The Wedding Dress by Stephanie Liou

Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................... 3 The Renaissance ............................................................................................ 4 The Puritan Era ............................................................................................... 7 The Victorian Era ........................................................................................11 The 1st World War ......................................................................................15 The 2nd World War .................................................................................... 20 The Late 20th Century ........................................................................... 24 The 21st Century ........................................................................................ 29 Personal Reflections ................................................................................. 37 References ....................................................................................................... 39

Introduction

explore themes of individuality, choice, status, disposability, performance, and freedom.

For our 11th object, we decided to investigate the wedding dress as a cultural icon, in terms of its design, fabrication, color, and other aspects of its material existence. This project is presented the form of an illustrated ebook, tracing a fictional familyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s history through their weddings from Renaissance Europe all the way up to modern day America. Each section features a fictional narrative of a bride and her interactions and emotional connection with her wedding dress, as well as analysis of the value, focus, and meaning of the wedding dress as an object in relation to the influence of major historical forces such as technology, political change, and industrialization. Each brideâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s relationship with the dress will

After a great deal of research and discussion, we decided to focus our argument on how changes to the design, manufacturing, and meaning ascribed to the wedding dress have revolutionized the status of the bride within the marriage structure, and hence altered the traditional nature of marriage. This will be expanded upon by exploring the diverse models of material interaction between brides from a variety of class backgrounds, and the relationship between the consumers and the creators of different dresses. Ultimately, we believe that the wedding dress is such an iconic, symbolic object during the marriage ritual that it is actually possible to draw direct parallels

and conclusions about how marriage -- and the status of marriage in society -- has changed by how wedding dresses and bridesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; relationships with wedding dresses have changed. With regards to the division of work, we decided to play to our strengths. Dana utilized her creative writing ability to pen all of the fictional letters, while Stephanie did all of the graphic and layout design for the book. Both of us shared research responsibilities divided up the writing of the analytic portions. We had a great time doing this project, and our individual reflections and backgrounds are provided at the end of this volume in lieu of a formal conclusion to share with you the intellectual journey we have experienced in the creation of this project. Enjoy!

Much Ado About Nothing - Shakespeare A beautiful wedding scene which quickly dissolves into chaos... ACT IV SCENE I. A church. Enter DON PEDRO, DON JOHN, LEONATO, FRIAR FRANCIS, CLAUDIO, BENEDICK, HERO, BEATRICE, and Attendants LEONATO Come, Friar Francis, be brief; only to the plain form of marriage, and you shall recount their particular duties afterwards. FRIAR FRANCIS You come hither, my lord, to marry this lady. CLAUDIO No. LEONATO To be married to her: friar, you come to marry her. FRIAR FRANCIS Lady, you come hither to be married to this count. HERO I do. FRIAR FRANCIS If either of you know any inward impediment why you should not be conjoined, charge you, on your souls, to utter it. CLAUDIO Know you any, Hero? HERO None, my lord. FRIAR FRANCIS Know you any, count? LEONATO I dare make his answer, none. CLAUDIO O, what men dare do! what men may do! what men daily do, not knowing what they do!

BENEDICK How now! interjections? Why, then, some be of laughing, as, ah, ha, he! CLAUDIO Stand thee by, friar. Father, by your leave: Will you with free and unconstrained soul Give me this maid, your daughter? LEONATO As freely, son, as God did give her me. CLAUDIO And what have I to give you back, whose worth May counterpoise this rich and precious gift? DON PEDRO Nothing, unless you render her again. CLAUDIO Sweet prince, you learn me noble thankfulness. There, Leonato, take her back again: Give not this rotten orange to your friend; She's but the sign and semblance of her honour. Behold how like a maid she blushes here! O, what authority and show of truth Can cunning sin cover itself withal! Comes not that blood as modest evidence To witness simple virtue? Would you not swear, All you that see her, that she were a maid, By these exterior shows? But she is none: She knows the heat of a luxurious bed; Her blush is guiltiness, not modesty.

During the Renaissance, the bride was not the center of the wedding construct. The bride was an object, the thing being traded. In the two rituals at the center of the wedding ceremony, tradere filiam suam ! and! uxorem ducere, the bride was a mere commodity handed from father to husband (tradere filiam suam) and then lead by her husband to his house (uxorem ducere) (MET Museum). She had no say in the matter, and was expected to be compliant. The level to which women were objectified in this time may best be illustrated in their legal standing post-marriage. Once a woman was married, her husband became her legal guardian and legally owned all the property she brought into the marriage (Suite 101). The true heart of the wedding !was the transaction of the marriage between the two adjoining families. The size of the dowry and the inheritance of property and goods were infinitely more important than the bride. The lavish processional prior to and the multi-day wedding feast following the wedding were not simply opportunities to celebrate. Both the processional and the feast were a frightening time for the bride who often feared injury or even death. The wedding ceremony of the time not only had very little to do with the bride, but

also acted as a source of anxiety and emotional discomfort for her.

“

Marriages, which were also mergers, were potentially explosive moments, and lavish festivities may have diffused some of the tensions that might arise between families over dowry arrangements and other touchy subjects. The bridal procession might even face dangers from hostile mobs or individuals, as suggested by a Florentine statue from 1415, which forbade the throwing of stones or garbage at the home of the couple (MET Museum).

”

In addition, up until the middle of the Renaissance, the wedding ceremony itself meant very little. It was the betrothal that bore the brunt of the legal commitment of a marriage and thus, !it was the betrothal that received the most attention from both families. If a couple participated in sexual intercourse between the betrothal and the wedding, they were already considered married and the ceremony was skipped altogether. Once the custom of betrothals began to fade around the 1500’s, more emphasis was placed on the wedding itself (Suite 101). The lack of authority and autonomy of the bride was deeply reflected in her bridal attire. Wedding dress of the time were generally more elaborate versions

of contemporary styles, displaying a wealth of intricate embroidery, beading, and dyes. Brides wore just about any color and the popular fabrics of the time were velvet and brocade (Renaissance Magazine). Often the wedding dress was simply altered versions of dresses the bride already owned and even in the ceremony itself, the bridal dress was not necessarily unique. When Pierre de Pontbriant, a Breton nobleman, married Isabeau d’Alemagne, the bride and her two attendants all wore the same dress during the wedding ceremony. In fact, not only did ! Isabeau d’Alemagne wear the same dress as two other people in the ceremony, she was told what to wear, the dress having been given to her by her future-husbands attendants (Celyn Drizzle Hosting).

Renaissance wedding feast For women during the Renaissance, the bridal dress become a symbol of their subservience, a physical manifestation of their social standing.

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`\ ' U)'4"'*#-"'=)9"'&)'A.)4'#.1'&)'/"02"-"'&*"'0)-"'&*#&'>)1'*#%'6)$'5%:'>)1'2%'0)-"+'#.1'4*)"-"$'#/21"%'2.'0)-"'#/21"%'2.'>)1+' ' #.1'>)1'#/21"%'2.'*29:'a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b=50&'#%';'*#1'#.&2=2<#&"1B'2&'4#%'<#2.6H0'#&'&29"%+'/5&';'4#%'1"&"$M2."1' &)'/"')/"12".&: >)1'/0"%%:'c)5$'1#5F*&"$+'

Anne Spencer 8

A bride in the late 1700s to early 1800s would have likely had a dress made of silk or muslin, if she were well-to-do. For the less privileged classes, embroidered machine-made net was a common alternative, especially after 1809 when John Heathcoat invented a machine that could produce a durable twisted net closely resembling bobbin-made mesh” (Ehrman 42) Although technology did not play a major role in the creation of most dresses, early influence of machinery was seen in various trimmings, accessories, and fabrics. For the most part, dresses were created by hand by dressmakers who worked for low wages. Milliners who made trimmings such as ruffles, skilled artisans who created hand-made lace, and traders who sold all of these components, constituted the rest of the small network of people whose livelihoods were based in the wedding dress industry, although they also provided women with regular clothing. However, “the cost of a garment lay in the fabric, not the making up.” (Ehrman 26) To create a dress from £45 worth of dress would earn a dressmaker only about 16 shillings, and dressmakers typically had to work long hours, meet clients’ every demand, and were treated with little respect. While most towns had small shops with materials and tradespeople, the latest fashions were

available only in a few large cities. Relatively limited geographical mobility meant that most dresses were created close to home -- shopkeepers waited on clients at home, and traveling salespeople went to rural areas where they peddled household goods as well as fabrics and dresses. In terms of styling and design,

“

aristocratic and very wealthy brides often chose silver and white bridal clothes

”

while others would wear brightly colored dresses (of less costly materials) or simply their best clothes. (Ehrman 23) The ability to have a custom-made design was a luxury afforded to the relative few, and for the upper classes, weddings were also a chance to put on multiple lavish ceremonies and parties. Often, brides would have different outfits for each of these appearances. More fashion-savvy brides would peruse fashion plates in newspapers for the latest styles and draw inspiration from royal weddings, French fashion designers, and celebrities such as Elizabeth Farren, such that their wedding dress could create (or at least suggest) an external connection to grandeur and a different, seemingly more empowered life. As well, veils evoked Greek and Roman artifacts, which were attractive to brides

who aspired to the ideals of the ancient world, and shows the incredible duration of these ancient artifacts as they have continued to live on and inspire generations with their old-world allure. For most wealthy brides of this era, their wedding dress also became a valued artifact simply because it had no other purpose -- and even for the less privileged classes, wedding dresses were repurposed into evening wear or extra material used for maternity wear. Dresses were not disposable, just as marriage was not easily (and hardly ever) terminated -- there was great value in practicality and longevity, because of the time and opportunity cost (and financial implications) that went into every dress and every marriage. Photographs and paintings from this era have been fairly well-preserved, and the duration of these artifacts has been astonishing. In addition to a resurgence in popularity of styling, vintage lace and homages to dresses of yesteryear have never gone out of vogue. For all the limitations on women’s rights, the unabashed femininity and personalized nature of dresses from this era have struck powerful connections with brides of future generations. During this era, women’s rights were slowly advancing -- early prenuptial contracts gave women some security, and weddings started to become more

informal and intimate towards the end of the 18th century. As well,

“

the idea of marrying for romantic love rather than social, economic, or political considerations had emerged in Western culture in the eighteenth century

”

and divorce also became more feasible because of higher standards for emotional compatibility in marriage and moderately increased geographical mobility. (Simmons 6) The outlook was not so limited as brides of decades past, and this is also reflected in the small freedoms that brides sometimes had to decide on trimmings or request special fits and alterations for their dresses in order to highlight their figure. Furthermore, traveling salespeople and improved transport systems made access to more foreign goods a possibility. Overall, however, a bride’s ability to truly choose a unique dress or one that suited her individual taste was highly limited by geography, rigid financial and class structures, and family as well as church restrictions for what was proper and acceptable for a church wedding. This can be seen as an obvious parallel with her relative lack of power within the marriage structure -- women still relied upon their husbands for financial support and property rights, and Victorian morals still dominated when it came to interpretations about gender

roles within marriage or a woman’s ability to express herself. And thus, a woman’s wedding dress was simply something that she put on out of duty more than individual preference; an object that physically symbolized reflected her social position and initiated her into the restricting confines of marriage.

“

Patriarchal families governed children, servants, and unmarried youth, and they subordinated women: a single woman’s father controlled her sexual behavior because her virginity at marriage guaranteed to her husband her sexual fidelity and the legitimacy of his heirs. After marriage, husbands owned wives’ labor, controlled their children, and were entitled to their sexual attentions. (Simmons 6)

a financial endeavor that aimed at maintaining or improving a family’s social and financial position above all else. The bride was to be put on display, and her main worth was in the amount of prestige and property that she had to offer, as well as obedience in her prescribed role. After all,

“

for the propertied classes getting married involved a formal betrothal and the negotiation of a legal contract which established the financial arrangements on which the marriage would be conducted. (Ehrman 23)

”

Just as families chose husbands for their daughters, and decided based on finances and character -- prudence was more important than passion -- family members often chose fabrics or trimmings for their daughters, based on the social class and prestige that such items would evoke. For example, “clothes made of white silk were difficult to keep clean and had limited usefulness, making them a luxury item. Pearls and lace, particularly lace made with metal threads, were costly.” (Ehrman 24) In many ways, the entire marriage, just like the wedding ritual and the selection of the dress, was

I arrived in France just yesterday! As you know, I’m staying with Aunt Caroline. They’ve been so kind to me. Isabel took me to House of Worth today to choose a wedding gown. The dresses are so extravagant, just like I always dreamed! Mr. Worth had his entire bridal collection on display on models in his store. He even asked them to walk the length of the display room to show me how each dress moved. I was actually quite surprised to find that not all the dress were white. Could you imagine a girl of the aristocracy not wearing white? In any case, I found the per)ct dress! It’s a beautiful silk dress with exquisite metallic threading and crystal beading. The skirt is draped asymmetrical so the look comes off as quite modern, much more modern than Catherine’s wedding dress. The ladies at the Met Gala were still mocking her, even after all these months. My only reservation about the piece is the top of the bodice, there was not enough layering. I was frank with Mr. Worth and told him I loved the top of Queen Victoria’s wedding dress and he smiled and laughed. Apparently, it’s a very common for clients to request elements of the royal wedding gown! I couldn’t help but blush slightly. Mr. Worth told me he fashions each part of the dress separately, so it will be easy to alter the dress to accommodate me. He said it might take a week or two to redesign and properly fit the dress so I’ll likely be here quite a bit longer. In the meantime could you do me the favor of find a )w bushels of orange blossoms to sew into the lining? Isabel says Miss Mary should know of where to buy the best ones. Also, you may need to tell Papa that he may need to loosen his purse strings quite a bit more! I will assuredly miss his generosity once I am married. I can only pray Edward will be as kind. Papa says he is of the best heart so I am hopeful though Papa insists no man will adore me as much as he does. The )w times I’ve seen him, I’ve found him not the most attractive. He’s nothing like the younger Ross brother, William, but the Ross family is not of the means for us to be a proper match. Did you know they live in his uncle’s estate? It’s not even their own. What a shame for someone so handsome. I do hope is it as you say, that one may grow to love someone in due course.

By far the most defining moment of the Victorian Era in terms of bridal fashion was the royal marriage of Queen Victoria in 1840. The whole world watched as the youthful queen married her beloved Albert in a white dress, the current fashion of the day. Amidst discontent with the monarchy, Victoria aimed to be an accessible bride, dressing less like a queen and more like any other wealthy young maiden. ! Her wedding dress, covered with lace and conservative for the era, featured a fullpleated skirt adorned with orange blossoms instead of the traditional royal jewels (Wallace 35).

Queen Victoria’s wedding dress

Queen Victoria’s wedding, in addition to being a stunning public relations move, created the gold standard for the ideal wedding fashion which women of all social classes could aspire to imitate. The white dress embellished with orange blossoms became a ubiquitous symbol of purity and fertility ! (Ehrman 59). The orange blossom, a long popular choice for bridal ornamentation, stemmed from the tree’s ability to yield bud, fruit, and bloom all at once (Wallace 35).

revive its popularity. Needless to say, both parties were successful in advocating for their product. Embellished white gowns and handmade lace continued to be the preferred style and fabric up until the early 1900’s.

Due to the impact of the Industrial Revolution and the subsequent emergence of the department store, nearly all women could realize their dreams of being married in a “new” white wedding gown (From Times Past). But despite the mass-produced nature of many popular gowns of the time, the white dress never felt cliche and instead, became a source of identity for the bride (Wallace 36). ! Manufacturers and even the Queen herself exploited the impressionability of young women to sell products. Queen Victoria actually designed her dress around handmade Honiton lace, a commodity whose industry (ironically) had been decimated by the invention of machine laces. The remainder of her dress, including it’s iconic color, were chosen to best showcase the lace (The Dreamstress) in hopes that it would

Exquisite detailing (pearl beading) For earlier parts of the Victorian Era, however, white was reserved as a status symbol. But it didn’t stop there. Beyond simply the color, the true symbol of status among privileged socialites was the figure-conscious fashion art of

Charles Worth, the father of haute couture. Wealthy American girls, welleducated and prized by their father and often considered the first celebrity, would travel to Paris to purchase gowns from his fashion house, House of Worth (MET Museum). Worth would showcase many pieces in his flagship store and ladies of means were limited to selecting designs from ! his current collection (Angel Pig). In reality, Worth rarely created a truly one-of-kind piece. Even among the most exclusive social circles, true solidarity was rare. There was always another level of exclusivity, another ideal to strive towards, and thus, another reason to feel discontented.

fabric of choice was much more modest, mostly wool or linen in a wide variety of colors. Colors were ascribed a number of superstitions -

“

Married in white, you will have chosen all right. Married in grey , you will go far away. Married in black, you will wish yourself back. Married in red, you’ll wish yourself dead. Married in blue, you will always be true. Married in pearl, you’ll live in a whirl. Married in green, ashamed to be seen, Married in yellow, ashamed of the fellow. Married in brown, you’ll live out of town. Married in pink, your spirits will sink.

”

Dresses were reused for a number of occasions after the wedding such as celebratory events and church and brides of the time were extremely practical, often re-dying or trimming their bridal attire for a new fresh look (Literary-Liaisons).

Gown from House of Worth For brides unable to afford white gowns, namely American frontier brides, the

and, for the first time, white became a very blatant reflection of a woman’s higher social standing.

Lavish printed gown

The Victorian Era was a unique time for bridal fashion. For the first time, an iconic look took hold of hopeful brides. The wedding dress was no longer a mere vehicle for displaying wealth, but ! a chance to show how close a bride could get to realizing a very specific idealization - Queen Victoria’s wedding dress. For the first time, technology enabled the pursuit of this bridal dream,

Mother, I simply cannot decide what to do. I’ve been thinking constantly of what I will wear to our wedding. Ben thinks I should use your dress, but I’m tempted to buy from a catalog. I know we can’t afford it, but I so want our wedding to be like Marnie’s. Her wedding was so special, her dress in particular. Remember that short Coco Chanel? I wish she hadn’t spilled wine all over it. I could have borrowed it from her. Now she’s having a harder time making ends meet than we are. Ben says we could take a loan from the bank. I almost want to so we could have my dream wedding but I feel like that’s a poor reason to borrow money. Do you? Or am I just being a prude? Maybe a catalog dress wouldn’t be as un-economical as I’m making it out to be. The new designs they’re having us make at the factory are easily alterable and can be used over and over. Speaking of which, I’m actually a little concerned they’re going to make me switch departments. Embroidery has been becoming so unpopular lately. The latest trends are moving towards draping which you know I’m no good at. The section manager actually gave me an enormous piece of fabric to see if I could do some basic draping. I ended up making a glorified pillow case. On the bright side, given more time, it would have been a glorified pillow case with exceptional detailing! They’re also using this new fabric, rayon, which is as soft as silk but so much cheaper. The effect is really sensual and incredibly different from your dress, which, if you don’t mind my saying, is quite dated. When I’m being completely honest with myself, I think I know I want to have a catalog dress. It’s not just because it’s new and something just beyond reach. I actually think it’s the design. I know that for the life of me I can’t make that silhouette which makes it so horrifically appealing. But then I think about your dress and it’s not really much different in terms of feasibility. The needlework is so fine that even though I know I could sew it, I could never imagine actually doing it. Maybe that’s not it. I might just want something my own. Marnie had something her own, is it wrong of me to want that too? Though, I suppose practically speaking I have so few curves to outline to begin with that that sort of dress would be wasted on someone like me. I’m actually quite sure it would be so baggy I might actually end up reminiscent of a flapper instead of a blushing bride. I’ll just keep telling myself that. In any case, I supposed I should just be glad I’m not Marnie and that I still have work, not to mention that I actually love my husband-to-be. Actually, could you just mail your dress with your next letter? I don’t know who I’ve been trying to fool. We can’t afford it and your dress is beautiful enough. At least I can alter it myself. If it can’t truly be mine it can at least fit me perfectly. Love,

Disappointed Penny

By the early 20th century, the notion of marrying for love was a much more prominent one. “Abandoned was the Victorian model of patriarchy. Women wanted...a new kind of marriage …. a perfect consummation of both personalities that will involve every phase of mutual living.” (Wallace 98) Early forms of contraception were also gaining popularity, and women found themselves, for the first time, with feasible educational and employment alternatives to full-time motherhood of a large brood. Furthermore, the traditional family structure was rapidly changing due to industrialization and political events. In addition to birth rates declining, young people often left the home early to work in cities, women gained the right to vote in 1920, and World War I brought unprecedented numbers of women into the workforce. (Simmons 10)

“

replaced the idea of marriage as a necessity for financial stability. Furthermore, young people were much more open to the idea of divorce if marriage did not meet their expectations, and divorce rates soon soared to one in six marriages by the end of the 1920s, with women seeking over ⅔ of those divorces. (Simmons 12) Men had lost control over women’s bodies and labor due to contraception and employment, and “conventional marriage and morality no longer seemed so crucial...a culture of consumption expanded and touched more Americans as leisure time increased, advertising developed, and the availability of consumer goods grew.” (Simmons 11)

Before industrialization, marriage and the households it created were the center of much economic production, as artisans produced goods in their homes with the help of family members and apprentices. (Simmons 6)

”

Now that most production was done in commercial settings, and women had begun working outside the home as well, the idea of the companionate marriage, based on mutual benefit, respect, and affection, gained popularity and

Typical dress of the time

Congruent with the theme of disposability and detachment that we have been exploring, just as brides found themselves less invested and less bound to marriage, wedding dresses became increasingly impersonal and just another consumer good. Machinemade lace was standard, and dresses could be shipped from further away thanks to improvements in railroad and air technology. Gone was the system of the small-town dressmaker or the individualized attention. Instead, most brides shopped at department stores, and only the very wealthiest could have fully customized dresses made by designers at couture houses. A strictly two-tiered economy began to develop in the wedding dress industry. At the top were the famous designers who aimed to please the upper echelons of society and fashion the important “last gown of virginity,” along with all the skilled craftsmen and courteous staff they employed. The skills, talents, and charms of these folks was absolutely central to their success, and the most famous designers in particular were very well-respected. Meanwhile, lower-level designers and low-paid tradespeople began to emerge as the alternatives. They provided less fashionable, less ornate, less intricate, and far less expensive dress options for the growing middle-class, which yearned for the status symbol of a special wedding dress, such as one similar to a

dress worn at a royal or celebrity wedding, ! but could not afford the expense of haute couture.

“

even lack of funds didn’t stand in the way of purchasing, as banks discovered the enormous potential for profit in consumer lending. You no longer had to save for months to buy a car or a house.... you could make a down payment, bring home what you wanted and pay it off a few dollars at a time. (Wallace 137)

”

Dressmakers at work Around the country, the middle class was learning about the lives of the rich and famous through movies and photographs in magazines, and they soon aspired to much higher standards of living and abandoned Victorian ideals of restraint and self-denial. This, in addition to fueling enthusiasm for celebrity-inspired designs at department stores across the country, gave way “to the expectation that material desires would be fulfilled sooner rather than later.“ (Wallace 137) Near-instant gratification and lavish rewards seemed natural, following naturally from rapid transmission of information and transportation, and

Personal expression through clothing became much more important, as access to options expanded and clothing became cheaper and faster to make. In general, fashion of the 20th century became a much more level playing field, as “the startling new simplicity of women’s clothes in particular made it much easier for a poor girl to dress like a rich one. The sheer elaboration of luxurious nineteenth-century clothes had vanished as everyone went about their business in plainly cut dresses and close-fitting simple hats.” (Wallace 135) However, wedding dresses were still a surefire identifier of class: a lower-class bride’s dress would be much more practical, simple, and easy to alter for wear to different occasions. As America entered the 1930s and sank into the Great Depression, many more women found themselves needing the cheapest possible wedding attire, and popular magazines such as Bride began to advocate for their needs. “Cotton fabrics,’ pointed out the magazine, ‘are

serviceable, as the dresses may be worn for several seasons as dance dresses and they are also washable’.” (Wallace 104). British Vogue, also, recommended

“

wedding costumes that were plain, simple and adaptable. White satin, which could be dyed after the wedding, was the fabric of choice and trimmings were limited to machine lace sleeves, collar details and perhaps a bolero. A train could be remade into a short evening coat or, if it was an extension of the dress, cut off and made into a cape. (Ehrman 112)

”

During these times of austerity, many women simply eschewed the idea of having a specific dress for their wedding, and made do with smart daywear -- reflective of the revolution in gender roles and expectations brought on by WWI. Women took on roles they had never performed before, and did what was necessary to hold down the home fort. Ultimately, although the idea of marriage was still a goal for most women, “between 1910 and World War II...increased female employment, higher education, and voting rights were undermining older images of women as frail and innocent.” (Simmons 4) Soon, fashion-forward brides began to tire of traditional styles, and began to request more colorful beading, sleeves inspired

by evening wear, or even shorter, kneel e ngth hemlines to reflect their increased freedom and mobility. For the first time, fashion trends relevant to evening and day wear became reflected in wedding dresses. Daywear had become more practical, informal, and androgynous,” with styles such as short flapper dresses and pantaloons taking the market by storm. (Ehrman 101)

Simple dress with minimal fabric

-- her wedding dress was just another dress, It had a more specific purpose and still conformed to certain societal expectations, but it was no longer something entirely separate from her independent identity; instead, it was an opportunity for her to display her tastes in fashion and ideas about how she wanted to represent herself. Brides wanted attention, and highly decorated dresses appealed to “the hedonistic lifestyle of the generation who had come of age during the war and who found relief from the years of grief and destruction in a frenetic round of night clubs, impromptu parties, and casual invitations” (Ehrman 105) The wedding ritual reflected these concepts as well -- just as dresses were shorter and more ornate, the hours of weddings grew later into the night and evening receptions with alcohol and entertainment became acceptable for brides to attend. Yet, of course, total transformation did not occur overnight. The overall structure of the formal wedding remained the same, with churches being the overwhelming venue of choice, and the color white still dominated wedding dresses even into the 1930s, due to Queen Victoria’s lingering influences and ideals of purity.

Early designer advertisement

An early 20th century bride’s relationship with her wedding dress, then, draws a direct connection with the fact that marriage no longer defined or completely dictated a woman’s identity

Mom, George and I finally got married! It was so beautiful and so simple. We were married by Professor Chapman at the university Chapel early early this morning. He had class at 9:00 a.m. so we had to be quick. It seemed fitting considering he’s our favorite professor and we met in his Chemistry class. The ceremony was quaint, just the three of us. Also, I wore silk! You know how I was writing to tell you about how I was having a really difficult time finding silk? Ever since the war it’s been nearly impossible for us fashionable ladies to find silk anything - clothes or stockings. Everyone is so desperate. Some of the girls have been using their eyebrow pencil to draw on the back of their stockings so they look like silk ones. Margaret actually drew obscenities on mine in a horrible prank. Anyways, I heard rumors that some war brides were asking their fiance’s to mail back silk scraps from old parachutes to make dresses so I wrote to George asking if he could look into it. We were so lucky. George and Max (George’s copilot) went digging through a stack of old parachutes and found one in relatively good condition. The boys ended up cutting it in half and sending half to each of their women, isn’t that precious? George wrote telling me and I was so thrilled I started crying in the middle of the post office. I just couldn’t believe it! Isn’t it weird to think I have a dress sister somewhere out there? When the silk finally came I took it to Emma, one of the local seamstresses. Mom, Emma is a doll you would just adore her. She took the silk and used a really simple silhouette to make the dress. The shape of the dress is very plain and if you had shown it to me four years ago I wouldn’t have given it a second glance but even knowing that I still can’t help but think it’s the most gorgeous dress in the whole country. I’m so so happy! Unfortunately, George did not care much for the dress nearly as much as I did. I honestly don’t think he even saw it, he kept saying he was too taken with the beautiful girl in the dress to care for what she was wearing, can you believe him? Whether that was actually true or not, he still makes me weak at the knees, what a fella. He’s my husband now, my husband! Missing you, Mrs. George Wilmington P.S. Grandchildren to come.

World War II brought about enormous amounts of industrialization and corresponding changes to wedding dresses. The national climate was one of rationing and practicality, and dress designs from this era no longer featured the copious amounts of fabric that were traditionally used to construct wedding dresses. Silk became much harder to obtain, as it was used preferentially for parachutes, although some resourceful women “made dresses from parachute silk and rayon, salvaged by fiances on the battlefield or bought from superfluous stock at the end of the war.” (Ehrman 125) It was also common to borrow old dresses from friends and family, as new fabric was so difficult to obtain. Other brides simply made do with alternative materials, like curtains or upholstery fabric, and

“

changed, now dresses were altered at their core, featuring an entirely new set of unconventional materials that were restricted by pragmatism. Marriage, built on top of a foundation of such radically different materials, was not the institution it was in the days of white silk.

”

“

the groom would simply wear his uniform: for the duration of the war, any man in uniform was considered appropriately dressed for any occasion... sometimes the wedding took place at the barracks. (Wallace 148)

”

Wedded life was largely independent, as men left for the battlefields abroad, and women were left to guard the domestic sphere yet enjoy far less scrutiny and control from their husbands than ever before. Marriage was practical, for entirely different reasons.

many women married in their service uniform or chose a smart suit or afternoon dress. (Ehrman 125)

Such changes in design and fabrication required much more creativity and flexibility -- just as the war required women to step up in new ways and perform roles that had previously been male dominated. But in this era, the revolutionization of the roles of woman and wife had become much more thorough -- no longer was it just the styling or length of the dress that was

their dresses and wedding rituals reflected the rushed and unusual natures of these wartime weddings. Gone was the formal church ceremony -instead,

Marriage in Uniform But marriage was still sought after; young men rushing off to war wanted nothing more than to wed their sweethearts before leaving to perhaps never return. Young women became brides at far younger ages, and both

After the war, some women yearned to return to luxury and longer skirts or fuller dresses, but this was met with resistance. Instead, man-made fibers such as nylon, acrylic, and polyester offered a cheaper alternative. It became possible to create fashionable clothing without silk, thanks to the scientific and technological prowess largely bolstered by wartime needs. Magazines, one of the primary vehicles of information transmission and advertisements, began to offer printed patterns that brides-tobe could bring to tailors for enormous cost savings. Even design had become mass-market and increasingly anonymous, as tailors were simply

following instructions and not making modifications based on their own tastes. Dress patterns were expected to fit a variety of body sizes and shapes, and flatter numerous figures. Not only did this represent a huge change from the personalized designs of the past, the one-size-fits-all approach made the dress-selection experience even more impersonal than shopping at a department store. Control was ceded, not to a single person, but to a broader capitalist system. Even for the wealthy, there was a shift in the degree of desire for individualized goods, and a growing number of the young elite began to subscribe to mass market consumerism of a grander sort. Fashionistas embraced the “ready to wear” collections of top designers such as Christian Dior, and custom-made couture was no longer the only real indicator of fashion. Clothing became more interchangeable, and freely bought and sold in free marketplace; relationships with goods took on a more disposable nature with far greater ranges of options. Marriage, too, was something that could be returned or exchanged if a bride so desired, it was no longer an individual entity that was singular and unique and one-of-a-kind. Post-war, however, interesting retrenchments in social values injected themselves into the designs of wedding dresses, and brides’ relationships with

their dresses shifted to more closely align with the new femininity. Dresses became increasingly girly and pretty, as

“

by the 1950’s feminism had retreated and the strict separation of spheres that had dictated family roles fifty or seventy years earlier was once again in vogue. (Wallace 153)

”

The idea of the feminine mystique was introduced, and Victorian values returned full-throttle along with the allwhite look. A backlash to the introduction of the first hormonal birth control pill, Enovid, in 1956, was central to these demands for women to again appear in visions of virginal white and refrain from adding personal, liberated touches to the designs of their dresses. Fears about female promiscuity, white race suicide, and venereal disease were at the forefront of public concern; accordingly, brides had to present an image of purity and chastity, and be reminded that their primary duty was not to be empowered individuals, but dutiful wives and mothers. Part of the ideological retrenchment was also for economic and political reasons. “Suddenly the nation had to reabsorb the sixteen million men who had served in the armed forces...Women who had gone to work during the war were urged to give up their jobs so that veterans could find employment... Women were urged to be patient and agreeable, to pamper

their men-folk, to listen and to make them comfortable, build up their egos, affirm their decisions.” (Wallace 152-153). Women’s careers were no longer secure, and they needed marriage for social and financial stability once again. In addition, “fears about Communism and the Cold War made the domestic versities look even more precious,” and women were encouraged to return to values and domestic duties of better bygone times. (Wallace 153) Marriage was the institution that could bring reliable increase in population to compensate for wartime losses, and create the societal stability required for economic and political dominance. Thus, it was imperative for women to need and want marriage again, and the wedding dresses of the late 1950s and 1960s reflect these demands.

Traditionalist magazine ad

Mom, I just read your letter in the mail today. I cannot believe you are declining my wedding invitation. What’s your damage, like really? My wedding is not a “lovechild of the establishment.”And by the way, no one talks like that anymore. Have you ever thought that maybe I like the establishment? That I enjoy being a mass consumerist? Times are changing mom, it’s not the 60’s anymore. I’m not going to have some kind of like hippie voodoo wedding where people eat magic mushrooms and have a giant orgy on the grass afterwards chanting ‘drop acid not bombs.’ This is my wedding. So, in your own vernacular - Oh Say can You Cease? Take a chill pill. Now that I got that out of the way, I want to explain why I want the things I want because as much as you drive me completely insane, I still want you there. Don’t ask me why. I don’t know why. As you so keenly inferred from my royally-inspired wedding invitations, I want a wedding like Princess Di. And no, I haven’t given into the machine. I want a wedding like Princess Di because the little girl inside of me wants a wedding like Princess Di. You and Dad never let me do anything normal. Remember when I really wanted a pogo stick and you guys kept giving me posters of MLK and Jimi Hendrix records? Yes, that still bothers me and you know what? I still want a pogo stick! Growing up, the government wasn’t the establishment, you were. You and Dad forced your ideologies down my throat before I was old enough to understand what any of it even meant. My Princess Di -themed wedding is my countercultural revolution, my belated response to your fascist hippie-regime. I hope you can find it in your heart to appreciate that before it’s too late. As I’m sure you’ve noticed by now, there’s a photograph included in this letter of me in my wedding dress. I think it’s perfect. The high collar really suits me. I hope you can see the embroidered pearl detailing from the photograph. I’m trying to get the sleeves taken up a little more. I’d like a little extra volume to really get the Di-effect. The skirt is just layers and layers of tulle. When I wear it I feel like I’m floating above it all, like I’m a real Princess even if only for a few minutes. I want my wedding to be grand and lavish and completely over-the-top. Even though we’re not Catholic or Christian or whatever, Dan and I are going to have the wedding at a huge cathedral. He’s even going to do a comb over for me a la Charles. Change your mind Mom,

Alison 25

Industrialization

in the wedding industry began in the late 1950s and early 1960s. “During the 1970s, the political, economic and social upheavals of the decade were reflected in a proliferation of subcultural styles and widely varying approaches to fashion.” (Ehrman 131) This diversity in personal style and increased level of expression also carried into the wedding industry, with some women choosing to get married in masculine trouser suits, a reflection of efforts to break the glass ceiling, while others favored provocative, revealing styles that complemented their liberal attitudes towards propriety and chastity. The 70s were an age of rebellion, of alternative lifestyles and beliefs, and of “disdain for convention” within weddings and wedding dresses. (Wallace 248). For many brides, it was vital for their dresses to symbolize their beliefs in order to bring their true selves -virginal or not -- into the wedding ritual and into married life. The dress not a sheath for virginity, but a vehicle for personal expression and an extension of her intellectual identity. She might take on her husband’s name, but did not have to take on his tastes or worldview. And, for the couples who met because of shared interests such as environmentalism or anti-war efforts, weddings were a chance to display their passions for friends and family. Hippies

utilized weddings to make antiestablishment statements, while the most fashion-forward of women eschewed traditional wedding silhouettes and astonished guests in high fashion, minimalist dresses that had none of the traditional detailing, lace, beadwork, or embroidery. The ritual was not so much a joining of families or properties, but of individuals uniting for a shared cause and companionship. Young couples sometimes adhered to conventional elements to please their parents, but the spirit of rebellion permeated even the most time-honored tradition of matrimony.

Large factories with powerful machines and assembly lines dominated, and mass market retail quickly became ubiquitous. Wedding dresses, then, were less of an investment than a “once-in-alifetime chance to dream.” (Ehrman 151) For the moneyed classes, sky-high price tags continued to be standard, but lowcost copies and imitations, made of synthetic fabrics and with machine embroidery rather than had stitching, were rampant. Similar-looking gowns could differ in price by several decimal places, depending on the make and material. An equal gap in respect was afforded to the makers of the respective dresses, and working conditions were accordingly disparate. However, most manufacturing in America was still done domestically, even if fashions were sometimes influenced by European royals such as Princess Diana.

Princess Diana and Prince Charles A rebellious bride of the 70s

Diana, who wed in 1981 in a dress by David and Elizabeth Emanuel,

epitomized old-world glamor with lace, vintage trimmings, family veils, full skirts, sleeves, a long train, beaded lace, and the delicacy of a fairytale princess wedding. Women around the world fell in love with Diana and the magic and romance her dress represented, and

“

the demand for dresses inspired by the royal wedding gown continued well into the mid-1980s. (Ehrman 154)

with educational and career goals. It was a willing, optimistic, idealistic union, rather than a practical, involuntary one. Marriage was much less required for social acceptability, and cohabitation and divorce became more common and widely accepted. for those women with jobs outside the home, family life comes at a considerable cost of time and effort. In fact,

” “

This was also a response to the shifting values of the 1950s and neoVictorianism, and thanks to Diana’s inspiration, wedding dresses returned to a more conventional silhouette after the rebellion of the 1970s. Although many design details were similar, women sought a princess wedding and a fairytale marriage rather than one of responsibility and moral duty. Love, courtship, and companionship were once again legitimate concerns before marriage, and brides sought dresses that would reflect the importance of marriage as well as their desire to be treated with care and affection rather than mere producers and caretakers of children. In fact, in many ways, the desire for pomp and circumstance and glamor in a wedding dress embodied the idea that brides were no longer rushing into marriage due to lack of choice, but that this was something that had chosen, and planned into their life paths along

it can be argued that marriage offer[ed] women very little at all. While their great-great grandmothers needed the support of a man’s labor simply to live, no woman require[d] that anymore. (Wallace 254)

”

Diana’s wedding parlayed perfectly into these sentiments, and

“

the resumption of grandeur prompted by the Wales’s wedding in 1982 has simply never let up. In fact, the story of American weddings for the last few decades has been one of ever-escalating expense and elaboration. (Wallace 252-253)

”

Even lower and middle class women subscribed to these beliefs, utilizing credit lines and loans to finance their endeavors, as well as tactics such as seeking out dress bargains or cheaper imitations of the fanciest dresses.

As a result, women desired vintage veils and usually married in churches, but demanded the latest in bridal fashions and utmost attention, for a wedding had become predominantly about the bride rather than her family or patriarchs. For a bride of this era, marriage was a submission to many older ideals, but with a modern, independent twist. And thus, brides felt, marriage was to be celebrated, the marriage ritual an extravaganza of excess and luxury. Brides of this era, freed from the woes of the Depression and the World Wars, had increasing amounts of disposable income and material desires. Shopping became a national pastime; consumerism was the new way of life. The grandeur of

A traditional, feminine dress of the 80s

The dress also became a key symbol of having had a happy wedding that was valued by the bride and groom; advances in technology meant that photography was much more ubiquitous and affordable, so couples could display wedding photos in their homes and share them with friends and family. The dress had a duration that lasted even after the wedding day itself, and thus everything about the wedding ritual and dress had to be the very best a couple could afford. Finally, and very interestingly, during this era the idea of the remarriage outfit became more pervasive, as remarriages grew to comprise almost half of all marriages in the USA. (Wallace 255) These outfits were usually not white, but instead brightly colored and sometimes a coat instead of a dress. Even though divorce had become more common, it wasnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t yet socially acceptable to marry in white if a divorced party was involved -- whether it was the bride or groom who had already once been married. But while remarriages had previously been frowned upon and not celebrated, they were steadily growing in respectability during these decades.

An 80s remarriage outfit

Elena Martin <elenam@stanford.edu>

Mom, I went to Vera Wang today to try on dresses. The Spring 2013 collection is incredible. I think I’m torn between Vera Wang and Monique Lhuillier but beyond that I think I’m torn between fabrics - tulle or lace, or both? Lilly thinks I’m becoming a Bridezilla, I told her I’m nothing compared to what she was like a couple years ago. Remember when she told Dad he needed to add another zero to her “budget”? Let’s face it, we all knew that was going to be money down the drain. You won the bet -7 months. I always knew that bastard was too close to his “secretary.” Anywho, back to my main problem, fabrics. Tulle is elegant and fluid, timeless even but lace is so romantic! The illusion necklines seem so much more vivid in lace. But lace is so distracting that I can’t do anything dramatic with my hair which would be such a waste since I’ve been growing it out for a year and a half now. Lace is also less forgiving in terms of silhouette...On a brighter note, I’ve lost another four pounds. Unfortunately, they all came from my arms when I needed them to come from my gut. My kangaroo pouch has not been cooperative. I swear I got that from you. Sometimes I wonder if I should I have used a surrogate but then I remember that I got knocked up so that wasn’t much of an option. But Ella is totally worth the uncooperative figure! Did I tell you she’s is going to be a flowergirl? John insisted. He’s going to be such an amazing father to her. I think I’ll go with Tulle. Sometimes I forget my age. I had my chance to be romantic, I need to be mature. I’m a mother now afterall. I have a dress I’m leaning towards actually - it’s the Vera Wang I tried on today. It reminds me of your wedding dress. Vera told me it suited me. She also said only 30 have been made in the country, can you believe it? I’d really be wearing something unique. Lord knows none of the society girls will have worn it. My only qualm is that it’s reminiscent of Kim Kardashian’s wedding dress. Admittedly, it’s a sizeable qualm. Also, last thing, our wedding planner called today. We’re looking all venues and I think you should really try to come. If you’re not feeling well, I can just post them all on Facebook, but John and I would love if you could be there. Lilly said she’s definitely coming. I’m working on bribing Ella. Love you, miss you. XO, Elena

Hi Mom, I tried to call but you weren t answering your phone. You ll never guess what. Reed. Proposed. (!) I can t believe he did it, he had all my first graders hold up a piece of paper, each with a single letter written on it that said, Ellen, will you marry me? It was so adorable, I could hardly believe he could come up with something that clever. I almost don t think he did. I actually think you did. Anyways, the kids loved it. Hell, I loved it. We re on a really tight budget since Reed lost his job so we re debating between going to city hall and having a really really small do-it-yourself wedding in the yard. What do you think? We were thinking it could be some kind of potluck or something to save money. Reed feels really guilty for not being able to contribute so I really want to do something low-key that he can be really involved in and make special so I m leaning towards the do-it-yourself ceremony. Oh, I almost forgot to tell you. I already bought a dress! Aunt Susan took me to David s Bridal for their semi-annual clearance sale and I got a sleeveless lace gown with this beautiful layered train. It was only $150. It s not my dream dress (you know, Kate Middleton s) but it s really something. It s a few sizes too big but Aunt Susan says she has a friend who can alter it for free. She even said we might be able to turn the excess lace (which, there will be tons of) into hair accessories for me and the bridesmaids. I know you must be a little disappointed that you didn t get to bcome dress shopping but it s for the best, I promise. The lines were absurd and there was a lot of pushing and fighting. To be perfectly honest, I lied to the woman who was trying on my dress and told her it made her look fat so that she wouldn t buy it. I know it was wrong but hey, girl s gotta do what a girl s gotta do. Unfortunately, she saw me buying it so that was awkward. Aunt Susan was laughing at me the whole time. I really can t wait for you to see the dress! Also, I know this is a horrible thing to ask via email - but do you mind if I invite dad? I know you guys haven t seen eye-to-eye since the divorce, but I d really like him to be there. I can ask him not to bring Linda if that would make things easier. I ll understand if you say you re not comfortable with it, but I d like you both to be there. I want to be given away! Love you, Ellen

For brides of the 20th century, the biggest change to their relationship with wedding dresses has really been in terms of technology and control. Firstly, advances in transportation have broadened the geographical horizons of the modern bride as well as internationalized the wedding dress industry. Long-distance relationships, supported by transcontinental flights and high-speed trains, have flourished, and modernized the idea of the pen-pal romance. Women are now geographically mobile and able to travel freely to nearly any country in the world without fear for personal safety, and transnational conglomerates employ millions who regularly travel and relocate for work. As a result, crosscultural and mixed-race relationships have become far more common. Similarly, not only are dress designs inspired by cultures across the world and Europe’s top fashions readily available in the United States, but manufacturing for mid to low-end dresses has been largely outsourced to countries such as China, where labor costs are far cheaper. (Ehrman 176) Concerns about working conditions of low-paid workers has been a controversial issue throughout the 2000s, but as with the overall fashion business and rise of cheap, truly disposable fashion, there seem to be no signs of change on the horizon. Makers

of wedding dresses have now become virtually anonymous, completely removed from the bride’s life sphere, and their efforts are neither recognized or well-compensated.

Chinese wedding gown factory For those who can afford to pay tens of thousands or even more for their dresses, of course, the old couture houses and new luxury designers (such as Reem Acra, Vera Wang, Monique Lhuillier, Carolina Herrera, and Oscar de la Renta) still offer the customized and upscale experience that they have for over a century. Skilled laborers produce these dresses, with more labor by hand rather than by machine, although they tend to be similarly removed from the bride’s world. The advent of the internet has also completely changed the wedding dress market and modern marriage. Online shopping and online dating have really

come hand in hand in revolutionizing the scope of options and range of connections that women have access to today. Through online shopping and dating, women are able to peruse potential dresses or mates, read information, sometimes reviews or endorsements, compare, and then make decisions entirely based on the visual experience rather than the felt experience. In terms of how dresses and mates have been chosen for the past centuries, this is the first time that the visual experience has been so crucial -and potentially even singularly sufficient. No longer must a dress be made by hand, fit on the bride herself before completion, and sewed to exacting specifications by a local dressmaker. No longer, even, must a bride try on and touch and feel dresses offered by a department store, or participate in pinning and tucking with a tailor working from a magazine pattern. Instead, an image is all it takes to make a decision, and a dress can be ordered from anywhere around the world -- even straight from factories in China, for steep discounts off in-store retail prices. And no longer is dating and marriage decided by family interactions and judgments of a man’s worth or suitability, or by long courtship rituals and face-to-face interactions. No longer, even, must a couple have met in “real

life” before starting a relationship; dates can be had on skype, in online games, or through other affordances that the internet has provided. The internet has radically redistributed the role of the lived experience and physical sensations, ushering a new era of intellectual and visual engagement.

covet celebrity wedding dresses, women are now able to peruse blogs and sites such as Pinterest to gather ideas and inspirations for their dream wedding. Suggestions, themes, decoration ideas, dress shopping tales, and more, can all be shared by the everyday bride and found by anyone else on the internet. Furthermore, the duration of the wedding dress’ impact and existence has been dramatically expanded thanks to email and social networking sites such as Facebook and Instagram. Now, the entire world can instantaneously access and participate in the selection of and admiration of a bride’s dress. Her dress is immortalized not just for all time, but for all people. Many couples even create wedding videos and websites, online invitations, and have photo booths at their weddings -- all testament to the pervasive role of shared photography in the wedding ritual today. The dress, as an artifact and as a crucial member of the wedding ritual, is now as much an online, virtual entity as it is a physical manifestation of a bride’s desires.

$120 gown from David’s Bridal online As the lines between virtual and “real” blur, so we see the internet playing an increasingly large role in the selection and acquisition of a wedding dress, as well as the entire construction of the marriage ritual. For, in addition to perpetuating brides’ ability to see and

As well, the rise of television has not only enabled round-the-clock coverage of celebrity weddings (the marriage of Kate Middleton to Prince William in 2011 was a full-day spectacle), but has given rise to a unique type of programming known as the Reality Show. In these shows, everyday people are given 15 minutes of fame as they

enter into singing or modeling competitions, have their homes renovated, or search for love.

Kate Middleton’s wedding dress Consequently, shows such as Bridezilla or Say Yes To The Dress have given wedding dresses whole new exposure, and enabled even ordinary people to dream of having a television, big-budget production of a wedding. However, although gender stereotypes and Victorian ideals have largely faded, these over-the-top lavish celebrations and brides’ increasingly expensive

demands have led to the label of “Bridezilla” syndrome, and spawned new gender stereotypes of women being materialistic, superficial, and overly controlling. To quote the character Ross Geller from popular TV show, F.R.I.E.N.D.S,

“

As the groom, all you have to do is show up.

”

It is interesting that women have so radically taken charge of the wedding ritual, but analysis shows that this began largely with the ability to dictate dress choice and design, and coincided with the rise in women’s social position and the change of marriage from a necessity to a conscious choice. In some sense, rapid desire to characterize women as controlling may even be backlash against the rise of women’s social positions and increased status. Furthermore, traditions of lavish excess which began in the 1980s have showed no signs of slowing down. To compete for the brand-conscious consumers in the middle class, many of the top designers of bridal fashions have released less expensive diffusion lines, such as White by Vera Wang. Destination weddings, aboard cruise ships, on beaches, and at other exotic locales, have inspired all new types of wedding dresses, and many weddings are now multi-part affairs which ostensibly “require” a new outfit for each segment. This can easily be

seen as a result of the culture of mass consumerism, effect of cheap manufacturing, and belief in disposability of goods. More is better, new is better, and corporations have created so many new holidays and opportunities for gift-giving and shopping that it is hardly surprising the wedding industry has not been exempt from the cult of conspicuous consumption.

Classic Vera Wang silhouette In response, of course, there have been some who have tried to choose more sustainable wedding dresses whether by buying used or renting. Websites such

as eBay (founded in 1995) have become booming marketplaces to help women access more options for used and vintage dresses, and countless websites as well as shops offer dress rentals so that every aspiring princess can have a designer dress at a fraction of the cost. These ideas, of course, demonstrate that the relationship between brides and their dresses have taken on a fluidity and flexibility that are mirrored by the nature of roles within marriage. Cohabitation, like a test drive, is rampant; multiple remarriages are more common than not. Just as countless dresses are available in stores and online, countless potential partners can be found across the globe, and the expansion of the marketplace, in accordance with capitalist and free trade ideals, has enabled brides to be pickier and less restricted about temporary ownership or trade-in of both their dresses and their spouses. Dress designs in the 2000s have also developed a distinct identity that sets them apart from dresses of other eras. “Restraint, in the late 1980s, was not a regular feature of bridal design...It is only the past dozen years that unadorned lines have become the hallmarks of bridal fashion, and it is a change that worked it’s way from the top down. Vera Wang is frequently given credit for bringing a high-fashion sensibility to bridal design...She used exquisite fabrics and relied on a simple,

elegant silhouette that was sparingly ornamented.” (Wallace 259-262) Although white is still a dominant color, rebels have frequently wed in bright hues, and “the most striking development in the 1990s was the acceptance of wedding dresses with bare shoulder, plunging necklines, and low backs which were an extension of the body-conscious fashions of the 1980s.” (Ehrman 166) Furthermore, bridal became a legitimate avenue for top fashion designers to pursue, and

“

fashion designers often use the design of the wedding dress, which traditionally forms the finale to the runway show, to make a comment about contemporary society. (Ehrman 172)

”

After all, the idea of virginal white is hardly still relevant in today’s world. Brides with children from previous relationships, or couples who had kids before marrying, are a dime a dozen, and these children have become integrated into the marriage ritual as ringbearers, flower girls, and other positions. Rather than shying away from elaborate celebrations or having different “remarriage” outfits as brides of the 80s did, women of the 20th century relish the chance to use their wedding dress to declare a second chance, and to live or relive that glamorous, bride-centric day that is the wedding. White was a way for even the

mother or the divorcee to feel special on her wedding day, and to present to the world that she was pure and devoted to her husband. Echoing these trends, designer Jean Paul Gaultier sent his “bride” down the runway with a baby wrapped in her veil --

“

Her appearance evoked images of the Virgin Mary, while drawing attention to the discrepancy between social reality and the traditional association of the white wedding dress with chastity. (Ehrman 172)

”

Ultimately, the goal of the lavish, extravagant wedding has never left American culture. As long as finances permit, a spectacle has been made. At first, this was a family-led celebration of a financial union; now, it is a bridecentric celebration of a voluntary companionship. Women have grown to possess new professional lifestyles and ambitious goals, and their desires for wedding dresses have reflected the new competitive spirit and conspicuous consumption of the 20th century.

The infamous Virgin Mary dress

The popularity of Kate Middleton’s dress after her 2011 wedding shows that the fairy tale dream is also alive and well; for women, the choice today lies not in the limited realm of the patriarchy, but in the seemingly open yet still highly overbearing one of the capitalist market. Something new, something old, something borrowed...

Personal Reflection :: DanaYeo Prior to completing this project, I had a very vivid idea of what I wanted my wedding to be. I wanted my wedding to happen in my backyard, Christmas lights strung over the trees, a karaoke bar tucked away in the corner. I wanted something simple, something completely planned and executed by friends and family, absolutely no third parties. I had even chosen the lanterns that I would make myself - by hand. The only exception to my do-it-yourself vision, was my wedding dress. I was well aware that my dress would likely cost as-much-as or more-than the wedding itself and I was fine with that. I always figured, well it’s my wedding, I should be able to do exactly what makes me happy because I deserve to feel special. In my spare time (and I mean spare spare time), I would look at wedding dresses. I already had a few designers in mind - Tadashi Shoji, Vera Wang, and, if I won the lottery, Monique Lhuillier. It was given that my dress had to be white or off-white, it was all part of the vision. My vision, totally unique, completely reflective of my personality. …Not so much. Post-project, I’ve come to appreciate two things. Firstly, the fact the wedding has become as bridecentric as it is is a huge testament to how far women have come in the battle of gender equality. A wedding is a perfect opportunity for women to assert themselves as individuals, to impose their view of themselves on the world (albeit to a very small world for a very brief period of time). That’s incredible. Which brings us to the second thing that I’ve grown to appreciate - mass consumerism. #1 is completely sandwiched inside #2. Women are perfectly entitled to express themselves via their wedding day so long as we do so within specific constructs : a prime venue, bouquets of flowers, soft color palettes (for both flowers and bridesmaids), and of course, the perfect dress. These expectations have embedded themselves so far into our consciousness by means of advertising and idolizing that we fail to realize that we’re dreaming with limitations. We think we have envisioned something unique, something so very very specific to us as people, when really in the grand scheme of things, all weddings and even all wedding dresses are kind of the same. As much as I want what I’ve always wanted, I also want to walk away from this project with the self-awareness that my dream wedding - in particular, my conception of the perfect dress, is fairly contrived. Let’s put it this way, I’ll keep the lanterns and do away with the dress. How does that sound? I’ll just wear my PJ’s and call it a day. It’s been a pleasure,

Dana 37

Personal Reflection :: Stephanie Liou When I first suggested that we study the wedding dress for this project, I was half-joking and mainly trying to justify my habit of browsing wedding blogs and dress sales online despite having no intention to marry in the near future. In fact, as someone who grew up in a single family and experienced a traumatic divorce during childhood, I had no interest in the formal institution of marriage. Looking at dresses and planning out wedding details was more about me and my preferences, my tastes in fashion, and my desire to throw a big extravagant event and somehow justify spending 4 (or more) figures on dress that I would only wear once. It was about, as we call it in this project, the “wedding ritual” and a highly consumerist view of weddings and wedding dresses. In fact, I used to joke with friends that I would get married “just for the wedding,” even though I believed marriage would likely end in divorce. However, while concurrently studying the role of birth control in the advancement of women’s health and rights in the 20th century, I became very interested in the idea of female choice in relation to marriage. As I learned this past month, the material separation of the ritual from the social construct is a new one, and it is a progression that has been largely driven by industrialization, mass production, and modern consumer culture. Furthermore, I realized how fragile this concept of choice is, and how new it is. For hundreds of years, marriage has existed largely unchanged; brides had relatively little say in who they married, how or when they married, and even what dress they were married in. The concept of choice simply didn’t exist. But with freedom comes sacrifices, and much of modern life is, frankly, wasteful. Our relationships with both things and people have become so disposable -- to the point where I would expect divorce before even entering marriage, and to the point where it requires inordinate effort to locate a piece of clothing not tagged Made In China. Through this project, I have become more aware of the symbolic significance carried by this iconic piece of clothing, the amount of meaning ascribed to it, and the deep connections that it forges between consumers, artists, the media, friends, family, and anonymous strangers on the internet is a force to be reckoned with. Whether classic white or shocking pink, the wedding dress is an object that absolutely defines who we are as humans and as a culture, and I think its development provides a good wakeup call to our generation that not everything is disposable. And as for me? Well, after seeing how far marriage has come (and how many fantastic dresses there have been through the ages!), I do feel more enthused about giving it a shot...someday. Keep calm and carry on,

Stephanie 38

References Brown, Lorri. "Renaissance Courtship and Marriage." Suite101.com. N.p., 25 Apr. 2007. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. Chambers, Meredith. "Top 20 Totally Awesome Toys from the 80s." New Jersey 1015. N.p., 16 Dec. 2011. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. "Charles F. Worth." Victorian Days. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. Ehrman, Edwina. The Wedding Dress: 300 Years of Bridal Fashions. London: V&A Pub., 2011. Print. Franklin, Benjamin. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. Gormley, Myra V. "Colonial Love and Marriage." Colonial Love and Marriage. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. Hochstetler, J. M. "Colonial Quills: Wedding in Colonial America." Colonial Quills: Wedding in Colonial America. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. Krick, Jessica. "Charles Frederick Worth (1825-â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1895) and The House of Worth." Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. The Costume Institute, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. Krohn, Deborah L. "Weddings in the Italian Renaissance." Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. The Bard Graduate Center, n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. "The Like Totally 80s Totally Tubular Slang List." 80s Slang, It's, Like, Toooo Bitchin' N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. McIntyre, Kelsey. "History of the White Wedding Dress." History of the White Wedding Dress. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. "Old Fashioned Ribbon Candy." Colonial Candies. N.p., 5 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. 39

References :: continued "The Origins of the Wedding Costume." The Origins of the Wedding Costume. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. "Queen Victoriaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Wedding Dress: The One That Started It All." The Dreamstress. N.p., 18 Apr. 2011. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. Simmons, Christina. Making Marriage Modern: Women's Sexuality from the Progressive Era to World War II. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2009. Print. Thomas, Kristi S. "Medieval and Renaissance Marriage: Theory and Customs." Celyn.drizzlehosting. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. Victoria, Alexandrina. "Love and Marriage." Queen Victoria Online Scrapbook. Royal Archives, n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. "The Victorian Wedding-Part 1." The Victorian Wedding-Part 1. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2012. Wallace, Carol. All Dressed in White: The Irresistible Rise of the American Wedding. New York: Penguin, 2004. Print.!

Image Credits: Please click here for a list of all of our image sources. (Full list omitted to save space and preserve aesthetic appeal)