Close Window

Interpreting Historical Costume
An article by Ian Pearce, company director.

PLEASE NOTE. DEMONSTRATION ONLY.

INSIDE HISTORY IS NO LONGER TRADING

This subject has long been one of the most inflammatory amongst those who use costume as a form of historical interpretation. All the views expressed below are personal and should be used to raise questions, not taken as law!

When asked what I do, I usually answer, “I create historical costume.” I use the word “costume” because we have a lack of alternatives. In its original form costume is: the customary mode of dressing (O.E.D). Unfortunately it has been somewhat perverted over the years to represent the clothing of actors, or worse, fancy dress.

For me costume means a set or item of clothing worn to represent either a period in history or a national identity.

When making costume am I copying, re-creating or interpreting? I personally prefer interpreting and creating. To copy an item of clothing or costume infers that it is made as an exact image of the original. Can we do that? I believe not. Do we have the same raw materials; is our fleece and fibre exactly the same; do we use the same techniques for weaving; is the fabric washed and prepared in the same way and is it stitched in the same way with the same tools? No. Then it is not a copy! Similarly, once something has been created, I believe it is impossible to re-create it. It has passed. We cannot go back and recreate exactly the same conditions or in fact re-capture a moment. It is for this reason I dislike the term “re-enactor”. It is impossible to turn back the clock of time and exactly re-create an event.

Interpreting Costume. Methodology.

If I cannot “copy” or “re-create” an item of clothing, then I must do the next best thing, which is to interpret it using all the evidence available.

Where possible I use primary evidence: original items, contemporary patterns, descriptions or portrayals in art.

Primary evidence is vital, but like most things in life it should be viewed with an eye to its motive and message. On the whole artwork is created to convey a message, not show the nice seam on a dress. Just because it wasn’t shown in the painting, it doesn’t mean it did not exist! Likewise, with colour, the artist chose the colours from his pallet, not from the dyers!

Original items in museums and collections are an excellent resource, but should also be examined closely. Could they have been altered, or converted from something else?

Patterns are few and far between, but are excellent examples of construction methods.

I have found period prose and commentary to be of limited use as it tends toward the fanciful or sometimes the derogatory.

Inventories and wills are often the very best sources and one can pick up snippets of information to help create a bigger picture.

Perhaps the best tool when interpreting costume is accumulated knowledge. Huge amounts of nonsense have been written, and indeed are littered across the Internet on the subject of costume, so how does one decide what is useful and what is not?

Again it is a question of motive. I have read some of the most ridiculous piffle on the net, mostly written by various “re-enactment” groups with the express purpose of explaining away what can only be lazy research and really bad costume. Likewise with books on costume, does one trust someone else’s research; do we follow blindly just because it’s been published? Do they give good references and list the sources?

Amongst the “re-enactment”, and indeed interpretation world, misinterpretation seems to be the norm and a certain sheep-like mentality seems to reign. I have heard the comment “ I bought it from a stall at the traders market, so it must be right”. Why must it be right?

Along with primary sources I try to look from above at the bigger picture. One of the best examples of this practice is the author and historian Dorothy Hartley. She used source material from all over the world and throughout history. She believed that if one looked at development of crafts, then you could trace back methods to the original form. She looked at garments in museums, but importantly she also studied primitive costume from around the world, (some still in production), using similar methods of construction, unchanged since the earliest times. I believe this format for study is the surest way to develop a rounded view of historical techniques and styles, thus making interpretation a much easier job.

Close Window