Evening dress 1898 - 1900

Editor: So here we have an evening dress, created sometime between 1898 and 1900 by the House of Worth. It's crafted from silk and other textiles. The flowing train covered in those striking black floral appliqués... it just feels incredibly opulent. What do you make of it? Curator: From a materialist perspective, it's fascinating to consider the labour involved in producing such a gown. The silk cultivation, the weaving, the intricate embroidery – all signs of intense, specialized manual labor. We must think of the garment workers producing this sort of piece; were they viewed as skilled artisans or simply factory workers? And how does that affect the final ‘artistic’ assessment of the piece? Editor: That's an interesting point. I tend to think of “haute couture” as elevated. Curator: Right, and what does "haute couture" even mean in 1900? It signals a level of production rooted in a deeply hierarchical social structure. It catered to a specific class, built on their access to leisure and capital to purchase and display these items. Consider the contrast between the dress's implied luxury and the working conditions of those who produced the raw materials. Editor: It seems like this dress, beyond its obvious beauty, holds within it all these questions about class, labor, and value. Curator: Precisely. We see more than just an aesthetic object; we see a tangible representation of the social and economic forces at play during the Gilded Age. And also we can observe how consumption as performance shapes class and eroticism themes together. Editor: Thank you, I learned to look beyond the immediate aesthetic and consider the garment's broader social context and the labor involved in its creation. Curator: Absolutely, focusing on materiality helps us to engage more deeply with art’s significance beyond aesthetics.