The Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art reimagines the history of fashion, honoring both well-known and long-forgotten designers.
A sort of emotional tsunami erupted in the fashion industry last October when it was revealed that Irish designer Seán McGirr would succeed Sarah Burton at Alexander McQueen, the brand she had brought back to glory following the founder’s suicide.
See, it turned out that every designer under the ownership of Kering, the second-biggest fashion conglomerate globally, would be a white man as a result of McGirr’s appointment. And things only grew worse when three more white men—all of them Italian—were appointed to the top positions at Moschino in quick succession.
In a market that primarily serves women, where were the women and designers of color? We were meant to be past this by now, right? Let the wailing and breast-beating commence.
And now for the remedy, provided by the Costume Institute of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.A celebration of over seventy different female designers’ creations from the early 20th century to the present, “Women Dressing Women” draws from the museum’s own collection. At least half of the 83 pieces on display will be seen for the first time, marking the first time the museum has ever held a survey devoted exclusively to the work of women.
This makes the show a signpost for a potential solution as well as a symptom of the issue (it’s kind of shocking to think that in the 85 years since the Costume Institute joined the Met, no one has done this before, despite the complications of a show based on gender).
In fact, the timing of this exhibition couldn’t be more ideal. Even though Mellissa Huber, the Costume Institute’s associate curator, and Karen Van Godtsenhoven, the guest co-curator, did not plan for it to look that way.
“Women” was originally planned to open in 2020 to commemorate the 100th anniversary of women’s suffrage in the United States, but the exhibition schedule was altered by Covid lockdowns in 2019. Due to the fact that global events have reignited the debate over women’s bodies and who controls them, the result has been recast in a way that, ironically, makes it feel even more politically relevant.
It’s a wonder that Huber and Van Godtsenhoven have refrained from using polemics, preferring to let the work speak for itself with its astounding variety and breadth of imagination. Indeed, it does.
It reimagines the history of fashion through whispers and songs, silk faille and satin, cotton and wool, filling in the blanks and wardrobes of the past with names and items that have been wrongly and long forgotten and finally placing them on the pedestals where they belong.
Three exquisite black gowns from the troika of fashionistas await attendees as they arrive at the Costume Center itself: Madeleine Vionnet’s dark brown velvet column with a gold beaded “ribbon” at the waist, Coco Chanel’s “fireworks” tulle dress sparkling with sequins, and Elsa Schiaparelli’s midnight blue velvet embroidered evening jacket and skirt. This one-two opener makes a strong statement: You can see works by accomplished women artists everywhere you look. It is set in a mirrored triangle that refracts the piece in an endless loop.
Van Godtsenhoven, the co-curator, stated, “When we keep repeating the same names — Dior, Balenciaga — we create a canon and a history, and people start to drop off.” Then, instead of discussing “mothers,” “all of a sudden, all we are talking about are’masters’ and ‘fathers.'”
But if people would just look, there are a lot of amazing women in the fashion industry. That is all our fault.
The majority of Claire McCardell’s designs appear remarkably self-evident, as she once stated. Why hadn’t I considered them earlier? As Huber noted, the same could be said of this program. She backed off tactfully when asked why it took so long—and why it took two women to make it happen.
