While some words are inherently obtuse, many are seemingly simple. Most of us, for example, could offer a fairly credible definition of the term shirt. However, one person might describe a shirt as a garment with a collar and cuffs while another described it as a white tee. In museums, deciding on an overarching term for a group of objects can be tricky. There are great pains taken to avoid misleading potential visitors, as well as to keep up with current museum parlance. At the Goldstein, we refer to the portion of the collection that has clothing as apparel and accessories. Historically, GMD referred to this portion of the collection as costume, but somewhere along the way this was considered misleading because of its potential to evoke Halloween disguises or theatrical stage garb. The dictionary definition of costume is actually apropos. Merriam Webster describes it as "the prevailing fashion in coiffure, jewelry, and apparel of a period, country, or class." However, Webster's second definition does allude to masquerade, "an outfit worn to create the appearance characteristic of a particular period, person, place, or thing."

The Metropolitan Museum of Art uses costume as the signifier of this portion of their collection, but then clarifies with the subtext 'fashionable dress, regional costume, and accessories.' Notice the comprehensive use of the term dress in this subtext. Many find dress to be deceptive when used to refer to a whole ensemble (garments, shoes, handbags, hairstyle, comportment, make-up, etc), despite its wide acceptance by researchers.

The Fashion Institute of Technology and the Victoria and Albert Museum place their collections under the umbrella of fashion. While fashion is, in fact, a general term referring to the "make or form of something," its strong cultural association with dress makes their intent clear. For well known museums, word choice becomes so engrained in their identity that they shape future understandings and usages of terms.

While looking through our digital database, I was particularly taken with whimsical printed samples. The prints range from more basic patterns, such as a repeating floral motif to more complicated prints, such as a curious scene that appears to be from a fairytale. GMD has around 150 examples of these samples.

1994.067.001c and 1994.067.008c, WPA Handicraft Project samples, 1935-1943

In 1935 the Works Progress Administration, later renamed the Works Project Administration (WPA) was founded to "provide work for the able-bodied destitute." Skilled workers were assigned to projects that capitalized on their abilities, but it was more difficult to find jobs for women who had never worked outside of the home or who had only done menial labor. In Milwaukee, Elsa Ulbricht addressed this problem by starting a program that was known as the Milwaukee WPA Handicraft Project based on the belief that anyone could learn if they were taught properly.

Women were trained to make objects that would be used by tax-supported institutions, such as educational toys for nursery schools, books for inmates, and household articles for families. Many women had to be taught basic skills such as how to use scissors and how to thread a needle. Projects included making toys (including wooden toys, stuffed animals, and dolls with interchangeable outfits) for children in hospitals and wards, bookbinding and block printing.

1994.067.001d and 1994.067.008d

Initially, the Milwaukee WPA developed block printing to cover books. The workers first learned to block print on paper, and started to print on fabric once they were comfortable with the process. Later, they produced drapery fabrics as well. Block printing was very time consuming and labor intensive, which created challenges as demand for the textiles increased. They developed a faster system that took only three workers to operate and eventually created screenprinted textiles as well.

1994.067.007e and 1994.067.008a

The Milwaukee WPA hired designers to create designs for the prints, who then taught the workers how to replicate the designs, so the designers were able to create more complicated prints as the workers skills increased. There is a wide range of designs, many of which were created with children in mind.

1994.067.010p and 1994.067.010q, circus themed samples

1994.067.010k and 1994.067.006a

Source:

Useful Work for Unskilled Women: A Unique Milwaukee WPA Project by Mary Kellogg Rice, published by the Milwaukee County Historical Society

The image of brides wearing white is burned into the collective psyche, although, for most of Western history, the majority of brides did not wear white and, if they did, it was generally because white was fashionable for women's dress in general during that period. In the sixteenth-century England white was associated with young girls (and virginity) and some brides did wear white, but a girl in white would have been associated with sexual purity, a concept not exclusive to brides. Queen Elizabeth I, who was known as the Virgin Queen, often wore white, although she was never a bride. Mary Queen of Scots wore white to her wedding to the French Crown Prince in 1558, even though white was considered to be a mourning color for French Queens--quelle horreur.

Source: Queen Elizabeth I ('The Ditchley Portrait') by Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger, c. 1592 (NPG 2561) The National Portrait Gallery, London