“One is never over or under dressed with a little black dress.” ~ Karl Lagerfeld
Audrey Hepburn wearing little black dress designed by Givenchy in the 1954 film Sabrina.
The Little Black Dress
The classic, ubiquitous “little black dress,” or “LBD” as it has come to be known in the fashion world, has become an iconic, timeless wardrobe staple for the modern woman. “With a little black dress in her wardrobe, a woman need never worry about having appropriate attire for any occasion” (Davis, 2006). In 1926, Coco Chanel designed the little black dress by which all others came to be defined. Little black dresses are usually short and simply cut, as in Chanel’s original design, but may be anything from a day dress to a cocktail or evening dress. The designer, Christian Dior stated “you can wear black at any hour of day or night, at any age and for any occasion. A little black dress is the most essential thing in any woman’s wardrobe” (Ludot, 2001). Chanel’s original little black dress was her “most enduring innovation of the decade” (Davis, 2006). “Vogue did its first feature on Chanel’s ‘little black dress’” (Madsen, 1990). Vogue described the design as “the frock that all the world will wear…made of black crepe de chine. The bodice blouses slightly at front and sides and has a tight bolero at the back. Especially chic is the arrangement of tiny tucks which cross in front” (Charles-Roux, 1975). The production and consumption of the little black dress relates to ideas of standardization, equality, and freedom, especially the sexual freedom of women, in Modern Culture.
“you can wear black at any hour of day or night, at any age and for any occasion. A little black dress is the most essential thing in any woman’s wardrobe” ~ Christian Dior
Standardization
Little black dress designed by Chanel. American Vogue, 1 October 1926. (Courtesy American Vogue. Copyright 1926 (renewed 1954) by The Condé Nast Publications, Inc.).
When Chanel designed and produced her first little black dress in 1926, it was truly revolutionary in the world of fashion. “In 1926 the American edition of Vogue predicted that Chanel’s little black dress would become a sort of universally adopted uniform…and compared the little black dress to Ford’s automobile” (Cockburn, 2005). By comparing Chanel’s little black dress to Ford’s automobile, “Vogue likened Chanel’s little black dress to the latest developments in the industrial world, describing it as a ‘Ford signed Chanel’” (Davis, 2006). Chanel had launched an industrial type of design and dressmaking, far-removed from the traditional methods of haute couture production which sought to design custom, made-to-order, unique, singular garments. Chanel’s little black dress “introduced the radical concept that clothing should be uniform rather than idiosyncratically unique – an idea that was antithetical to haute couture’s longstanding investment in the notion of one-of-a kind dressmaking” (Davis, 2006). The little black dress was simple, plain, and could easily be copied. The little black dress strongly encouraged the fashion industry to undergo a revolution in the way clothing was designed and produced. Unlike the handmade, detail-oriented techniques of haute couture, ready-to-wear clothing could now be industrially manufactured using the division of labor or factory method and power-driven machinery. Clothing would become mass-produced and copies of the little black dress would be available to a large consumer market. “By predicting that the little black dress would become a world-wide uniform for women, and by equating it with the mass-produced Ford car, Vogue recognized the beginning of the era of standardization in fashion” (Mackrell, 1992). Vogue realized that Chanel’s little black dress, like Ford’s automobile, would appeal to consumers because of its reproducibility and uniformity. Also, the little black dress would become a new, exciting item, like the automobile, which everyone would desire and purchase, especially if everyone else had one. The simplicity of Chanel’s design for the little black dress allowed for copies of the design to be mass-produced in an “assembly-line” fashion, making it accessible and affordable to a wide range of consumers. Chanel viewed this mass- production of her design in a positive light and “saw the widespread copying of her couture originals as confirmation that they had gone beyond mere fashion to embody style itself. By embracing the common copy as confirmation of her originality, Chanel managed to invent herself as the quintessence of modern style” (Koda & Bolton, 2005). Modern women of all social rankings were able to purchase a little black dress in their respective price ranges, and the little black dress became a style of the modern era, a type of uniform for the modern woman.
Modern women of all social rankings were able to purchase a little black dress in their respective price ranges, and the little black dress became a style of the modern era, a type of uniform for the modern woman.
Equality
Coco Chanel in trademark ropes of pearls in a 1935 Man Ray portrait.
The uniformity and simplicity of Chanel’s little black dress also encouraged a sense of equality among the different classes of women who purchased one. For many, Chanel’s little black dress achieved a “blurring of class differences and the expression of democracy. Chanel’s expressed view was to make her fashions filter to wide-ranging groups of women and she was the first fashion designer to do so. While the rich bought her haute couture little black dresses, the not so rich could purchase mass-produced rayon copies” (Mackrell, 1992). Chanel was an astute business woman and saw the benefits of reproducing her little black dress for every woman and crossing social boundaries in the process. Chanel was able to size up her consumer market and saw that by making reproducible garments, she might reach a larger audience than just her haute couture customers. She aimed to include middle-class women. Chanel’s little black dress “engaged with the vernacular world – or in Chanel’s words, ‘the streets.’ The idea that elements of everyday culture could be the foundation for sophisticated style informed Chanel’s decision to create upscale interpretations of workaday garments” (Davis, 2006). This “understatement of her daywear…accelerated the growth of ready-to-wear styles. Chanel herself believed that good haute couture should be copied…and made her designs widely available to women” (Mackrell, 1992) by using less-expensive fabrics. Copying the little black dress was the beginning of the ready-to-wear fashion industry and marked a new mass-production method in clothing. Chanel understood that women of all classes wanted to be considered fashionable and “it was Chanel who not only captured the ready-to-wear industry but catered to it assiduously” (Mackrell, 1992). With the development of ready-to-wear fashion, High Street boutiques mass-produced their own little black dresses, much like Henry Ford mass- produced the automobile, making little black dresses less expensive and available for middle-class women. Chanel “was able to capture an image of modernity and even democracy, to set a look appropriate for working women, while, at the same time, welcomed by the traditional clients of haute couture” (In Black and White, 1992). Chanel’s little black dress held appeal for both the upper classes and the lower classes. During this period in history, with wars and revolution, when the aristocracy was threatened with collapse, upper-class women did not mind blending in a little with the rest of society. Less wealthy, working women aspired to owning the garments of rich women. And so, by equating the garb of society, social hierarchy was torn down by Chanel’s little black dress. Even by using the colour black, Chanel’s little black dress was radical. It challenged social status, leading to an “ever-shifting ambivalence regarding matters of wealth, worldly attainment and social position” (Davis, 1989). In the 1920s, the colour black was “closely associated with domestic service” (Davis, 1989), and reserved for maids or women in the workforce. “The emergence of the shop girl’s simple black dress was a new and somewhat daring mode for leisured women” (as cited in Davis, 1989). It challenged the established social classes of Chanel’s time, by “insinuating social superiority through the device of bedecking oneself in the raiment of penury” (Davis, 1989). With her little black dress, Chanel created a “poor look,” described at the time as “la pauvreté de luxe” (Mackrell, 1992) or “the poverty of luxury” It became fashionable and stylish to appear to be poor. This was especially chic and appealing for women only appeared poor, but in reality, were wealthy. “La pauvreté de luxe” insinuated that the wearer of the little black dress was so well-off, they need not worry about looking wealthy – they could afford to look “poor.” “Chanel’s late 1920s ‘little black dress’ and her injunction to women to “dress as plainly as their maids” attests to fashion’s facility for appropriating and inverting status symbols” (Davis, 1989).
“La pauvreté de luxe” insinuated that the wearer of the little black dress was so well-off, they need not worry about looking wealthy – they could afford to look “poor.”
Freedom
“Through her egalitarian convictions about her clothes Chanel was not only advancing the ready-to-wear market and launching new ventures such as boutiques, she was also enhancing women’s quality of life, giving them a belief in their own dignity and independence” (Mackrell, 1992). Women in the 1920s were experiencing a new freedom and “Chanel felt that she herself personified this new spirit of independence and evolved a style of dress for the modern, liberated woman” (Mackrell, 1992). As exemplified by Chanel’s little black dress, women’s clothing was worn looser, dresses were shorter, and more skin was exposed overall. Corsets were becoming unpopular and women’s bodies were less restricted by their clothing. Other changes outside of the world of fashion were also taking place during the 1920s, furthering the liberation and emancipation of women: it had become acceptable for women to wear men’s trousers, vote, and drive automobiles, and many women had entered the workforce. The traditional “man’s world” was being challenged by changes in the social structure, due in part to World War I and World War II.
As exemplified by Chanel’s little black dress, women’s clothing was worn looser, dresses were shorter, and more skin was exposed overall.
An ambiguity about gender was brought about by the clothing styles of the 1920s, challenging the roles and rights of men and women even further. The little black dress “institutionalized the garçonne look which personified the emancipated, uninhibited modern woman” (Mackrell, 1992). The the garçonne look, flapper look, and “Chanel” look are one in the same, “a youthful, slender, boyish figure, short hair, comfortable clothes and short hemlines” (Mackrell, 1992), a symbol of feminism. Flappers of the 1920s demonstrated their individual independence and freedom by cutting their hair short, wearing makeup, which was previously only worn by prostitutes, drinking hard liquor, and smoking cigarettes. They also participated in what was considered “indecent” or promiscuous behaviour, such as listening to jazz music and having a casual attitude towards sex. The flapper look was toned down and became a look to aspire to. The little black dress could be seen as modest and demure, but at the same time sexy and dangerous. The little black dress was (and remains) a safe wardrobe choice for any occasion as it would not offend society by being too provocative. It offered the wearer a feeling of sexual freedom and was thought of as being glamorously seductive and enticing. The little black dress is elegant and lends itself and its colour well to formal occasions. Before 1926, the colour black was associated with times of death and mourning. “Women had worn black only as a sign of bereavement; Chanel made it a fashionable colour women might wear anytime” (Madsen, 1990). The colour black was also associated with powerful figures in authority, such as the clergy or members of the justice system, or was considered to be evil or overtly sexual and “bad”. Hollywood “bad guys,” including sinister femme fatales of the black- and-white film era, often wore dark colours to draw the audience’s attention to their evil character. But this “badness” was portrayed by the film industry as alluring, mysterious, and seductive. By creating the little black dress, Chanel allowed every woman to look and feel sexy, and have a bit of the mystique about them. Even women who wanted to achieve a greater sense of personal freedom could purchase and wear a little black dress without scandalizing society.
The little black dress could be seen as modest and demure, but at the same time sexy and dangerous.
Audrey Hepburn wearing little black dress designed by Givenchy in 1961 film Breakfast at Tiffany’s.
Societal changes and fashion continued to influence each other and the little black dress continued far beyond the 1920s to influence the consumer market. The little black dress became longer in the 1940s, but remained tied to expressing sexual freedom. Christian Dior’s little black dresses of the 1950s personified the dangerous, sexy woman. “In the 1950s…the youth market began to be taken seriously. American styles…were important; so was the Paris Left Bank, a look that was popularized in several Hollywood films which starred Audrey Hepburn” (Wilson, 1990) who wore little black dresses designed by Hubert de Givenchy. The black sheath dresses designed by Givenchy and worn by Audrey Hepburn in many of her films, continued to be popular with consumers into the 1960s. In the 1960s, the “mod” generation favored black minidresses, and designers, such as Mary Quant, catered to this young generation. “Toward the end of the 1960s, the little black dress made a comeback…and became the emblem of the young jet set” (Ludot, 2001). In the 1980s, the era of the “power suit,” designers incorporated broader, padded shoulders into the little black dress, continuing to represent the liberation of women. The little black dress continues to be reinvented today.
Part of Modern Culture
Edith Piaf at the Olympia in 1961, wearing a dress by Jacques Heim.
The little black dress “has become one of the very few absolute fashion essentials of our time, one that every woman must have in her wardrobe…the mass market has taken hold of it…it is within reach of everyone’s purse…and it has made history and become a symbol of modernity” (Ludot, 2001,). There have been many “famous” little black dresses worn by very important and influential women. Wallis Warfield Simpson, the Duchess of Windsor, owned several little black dresses and was known to say “when a little black dress is right, there is nothing else to wear in its place.” French singer, Edith Piaf, also known as the “little black sparrow,” always wore a little black dress for her performances. Many actresses, including Marlene Dietrich, Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, and Catherine Deneuve, have appeared in films wearing little black dresses created by well-known fashion designers. The widowed Jacqueline Kennedy wore a little black dress designed by Givenchy at President John F. Kennedy’s funeral. Princess Diana wore a little black dress to an event the same night Prince Charles publicly confessed to adultery on the television. Model and actress, Elizabeth Hurley wore an updated, safety-pinned version of the little black dress, designed by Versace, to a film premiere. The little black dress was so influential, it became part of pop culture: Betty Boop, the sexy animated cartoon character, originally wore a very little black dress while depicting a flapper girl.
The little black dress continues today to be recreated, and remains a wardrobe staple for the modern woman.
Gap: Classics Redefined #01. The Little Black Sweater Dress as worn by: Lucy Liu, Actor. People Style Watch (2007, September).
Chanel’s original little black dress created a standardization of fashion and produced a uniform for modern women. The modern fashion industry was created in part by the little black dress. The uniformity and simplicity of Chanel’s little black dresses allowed for more affordable copies to be made by the ready-to-wear industry, permitting women of all social classes to be fashionable. Throughout the history of modernity, the little black dress has been a vehicle for embodying the liberated woman. By purchasing and wearing a little black dress, a woman may express her sexuality without being perceived by wider society as vulgar or tasteless. The social changes witnessed during the 1920s were reflected by the fashion industry, especially by the little black dress. The little black dress continues today to be recreated, and remains a wardrobe staple for the modern woman.
References:
Charles-Roux, E. (1975). Chanel: Her life, her world – and the woman behind the legend she herself created. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Cockburn, J. (2005). Clothing the Soviet Mechanical-Flaneuse. The Space Between. 1(1), 93-115. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from http://ro.uow.edu.au/creartspapers/2/ Davis, F. (1989). Of Maids’ Uniforms and Blue Jeans: The Drama of Status Ambivalences in Clothing and Fashion. Qualitative Sociology. 129(4), 337-355. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/ehost/detail?vid=6&hid=116&sid=b38a58f5-bcb5-4611-9b9d-3622d7699fa3%40sessionmgr102 Davis, M. (2006). Chanel, Stravinsky, and musical chic. Fashion Theory. 10(4), 431-461. Retrieved from http://www-mi1.csa.com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/ids70/view_record. php?id=3&recnum=0&SID=e9c51f85504918ab50678c4818043a4f&mark_id=search%3A3%3A15%2C0%2C2 In Black and White. (1992). In Black and White: Dress from the 1920s to Today. Columbus: Wexner Center for the Arts. Koda, H & Bolton, A. (2005). Chanel. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Ludot, D. (2001). The Little Black Dress. New York: Assouline Publishing. Mackrell, A. (1992). Coco Chanel. New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers. Madsen, A. (1990). Chanel: A Woman of Her Own. New York: Henry Holt & Company Wilson, E. (1990). Deviant Dress. Feminist Review. 35, 67-74. doi:10.2307/1395401 This essay was the winner of the 2009 Dr. Elizabeth Feniak Award for Excellence in Writing winner for ‘The Little Black Dress,’ and was first published in the Journal of the Home Economics Institute of Australia, Vol. 17, No. 2, 2010.
SHARE ON