Final year Fashion and Design History student Avery Chamberlain reviews The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s ‘Women Dressing Women’ exhibition (Dec. 7 2023 – Mar. 10 2024).
‘Women Dressing Women’: Subversion, Compliance and The Condition of The 21st Century Fashion Exhibition
Avery Chamberlain
Fig. 1: View of “Women Dressing Women” Exhibition, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Personal photograph by author. 21 Dec. 2023.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Autumn/Winter 2023 Costume Institute Exhibition Women Dressing Women (Dec. 7 2023 – Mar. 10 2024) curated by Melissa Huber and Karen Van Godstenhoven, in their own words, aims to “…celebrate the artistic legacy of female fashion designers by showcasing innovative and enduring garments created by well-known, anonymous, and overlooked women makers.[1]” This long overdue discussion of female creativity in the canon of fashion history is the first of its kind for The Met, whose own costume institute carries a long lineage of women in fashion. While it succeeds in telling stories often unknown and overlooked by audiences and fellow institutions alike, some aspects of the experience left something to be desired. First and foremost, the layout of the exhibition space attempts to divide the space based on four keystones representing the struggle of women designers: Anonymity, Visibility, Agency, and Absence/Omission[2]. However, the use of exhibition space was faultily executed and created audible confusion among visitors. Upon entering the Tisch Gallery of the Anna Wintour Costume Center, a space which requires visitors to locate a staircase and descend below the museum’s ground floor, the first visible section on the right-hand side is labelled ‘II: Visibility’ (Fig. 1). This requires visitors to instead turn left to view ‘I: Anonymity’, retrace their steps to return to section two, and retrace their steps yet again to locate section three. Faults in accessibility, such as the ones present in this space, can sacrifice the audience’s well-being as a result of the design choices made. The visitor is inadvertently confused which can cause frustration, “inferiority and submissiveness” in the space, as psychologist Anita Rui Olds described it in the Journal of Museum Studies[3]. The endeavour to make the sections more distinct lay solely in the presence of headpieces on the mannequins, each section being given its distinct design by a different artist. The only explanation of these headpieces is in the form of a small piece of text disclosing the artist’s name with no deeper reasoning behind the choice of artists provided. Furthermore, the headpieces are absent from some mannequins, including the translucent ones in the centre of the room, making it extremely difficult to decipher which section these belong to. Unlike the mannequins on the outer borders of the room, they do not naturally follow the flow of the section breaks (Fig.2). Others are lacking the headpieces due to the garments themselves, as is visible in Figure 3, leading one to assume that this feature of the exhibition lacked the necessary forethought.
Fig. 2: Ann Lowe, Evening Dress, circ. 1968, white cotton organza with pink silk organza carnations, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. . Personal photograph by author. 21 Dec. 2023.
Fig. 3: Bonnie Cashin, Coat, 1958, red and black plaid mohair knit with red leather trim, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. . Personal photograph by author. 21 Dec. 2023.
A further blunder, though consistent with its contemporaries, the Met opted to include entirely high-fashion pieces constructed for upper-class consumers; Presenting only the most pristine examples from a given time period[4], ultimately reflecting a very small group of women designers and excluding the most needful of representation. Designers associated with middle-class, ordinary garments that would truly resonate with The Met’s varied audience, are absent, yet aspirational ensembles designed for royal court presentations (Fig.4) and lavish evenings line the space. The Met’s presentation of fine art and high fashion pervades the concept of the exhibition, and its sponsorship by investment bank Morgan Stanley and media giant Condé Nast enforces this even further, encouraging an exorbitant display. The boost provided by the sponsorship allowed for further acquisitions of additional garments, as is disclosed in the exhibition’s panels[5]. The implications of this sort of exhibition are simple. Fashion, especially that worthy of museum presentation, is high-fashion and scholarly by nature. An enduring discourse regarding museum-worthiness in fashion collections has already established a desire for institutions to divert away from this curatorial strategy, yet it remains ever-present in this exhibition and a majority of museums worldwide[6]. The environment this creates is one permeated by academic superiority and inclusivity which fails to address and include many groups, as is seen in Women Dressing Women. The exhibition strives to “…open up new perspectives…” and “…highlight the often-overlooked female labour of crafting garments…[7]”, yet the catalogue is representative of only those who achieved highest, enforcing the existing inclination to high fashion in the museum space and appeasing the established standards. All while attempting to subvert these very same standards. As is outlined in the chapter “Posterity Has Arrived” in Museum Activism “Inadvertently or not, many of the world’s museums are agents or partners in the hoarding of wealth, while also indulging in excessive consumption as organisations…[8]” The presence of a thoughtful feminist perspective may dissuade this discussion, but despite its triumphs, it does not fully erase the presence of these faults. The exhibition largely succeeds in its goals, telling untold stories, sparking much-needed discussions all in an empowering and visually appealing way. Yet if we fail to encourage our harbourers of cultural heritage to go beyond the comfortable territory of fine art, and to dismantle its norms for the betterment of public education, we cannot hope for the true museum activism Women Dressing Women aimed to achieve.
Fig. 4: Sylvie Boué de Montegut and Jeanne d’Etrellis, Court presentation ensemble, 1928, Pink silk chiffon and ivory tulle with silk flowers and embroidered with silk and metal lame, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. . Personal photograph by author. 21 Dec. 2023.
References
[1] Max Hollen, “Director’s Foreword,” Women Dressing Women, (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Yale University Press, 2023), pp.9.
[2] “Press Release: The Met’s Fall 2023 Costume Institute Exhibition to Celebrate the Creativity and Artistic Legacy of Women Designers and Women-Led Fashion Houses,” The Met, October 27th, 2023.
[3] Anita Rui Olds, “Sending Them Home Alive,” Journal of Museum Education, vol. 15, no. 1, 1990, pp. 11.
[4] Valerie Steele, “A Museum of Fashion is More Than a Clothes-Bag,” Fashion Theory, vol. 2, no.4, 1998, pp.333
[5] Women Dressing Women, introductory text panels, Dec 7. 2023-Mar 3. 2024, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Fifth Avenue, New York.
[6] Valerie Steele, “A Museum of Fashion is More Than a Clothes-Bag,” Fashion Theory, vol. 2, no.4, 1998, pp.333-334
[7] Melissa Huber and Karen Van Godstenhoven, “Women Dressing Women: A Lineage of Female Fashion Design,” Women Dressing Women, (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Yale University Press, 2023), pp.13.
[8] Robert R. Janes and Richard Sandell, “Posterity has Arrived,” Museum Activism, edited by Robert R. Janes and Richard Sandell, (Routledge, 2019), pp. 5.