Following the American Psychological Association’s Guidelines
Abstract
Nicolas de Largillierre is a relatively unknown artist to those who do not study paintings, particularly 1690’s French paintings of women in stylish garb for their time. While most would cast their eyes on his work, like that of “Portrait of a Woman, Perhaps Madame Claude Lambert de Thorigny (Marie Marguerite Bontemps)”, now on display at the Metropolitan Museum, they may not give it a second glance. However, students of fashion see this work of art, as well as others like it, and understand that there is more than just a painting here. Largillierre was seeing the future. The problem is that many do not understand exactly what Largillierre is conveying in his piece; perhaps the artist did not even see what he was doing. Despite this possibility, the fact remains that the painting has echoed fashion statements that still resonate into today’s fashion statements. If one takes the time to examine the delicate painting of the lacework, the lay of the dress, the expression on the woman’s face, her posture, and even the background behind the woman, we can see elements of today’s fashion in the 1690’s style painted here. Women today where dresses and tops that copy these same bodylines, bright colors, and lacework, among other aspects of the painting, leading the viewer to conclude that while fashion may always seem so forward-thinking, sometimes it proves itself to be a time machine.
Fashion is sometimes considered a fickle, vein statement made by individuals who are too self-absorbed to take in “real life.” There are citizens of this world who do not consider fashion important to the arts. Oftentimes art and fashion are separated by an invisible line, with the cultured, art appreciators on one side and insipid fashionistas on the other; nobody believes they correspond in any way. However, if one really examines various dignified pieces in the art community, specifically paintings and even sculptures, they may see that not only is fashion exemplified numerous times. Most prominently, one may notice it displayed in such regal forms as 1690’s French paintings, but they may also find that such paintings emulated the fashion style that we see today. Take, for example, Nicolas de Largillierre’s, “Portrait of a Woman, Perhaps Madame Claude Lambert de Thorigny (Marie Marguerite Bontemps),” on display at the Metropolitan Museum. Largillierre, a French painter, finished the portrait in 1969, and we see through a study of various aspects of the painting i.e. lacework, bodice, expression, posture, and even the background behind the woman, that since the late 17th century, life has been imitating art in various forms.
According to Elizabeth Davis, author of, “Seventeenth Century French Fashion Prints Sources for Dress History,” lacework in dresses from this era was timely and exquisite. The patterns were often ornate and delicate. Trims and overlays were meant to show the femininity of the wearer while adding a gentle softness to what were often stiflingly harsh dresses. Dress patterns, fabric, and overall bulkiness were the desired style of the age, but did little to add femininity to one’s wardrobe, and lace helped add a dash of fashion sense while softening a look. All of these statements are true in Largillierre’s portrait, as we see the woman’s sleeves are elegant and regal, but robust in size, almost as if they may hinder movement. The bodice and skirt themselves are also firm in nature, despite the bodice’s attempt to outline the woman’s silhouette. The fabric of the dress, the obviously unknown because it is a painting, does not look soft or welcoming.
The softness of the dress is hinted in places by the graceful and stylish lacework that peeks out from the end of the sleeves, draping down neatly toward the wrist. Some lacework is also visible at the woman’s neckline. The wrap of the bodice on the right side versus the left gives a contrasting effect of soft versus hard, and the lace, once again acts as a constant source of softness despite the fact that the golden half of the woman’s bodice looks relatively welcoming. Modern dressmakers often use lacework in this way, to either soften boxy trends or add a sense of femininity to bulkier styles, as stated in Angela McRobbie’s, “In the Culture Society: Art, Fashion, and Popular Music.” Boxier cuts sometimes come into style, as well as boxier trends, or “boy-cuts” and using lace is an easy way to add a girlish flare to the style, exemplifying how this work of art emulates the fashion that is sometimes looked down upon by the cultured crowd.
The bodice shown in the painting is also indicative of more than just a classical painting. Largillierre worked hard to maintain the correct proportions for the woman, displaying how the bodice might actually look if she were standing in the room with us. The coinciding golden blouse half presents juxtaposition against the almost Roman inspired white and coral wrap to its left, though both work to show the woman’s figure. David Kunzie’s, “Fashion and Fetishism: Corsets, Tight Lacing, and Other Forms of Body Sculpture,” suggested that bodice wrapping such as that shown in the portrait was just another form of sculpting without the clay; Kunzie also suggested that it was more effective because it was able to display the human form without sculpting clay.
Kunzie proposed that much like the art of sculpting, one could use fashion to show off the art of the human body. In itself, Kunzie saw the human body as a work of art, but also as something that an artist could use as a display. Consequently, the human body could act as a canvas for the art that would quickly be considered fashion, making the two interchangeable in many cases. Kunzie saw fashion and human bodies in a symbiotic relationship, often suggesting that the more ornate, intricate, or interesting the wrap around a body was, the more artistic it would be. Largillierre’s painting is, of course, in itself a work of art, but by Kunzie’s standards, it is a portrait of the symbiotic relationship between the human body and fashion. Based on the juxtaposing bodice wraps, and the intricate style in which the bodice winds around the woman in the painting, Kunzie would likely suggest that the shape of the woman’s body was its own form of art, but also a canvas for the ornate wrapping of the bodice. The specifications for this symbiotic relationship should be no different by modern day definition; bodies are still canvases and clothes are still art, even if they have changed.
There is also much to be said for the illusory offered by the painting, but also by the dress in the painting. The bodice, as well as the woman’s posture, creates a V-line, wherein the woman’s shoulders are broad and the dress leads to a narrow waist. The ornate beading at the hips suggests that the waist is still narrow while the fullness of the dress skirt suggests that the woman’s hips are full. This style, of course, was popular in its time, but is also echoed in its own way today, according to Chia-hua Yen’s article in Journal of Art History. Fashion is often used like this to disguise the body, as a chameleon would disguise itself from a predator. Men and women pick items tailored to how they wish they looked, broadening and slimming certain body parts based on the pattern and cut of the clothes. The painting shows this, as well. The bodice and the beading at the waist make it look as though the woman’s body is broad at the shoulders, tapering down to a small waist, while the skirt of the dress gives the illusion that her lower half again becomes full. This symbolization of the “hourglass” figure was common then, and has been common throughout history. If the woman were a real person, it would be unlikely that her waist was that small, and more unlikely that her hips filled the fullness of the dress’s skirt; it is all illusory, left to underskirts and corsets. However, the fashion in the photo insists this is the style for the time. To a lesser extent, this is was the style until recent times when emaciated, sallow faced, sunken eyed, malnourished women began gracing runways in frocks no size greater than 2. Large breasts and hips are no longer welcome on many fashion runways, though there is still plenty of room for tiny waists, as stated by Patrick Aspers, author of, “Orderly Fashion: A Sociology of Markets.” This could be, perhaps the one way in which life has no imitated art, or the other way around, since Largillierre’s painting.
Though it may not seem important the sweeping of the dress’s coral and white wrappings up towards the woman’s left shoulder is worthy of note. It is another illusory method used in painting, but it is also used in the fashion industry. As far as the painting is concerned, we can be sure Largillierre’s intentions were to use the sweeping wrap and the bright contrast of the coral and white of the fabric to draw the viewer’s attention up, toward the center of the portrait. Victoria Charles, author of, “French Painting,” tells us that this is a popular method not only in French paintings, but in most professionally done paintings; specifically Largillierre used methods to practice drawing the viewer’s attention to certain points. Aspects of this can be seen in physical dressmaking as well. Dressmakers, as well as many other types of fashion designers will use patterns, wraps, or other styles to make the wearer look slimmer, broader, or draw attention away from unflattering areas. Different cuts of fabric for dresses, shirts, pants, and skirts are common in order to conceal and accentuate traits the customer may want to hide to or show off. Similarly, the painter may want to draw attention the point of the portrait. Once again, before he knew what was to come in the fashion industry, Largillierre was using methods in his art that would be imitated in the fashion world centuries after he was gone.
In sum, paintings are not always just mere paintings. Similarly, fashion pieces that may be considered vein or pointless should not be considered as such. Largillierre’s “Portrait of a Woman, Perhaps Madame Claude Lambert de Thorigny (Marie Marguerite Bontemps),” hanging in the Metropolitan Museum was finished in 1696, long before the iconic fashions of today were established. Yet still the painting portrays many typical fashion formations, such as delicate lacework, a tightly wound bodice, the illusory of bodice and skirt combined, and how to redirect an eye-line via the cut, color, or wrap of a fabric. Though fashion may be considered vapid and shallow, it is not; it is just as much an art form as Largillierre’s painting, as we see a good example of art imitating life and life imitating art.
References
Aspers, Patrick. Orderly Fashion: A Sociology of Markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.
Charles, Viictoria. French Painting. Chicago: Parkstone International, 2014.
Davis, Elizabeth. "Seventeenth-Century French Fashion Prints as Sources for Dress History ." Habit de Qualite, 2014: 117-143.
de Largillierre, Nicolas. Portrait of a Woman, Perhaps Madame Claude Lambert de Thorigny (Marie Marguerite Bontemps). Metropolitan Museum, New York City.
Kawamura, Yuniya. Doing Research in Fashion and Dress: An Introduction to Qualitative Methods. Sacramento: Berg, 2011.
Kunzie, David. Fashion and Fetishism: Corsets, Tight Lacing and Other Forms of Body-Sculpture. Boston: The History Press, 2013.
McRobbie, Angela. In the Culture Society: Art, Fashion and Popular Music. London: Routledge, 2013.
Yeh, Chia-hua. "From Classical to Chic: Reconsidering the Prints from Varie acconciature di teste usate da nobilissime dame in diverse città d'Italia by Giovanni Guerra, c. 1589." Journal of Art History, 2013: 157-168.
