Dress c. 1938

Editor: This coloured pencil drawing from around 1938 simply titled, "Dress", depicts the rear view of an elaborate gown, likely for a formal occasion. There's a real sense of contained volume in this dress, it looks like it would have been heavy. How do you interpret this work? Curator: A dress carries so much more than its simple function. Think about the Victorian era's obsession with clothing and manners, which in turn, restricted women's movement, both physically and socially. Is this just a pretty dress, or is it an image fraught with implied meanings? Editor: So the very construction of the dress, its layers and shaping, create symbolic limitations? Curator: Exactly. What details do you notice? The placement of buttons, the cascade of ruffles? These elements speak to status and femininity, but also to societal expectations, even confinement. We only see the back, an unadorned perspective; this adds to its conceptual emphasis. Does the absence of a person wearing the dress create a different atmosphere than if it were being worn? Editor: Absolutely! Seeing it empty gives it almost a ghostly presence. It's like a shell, hinting at the woman inside, but emphasizing her absence or perhaps her conformity. Curator: Garments speak volumes about a given time. They evoke customs and cultural anxieties of those eras, while offering continuity. A drawing allows us to access this memory. Editor: I hadn’t considered the absence as a statement, so to speak. I am so used to seeing clothing on the human form, and the fact that there's no figure is something else entirely! Thanks for helping me see that. Curator: A simple question can really open things up, can't it? Thanks for walking through this one with me.