a sign of national and cultural awareness .

We are aware that trouser wearing by women is no longer a thing that raises eyebrows (modern fashion salons put on show male skirts). In the 19th and 20th centuries, the fight by women for the right to wear skirts was long and arduous. Feminine trousers appeared earlier(as underwear). Amelia Bloomer wrote in the Lily publication of 1851 that trouser wearing was permissible. Her designs were published and printed. They became a hit. They were called ‘bloomers’, pinched at the ankle and waist and fitted to the figure. The real designer was Elisabeth Smith Miller. She was hampered in her gardening activities and came up with the idea. The silver screen accelerated this further. Actresses dressed in men’s garments and they were not just costumes. They were more than just tomboys. They just adopted men’s suits for instance. But the new fashion was adopted not without opposition. When Katherine Hepburn’s jeans were confiscated , she appeared on set in just her underwear. She didn’t feel the need to don a skirt since her jeans had been taken away.

Were high heels not just for women?

There is no doubt that they were just for men. The first were worn by soldiers. These were practical in horse riding. When men mounted their horses they had to wield their weapons and thanks to the heels, which fitted into the stirrup they could sit higher in the saddle. This practical element later translated into fashion. They were characteristic of the elite, the nobility. In particular when the heel was red in colour. Women later adopted this fashion. A whole range of footwear appeared in amazing variations- narrow, block, wedge, more or less stable stiletto heels, stem heels etc., etc.. Women heels became higher than their male versions. It ‘s become so much a dominant part of women’s fashion.

But let’s return to trousers and the fashion designer who persuaded women to wear them and liberated them from the corset, namely Coco Chanel.

She wasn’t the first person to achieve this. But she was the first fashion designer who took advantage of the opportunities that life presented to her. She was brought up in a children’s home. She didn’t have an easy life. But she achieved her success and dreams through her passion. She created the characteristic elements of her personal style and innovative designs such as trousers, but a looser way of wearing dress by women. One cold say she donned her partner’s jacket and this was appreciated so much by her friends that they started to imitate her. This was the pretext to start her career in earnest not just with hats from which she started. In the example of her ‘little black dress’ she chose very soft textiles. Her creations were made with elegance and unbelievable comfort in mind. Her only real love was Arthur Edward Capel who helped her to set up her first shop…designing and selling hats. She would receive bouquets of flowers from him. Her creations had camelias as a motif, an echo and memento of their love.

Coco showed us comfort but fashion was also a means of manifesting revolt.

Costume as history shows us is a great means of manifesting political opinions or rebellion against the established order. In the 18th century contemporary youth ,macaronis, wore colourful jerseys. Other groups the sansculottes in France [the most radical French revolutionaries, hailing from the lowest social strata],muscadins [lower gilded middle class youth, anti-Jacobin and counter-revolutionary], or the merveilleuses [ an aristocratic sub-culture in Paris during the Directorate]. The former wore loose trousers, without the characteristic stockings worn at the time, associated with the aristocracy. With that came a brown caftan with wide lapels and tail less frock coats. Headgear was a Phrygian cap or a bicorne with a tricolour rosette. The merveilleuses or the ‘wondrous women’ were the precursors of women’s liberation from whatever social norms ruled. Jettisoning underwear was a necessary element of the wardrobe. Not much is left to the imagination. Afterwards came the ‘dandies’, who looked for a more refined style. This persists until today. In the Congo for example an entire family income can be spent on a designer jacket and getting the perfect look.

We just didn’t think these sub-cultures up in the 20th century. In Poland we can see the bikiniarze the ‘Bikini Boys’ and girls who wore short-leg trousers with colourful socks, longer hair and they were often arrested and ended up in court as a result. Then came the hippies, flower children and more sub-cultures recognised by their distinctive dress. These are palpable modern things in our time.

You could fight the enemy with costume, show your fight for independence.

Poland is the best example of this. I’m referring to the period called the National Mourning of 1861-66, when urban and village street became decked out in black. Women wore black gowns and children too wore black, even toy dolls. Jewellery was crafted in these colours and had motifs in the shape of handcuffs, or an eagle rising form a cross-a symbol of faith , hope and love, a fight for independence and Polishness. On medallions worn by women were shown heroes of national uprisings such as Tadeusz Kościuszko who was greatly popular. While the men were at the war, the women could show their support not just by tending to the wounded but by wearing specific costumes. This was generally adopted and lasted for a number of years. The partitioning powers were even instructed on how to spot a woman who was exhibiting her Polishness and how to differentiate from a straightforwardly fashionable costume. You could be condemned for wearing such a patriotic attire. It was forbidden to wear black unless you were a cleric or had a genuine reason, after the death of a relative. Quick-witted Polish women found a way around. They wore black gowns with purple elements, which is also a funerary colour…but for which particular colour could you be arrested for? Eagle motifs were often embroidered on corsets, worn underneath top layers.

During the second world war during the first years of the occupation , women wore soberly and showed their regret at the occupation. Afterwards, the costumes became more elegant and colourful, as fashionable as circumstances permitted and were a form of demonstration. They showed the enemy that they would not “break us as we are women and in this way want to support our fighting men, to live normally even during the occupation”.

We’ve talked about clothing but what about hairstyles?

We laugh when we see hairstyles from long ago-fantastic creations, unusual cuts and hair dos. There’s no problem nowadays to wear your hair loose flowing in the wind. But it was thought that hair that wasn’t secured was inelegant especially in women. It was a very erotic signal too. A grown woman should wear her hair tied up. They showed their marital status through this. Long beautiful and shown-off hair had for centuries belonged to unmarried women. Wives had to coverup. This is the origin of the term białogłowy or ‘white heads’. Not because we were all blondes, but that we always covered up.

The rite of passage for a young boy into manhood was the shearing of his long hair. When he entered a monastic order, whatever the denomination, the initiation was that his hair was shorn, often completely.

Hair was regarded as magic. When a knot appeared it was often left in place to grow. If this happened it was only under specific circumstances so as not to induce blindness to the wearer. When a knot was combed out it was also done with the aid of magic.

Wigs or skullcaps also appeared in their religious contexts, Orthodox Jewish women for example. After their wedding they start to wear a wig to show their adherence to the marriage. Elizabeth I popularised the wearing of wigs, though not in any religious context. These were fantastical artistic creations that I referred to earlier decorated in whatever was available- flowers and jewellery. The lack of general hygiene as well as the difficulty of fixing the hair in place caused problems. The wig compensated for any lack of beauty and even baldness caused by the lack of hygiene was at least some sort of solution. Doctors had a different opinion. The cure was often worse than the problem To get rid of lice and other insects medallions were worn, little cages that contained blood soaked piece of material designed to lure and get rid of the animal in question.

Coco Chanel said that “fashion is temporary, but style is permanent”. Do you agree?

It’s difficult to think of anything new in the fashion world as we’ve already seen everything before. It’s more the case that we re-discover that which we know rather than any brilliant fashion discoveries. On the other hand what are fashions for if not to shock. They have to communicate their intended message, to be a vanguard of perceived aesthetics but to ensure comfort and practicality. Then from time to time to shock. To stir up controversy and interest at the same time is useful, but the most important thing is style.

–Interview by Marta Kawczyńska

TVP WEEKLY. Editorial team and journalists

  –Translated by Jan Darasz

Doctor Lucyna Rotter , from the Pontifical University of John Paul II Papal University in Kraków, Chair of Landscape and National Heritage , Faculty of History and National Heritage. Field of interest- material and non-material heritage with specific regard to symbolism and European culture. Researcher in costume and auxiliary historical studies. Promoter of the language of symbols and signs in culture history and art. Representative in the disciplines of history, cultural and religious studies. Plenipotentiary for the Rector in academic writing.

History coat hanger TVP series on costume. Its subject is not fashion and its history but what we can we say about history, culture and changing aesthetics. The programme investigates historical wardrobes full of facts, symbolism , characters and artefacts as well as fashionable puzzles Participating are young designers, also specialists in their fields and invited guests.