Between June 2011 and May 2012, the
Maine Historical Society (MHS) is displaying an exhibition on how Mainers have
dressed up for special occasions throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth and
twentieth century. Entitled ‘Dressing Up, Standing Out, Fitting In: Adornment
and Identity in Maine,’ the exhibit documents how the people of Maine used
clothes, trinkets, jewelry and accessories to show who they were and how they
wanted to be perceived by others. The exhibit effectively shows how adornment has
been a vital part of an individual’s identity over the past three centuries: it
displayed a person’s socio-economic standing, their ability to follow societal
norms, and their background. The exhibit inadvertently highlights a comparison
to today’s society where we still dress up and adorn ourselves so that we both
fit in to society whilst trying to still stand out. Overall, the exhibit through
the use of several different types of artifacts on display, combined with
informative text, conveys the importance of what a person wore and how it
affected their lives and reflected their status.
One
of the strengths of the exhibit is that it does not assume that the visitor has
any prior knowledge, yet it is never condescending. When the visitor enters the
exhibition space they are greeted with a large central wall display, which
houses the extraordinary miniature portrait broach of Portugal’s King Don Juan
VI and introduces and explains the theme of the exhibition. The information
board states what adornment meant and how it has been used historically, and
still is, to show identity: adornment was a means to communicate status, to
celebrate a special occasion and reinforce the way an individual wished to be
seen. Within any era or community, attire would fall within a narrow range of
styles and materials as people wanted to fit in with their community but still
stand out. Therefore people followed fashion, by wearing certain styles, but
used fabrics, jewelry, and accessories to differentiate themselves from their
peers and stand out from the crowd. It is the narrow range of materials and styles
that allow historians and curators to date and locate artifacts, as certain
styles of dress were worn at certain times, much as architectural design can
date houses. The visitor is instantly given the information they need in order
to understand and enjoy the exhibit.
The
lighting is strategically positioned so that it is both atmospheric and
functional. There is no direct natural light, making sure that the artifacts on
display are not damaged, so instead directed artificial light is used. Each
bulb is directed to illuminate a specific item the curators desire you to look
at. Whether it is a Victorian boy’s velvet dress, a display case full of
jewelry, or one of the information boards, the lighting leads you to where you
are meant to be. Despite the well positioned lighting, there is not a clear
flow or route to the exhibit. The artifacts and cabinets are not placed so that
the information boards are clearly presented and the first thing a visitor
engages with when they enter a new area. This means that often you are not
aware you have entered into a new section. This meant that certain artifacts
are not fully appreciated, as without reading the information boards it is hard
to understand what each artifact is representing, its significance, and role
within the exhibit. Had the MHS more space or an opportunity to rearrange the
exhibit, I would recommend that they make each segment more clearly defined
with the information board either as, or by, the focal point, or right where
the visitor is expected to enter. This would mean the visitor would engage with
the artifacts in the correct order and would therefore appreciate that
section’s theme and understand the material culture in relation to that theme.
This being said, the orientation of the exhibit did not severely detract from
the caliber of the items on display and the main aim of the exhibit: to show
how and why Mainers have dressed up.
Both
painted and photographed portraits were displayed within the exhibit. Portraits
are a great source for examining how people of the past dressed up. Portraits
were ways in which individuals could control how they were perceived and
display their wealth and skills. Sitters would put on their best clothing and
have the painter or photographer create an image which displayed them the way
they wished to be perceived. Mary Merrill Thompson’s portrait, painted in 1850,
was displayed in the exhibit. The austere looking woman dressed in mostly black
clearly wished to appear in a certain way. Dressed in all black bar a pinkish
red neckerchief, Thompson was obviously hoping to look pious and respectable.
However, her black dress also draws out the vivid gold garments she was
wearing: a gold broach attached to her neckerchief, a gold belt buckle, gold
chains on her wrists, a gold ring and a gold pen. It is impossible to miss
these many fine items of adornment. Thompson desired to show her wealth and
strategically chose a black dress to contrast and highlight her fine
accessories. It can also be surmised that the inclusion of a pen was also
making a statement. The pen suggests that this woman was a keen writer, with
both the intelligence and means to scribe letters and keep accounts so well she
can afford lavish items such as gold pens. The props the sitter chose to be
included in their portrait reveal a lot about their character and how they
wished to be perceived. This idea was explored in Dane Morrison’s lecture on
maritime life in Portsmouth and David Jaffee’s books on the material culture of
Early America.
Jaffee’s
first chapter is on painters and patrons and how the sitters would choose what
was included in their portrait. Jaffee uses the example of two generations of
the same family and how the props in their portraits showed how each man wished
to be seen. The difference between Reverend Ebenezer Devotion and his son Judge
Ebenezer Devotion displayed a change in what the generations valued as well as the
disparities in their personalities and professions. The elder Devotion, the Reverend,
is surrounded by his vast collection of books whilst wearing somber black,
whereas his son is dressed in finery and leaning on a desk writing in what
appears to be an accounts book. It is clear that the father prized his
intellect and wished to display himself as an enlightened individual. However,
his son desired to display his wealth instead.[1]
Dr. Morrison also explored the idea of how the props in a portrait helped
create an image of the sitter in his analysis of the portrait of John Moffat. Morrison
showed how the inclusion of a $1,000 bill and fine clothes helped Moffat look
wealthy and intelligent. This combined with the light resting on his forehead
and hand subtly suggested that this man was intelligent and as a consequence
wealthy. Morrison explained how this portrait would be hanged in the Moffat
residence in pride of position acting as both an advert for his wealth and for
his business. The portrait inferred to his intelligence and ability to create wealth,
showing that the portrait was a propaganda tool as much as anything else.[2]
Jaffee and Morrison both displayed that portraits and the props found alongside
the sitter themselves acted as means to display personality and status,
reaffirming the analysis of the MHS. Individuals dressed up and adorned
themselves with objects that conveyed the image they wanted to be associated
with.
A
major issue with displaying costumes and attire is the lack of lower-class
clothing that survives. Due to the fabric used in working class clothing
combined with people’s tendency to preserve more expensive items, means that only
a few items used by working class people of the eighteenth and nineteenth
century survive, ironically making them more valuable. Astrida Schaeffer
discussed this in her lecture about her work as a clothing historian. Schaeffer
preserves original clothing, produces reproductions, and creates mannequins to
display period clothing. Schaeffer discussed how she mainly preserves, mends,
and creates mannequins for dresses of rich women or women of relative means due
to the clothing of working-class people not surviving.[3]
This is clearly reflected in the exhibition, but it is not directly addressed.
Virtually all the clothes on display are from people of means, who could afford
to go to social events such as the opera. As the theme of the exhibit is
dressing up, some may think that working class people’s clothes would not be
suited and therefore not expect to see them in the exhibit. However,
working-class people would dress up for certain occasions, and would often save
up during the nineteenth century to have their photograph taken. For this
reason, it would be worth featuring, if at all possible, some working-class
people’s clothing or at least include an information card suggesting that
although they did not always have the means and had less opportunity to dress
up, those of lower socio-economic status would also dress up for certain
occasions. Another aspect of Schaeffer’s lecture which would have enhanced the
exhibition was the idea that after the American Revolution Maine became one of
the fashion “hotspots.” Due to its bordering British controlled Canada, Maine
had access to the latest fashions before the rest of the United States and
became a fashion center as a consequence.[4]
This would have been an interesting snippet of information that directly
relates to the content of the exhibit and could have helped the visitor
understand the role of eighteenth century Maine to the world of American
fashion. It would also help the visitor conceive that not only do styles
change, but so do the fashion centers.
Although
the MHS does not directly address working-class people dressing up, they do
document and inform visitors of an event which affected all regardless of their
socio-economic background: weddings. The exhibit describes how both men and
women dress up for their wedding day and if possible they would get new clothes
for the occasion. The information board explains that no matter who you were it
was an occasion where you dressed up. This can be seen through a laminated
ring-binder of old wedding photographs under the information board about
weddings [see image 1]. This album shows a combination of individual and couple
portraits and group shots of different families’ weddings ranging from the
nineteenth century to post World War Two from a range of backgrounds, including
Asian immigrants. However, the main object on display for weddings is the
wedding dress of Elaine Robinson Kitchell, resident of Peru, ME [see image 2]. Kitchell
married on June 20th 1939 and took the design for her wedding dress
from a pattern in Butternick Magazine [can just be seen in the far right of
image 2]. Her mother Mabelle Robinson made the dress out of silk, organdy, and
taffeta with a hoop in the dress to keep its shape. The display cabinet
adjacent to the dress includes the bonnet of her grandmother and a photo of the
occasion. The inclusion of so many personal items of Kitchell’s special day
helps create a story. The survival of the dress and some supplementary items
shows how important the occasion was for Kitchell. It was not only a time to
dress up, but also a time to document and to treasure for years to come. The inclusion
of several objects surrounding one woman’s “big day” helps tell a story and get
the visitor personally involved.
In
the same cabinet as some of Kitchell’s memorabilia is a pair of eighteenth
century shoes. The shoes belonged to Deborah Thaxter and are dated to be from
c. 1772, and are identified to be her wedding shoes. These wonderful silk shoes
are fabulously decorated with elaborate flowers all over the shoe. However,
these shows are not associated with just Thaxter’s wedding but also her mothers.
It was not that Thaxter and her mother both wore the shoes at their weddings,
but the shoes were made from Thaxter’s mother’s wedding dress! As Kimberley
Alexander explained when discussing her Georgian shoe project, it was common
for women to ‘revamp’ their shoes by updating the paste buckle and the vamp.[5]
Therefore, the fact that a prized possession such as a wedding dress was reused
to create fine shoes would not have been unusual for the time: it was part of a
culture where women made their clothes and reused fabrics from old dresses to
do so. The inclusion of this personal story about these shoes draws the visitor
into a world very different from their own.
The
exhibition effectively shows how men, women and children would dress up for
special occasions. Although dressing up is most associated with women (enjoying
and expected to present themselves at their best and on special occasions in
all their finery) and children (dressing up in a plethora of costumes), the
exhibition does not ignore that men too were accustomed to dressing up and the
importance dressing up was to their status. Men would use fobs, hats and
cravats as well as well-tailored fine fabrics on special occasions and to
display their status. The exhibit showed that men also used uniforms,
specifically military, uniforms as a way to stand apart and fit in to society.
The dress uniform of A.P. Morgan of the Portland Rifle Corps from 1854 was
displayed under the section fitting in [see image 3]. The exhibit states that
uniforms are the most obvious symbols of membership – those that wear a uniform
outwardly show their association with a certain group or profession. Military
uniforms clearly showed an individual’s status, as all military uniforms
clearly display the soldier’s ranking. The information board discusses Morgan’s
role in the army and highlights that a soldier would have two different
uniforms: the dress uniform and that worn in battle. The two could easily be distinguished,
as the dress uniform would be more flamboyant with gold buttons just like those
on Morgan’s uniform, whereas the uniform worn for duty would be plainer and
more practical. This is a great example of how men would wear different clothes
for different occasions, just as women would. Instead of wearing a better made
dress and more elaborate jewelry, men in the armed forces would don a more
embellished uniform which showed that they had dressed up to step out.
By
the end of the exhibit I became complacent and fed up of reading the
information boards. Although there were numerous different objects on display,
by the second half of the exhibit I could not take in any more information from
the displays! This was in part my own fault as I did not use the audio
information provided (you could call a number to gain information about certain
objects), but I still feel that by the end of the exhibit the information had
become a little repetitive and overbearing. There was no change in format in
how the information was provided. There were two computer monitors in the
exhibit, but they were not switched on and at the beginning of the exhibit. This
seemed like a missed opportunity to me, as showing a slideshow or a video half
way through the exhibit would have provided the visitor relief from reading
whilst still engaging and informing them. Alongside this, there were no
interactive areas or interactive technology for visitors to engage with. It
would have been fantastic to have been able to touch different fabrics or have
some replica hats to try on to add an element of fun to the exhibit. The
ability to touch fabrics and try costumes on also helps visitors experience
what it would have been like for a man in the nineteenth century army, or a
woman on her wedding day in the 1930s, and these experiences bring history
alive. History and learning are not achieved solely by reading but also by
interacting and experiencing things first hand. Being able to touch different
fabrics could have been an effective way to incorporate the difference between
what the upper, middle, and lower classes wore. For example, they could have
included three different materials used for wedding dresses in the nineteenth
century, all white but of differing qualities, one for each socio-economic group
so that visitors could experience how people’s dressing up differed according
to their status within society.
Even
without much technology and ways to interact with objects and materials, the
MHS’ exhibition is informative, fascinating, and accessible. It is quite
literally accessible to all, as any wheelchair users or others with walking
impairments could easily walk through the exhibit as it had wide thorough-ways,
leveled flooring, and cabinets at height wheelchair users could easily see
into. This combined with the interesting and comprehendible information boards,
which include both readable text and small illustrations by John Martin, make
the exhibit user-friendly. It supplies enough information for enthusiasts to
get their teeth into and loose themselves in the personal stories of the
different examples of material culture. Yet, the casual visitor could still
easily grasp the meaning of the exhibit merely by walking through, glancing at
information cards, and looking at the artifacts. Everything, from the color of
the walls, to the number of display cases, and the variety of items on show,
help convey that dressing up and adorning yourself was, and still is, vital to
the human experience. It was a way for everybody to show their inclusion and
identity within society. The exhibit displays examples of Native American and
Asian immigrants dressing up and having their photographs taken showing that
groups, who would have been considered outsiders, were to some extent accepted
within Maine society due to their conforming to the practice of adorning
themselves and dressing up.
The
MHS chose the miniature portrait broach of King Don Juan of Portugal to be the
signature artifact to represent the exhibit. They could not have picked a
better choice. The broach was a gift to distinguished soldier Henry Dearborn from
the Portuguese King in the nineteenth century. The broach embodies the
exhibition perfectly: it in itself is an item of adornment but is also an
example of a portrait of someone who is dressed up. The broach could be worn
around the neck as a pendant and as the diamonds which surround the portrait
show, it was clearly an item to be flaunted and admired. As the artifact is
also a miniature portrait, it is an example of how people dressed up to have
themselves immortalized in a way they wished to be remembered. The broach
epitomizes the idea that adornment was a way in which Mainers showed their
personality and status, as well as whom they wanted to be and how they wanted
to be seen: what the exhibition is all about. The MHS successfully illustrated how
material culture in general, but particularly items of adornment and clothing,
can help those of the twenty-first century understand the lives of those of who
lived in the past. It shares the stories and the hopes of those from the past by
giving visitors access to their portraits, photos, jewelry, keepsakes and
clothing. Overall, the exhibit successfully uses material culture to display
and inform the visitors of how important dressing up was to individuals in
Maine.
[1] David Jaffe, A New Nation of Goods: The Material Culture of Early America, (Bethlehem:
Elibron Classics, 2005), 1-7.
[2] Dane Morrison, ‘Maritime
Portsmouth through the Collections of Strawberry Banke Museum and Moffat-Ladd
House and Gardens,’ 03/28/12.
[3] Astrida Schaeffer, ‘Behind the
Scenes of UNH Exhibition: Embellishments,’ 04/04/12.
[5] Kimberley Alexander, ‘Shoes and
Swords: Building a Case for Material Culture, One Object at a Time,’ 04/11/12.
No comments:
Post a Comment