Floral Frocks

Historical and social overview – Fashion on a Ration?

The 1940s was a turbulent time for fashion. This was a period of both war and tentative restoration, incorporating, in fashion terms anyway, attempts to return to the pre war heights of high quality couture. Progress was slow, and as society and beliefs had moved on, it became evident that British couture would never be the same again.

Pre-war Fashion and its Influences

The 1930s silhouette was feminine, emphasisng the bust and waistline to create a sense of an elongated form and gentility. Bias cut dresses, as pioneered by Madeline Vionnet, became de rigueur, fitting the wearer like a glove. This style was most associated with the screen goddesses of the period. Indeed, the influence of Hollywood cinema and glamour had a substantial impact on fashion during the 1930s and 1940s, as one fashion journalist noted in 1933:

The great dressmakers would once have denied that the glamorous film star fashions of Hollywood had any influence on the fashions shown in Paris, but it would be untrue for anyone to say today [1].

As the Golden Age of cinema dawned and cinema-going became a regular pastime for the vast majority of the population, the lure of a glamorous and fantasy world began to permeate couture design, in evening wear, but also in everyday life, particularly in respect of dressing up to go out. Whilst Paris fashion houses attempted to recreate glamorous garments for their wealthy clientele, ordinary women aimed to emulate the styles of their favourite stars in the hope that some of the magic of Hollywood would enter their lives through specific clothing, make up and hairstyles. Indeed, this period witnessed increased celebrity product endorsement, solidifying the notion that the consumption of goods offers access into ‘another world’.

The lure of advertising certainly set a precedent which marked women as consumers, not just of products but of lifestyles. Central to the notion of ‘lifestyle’ was dissatisfaction; dissatisfaction with ones appearance, mundane existence, relationships, and so on, all of which were presented as problems that could be overcome through the purchase of a ‘miracle’ cream, polish or dress. This concept of dissatisfaction was not (as it was to become later in the century) about the individual, but rather addressed a collective understanding of escape, a foray into a world of glamour and luxury.

Glamour is notoriously difficult to define; it is not a stable concept and is subject to change over time. However, it is a term associated with bewitchment, seduction and the other-worldly. As such we might assume that glamour is a temptress, a surface fantasy with little to substantiate it. With this in mind, the relationship between glamour and the Hollywood cinema of the period seems self-evident. By definition, Hollywood became a name synonymous with a particular mythology, created and maintained by rigorous studio and media propaganda.

Daytime fashions were influenced by the threat of war and designers such as Edward Molyneux and Victor Stiebel adopted a military look in their collections.

Wartime and Fashion

The impact of the war had far reaching effects, influencing every member of the population. Life was largely controlled and mediated by the government, and whilst the majority of young men were called into active service, women were encouraged to engage in war work on the home front. For those not engaged in civilian or military occupations, daily life too became restricted as a result of the introduction of rationing on clothing and food, which seriously conflicted with pre-war experiences. Hugh Dalton, president of the Board of Trade, wrote to the women of Britain in 1942:

If every single garment in the homes of Britain, every pot and pan, every sheet, every towel is used and kept usable until not even a magician could hold it together any longer, the war will be won more surely and quickly [2]

This approach was not only intended to be uplifting and patriotic, it also established a culture of thrift and making do which characterised the war years.

Austerity was upon the population, and ‘tightening ones belt’ became more of a reality than a metaphor, as Harpers Bazaar noted in September 1939: ‘The talk of the town is the new waistline’[3].

Wartime fashion took on a ‘business as usual’ stance, by rationalising the changing and stressful times with practical and ready to wear garments, promoting the notion of ‘wartime chic’. However unrealistic this might have been, there was no shift from an emphasis on glamour, and the most notable fashion photographs of the period show women in war occupations or in bomb-damaged streets, well-groomed and dressed in full-make up and chic clothing. Regardless of this drive to maintain standards in relation to appearance and fashion, the fashion industry was in crisis, specifically following the fall of Paris in 1940[4].

Although the couture industry in Paris was not closed down following the Nazi invasion, it became subject to the new management of the occupying forces, and systematically part of quest to re-appropriate luxury trades for Nazi supporters. The industry became less international, as traditional overseas markets were ideologically and geographically closed, and fashion publications were folded or heavily censored to co-inside with the beliefs and propaganda of the new management [5]. The dominance of Paris couture was under threat.

Rationing and Utility

In 1941 clothes and textiles rationing was introduced, although clothing prices since the onset of war had increased and were already in short supply to ordinary women. However, clothing rations were allocated equally amongst the population, which to a limited extent redressed the balance, destabilised as a consequence of the earlier price escalation.

Rationing was metered on a coupon system, which in relation to clothing and textiles included wool and dressmaking supplies (although threads and materials required for mending was not rationed). At the onset of rationing each adult was allocated 66 coupons per year, but as the war progressed, this number was decreased to 48 in 1945. The type of garment dictated the number of coupons needed for its purchase, so a woman’s cotton dress would require 7 coupons, whilst one made of wool needed 11. Clothing rationing ended in 1949, although this didn’t mark a return to pre-war affluence by any stretch of the imagination.

Rationing, a necessary measure, was intended to be an equitable one. Unfortunately, although the same number of coupons were issued amongst the population, money was still needed to buy goods, and poorer families suffered as a consequence.

Even with the onslaught of rationing and short supplies in materials, new clothes were still needed and in an attempt to address this need, the Government introduced the Utility Scheme, which was effectively an application of new sumptuary laws. The scheme covered the manufacture in terms of price and quality of British cloth which initially encompassed 50% of the total, but increased to 85% shortly after [6]. Tighter controls were introduced in 1942 with Civilian Clothing Orders, which specified clothing restrictions to be applied during wartime. These largely exercised an emphasis on lack of wastage, so un-necessary details were to be removed and fabric was to be used sparingly.

Fashion, by its very nature is other-worldly; it offers an escape into a world of glamour distant from the everyday experience. In this respect it is different from clothing, which really is just a practical and functional cover for the body. In times of instability and fear, one needs an opportunity to escape, and fashion is one way of doing this. The Civilian Clothing Orders seemed to promote a meanness, an austerity completely at odds with the notion of fashion, and as a result would not act as a morale boost, as fashion would do. The Government were aware of this and addressed the problems in two ways; firstly through the ideological promotion of the scheme, and secondly, through the fashionable status of garments it included.

The scheme’s promotion challenged a notion of what fashion was; it questioned its frivolity and slavishness. This ingenious approach promoted the stripped clothing as liberating, functional and accessible to all, as it was now possible to look smart if not fashionable. Of course, as the war progressed, and rationing became more severe, to dress in a showy manner was considered by some to be ‘unpatriotic’.

The garments themselves, although restricted in many ways were displayed and valued as couture design. Indeed, some of them were. The Government commissioned British couturiers to design a basic non-seasonal wardrobe[7] suitable for mass manufacture, specifying that they should be desirable, but not enough to over stimulate demand [8]. In 1942, the Incorporated Society of London Fashion Designers (members including Edward Molyneux, Digby Morton, Victor Stiebel, Norman Hartnell and Hardy Aimes) designed 32 garments for the scheme and were labelled with CC41, to show Board of Trade standard.

In appearance, clothing took on a military precision emanating from classic British tailored styles. The silhouette was practical and formal, demonstrating a lack of fabric and trimmings through reduced use of pleats, hems, pockets, buttons and quality finishes. A minimalism became apparent, with boxy jackets and shorter skirts emphasising a lean look for lean times. In order to maintain a modicum of frivolity, hats and headscarves were coupon free.

The decline in the availability of fashion was reflected in the pages of fashion magazines such as Vogue and Harpers Bazaar, which like lower end of the market women’s magazines, started to highlight dressmaking and included access to patterns to make up at home [9]. This approach was more a response to circumstances rather than a rallying with the zeitgeist, but nonetheless, bridged the distance between reality and fantasy in an unprecedented way. Women were promoted as a vital component of the war effort, and the lack of fashionable clothes in the high street was presented as a temporary, albeit necessary, sacrifice [10]. Fashion really was accessible to everyone – so long as you were handy with a needle.

Make do and Mend

Although needlework had been a large part of the school curriculum for girls, less women than might be expected were able needlewomen. The Government’s advertising campaign featuring ‘Mrs Sew-and-Sew’ spear-headed the Make-do-and-Mend drive, offering handy hints for customising and adapting old clothes and household linen into ‘new’ garments for the whole family. Men’s suits could be transformed into women’s-wear and children’s clothes, or blankets made into coats, for example. In a culture of make do and mend, sewing and clever needlework was an aptitude required by every household, and in order to address what was perceived as a lack of ability, under the guidance of the Government, the Women’s Institute and other groups such as the Townswomen’s Guild offered classes for women to update and improve their dressmaking skills. These classes were composed of women from all social backgrounds, and the sessions emphasised innovation and aptitude. Likewise, for members of the Women’s Institute, dexterity and creativity were marked and measured by displays of the best work, sometimes at a national level, rewarded with prizes [11]. Motivation here was not just an expression of clever and industrious approaches to difficult wartime circumstances, but acted as a clear indicator of a new valorisation of what was ostensibly ‘women’s work’.

Textile Design

The Utility Scheme was not just applied to clothing; it also encompassed textile design as well. The most notable designs include the woven geometric patterns of Enid Marx, including ‘Spot and Stripe’ and ‘Chevron’, which were finished in suitably muted tones of blue, green and natural. Marx’s designs were used extensively in interior design, but proved inspirational to dress print designers of the time, such as Eric Stapler, whose designs for Ascher were entitled ‘linen tweeds’[12].

The Modernist aesthetic, emphasised a trend towards geometric forms, although this was not the only stylistic trend of the period. Patterns were also reminiscent of traditional forms, with small floral motifs remaining popular. Colour-ways were limited due to restrictions on dyes and labour intensive print techniques. Propaganda was also a popular theme, particularly for the designers of the Calico Printers Association, whose designs were to be found on dress fabrics and head-scarf squares.

Head-scarves also provided an unlikely vehicle for new developments and collaborations in printed textile design. The war-time restrictions had been liberating for many designers from the constrictions of traditional practice. Companies such as Ascher and Edinburgh Weavers formed alliances with contemporary artists, who moved from canvas to rayon via screen-printing, in the construction of innovative art scarves, some of which were translated into dress and furnishing fabrics[13].

Post-war Restoration – Conclusion

Almost everyone was tired and wanting to look rather than do. They were sitting when possible, lots of them on the steps of St. Martin’s. Most people were wearing bright coloured clothes, lots of them red, white and blue in some form…. Most women had lipstick and a kind of put-on smile, but all but the very young looked very tired when they actually stopped smiling [14]

This testimony from a witness to the VE celebrations in London is indicative of the ravages of war on the population; it had taken its toll, and although there was an obvious air of triumphant victory, everyone seemed to know it would take some time to recover. The war had been long and it had changed the lives of the British public inexorably.

In relation to fashion and the fashion industry, the war it was believed, had increased quality and standards, particularly in relation to mass manufacture. This led, in 1947 to the proposal for a ‘Style Development Council’, which would in turn lead to better pay and working conditions within the industry [15]. Many of these improvements resulted from wider industrial concerns and many proposals emanated from the Board of Trade, which aimed to stimulate a war-torn national economy[16].

In Britain, clothing rationing was abolished in 1949, but rationing on other goods, including food remained in place until 1952. Whilst Christian Dior unveiled his ‘New Look’ in 1947, British women could only look on with wonder…. The future, it seemed, would include a lot of fabric.

[1] Julian Robinson, Fashion in the 1930s, Oresko Books, London, 1978, p. 19

[2] Letter from Hugh Dalton, 1942, quoted in Reynolds H, ‘Your Clothes are Materials of War: the British Government Promotion of Home Sewing During the Second World War’ , in Burman B (ed), The Culture of Sewing, Oxford:Berg, 1999, p. 327.

[3] Harpers Bazaar, September 1939, quoted in McDowell C, Forties Fashion, p.47

[4] See Lou Taylor, ‘Paris Couture 1940-1944’, in Ash J & Wilson E, Chic Thrills, London:Harper Collins, 1992

[5] Ibid, pp.128-129

[6] McDowell C, Forties Fashion, p.89

[7] It was estimated that it would take 213 coupons for a woman to have this new wardrobe - Gardinier J, From the Bomb to the Beatles, London: Collins & Brown, 1999, p.21

[8] Ehrman E, ‘Broken Traditions: 1930-55’, in Breward C, Erhman E, and Evans C, The London Look, London:Yale University Press, 2004, p.109

[9] Reynolds H, Your Clothes are Materials of War: the British Government Promotion of Home Sewing During the Second World War’, p.329

[10] McDowell C, Forties Fashion, p.51

[11] Andrews M, The Acceptable Face of Feminism, London:Lawrence & Wishart, 1997, p.110

[12] Ikoku I, British Textile Design from 1940 to the Present, London:V&A Publications, 1999, p.9

[13] Ikoku I, British Textile Design from 1940 to the Present, p11.

[14] Gardiner J, From the Bomb to the Beatles, p.16

[15] Wilson E, Adorned in Dreams, London:Virago, 1985, p.80

[16] Other Board of Trade initiatives included 2 major exhibitions, ‘Britain Can Make it’ (1946) and the ‘Festival of Britain’ (1951) which marked the centenary of the Great Exhibition. Both events could be seen as trade fairs, with many of the goods displayed at the export market.