The Religion Of Style: Dandyism

"One should either be a work of Art, or wear a work of Art" Oscar Wilde

19th Century fashion seems to be a bit of a trend in these blog posts! The era was an important time for society in general, with the Industrial Revolution changing the face of Britain and Europe and the way people led their lives. Science and industry changed the way society was structured and provided a different array of jobs, allowing the aspirations of the middle classes to be realised. Linking Dandyism to high society is a common misconception, a Dandy is a man who puts fashion, appearance and imitation of aristocracy above all else. It is a state of mind as well as a way of dressing.




The first and most notable Dandy of the 19th Century was George Bryan 'Beau' Brummel, socialite and friend of the Prince Regent. While Brummel did not come from money, he was left a vast inheritance from his father which, combined with the social circles he swam in, had a huge impact on his behaviour and appearance.

Although he was a member of the bourgeoisie he had a strong desire to fit in with the upper class young men in the Prince Regent's circle but such was his intelligent personality that he actually began to dictate the fashions of the time and was very influential. Brummel bathed daily, ensured his teeth were always clean and he was always shaven. In addition to this, his clothes were always freshly laundered and he wore a knotted cravat.





While his flawless style soon became very popular amongst the middle classes, the Dandy image came with many connotations:


Duality & The Excessive

The postmodern idea of multiple personalities is one which emerged in 18th Century Gothic literature. From Jekyll and Hyde to Dorian Gray, the excessiveness of the Dandy's personality and appearance is seen to be a mask, a disguise that has the ability to create multiplicity and duality. As Halberstam claims, the male in such a role "is always a master of disguise and his impermanence and fleeting sense of reality precisely masks him as monstrous."1

The link between the excessive and performance is inextricable. The Dandy carefully uses clothing and language to create an extreme persona: the personality is always too much and changes often and quickly. Despite this, Dellamora emphasises the extent of the Dandy's multiplicity, "the Dandy is too relaxed, too visible, consumes to excess while producing little or nothing. He is also too feminine."2




Superficiality/Surface & Depth

In addition to the idea of duality, the Dandy is also superficial due to his emphasis on the aesthetic. The Dandy hides behind the apparently respectable exterior reminiscent of the aristocracy but there is an element of doubt due to the fact that he is too much. Halberstam explains the idea of surface and depth in relation to the Dandy, "Disguise becomes equivalent to self. Soon it becomes one and the same as the personality breaks through the exterior."3

Using Oscar Wilde's Dorian Gray as an example, when he first sees the actress Sibyl she is wandering through the forest dressed as a boy in hose and doublet but when she reveals her true self he feels betrayed by her and is no longer attracted to her. In the preface of the novel, Wilde warns the reader, "those who look beneath the surface do so at their own peril". In the context of the story, Sibyl fails because she attempts to break through the superficialities and arrive at something real.

1 J. Halberstam, Skin Shows: Gothic Horror & The Technology of Monsters. Duke University Press, 1995
2 R. Dellamora, Masculine Desire: The Sexual Politics of Victorian Aestheticism. Unviersity of North Carolina Press, 1990
3 J. Halberstam, ibid

Identity, Cosmetics & The Search For Perfection

From gradual tanning products to botox to boob jobs, the beauty and cosmetics industry in the UK alone is worth over £539million. With all these products promising us an easy (if costly) route to ‘perfection’, who wouldn’t be drawn in by such sparkly ad campaigns? Maybe you weren’t born with it… But is it really possible for Maybelline to give you a helping hand? After all, what is ‘perfection’? And how is ‘perfection’ achievable if we are all individual?


The Construction of Identity

To understand the idea of perfection it’s important to look at the construction of identity and how it relates to cosmetics in the form of a masquerade. It is widely accepted by theorists such as Goffman, Butler and Foucault that identity is always something that is done – it is achieved rather than innate. This is supported by social research on the body, finding that there is not natural prediscursive body and therefore identity.

For hundreds of years, the body has been used as a tool for grounding difference, it is a marker used to illustrate individual identity and the membership of a wider socio-cultural group. Identities are, by this very purpose, social identities: we find differences and therefore meaning in the world around us by constant comparisons. The use of cosmetics is one way in which we are able to visibly inscribe our identities (true or otherwise) onto our bodies.


Authenticity

As I have mentioned before in my previous post on the idea of the masquerade, the use of cosmetics and clothing to put forward an impression of ourselves to the world. In the West people have a tendency to counterpoise BEING an identity against DOING an identity; in other words, are you being yourself or are you playing a character?

It is this gap between semblance and substance that creates a suggestion of inauthenticity and a woman’s (or man’s) use of makeup can be seen as a secret projection of their desired self-image – the identity they want everyone else to see. As Strathern explains, ‘this leads to the possibility of an antithesis between the body so decorated and the inner or whole person’. However, theorists such as Park and Bennett believe that this mask is an extension of our true selves, ‘She can… let her true self emerge from the shadows’ (Park).

These arguments throw up two very important questions: firstly, is the idea of adopting a mask acceptable if it means that we can assume and put forward characteristics we see as our own? Or does emphasising these characteristics physically through the use of cosmetics remove the authenticity that they would otherwise hold?




Performance & Society

Performance and the idea of a public image are aspects that have driven how we dress and use cosmetics for hundreds of years. Goffman’s theory on ‘front stage’ and ‘back stage’ suggests that when we are aware of an audience we play to them, meaning that the identity we are performing risks not being entirely truthful.

This performative concept suggests that identity is formed through repeated and rehearsed public acts; we present an image of ourselves to be accepted by others. However, as I have previously mentioned, the widely held idea that our identities are formed by society and experience means that there is a high likelihood that as society changes over time, our identities can never fully develop. This translates directly to the idea of ‘perfection’; as society changes, so do our ideas of ‘perfection’ and this constant change means that there will always be constraints in this quest.


Post-feminist Masquerade

In these post-feminist times, women are encouraged to be independent and self-reliant, they construct life plans and strive to succeed in all areas of their lives – particularly their careers. However, as Rose explains this gives women the impression that everything in life can (or should be) controlled, ‘she is thus an intensively managed subject’. By micromanaging everything in their lives, women believe that if they manage themselves through their make up and clothing, they can make ‘perfection’ attainable.

While the theory surrounding the masquerade is full of feminist thoughts on the substitution of masculine control by the influence of the beauty industry, the point made above is a valid and important one. Perfection is a theory: a myth rather than reality. It exists only in people’s minds and opinions – like the old saying beauty is in the eyes of the beholder – and like society and the individual body, it changes over time. Nothing in life is ever fixed or permanent and ‘perfection’ is never, even remotely, attainable.

Gothic: The Dark Side Of Fashion

"And chiefly of the veils that from her brow;
Hung pale, and curtain'd her in mysteries"
Keats, The Fall of Hyperion, 1818

I have always had a lot of love for Gothic culture. No, I don’t mean the typical 90s Goth subculture with the errr interesting shoes, piercings etc etc; I mean the fashion, literature and performance of the 18th to 19th Centuries. From Jekyll and Hyde to the Brontë sisters, Gothic, and later Romantic culture are responsible for a huge amount of social and psychological theories on fashion, the body and sexuality. Although I will only touch lightly on the dominant ideas within the Gothic in this post, I will write about specific theories at length in the future as my dissertation progresses.

The Gothic novel is historically linked to fashion through the emergence of early consumerism in the 18th Century and the Gothic has always relied upon a spectacular or set of styles for its identity. Within the Gothic genre there are several themes related to romance and attraction that are addressed, particularly through Gothic and Romantic literature.

Photo by Emma Bigg

Masks, Veils & Disguise

Ordinarily, masking and disguise indicates the existence of an authentic and true self underneath but Gothic literature of the 19th Century “seeks to problematise that authenticity”1. In the psychoanalytical surface and depth model, a mask or veil is a ‘doubleness’ which, when removed, reveals the ‘singleness’ of the monolithic subject.

The mask or veil in the Gothic is seen as important in creating a sense of mystery and fascination that comes with the idea of concealing identity, personality and status. However, Warwick and Cavallaro believe that disguises such as these “may turn out to conceal not a presence but an absence, not a depth but a vacuum”2.

Sedgwick proposes that the individual self breaks through and exposes itself through the disguising layer, “the superficial layers of convention and prohibition ‘the rational’ conceal and repress a deep well of primal material, ‘the irrational’”3. In Gothic culture, the disguise replaces the monolithic subject; this can be seen in Gothic novels such as The Strange Case of Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson.


Two-faced? The Idea Of Multiple Selves

Commonplace in Gothic culture is the narrative that deals with the different sides to our personalities, from passion and sensuality to aggression and power. Fluctuating moods and feelings are explored to the extreme in the Gothic, where passion is the main driver for these states.

Both Gothic and Post-modern theories suggest that our identities are multiple, performative and dispersed across a variety of appearances. The Dandies of the early 19th Century are a perfect example of the theatricality and sensibility that dominated fashion at the time. Sontag emphasises the importance of passion in this theme, “without passion, camp becomes chic”4.

The Nightmare, 1782. Henry Fuseli

Skin: Boundaries, Violence & Vulnerability

While the idea of masking and disguise is a central theme, the Gothic is also a very sensual subculture and as such, the use of lace and sheer fabrics mirror the idea of revealing the body while also containing it. Skin is seen as another very important aspect of Gothic culture, particularly in literary circles where the idea of vampires was sexualised.

Spooner believes that “skin houses the body and is the material that divides the inside from the outside”5. Disruption of this absolute and ultimate boundary shows how vulnerable the human body is. Inevitably accompanied by violence, this use of power against a permeable and weak surface is one that has quite often been considered quite erotic. This idea can be transferred to clothing as in the Gothic; the second skin as it is known, is there to be disrupted.


Sex & Fetishism

The Freudian idea of ‘the uncanny’ is one that is inextricably linked to Gothic literature. Freud argued that the “uncertainty whether an object is alive or not” arouses a feeling of horror due to its uncomfortable and familiar setting. A good example of this and the inextricable link between sex and death in the Gothic is Henry Fuseli’s 1782 painting The Nightmare. The woman appears to be in a state between life and death; you are unsure as to whether she has died, fainted or is having an orgasm.

In terms of fetishism, the clothing worn by characters in Gothic and Romantic novels can sometimes be conflicting. While the Brontë sisters describe bodices and unstiffened skirts in their Romantic novels, the majority of Gothic clothing at the time followed the idea of free movement and exposure. It is, in fact, the idea that the body is contained and free, covered and exposed at the same time that is unique to Gothic fashion and culture.




1 Spooner C., Fashioning Gothic Bodies, Manchester University Press, 2004
2 Warwick A. and Cavallaro D., Fashioning the Frame: Boundaries, Dress and the Body, Berg, 1998
3 Sedgwick E. K., The Coherance of Gothic Conventions, Methuen & Co., 1986
4 Sontag S., Notes on Camp in Against Interpretation and Other Essays, Penguin, 2009
5 Spooner C., Fashioning Gothic Bodies, Manchester University Press, 2004

The Fashionable Masquerade

I have already touched on the idea of the reasons behind why we wear the clothes we do. Whether we mean to or not, we all project an image of ourselves by the way we dress, but is the image we are projecting a true one? Here I take a deeper look at the conflicting ideas of clothing as a mask and clothing as an bonafide extension of ourselves.


Masking Our Identity?

From a psychoanalytical point of view, Flügel believes that “when we wear a mask, we cease, to some extent, to be ourselves; we conceal from others both our identity and the natural expression of our emotions”1. A mask’s ability to hide the most important part of the body for visual identification, the face, appears to also hide our individual identity. Clothing is not only used for function and protection but has, for hundreds of years helped to establish a person’s identity and status. But is the identity which is established a true or false one? How can we tell?

It is clear that while a mask can hide your true self, it is often for the sake of self-improvement and that there is always a motive for wearing a mask of any sort, be it on the face or in terms of clothing on the body. For example, the clothing worn to an interview must project the best person you can be. Whether or not it accurately represents the person wearing it, the outfit represents and promotes a character that they want to project.



An Extension Of Our True Identity?

While a mask can be seen as a disguise, it has also been argued by theorists such as Ducasse that if there is consistency in clothing we wear it becomes an extension of our identity; a part of the self. Mauss believes that “body decoration creates a person expressive of the ‘inner self’"2, an idea which questions whether or not what we choose to wear is personal expression. If it is an active choice to wear a particular item of clothing, is it therefore an extension of our own identity or a projection of who we strive to be?

Theorists who give these decisions the benefit of the doubt such as Flügel believe that through the very experience of wearing clothes, you are physically extending your personality and character into what you wear. The confidence that this brings to the wearer could arguably help them project the true self that they felt they could not show before.



Self Improvement & Improvement On Nature

Kant expands on Flügel’s theory, emphasising how beauty can be restricted by nature’s limits and as such, clothing as an ornamental mask extends the identity and beauty of a person, “the beautiful in nature is connected with the form of the object, which consists in having boundaries”3.

The idea of nature’s boundaries is a continuing concept throughout this debate and is essentially what it centres around. Darwin has observed the human need to improve their natural appearance, “Man admires and often tries to exaggerate whatever characters nature may have given him”4. Through clothes we are able to create new forms of ourselves and can change the way our faces and bodies look. We only have to look to the crinoline of the 19th Century to see that the idea of hiding and moulding the body into something it is not has been around for hundreds of years and as such has become a mask, a form of disguise.



Objectification & The Reactions Of Others

Our own personal motives for the way we dress can vary hugely, but in reality they are all based on the same reason: controlling how we are seen by others. Barthes examines the effect of being looked at as an object, “in front of the lens, I am at the same time: the one I think I am, the one I want others to think I am”5. When we are aware we are being observed or judged we have an inbuilt tendency to promote who we believe we are or who we want others to believe we are.

The impact of fascination further expands on this point. Despite our desire in the modern day to express our individuality, particularly through the clothes we wear, we are still pack animals and therefore are constantly seeking approval for our actions and appearances. Fascination is an emotion that is stimulated by aesthetics and as a result is the main factor in first impressions.

Drawing on Freud’s theory of the Id, Ego and Superego, which states that the Superego conditions us into being highly aware of what is socially acceptable. This transfers into the clothes we wear as the reactions we receive from others are processed and transferred into our own personal tastes. We want people to be fascinated by and attracted to us, and project an image to suit this persona.


1 Flügel, J. C., The Psychology of Clothes, Hogarth Press, 1950
2 Mauss, M., Sociology and Psychology, London RKP, 1979
3 Kant, I., Critique of Judgement, Hafner Press, 1951
4 Darwin, C., The Decent of Man, Penguin, 2004
5 Barthes, R., Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography, Vintage, 1933

Fashion & The Fight for Emancipation

Fashion has more of an impact in our day-to-day lives than most people think. At a very basic level it is a practical addition to everyday life, but it is, and always has been, one of the most important visual signifiers in society. From group identification to political statements to the assertion of individuality, clothing has had a massive role in some of the most significant social revolutions in history.

Scores of books and academic papers could, and have been for the most part, written about these events – after all, we all wear clothes for one reason or another and as a result we can’t deny the effect they have on our lives – but for this post I am going to delve into the major fashion revolution of the early 20th Century.

The beginning of the 20th Century saw a significant change in society. The era known as La Belle Époque, from the mid 1890s to the early 1900s, was an age of extravagance and a woman’s purpose was little more than to reflect her husband’s wealth; they themselves being seen as possessions. She was entirely economically dependant on her husband and was dictated to by society as to what she should wear.

Politics were globally patriarchal in nature, with the majority of leadership systems managed by men. Fashion was also dominated almost entirely by male couturiers at this time and appears to have had little concern regarding the comforts and the needs of the women who wore it.


While women were seen as the source of domestic charm in the early 1900s, a significant change in the dynamics of society and fashion came with World War One. Women replaced men in industry and the factories, gaining economic and social independence for the first time in history.

It would be foolish to deny that the fashion revolution and the suffrage campaigns across Europe were not inextricably linked. Although the change in the status of women was arguably a forced rather than a natural one, it had a huge impact on the fashion industry, with the commonplace corsets and long underskirts becoming an inconvenience to women undertaking physical labour.

A solution was needed and clothes began to be made for women in the work place as opposed for women in a domestic realm. However, the most notable difference between the pre- and post-war fashion industries is the emergence of revolutionary and rebellious female designers, women who designed with women in mind.


Gabrielle ‘Coco’ Chanel

Chanel began seriously designing during the Art Deco period of the 1920s, which saw an amalgamation of various art movements such as Futurism and Cubism. The strong geometric shapes and smooth sweeping lines inspired the androgynous styles introduced to the mainstream by Chanel.

As one of the original anti-corset generation of the early 20th Century, her philosophy was that of women doing things as opposed to being seen as something: famously referring to Dior’s New Look of 1948-58, she said, ‘How dressed in that thing could they come and go, live or anything?’1


Originally shocking to society but eventually very popular with young women, this Dandy-esque style has been seen by some theorists such as Evans and Thornton to be important by minimising the differences between the sexes.2 However, Chanel has been criticised by academics such as Malson, who believes that the straight lines of Chanel’s suits in fact represent ‘a cultural rejection of the feminine and an appropriation of masculine power’.3

Madeleine Vionnet

Another member of the anti-corset league, Vionnet is arguably one of the most important couturiers of the 20th Century. While her creations themselves were not visually revolutionary, her bias cut technique was. Through use of drapery, Vionnet’s garments did not limit or seek to control the body and completely abolished the need for corsets to create shape.

Explaining, ‘I have never been able to tolerate corsets myself. So why should I inflict them on other women?', this technique was a triumph for feminism, eliminating the need for a tool that is seen by many as the ultimate symbol of female oppression. Most importantly, her clothes were discreet without being submissive, an essential quality in the 1920s and 1930s where there was still a large amount of prejudice towards the emancipation of women.


The era of Chanel and Vionnet was one that changed the face of fashion forever. These women aimed to create beautiful clothes that were as comfortable as possible for women to wear whilst making an obvious, unashamed challenge to the previously accepted hierarchy of society. To an extent, they helped liberate and support women in a time of social uncertainty.




1 Charles-Roux, E., Chanel and her World, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1982
2 Evans, C. and Thornton, M., Fashion representation, femininity in Feminist Review 38, 1991
3 Malson, H., The Thin Woman: Feminism, Post-Structuralism and the Social Psychology of Anorexia Nervosa, Routledge, London, 1998