Measure Magazine, Vol. IV

fighting on the battlefield, like men, their style too would have taken on a new form at the time. It took longer, but eventually did. Today Coco Chanel is best known for her infamous little black dress, but during World War I she addressed women and their need for casual-chic style with her creation of the trouser pant. The pants (often referred to as breeches) were worn by women working in male jobs during WWI, but were not widely accepted post-war, only starting to be truly popularized as a fashion item following WWII. It was not that women were now dressing as men, they were dressing to fit their new roles as women and their new place in society; adjusting in whatever way necessary to help get the job done. Chanel popularized comfortable, functional separates like trousers and blouses; anything she saw trending in menswear was used as inspiration. Chanel was not concerned with starting a movement, but giving women what they needed. While the trouser pant served the female workforce, she was also the first experiment with sportswear, as a reflection of the more relaxed rules regarding women’s roles in society. We think of her as revolutionary, but at the time she was merely thinking practically, filling a void for women that she felt was missing. During World War II, as men between the ages of 18 and 45 were drafted and the jobs that they once filled were left empty, women moved outside of the home and into the now vacant positions. In the 1940’s, war forced change in society, and again clothing had to be altered to reflect new circumstances. Women couldn’t build bombs and aircraft parts in delicate cap-sleeve, flair-hem day dresses. They wore the functional workwear necessary to fulfill their duties: coveralls, heavy boots, and kerchiefs. In these two decades of war during the 20th century, the bomber jacket took flight as the essential garment for pilots. Wrapped in leather, the bomber created a bulky silhouette but provided warmth for pilots against the frigid temperatures and conditions they were exposed to when up in the air. Modifications to the jacket resulted as manufacturers continued to play around with the fabrics the garment was built with, manipulating aspects such as the heavy fur lining as it gained mass market acceptance. In the 1950’s, nearly thirty years following the end of WWI, everyday civilians adopted the garment. Trickling up, by 1980 the garment was categorized as a fashion piece, worn by Hollywood film actors like Jack Nicholson in The Shining ; his was a lightweight red suede. In that time of peace, the industrial leather and heavy fur lining was no longer necessary . Today, the bomber jacket can be found across all retail categories. Even David Beckham designed his own line of bombers at H&M for fall 2016. Did customers recognize that they were not only adopting the style of celebrity trendsetters like Beckham, but the functional style of World War I pilots from nearly a century ago? Do people think about how “bombers” got their name? It is functionality that shapes us, controlling what we wear. Functioning is about surviving: war and conflict either introduce an entirely new style of garment, such as the doublet, bomber jacket, or plain white tee, or push us toward a style movement, like the masculinization of women’s clothing. By the late 1940’s, the reconstruction effort post-World War II generated a need for women to keep contributing to the labor force even though men had returned from the battlefields to resume their positions in the industry. This led to increased masculinization of women’s clothing and ultimately, the power suit. In the 1980’s it was believed that if a woman was to be taken seriously in the labor force, she would need to be seen like her male counterpart. Now we see fast-fashion retailers like Zara beginning to introduce gender-neutral clothing lines like “Ungendered”; the look and feel of the clothing seems to be identical to what a male has typically worn, such as ‘boyfriend’ style jeans in muted tones of navy, grey, black, white, and burgundy. In 2017, where both genders play a dominant role in the labor force, it is appropriate and logical to see the ‘masculine’ dress featured on either gender. So then, is conflict still influencing dress? Look to the simplest garment: the t-shirt. Now, we use this basic garment to display our most provocative ideas. We cause conflict today with a garment rooted in the wars of generations past, where the comfort, flexibility and ease of the cotton pullover was used by the U.S. Navy around 1905. The removal of

78 | Fashion Magazine At Marist

Made with FlippingBook Proposal Creator