Analyzing the 1920's Fashion

[jazzzbaby]

I have always been very fascinated with this era of fashion, because of all times I feel it was the most shocking to society. Knowing that the mothers of these flapper daughters grew up wearing Victorian style dressing while not daring to show an ankle. Oh my! I just can't imagine the heart attacks they were having seeing their daughters exposing knees and cutting their hair!

What do you think about this time when fashion went from one end of the spectrum to the other in just a snap of the finger?? Was there any transition at all??

 

[jitterbugdoll]

The change in fashion had much to do with women's newfound liberation. Breasts became seen as a hinderence to the new freedoms, so the boyish figure was the look of the moment (flat chest, no waist, narrow hips), and it was accented by shift dresses. If you weren't so lucky as to have a boyish figure, you would bind your chest and wear other foundation garments to get the right look.

Also, most people seem to think that the flapper look was popular throughout the entire 1920s, but it wasn't. Dresses only revealed the knees from about 1926-28, and then dropped again.

Of course, the look was quite shocking to the Edwardian society that had previosuly existed (and not exactly flattering to the older, softer crowd, who were in need of more-structured clothing and softer hairstyles. More youthful women could still carry off the look though, and some did.) Women did cut their hair (to further emphasize the boyish look), and also wore makeup (even applying it in public); prior to the 20s, only actresses and ladies of the night would have worn noticeable makeup.

However, hemlines had already raised as far as mid-calf due to WWI, and really hovered about this length for the first half of the 20s. WWI placed many restrictions on clothing, and just like the resulting New Look which followed WWII, 1920s fashion was quite a bit more lively then the more somber fashions worn in WWI.

An interesting thing to point out is that until the 1920s, high fashion was only available to the rich. However, the simple construction of 1920s fashions made them very easy to reproduce, allowing every woman to be at the height of fashion. Heavily beaded silk dresses were still reserved for the wealthy, but the average woman could now keep up with the trends.

 

[Paul]

I try to think from a slightly different perspective, for the ladies before she come a flapper, choosing her new look buying or having made her first short dress , then trying it on, looking at herself in the mirror then deciding for first time if she dare wear it and go out in public etc etc.
then the reaction she would get been seen like that. The roaring 1920's a great era, Well I think so.

Jitterbugdoll that's a great piece about the 20's, I have also read that the older generation of ladies followed the general trends for the first time, which were set by the flapper toward the but in a more moderated way end of the decade.

 

[Lauren]

Wow. great info! Only one thing to add... women had felt more freedom in the workplace during WWI than they had for a long time. When the men returned from WWI, fashion followed the independance they had felt- and those who did work during the war experienced change both emotionally and due to situation. They weren't as likely to return to their roles pre-war. Hemlines and fashion changed actually started, as Jitterbugdoll said, during WWI, especially as illustrated in French magazines. I think the "boyish" 20's look has to give credit to women's unwillingness to return to pre WWI roles and the fashion was the external representation of what was going on internally.

 

[Tourbillion]

Well here's a different take on the shorter dress thing.

Children would have bare knees until about age 3, even in the teens and twenties. Girls wore their dresses right below the knee. It was only after puberty that they wore their dresses above the ankles during this period. Even Victorian girls wore their dresses hemmed up a bit (like mid-calf) so they could play. They wore boots to cover their ankles of course, but long dresses (like long pants for boys) were a sign of maturity.

So, wearing the dresses short could be seen a rebellion against growing up, as well as a desire to be independent. After all the minimization of the bust could also be seen as a desire to remain young.

 

[Paul]

Apart from the fashion angle of the 20's .
You have to also think that millions of men world wide were killed in ww1, this fact alone would have a effect on the population demographics and a imbalance of men at marriageable age,
Patriot is always very high in times of conflict but as times goes, and seeing the consequences of WW1 people especially if they lost loved one may look and want to blame some one, or society in general. Social historian say that is resulted in the outrageous behaviour of some ladies in the 20's, ( I would add the minority) but possibly had effects and influences on music, dance and culture as these are the medium that people use to express there feeling with.
In my mind it's a jigsaw of how every thing combined to produce the roaring 20's, today it may even be over rated or over exaggerated!.
For me the fashions are still great.

 

[Naama]

I just love the 20's! I think it was just a great time for women, sure it wasn't good at all, but for the first time since centurys women had confidence, women had more freedom than ever before and the burden of the insane victorian moralitys dropped. Just think about women like Dorothy Parker, Coco Chanel, Tamara de Lempicka, Claude Cahun,....... Sure, some of them had to struggle hard, but I don't want to know what would have had happen if they'd be born earlier in time. It wasn't easy for women but there was at least a possibility to gain freedom, even if you had to pay much for it. And I think the fashion shows this freedom in such a great way and that's so beautiful about it. For me it seems like everything women had in the 20's they gave away in 40's :/

and jazzbaby, great signature, I love Anais Nin


Naama

 

[Paisley]

Check out this page on Debating Bobbed Hair.

One pro opinion:

"When I consider the achievements of women in the past few years in the field of athletics I find it impossible to do so without taking into account the tremendous freedom-giving changes in fashion that have accompanied them. And enjoying the blessings of short hair is a necessary part of those fashion changes. To my way of thinking, long hair belongs to the age of general feminine helplessness. Bobbed hair belongs to the age of freedom, frankness, and progressiveness."

And a con opinion from actress Mary Pickford:

"But the real reason why I do not bob my hair is undoubtedly on account of the requests received in my “fan” mail. Every day letters come in from the children saying, “Please do not bob your hair.” "Please do not cut off your curls." I should feel that I was failing them if I ignored such an insistent plea. I haven’t the courage to fly in the face of their disapproval nor have I the wish. If I am a slave, at least I am a willing slave. For their love and affection and loyalty I owe them everything, and if curls are the price I shall pay it."

Pickford wasn't opposed to other women bobbing their hair, she just didn't want to bob her own.

 

[jitterbugdoll]

This reminds me of F. Scott Fitzgreald's story "Bernice Bobs Her Hair"--a great story with a satisfying ending:
http://www.sc.edu/fitzgerald/bernice/bernice.html