Luxury and RestraintA McCardell empire line dress of 1946 shows her commitment to clothing
that allowed for a variety of body sizes, the definitions of its line provided
only by drawstrings at the bust and neckline, rather than by cut. Its simple
silhouette also exemplifies the timeless quality of this type of dressing: its
1940s heritage is given away more by the evening gloves and costume jewelry
that it has been accessorized with, than by its style. McCardell sought to
include certain key pieces in each of her collections, decrying the usual fashion
imperative for seasonal trends. She wanted to make clothing easier, providing
women with six-piece travel wardrobes, popover dresses that just slipped
cleanly over the head, durable denim and gingham outfits that could be worn
year after year. For her such basic forms expressed the vitality of the wearer,
and the vitality of modernity. In the 1954 entry of Current Biography,
McCardell’s approach was described thus: ‘The designer’s idea is that clothes
should fit the individual and the occasion, and should be comfortable as
well as handsome. The color and line should flow with the body.’^10
Even her more obviously glamorous eveningwear draws its allure from
the use of a few striking elements. In an example from the Metropolitan
Museum in New York’s collection, rose-red pleated silk, and the wrapover
form of a kimono, add sophistication and allure to a simple column dress,
rather than any elaborate decorative devices that might distract from its
essential silhouette.
Anne Hollander sums up this easy style and potential problems relating to
simplicity of form by saying, ‘American modernization allowed women’s
clothing to participate equally with men’s in the new impersonal character
of American modern design itself. When a designer’s original idea can so
easily be adapted to mass production and can become familiar to many people
in many different contexts, it quickly loses the look of an individual
invention.’^11
The democratic nature of simple designs can make it hard for consumers
to distinguish between brands, or indeed to discern the need to pay more for
minimalist clothing. Townley, the firm McCardell worked for, lost money
on one of her most dramatically pared down designs, the ‘monastic’ dress, a
basic a-line style, cut on the bias to swing down from the shoulders and
flatter the figure. Customers could see no difference between her version
and the cheaper copies that soon filled the stores, and chose economy over
the cachet of owning one of the originals. For later American designers this
need to distinguish the brand became paramount.
- Dent Candee, M., (ed.), Current Biography, Who’s News and Why, 1954. New York:
The H.W. Wilson Company, 1954, p. 423. - Hollander, A., Sex and Suits, The Evolution of Modern Fashion. New York: Kodansha,
1994, p. 144.