fashionista-ta
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Messages
- 17,339
- Reaction score
- 850
^ Love that jacket in the first pic--I'd steal that in a heartbeat data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fde1b/fde1b2b74a4a52a3fe6dc1840a8b6da4d7ffd619" alt="tongue :p :p"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fde1b/fde1b2b74a4a52a3fe6dc1840a8b6da4d7ffd619" alt="tongue :p :p"
Live Streaming... The F/W 2025.26 Fashion Shows
Exhibition Review: Men in Skirts, Reviewed by
Jane Malcolm-Davies
The Victoria and Albert Museum, London,
8 February–12 May 2002
The appearance of the male skirt on the streets at the end of the twentieth
century is a potent symbol of the renegotiation of male and female roles
currently under way in what has been called “the developed world.” As
men take on childcare responsibilities and dominate many a domestic
kitchen, this bastion of womanhood may be slipping. If such a shift is
occurring, Men in Skirts failed to acknowledge it. The exhibition effectively
silenced these eloquent expressions of changing gender identity. It
focused on the superficial at the expense of debate about the cultural manifestations of masculinity in clothing. Its curator, Andrew Bolton,
former joint London College of Fashion and Victoria and Albert Museum
research fellow, documented the largely uncharted territory of men in
skirts comprehensively. But in doing so, he turned an exciting subject into
a very tame exhibition. Although the garments on show displayed imagination
and innovation, their disappointing presentation diluted the impact
of a provocative theme.
There were some interesting insights to be found: Donna Karan, for
example, prefers to call her skirts for men “wraps” because this refers to
their function rather than suggesting gender specificity. The most recognizable
wrap for men is the Scottish kilt, which some protest is not a skirt at
all. Kilts occupied two display cases (one ancient, one modern) but the
majority of the exhibition was devoted to designer skirts and dresses,
many of which were self-confessed bids for catwalk publicity by their
creators—such as Vivienne Westwood and Jean-Paul Gaultier. Most of
the others offered subcultural examples, such as Kurt Cobain’s baby-doll
dress of the late 1980s (presented under the heading of “Grunge”) and
examples of fetish wear crafted in PVC. The omission of New Romantic
skirts was odd, considering how the movement did much to soften mainstream
masculine fashion with its frills and flounces. This was a rogue’s
gallery of notorious male skirts which served to demonstrate rather than
question the shock value of a man in a dress. The power to undermine
masculinity because of its centuries-old specificity to the weaker sex went
unremarked. Nowhere did the exhibition make plain that the skirt was a
problem for men in the West and nothing of the sort for men almost
everywhere else in the world.
The skirt as mainstream male fashion was sidelined. Sleight of hand
allowed its history to be covered by an explanation of the changing cut
of men’s coats, an original example of the gowns worn by boys before
“breeching,” and a replica pair of frothy French petticoat breeches
representing those circa 1660–70. Visitors seemed keen to discuss these
garments on display but found it difficult to do: “Would you wear that?”
asked many a woman of her male companion; “Imagine Dad in a skirt,”
said granny to her grandchildren. Thereafter, they floundered. People seek
to make personal connections with the material on display in museums
(see, for example, Silverman 1995). Strategically placed questions such
as “Why wouldn’t you (or the men in your life) wear this?” or “Which
of these is more masculine?” would have helped the conversations along.
Videos of designers speaking in person (which were prohibitively costly,
according to Bolton) would have sparked stronger responses than the
labels that went unread.
The lack of visitor engagement with the exhibition was largely due to
the conventional catalog entry of curatorial detail for each skirt: the
materials of manufacture and each garment’s provenance. While carefully
documenting such details, the exhibition said nothing about the “social
judgment” to which a man in a skirt is subjected. He suffers, according to Robert Carvalli, the experience of feeling naked “physically” and
“psychologically.” His best-selling caftan ensemble offers men this discomfort:
“It makes you feel exposed to public scrutiny.” It was this that
Bolton failed to lay bare.
Many costume collections which fail to put clothes in their cultural
context have the same effect. The uninformed viewer is left wondering
what madness afflicted the people who wore the clothes. But this exhibition
suffered more than most from being inert behind glass. Male skirts
provoke strong reactions. Newspaper coverage of famous men in skirts
(which Bolton asserts play a large part in legitimizing them as male dress)
would have provided contemporary detail against which to consider the
issues they raise. The tabloids may describe television presenter Jonathan
Ross, famously heterosexual, married and a father, wearing a skirt suit,
as just “wacky.” Alexander MacQueen doing the same in a fashion show
is lambasted as a weirdo—a dodgy designer with clearly questionable
sexuality.
The anonymous mannequins (by Adel Rootstein) in the exhibition
suggested that the garments were bizarre objects at which to stare in silent
wonder. They were stripped of social meaning by their elevation to high
art. The Fashion in Motion evening on 27 February was much more
provocative. Real men in real skirts wore pieces which had not made it
into the display cases. They were greeted with buzzing conversation and
much animated discussion. Even though their context was a fashion show
and they were all perfect specimens of young, beautiful manhood, these
men in skirts forced viewers to ask “Why does frock equal feminine?”
Both Tommy Hilfiger and Luciano Soprani predict that the male skirt
is solely for fun and will not become a serious alternative to trousers. In
concentrating on the bizarre and merely glancing at the long heritage of
the male skirt, the exhibition betrayed its ethnocentricity and strengthened
the status quo. It does not explicitly question why skirts for men are
unacceptable in post-industrial societies while they are traditional in other
cultures (the Taliban’s warriors wear dresses), were de rigueur in Europe
during previous centuries (Roman senators wore togas), and have been
the choice of men in the West pursuing alternative lifestyles (in, for
example, caftans). One seasoned male skirt-wearer commented that the
exhibition displays avoided the challenge of finding appropriate shoes and
socks. This removed the skirts still further to a never-never land of celebrity
sarong-wearers, such as the barefoot David Beckham.
The emphasis on designer novelties belies the many situations in which
skirts are and were normal wear for men—not least two bastions of British
tradition, the Church and the army. There is a growing number of male
skirt designers and retailers. Men in Time (Munich) and Midas Clothing
(Manchester) report a steady increase in sales among the sexually secure
30-plus age group. The creator of the “Utilikilt,” Steven Villegas says:
“Male skirts will become mainstream fashion . . . because the quotient of
open-minded men in this world is rising.”
References
Silverman, L. 1995. “Visitor Meaning-Making in Museums for a New
Age.” Curator 38(3161–170.
Men in Time is at www.menintime.de
Midas Clothing is at www.midasclothing.com
Utilikilts is at www.utilikilts.com
ok not exactly a skirt, but i thought this was interesting as an idea...
like a man's version of the woman's culottes
sort of hybrid skirt-trousers
by balenciaga (ss 10)
wwd.com