FASHION’S CHANGES.

Otago Witness, Issue 3804, 8 February 1927, Page 67

FASHION’S CHANGES.

People collect all kinds of things, according to their purchasing power and their individual tastes —influenced it may be by the collecting hobbies of others about them. Old china, old furniture, rare books, or first editions of famous books or editions de luxe; postage stamps, photographs,' picture ppst cards, coins, autographs, pictures by old or famous masters, ornaments and curios of all [ kinds; theatre) concert, and ballroom programmes, and many other things be- t longing to human life. Then there are natural history collections —as shells, seaweeds, minerals, butterflies, etc. When these arc made with a view to scientific study they do not fall under the heading of hobby collections; but many people find pleasure in making such collections unscientifically. There is_one variety of the collection hobby which is much less favoured than one might expect it to be—by women collecting. Tashion illustrations. A fashion album filled with pictures ranged year- by year so as to show the styles of wearing apparel and millinery that were successively favoured in the course of 20, 30, or 50 years would be interesting and amusing in a high degree. To be complete it should show both summer and winter walking attire, home and evening dress. And one might fill, one album or book with illustrations cut from fashion books and journals, and another with pictures from illustrated newspapers. The former would show fashion’s ideal modes of the day; the latter book, ’ which would be really the more interesting and valuable of the two, would show how women actually followed, or approached to the ephemeral ideals set by fashion.

What infinite variety, what extreme changes, and what absurdities such a pictorial chronicle of fashion would showlAnd each fashion has in its turn been accepted by women generally with equal favour, and somehow or other women have managed to look charming in all! The truth is that the eye and the miud quickly adapt themselves to what is-put before us as desirable. When long and full skirts were in favour a woman whose skirt was shorter and narrower than those of other women was said to look awkward and dowdy. Of recent. years, you are dowdy if you wear skirts of ankle length; to be “smart” they must be of knee length, or if you are obviously long past youth, at any rate half-way between knee and ankle. In looking through a chronological collection off fashion plates we shall find that the figures change amost as much as the garments. And this not only in thejnatter of w-aists, for so long doomed to be more or less compressed by corsets. The stature, the set of the shoulders, the line of the back, the fullness or straightness of the figure show fashion. At any time just one type of figure (usually au altogether unhuman one) is favoured, and all the women of the fashion illustrations follow it precisely. In early Victorian days I fancy the ladies of the fashion plate were usually shown as of moderate stature —the Queen was a very little woman. The influence of the Empress Eugenie and of the then Princess of Wales (later Queen Alexandra), who were both tall, elegant women, may have helped to set the ideal of extreme-height and slimness that has been followed more or less closely for over half a century. Artists, too, have popularised the tall, slender type of figure; the long-limbed,

graceful women of Bufnc Jones and Dante Gabriel Rossetti’s pictures, and somewhat later the tall, long-necked, and square-shouldered women of du Maurier’s illustrations have doubtless influenced popular ideas of feminine beauty and set artistic standards which fashion desigpners have exaggerated and caricatured. But perhaps we need not be at pains to explain the variations which fashion x de-. signers make the feminine human form undergo; in the realm of fashion unreason prevails, and change and exaggeration are the only certainties. Through the greater part of the reign of iVctoria sloping shoulders were considered a feminine beauty. Du Maurier undoubtedly did much to set the vogue for square shoulders, and since his day girls have not persistently tried to pull down their shoulders as they used to doon the contrary, they are in the. habit of sitting with them hunched up to their ears in a way destructive of all grace of figure. Du Maurier’s girls had straight shoulders, straight backs, and long colI. uranar necks. Short necks and high shoulders are not a fortunate combination, and now that it is the fashion for hats to be

I pulled down so low, the neck often disI appears altogether, in a back view at least. . Not in fashion plates, however; there it is usually shown long enough still, while the woman portrayed must be six or eight feet high judging by the size of the head and hands and feet compared with the length of the figure. Games and athletics must have contributed greatly tc ..produce stronger frames and broader

shoulders in women ; they must also tend to increase the size of the hands and feet, and tiny hands and feet are no longer favoured, but here fashion lage behind popular ■ taste, while it defies nature ir making the hands and feet of its figurec women impossibly small.

The position of the waist has varied within a century from just under the arms tc —in our own davs —somewhere not far from the knees. But of course it is more accurate to say that the waist has disappeared altogether, and a very good thing, too. The position of the loose belt, which is a relic of tight-waisted days, matters comparatively little, though when worn very low it is apt to produce a very ungraceful effect if the figure be not on fashion plate lines. Of late curves have vanished altogether from the feminine form of the fashion book, and women whose figures are moulded on a more generous scale need Jo exercise discretion in following modes apparently designed for slim .young girls. Following the monstrosity of the crinoline came the hideous excrescence of the bustle.- I think there were two or three variations of this atrocity, coming up at intervals in latter Victorian days. One, the latest, I think, was a sort of quartercrinoline consisting of several curved pieces of whalebone worn at the back. Then, after this, the ideal feminine silhouette

was straight in front and shaped like a capital K at the back, and in fulfilment of this ideal women held themselves in unnatural attitudes. Then there were trains —worn all day—and dresses at the same time long and very tight’, which made walking difficult and running and jumping impossible, and very full skirts that touched the ground all round, and made one’s life a burden to keep them out of dust and mud. There were balloon sleeves .that required far more material than a skirt of to-day, and hanging sleeves, and puffed and padded shoulders,, and stiff boned collars up to the ears. And all the time there were tight waists, and dress bodices lined throughout, moulded to the figure and fitted with whalebone in the seams. All the modes found favour in their day, and very few women indeed ven- . tured to wear dresses cut on more rational

and convenient lines. Women who are now in later middle life have worn, if not crinolines, most of the. other hampering styles here enumerated, and probably saw . nothing absurd in them then. Fashion and custom hypnotise us. Fashion will continue to be irrational, it is of its essence to be so, for if reason, convenience, and beauty were studied there would, be little variation of modes from year to year. And, on the other hand, we should not see people all dressed after the same style, irrespective of age, figure, position in life, and occupation. While there would not be periodic changes there would be far more individual variety than therg is at present. Fashion makes for tasteless uniformity. But fashion will continue to prevail, for besides tendencies in human nature that favour it, there are commercial interests. Fashion makes people spend on apparel thrice what they would do without it. In defence of fashion it is said that it does good by providing employment for many classes of people, factory hands, designers, shop-employees, dressmakers, milliners, and others. On the other hand the fluctuations of fashion often throw large bodies of workers out of employment, produce much less to manufacturers, and cause distress to workers. The simplicity of recent styles, which in itself is a great gain, has greatly diminished the demand for lace, artificial flowers, buttons, hooks and eyes, hairpins, veilings, underskirts, and many -more articles of feminine wear and adornment. As so little material is now used for dresses and undergarments, compared with what was formerly needed, one would suppose a smaller amount of textile goods would be demanded, and that manufacturers would suffer. But probably people make up in number of garments for the lesser amount of material put into them. Making a dress is an infinitely simpler affair now than thirty or twenty years ago or less. But somehow dresses seem to cost just as much whether bought in the shop or made for one. I mean they cost as much allowing for the general rise in prices and wages. Someone._must profit, but it is not the consumer.

Whatever vagaries fashion may follow it is safe to predict that there will be no return to the hampering modes of former years—crinolines, trailing skirts, and voluminous draperies. The whole trend of modern life is against them. The modern woman is compelled to be active. A state of society in which people of all classes are actively, and for the most part practically, employed is unfavourable to great extremes of fashion. During the last two hundred years there have been no dress fashions so absurd as many that arose in the middle ages. The rise of modern industry, and the consequent entry of men in the upper classes into business, resulted in growing simplicity and practicality in male attire. Sb fashion has done its worst, and the modern pursuit of health and physical activity with the improved aesthetic culture within common reach to-day, may be trusted to restrain its caprices within moderate bounds for the future.

IN FASHION’S REALM.

WEEKLY UP-TO-DATE DRESS NOTES. By Maruubbitb, Did you see the Poiret prophecy? It. was cabled. Poiret, you know, is the great French fashion designer. He wanted to go to the war," but -I think was prevented. He was all too useful, and when it was over showed it, as he started writing lengthy dress articles for papers abroad. All of them might have carried this at the end: “When next you want a hat or dress, say ‘ It must be French.’ ” Well, Poiret appears to think that those who -were driven now drive instead. They used to wear whatever was designed for them without demur, but now they say, “You will design to please us, not yourselves.” And Poiret, confident that dress changes are imperative, and seeing no room for anything else, says that in 30 years the sex will be in trousers. Thirty years is a long time —a very long time, long enough, in fact, for Poiret to be succeeded by someone else. And then, when it is found that it was all like those earthquake prophecies for January, which didn’t come off, he may say: “Poiret spoke- without thinking. There are several reasons why women can’t wear trousers with any degree of grace, and their height, or rather the lack of it, is not the least. They certainly discarded the dust-sweeper; but then it ought to have been discarded centuries ago, and that crown of glory which it was an agony to have on their heads and a constant task to keep in order.” No, -women will not "wear trousers. Poiret ought to know from his experience of the “Harem.” He launched it to see, a few ventured to wear it, and then it was cast aside with disdain.

I observe a certain return to the freakish, though as yet abroad. Beware of it, unless you have money to waste. “What do you think of my new hat?” And the friend you ask, noting that it is 12in high, holds her peace. Which causes you to regret having bought it, and next few years, having been laughed at, you throw it away, and so find that this is what you did with what it cost you. When the last mail left they were wearing hats in Paris over- 12in high, and in New York, etc., etc., likewise, and even leaning towards the thing in London. ' That is a few—the ever ready few, —but as surely as'the sun'rises in the east and sets in the we§t, those hats will be in the lumber room in practically no time. They were being worn to the side, meaning at a rakish angle, and so more or less over one eye. And, seeing that the habit is to haVe crowns with knpeked-in tops, the idea a picture of one gave me was that the wearer had been to a party overnight at which there had been an altercation, and was just returning home after having, been “warned.” Freakish in millinery or dress, always evidence that the pace has been .too swift for the designers. In a word,

they have not had ti-ft? to think nut something fresh, and so'have resort to the bizarre. * * * I know how it is '(ith my pictures. They are certainly smail, but sometimes I go over a dozen models in some form or other in order to yet one to suit. Take this, for example, which is to illus-

trate a single feature —the neck and front treatment, which just now is important. I rejected half a dozen before I got to what you see —a cascaded frame to a deep “V,” with a smaller “V” for an inset.

I have been looking at some cow coats — in picture form, and American to a cow. Topsy was not doing service enough providing milk, butter, and cheese, and so the designers went at her for her hide, and in America, where it is cold enough at times for anything, they have been wearing cow coats, showing the spots, and rejoicing in the passing craze. I’ll tell you what I think of the cow coats — ridiculous, worse than , the blanket coats, and suggestive of the Cave Age for all the excellence of their cut, which isn’t everything.

Let us keep to same materials, and so for a dress in two —something dark and sheeny as the basic one and the other different, and, if you like, with a pattern. The lighter material allows of that won-

derful sleeve I have- several times mentioned, in that it does not obscure the line of the bodice. I may draw attention to the collar with the scarf finish, and the corresponding touch on the skirt, and to the skirt girdle and side draping that concludes it.

We shall have the new season with us in practically no time, and, this being so, wherein the use of saying anything more of the modes that are passing out? The drapers always tell the tale in their sales —everything at the lowest possible price, and clearly to make room for the new stock. Well, I for one, will be pleased enough, as I am a little bit tired of frocks. I want to get down to coats, ever an entrancing subject, and this time particularly so, when we are being told of new materials, and fur. ’is promised such a tremendous run. I’ll say this of coats at once: Time after time I hsT> pointed out that in these days an »4. enveloping coat becomes a dress, too, in that it is the only visible thing. And evidently it is the opinion of the designers, as I see that the newest idea is to have a line around the coat that would correspond with the one we find with a dress, and to pouch-the material the wee-

est bit above it. The effect is immediate —a coat, but also a dress, albeit some

would say that you only need to add a cord with tassels to get a glorified dressing gown. * * * While you cannot wear anything to suggest “hoops” with a day dress, you can with an evening one, and here is an example of the simple character. Such evening designs are quite in the right order, and in this case it is with a dainty material enlivened with beads, large enough for the purpose, but not too large. And the reason for the collar in the panel? Simply that there was room for something, and a collar caught my eye at the moment. * * * Reverting to Poiret, had he said this I should be with him at once: In 30 years—nay, in very much less than 30— fancywork by hand to embellish dresses will have passed out. And it will not be because the sex has become too busy or too lazy for it, but because what is needed will all be done by machinery, and better. For instance, what of this, as describing an evening coat —one in lame of a sea-green tint patterned to the design of the coat with embossed black velvet. I saw the article, a wonderful thing, the pattern working down from nothing to much on both coat and sleeves, and everything, of course, done in the making, the one trimming by hand, and then if trimming it might be called, being a fur collar. I distinctly remember the introduction of the bordered material—the one that owed the border to the machine when made up, and all I can say of the final thing now is that I am surprised that it didn’t come before. I don’t want 30 years for my prophecy. 11l take 15, or, if you like, 10 —handwork is going out. * * * This illustrates in the picture on the left a rather pleasing collar-front, and on the right the style to favour for a dress if you want to be in the vanguard with the new season. Those apron-like or curl tain-like collar-fronts are very attractive,

but, of course, like everything else, they can be overdone. It will be the same With the sleeve that is webbed to the bodice; but not for a while, as it has yet to be exploited. • Coming frocks will feature this sleeve rather often, and incidentally so will coming coats, if the cuff doesn’t offer an obstacle.