Museum Exhibition Review: FIT’s “Head to Toe”

Written By: Amayah Meas

I recently visited the “Head to Toe” exhibition at the Museum at FIT. Curated by Melissa Marra Alvarez and Elizabeth Way, this exhibit aimed to shine light on the accessories that completed a look in Western women’s fashion from 1800 through the early twenty first century. Accessories were a powerful yet often overlooked component of fashion that communicated sociocultural aspects relating to class, gender, race, and power to name a few. As sartorial choices today most commonly refer to one’s clothes, this was a nice reminder of the impact of accessories and how influential they can be on one’s image and perception by society. By observing the changes in accessories throughout fashion history, one can gain a better understanding of the social climate during a certain period as well. “Head to Toe” was an aesthetic visual that displayed historical accessories and the meanings behind which the upper-class women wore in Western culture.

The first thing one sees when entering this exhibit is an organized display with a wide range of accessories including hats, bags, necklaces, glasses, and shoes, encapsulating the importance of them all in contribution to the theme. The thesis of the exhibit can also be found right at the beginning; a sign reading a brief summarization of the claim of the importance of accessories for representing sociocultural aspects throughout Western history, which also sums up their larger description on the Museum website.

One of the first things I noticed about the ambiance was the absence of music. While initially stepping in, there was a sudden sense of quietness and subtle isolation. This isolation was not as true as it first appeared, because I soon began to hear what seems like every little noise that occurred in that room, from a footstep across the gallery to someone’s keys jangling in their purse. The security guards occasionally added to the awkward mix of silence and sound by speaking very loudly at times with people outside the gallery, which created a distracting and less intimate experience while walking through. The layout however was very open, with a wide walkway providing plenty of room to stroll and observe a display in your own space. The exhibit was relatively crowded when I visited, so this was a positive aspect of the exhibition design. However, when the gallery is not crowded, the wide walkway can make the exhibit feel too empty, as if some items were missing or the curators didn’t have enough to display.

As one walks through, one can catch a glimpse of the Western social climate in chronological order, starting with the 19th century and progressing later as it proceeds. This was a great way to organize the exhibit, preventing confusion and creating an experience resembling storytelling. As one enters the 20th century, the accessories are separated by decades labeled by a particular subculture that was most prevalent at the time, which helped to visualize society through dress furthermore. Although the focus was on accessories, a few mannequins were placed behind the displays to show how they were worn together, which also contributed to one’s understanding of the theme while keeping them toned down in the background enough to still keep the emphasis on accessories. Towards the end, the gallery also utilized digital screens on the walls to show items, which was a strategic way to use them. By refraining from using screens in the earlier parts of the gallery and incorporating them at the end, it reflects the advancements of technology during the late 20th century and the zeitgeist as a whole. As one walks through, it feels as if they were also just being introduced to technology as well, making the experience feel more real and interactive.

Throughout the gallery, there were some displays highlighting particular accessories and their influence on fashion. These include (but not limited to) parasols meant to seduce and disrupt the public gaze, tiny handbags to communicate feminine individuality and mystery, and ivory gloves meant to represent the ideality of white skin and separation from the working class. These items were all described particularly well, though there were only a few like these. The rest of the displays consisted of large ensembles of accessories that would often be paired together in one look. There was a lack of explanation for most of these aside from a sentence or two, which severely undermined the importance of the individual pieces in the ensemble, and the messages they each conveyed on their own. I remember wanting to learn more about a particular eyeglass or set of remarkable earrings, but there was oftentimes no description for these, which seemed to take away from the impact of the exhibit thesis.

In addition to this, as I walked deeper into the exhibit, the main observation I consistently had was the lack of reference to other races and social classes. It was evident (due to personal inspection and common knowledge of Western history) that the accessories displayed were only those belonging to the white upper-class women of the time. It is stated in the thesis that accessories communicated social standings, yet the wording of the descriptions themselves failed to represent this idea to its fullest potential. The written explanations on the plaques alongside the displays appeared to generalize the term “women,” which at times implied that all women were wearing these accessories when most people know that this is not true. This implication is due to the lack of reinforcement or emphasis that only the upper class would have been able to afford them. It leaves it up to the spectator to understand this concept prior to attending, as there was little to no reference to what women of ethnicities other than of white European descent and what lower class working women were wearing. By not clearly stating or reiterating that the accessories were only worn by the upper class, constantly describing them as what “women” would wear somewhat glamorizes the concept of fashion itself, as just an aesthetic visual in addition to their function and distracting from the actual social indications that were intended to be communicated. It feels a little tone deaf – the whole theme of the exhibit is to explain how accessories represent social ideas, yet this is contradicted by the narrative choice to neglect the acknowledgement of the specific social statuses of the women who wore them in the first place.

The “Head to Toe” exhibit at the Museum at FIT displays numerous beautiful artifacts of fashion throughout the past few centuries. The theme is intended to communicate how accessories were an influential part of sartorial choices in representing sociocultural aspects of Western society. Certain visual features of the exhibition design were strategically and effectively displayed, which creates an experience as if one were travelling through the decades. However, the literary choices of the general narrative seemed to undermine and rather contradict the theme itself, as it failed to communicate the certain sociocultural aspects of the “women” claimed to have worn these accessories. I would still recommend one check it out at least once while it is still up, but to not expect to gain an insightful understanding of what the fashion of the masses was like throughout recent history. By generalizing the term “women,” it was quite underwhelming and did not reach its full potential of effectively conveying the thesis, because it was told from a rather narrow and misleading perspective.

References

Head to Toe, 17 November 2021 – 15 May 2022 Museum at FIT, New York

Way, E, Alvarez, M. (2022, February 2). Head to Toe. Home. Retrieved March 1, 2022, from https://www.fitnyc.edu/museum/exhibitions/head-to-toe.php