http://www.alhfam.org/?

cat_id=252&nav_tree=119,130,252

How Important is Accurate Reproduction Clothing?

Thomas Shaw
That depends on the goal. To me it is unimportant for house museum guides. A woman in a
"Victorian" gown on a tour of a historic house is more of a distraction than a benefit. The focus of the
interpretation is on the furniture or the architecture or the family who lived there. The rooms are
fabrications anyway, due to the passages needed to accommodate the public. Besides, the guide is in
danger of knocking things off tables with her skirts. An interpreter demonstrating glass blowing
probably would be better served by wearing modern protective clothing if the fundamental
processes and the products are the focus rather than the recreation of the period shop and the
techniques in all their detail.

Accurate clothing is most important for interpreters who are portraying a particular person from the
past. The visitor will take in everything about them. I firmly believe that visitors can spot a phoney.
While their mental images of the past are largely formed by motion pictures (often erroneously so)
they instinctively know what is legitimate even if they cannot articulate the particulars.

These folks are not the ones we should be worried about. We should be most concerned with the
people who do not catch us in our inaccuracies. Visitors trust the museum's personnel to be the
experts. We all have a certain public authority which they crave. Much of what they "learn" is not
spoken. They absorb sights, sounds, and smells, independently of staff interaction. Character players
should be as accurate as possible for this reason. In the case of "street players," what they wear is
one of their only "props." The best clothing will assist the public in successful suspension of the
present. This in turn will provoke them. A museum would not allow character interpreters to convey
inaccurate biographical information. In the same vein, they should appear to be who they claim to be
as nearly as possible.

Between the extremes there is considerable room for "accuracy fudging." In the case of the Historic
Fort Snelling, our soldiers wear dress coats with decorative braid attached by machine. It the 1820s
this was handsewn. There is no possible way we could afford to provide each of our two dozen or so
male interpreters with a dress coat made exactly right. What we pay about $225 for would cost $500.
We content ourselves with accurate materials and patterns. Personally, I think that museums should
expend the same amount of intellectual and financial resources on clothing as they would on
furniture or machinery or livestock or crops. If they are not willing to do this and character
interpretation is not their principle focus, then they would be better off saving the money (even poor
period clothing is expensive) and dressing their staff in uniform polo shirts and blue blazers. They
need something to identify themselves to the public. It is my opinion that the "modern rustic garb" of
pseudo-period shirt with Amish trousers and a straw hat does more harm than good. It is not period
clothing but does convey some sense of "old times" that will probably fool many visitors.

I think the public does "get it." There are two things with which all visitors can connect--things one
eats and things one wears. I'm sure all interpreters get the usual "Are you hot in all those clothes?"
question. While irritating, the question does indicate to me that the public is aware of dress. They
notice that something different is happening. They ask if everything is handmade. They wonder how
you can stand do be corseted. Historical clothing is interesting and immediate. Questions about it are
good ice-breakers for shy visitors. In the end, however, it doesn't matter if the public "gets it" or not.
Museums have a public responsibility to be as accurate as current scholarship allows. Since museums
form public perception, they are obliged to do the best they can.

This does not mean that all museums can or should attire their staff in historic clothing. As I said
before, I think it is only desirable in certain circumstances. If the museum takes the matter on, it
really should take it very seriously. Costumes are for clowns. real people of the past wore real clothes
which were fashionable, practical, durable, and made sense in their lives just as modern people do. It
is insulting and insensitive to dress interpreters in costumes. It shows a disregard for people of the
past. I am not suggesting the museums revert to ancestor worship, but I firmly believe that the most
important gift that living history museums can give to the public is the spark of empathy in order that
we might recognize people of the past as sophisticated, that we recognize them as fundamentally
different from ourselves, and that we judge them on the terms of their culture, not ours.

Carol Hall
We have observed that visitors are much more knowledgeable about inaccurate clothing than they
used to be. They may not know what is right, but many notice what is wrong, such as modern
glasses, make up, jewelry, and the style of shoes.

Although visitors may come with preconceived notions about period clothing, they often tell us how
much they enjoy seeing our costumes. They say that the interpreters look real. These comments
have increased each year as we have been improving our costume program.

From my viewpoint, costumes are the most visible "artifact" because visitors interact with the
interpreters. They notice costumes as much or more than they notice some of the furniture. From an
honesty standpoint, it is just as important to provide accurate clothing as it is to have furniture of the
right period in a house.

Kathleen Kannik
In planning period clothing for a site, the first endeavor is to decide whether the goal is to provide
clothing for interpreters who portray period characters or to provide a uniform for the staff members
to distinguish them from the public. Once this decision is made, further decisions will follow with
more ease.

One might ask, "Why all the fuss about authenticity?" Does the public know the difference or even
care? We can learn from the experience of sites such as Colonial Williamsburg, who realized tat their
public is much more informed than in the past and removed many garments from their wardrobe
stock, replacing them with much more accurate reproductions. More accurate film and television
costuming, some gaining professional award recognition, has brought public attention to to accuracy
in period clothing. The availability of printed matter on historic clothing has also multiplied many
times over the past twenty years, and most local libraries now have numerous books on the subject,
especially if there are any living history enthusiasts in the area. Many museums offer exhibits of their
costume collections, and even the Smithsonian has had "hands on" costume programs, offering the
opportunity to try on stays and other unfamiliar garments. The public has learned to look at the right
stuff, even if they don't know for sure if it is right!

What difference does it make? With a volunteer or museum staff member in an interpreter's uniform
(you know--the lady in the drawstring mob cap with the "blouse" and "skirt," the modern eyeglasses
and black running shoes), the visitor sees a 20th-century person in a costume, one of their peers,
who can tell them all about "how they did it back then." With a good character (maybe wearing a
starched constructed cap, contacts, stays, jacket, petticoat, stockings, and period shoes), visitors see
a person from the period right before their eyes, who helps them step back in time, and who can tell
all about how she does it!

An accurate looking garment helps the interpreter to convey the information he or she has to share
with the visitor and helps the visitor experience the past through the character. To be accurate
looking, the garment must be the right cut and silhouette of the period, fit in the fashion of the
period; be made of reasonable facsimile of original cloth used for the garment (including color, fiber,
weave, weight, print, etc.), be constructed with the proper interfacing, linings, etc., have proper
buttons and trims for the garment of the period. To help the character tell his or her story, add
accessories such as pocket items or carry tools which tell one's trade or what they are doing. Then
just add the posture, movement, and gestures which tell the character's social standing, health, and
maybe a hint at the character's history. Remember, gestures say a thousand words; and if the
character looks like someone from the right time, people will believe it.

Beth Gilgun
Does the public really get it? No! But then again, most reenactors don't either. For that matter, I
suspect that most volunteer docents don't. That doesn't mean that clothing isn't important.
Remember Colonial Williamsburg in the late 1970's? Anyone with historic clothing background came
away shaking their heads and groaning. Even if this is only 10% of your market, they are the people
most likely to give you free advertising by word of mouth. The people who care if things are correct
really care. They are also the people who will sing your praises or can you. And the rest of the public
will have a better experience if your docents are properly clothed.

Which brings me to: Can accurate reproduction clothing really convey more information than mere
costumes? There is a minority of people who come to your event or site who have a knowledge of
historic costumes. These people will be very turned off if the costuming is not right. For the rest of
the audience, there is still an advantage to having period correct clothing. For one thing, you are not
buying into the Hollywood version of the past. A recent TV movie actually showed an Empire chest of
drawers as a 1750s chest. Those who know turned off the television set. So those who know costume
will "turn off" your site if you are not true to your time frame. Accurate reproduction clothing allows
people to see movement correct to the undergarments and also wrinkles and draping of correct
fabrics. While the public may not get it, they are getting more by osmosis if the site is using the right
fabrics, underpinnings, and garments than if there was no care taken in costuming.

When you have people clothed in correct undergarments and correct outer garments, you have
people who are moving in a the way an 18th- or 19th-century look of each garment.

A question: Why would you costume a site without doing it authentically? The old Simplicity
Bicentennial patterns just don't make it. Without correct cut, fit, and cloth, you are not going to get
your message across to the general public. While you may be reaching a small percentage of the
population, I think that you are reaching the portion of the public who will give you the best return. A
properly stayed or corseted body gives the public a good view of the 18th-century body with correct
movement. Movement is important. Pay attention to stays and corsets.