“Clothing can both harm and protect us,” says fashion historian and author Dr. Alison Matthews David. For centuries, accessories like hats and gloves have been used as shields and even tools of self-defense. But clothing has also been an insidious “carrier of disease.”
On Tuesday, Matthews David was invited by New York City’s National Arts Club to share her research in a Zoom talk titled “Fashion Victims: Germ Warfare.” (The presentation drew heavily from her book Fashion Victims: The Dangers of Dress Past and Present.) The topic is only timely, as we consider what to wear and how to protect ourselves during the COVID-19 pandemic. Do virus particles spread through clothes? Should we wash our clothes every time we leave the house?
These anxieties, Matthews David revealed, are nothing new. In Victorian times, people believed long skirts dragged all kinds of diseases — a 1900 cartoon from Puck magazine shows a maid dusting off clouds of influenza and typhoid from one such skirt. (Typhus did, in fact, travel through clothes that couldn’t be laundered.) To help combat this, in the early 20th century, women began carrying around skirt grips to hitch up the trailing fabric. Matthews David suspects that the switch to shorter skirts had at least something to do with paranoias around hygiene.
Large, voluminous skirts, known as crinolines, are also being revisited as early forms of “social distancing.” While this seems funny at first, Matthews David says that women really did think of the skirt that way — it “gave them space in public,” so that “people couldn’t touch or grab them.” Similarly, broad-rimmed hats created a kind of protective orbit, preventing people from encroaching (in one caricature, a woman pokes a man with her hatpin for sitting too close to her on the train). The hats and skirts were social measures reflective of their era, but their relevance to our current moment is hard to overlook. A hoop skirt might be useful on those infrequent grocery trips.
Today, in pandemic times, “we’re all rethinking about what we touch,” said Matthews David. We’re asking ourselves things like, “Should I wear gloves?” According to the historian, if we were to time travel to the 1800s, any member of the elite class would probably be disgusted by the suggestion of leaving the house without gloves — shaking with one’s bare hands was considered downright dirty.
The other major clothing item we’re all thinking about is, of course, masks. In one of her cleverly illustrated slides, Matthews David compared the masks that plague doctors wore — equipped with a beak infused with sweet smells, which were thought to be protective — to the “more modern” prototypes being fabricated by the likes of Chanel.
Once upon a time, masks were considered fashion items “to protect ladies from dust and wind,” Matthews David pointed out. But today, in Western culture, masks have primarily become signs “of suspicion and distrust” (the masked bandit).
When I asked Matthews David if she had to predict one change in how we dress after this pandemic has hopefully passed, she asserted, “Social practice around clothing will change […] From a Western consumer perspective, I imagine that the cloth mask will become a staple in many wardrobes, especially in urban areas and close quarters like supermarkets. We’ll start carrying them around with us and put them on when necessary.”
Our relationship to clothing is arguably already evolving, as we share our work-from-home outfits and dress for comfort. In an email exchange, Matthews David shared that she’s been thinking about “all the women sighing with relief in terms of going braless” and “whether women’s dress tends to shift more than men’s after times of crisis.” (Consider the 1920s, when women’s dress radically changed after World War I.)
As she touched upon during her talk, there is a powerful link between our mental and psychological health and what we wear. Major shifts like the pandemic we are experiencing now make us grow more conscientious of this connection, as some of us find newfound pleasure in putting on a nice outfit to run a supermarket errand.
At the end of the talk, which you can watch in full on YouTube, a listener asked Matthews David what measures she takes, if any, to avoid the various “dangers” of fashion in our present moment and beyond. Her advice: “I’m very careful to launder everything before I wear it.”
Although Khedoori does not depict living beings, their presence is evoked in the traces they leave behind.
The Bronx Museum’s fifth biennial continues to focus its programming on individual identity, eliding the ever-divergent interests of the art market and local communities.
The first lecture is on the relationship between early portrait photography and diverse notions of US identity during the Gilded Age. Register to attend on January 25.
While it may be strange to think of food insecurity as a basis for art, the works in Food Justice reveal barriers and injustices in food access.
Shiv would definitely have a Chihuly chandelier.
Part of the university’s Artists on the Future series pairing renowned artists with cultural thought leaders, this online event is free and open to the public.
“[The art market] provides an opportunity for people to move money in a way that they can’t with other commodities,” says FBI Special Agent Chris McKeogh.
Black American Portraits features over two centuries of artworks centering Black artists and subjects.
A love of Black art and history was the bedrock of the friendship between Dell Marie Hamilton and Susan Denker, who had markedly different racial, economic, and generational subject positions.
With what he says is his final museum bow, Fitzpatrick shines a light on the colorful diversity that composes his city.
The question of race — however hidden, however camouflaged by the shouts of the crowds — is a constant theme and an unanswered challenge.