New York City Miscellany

I found just a few more photos of New York City that I wanted to share.  This is the side of the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, which is unfinished and is massive.  We stayed in this neighborhood, which is near Columbia University where my friend was attending a special class.

Also nearby was this pretty corner of Central Park.  Much of the park was closed due to the pathways being icy, but I enjoyed walking alongside it anyway.

I’m always amazed by the selection available in the Garment Center stores.  This is just a small section of the button room at M & J Trimmings.  It helps to go in with a list of things you have been looking for, otherwise the selection is overwhelming.  Side note:  the customer next to me was a costumer working on Finding Neverland, which was getting ready to open on Broadway.  Only in New York!

I know that looking up brands one as an out-of-towner, but I really couldn’t help myself.

I’ve been really, really wanting this tiny little Louis Vuitton trunk-inspired bag ever since it debuted on the runway last year.  Since it was featured in every magazine and blog I was a bit surprised to see it still available in such large numbers.  It might have something to do with the $5500 price tag.  That, for a bag that is so tiny it would hold a credit card, a lipstick and not much else.

Lovely Washington Square is always good for a bit of people-watching.

And finally, what I probably should have bought, but didn’t – Andy Warhol Converse Chuck Taylors.  I have a thing for art and fashion mash-ups, and these were right up my alley.  I know I can order them, but the moment has passed.

 

The Brown Building, Location of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory

New York is so full of large, overwhelming buildings that it is easy to pass right by one without realizing its historic significance.  Such is the case with the Brown Building, which is part of the New York University campus and is located near the eastern edge of Greenwich Village.  Had I been there 104 years ago today, I would have been at the site of a tragedy, that of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire.

It’s hard to imagine the scene where 146 died needlessly because there were few laws to ensure the safety of workers, and those that were in place were often ignored.  But all that changed as the fire raised awareness of the poor working conditions in the city’s many factories and sweatshops.  A public that had formerly been apathetic toward poor workers, and in many cases even antagonistic toward them, now clearly saw that changes had to be made.

It probably helped that the factory was located only a block from the affluent Washington Square neighborhood.  Many people were out and about on that Saturday afternoon and witnessed the tragedy firsthand.

I’m not going to retell the story of what happened that day, but I strongly recommend watching the American Experience  episode that not only tells the story, but also explains the significance of the aftermath.

I think it is interesting that the Brown Building is still in existence.  The fire gutted much of the factory which was located on the top three floors, but much of the structure was left unharmed.  At any rate, I can imagine that if this happened today the building would be razed.

New York City Window Shopping

I didn’t do a lot of shopping while in New York City, but I did do quite a bit of window shopping.  It’s a real pleasure just seeing what the talented window designers come up with.  Though some are pretty predictable, I always see something new.

I was in the city the week of Chinese New Year, and it was obvious just from the windows.  The decorated tree above was not in a window, but was in Macy’s as you entered the store.

Saks Fifth Avenue took a similar approach.  All the gold cats’ little arms wave at you as you pass by.

The best Chinese windows through are in Chinatown.  Compare the Chinese shop above to the “Chinese” window at Saks.  Saks may have drama, but this little shop had authenticity on its side.

I love Chinatown, and it was especially interesting with flower vendors and deliveries all over the streets.

But my favorite Chinese New Year windows were those at Gucci, whose dressers kept to a Chinese theme, but went in a completely different direction.  At first glance I didn’t see the Chinese theme, but a closer look at the disks revealed it.

The disks were samples or facsimiles of Asian textiles.  Stunning!

At the Derek Lam Boutique, they were looking forward to spring.  The shop attendant told me that an artist friend of Derek’s made the birds and trees.

Probably the most interesting windows were the Fifth Avenue windows of Bergdorf Goodman.  All the dresses were made of lace, and they came up with an interesting lace background.

Can you tell what makes up the backdrop?

It is vintage crocheted doilies and pieces sewn together!

 

Yves Saint Laurent + Halston: Fashioning the ’70s at the Museum at FIT

One of the highlights of any visit to New York is a visit to the Museum at FIT.  This past trip was no exception with the two shows they had going being not only beautiful, but thought-provoking.

Yves Saint Laurent + Halston: Fashioning the ’70s is the first exhibition that has ever focused just on these two giants of the 1970s.  I came of age in the 1970s, and I’ve been well-acquainted with the work of both designers for over 45 years.    But it was a revelation seeing their work side by side.  It seems that the clean modernist (Halston) and the romantic historian (YSL) had a lot more in common than is at first apparent.

Because the museum’s holding of both designers is extensive, there was a lot of material for the curators to work with.  They were able to look at the clothes with an eye for how each interpreted a certain theme.  This approach reveals not only how the two designers were different, it also points out some startling likenesses.

One of the games that people are playing with this exhibition is “Guess Who?”  Instead of immediately reading the notes on each garment, people were trying to guess which was the YSL and which the Halston.  It was a fun exercise, though in most cases there were little details that gave the answer away if one was fairly familiar with both designers’ work.  In the top photo, the ensemble on the left is by Halston, and the one on the right is Saint Laurent.

Can you guess which is the Halston and which is the YSL?  It probably would help to know that Halston worked mainly in solid colors, so the dress on the right is his.

Can you see the tiny hems on these layers of chiffon?  The workmanship that came out of Halston’s workrooms really astounded me.  Someone described Halston’s designs as simple clothes that were expensive.  Add to that description that they were made from top quality fabrics by highly skilled sewers.

One of the themes that the exhibition explored was how each designer was influenced by menswear.  Much has been written of Yves Saint Laurent’s appropriation of menswear, especially in the famous Le Smoking, or tuxedo suit for women.  He also did tailored suits in the style of 1930s or 40s men’s suits, seen above in blue pinstripes.

Halston’s use of menswear was much more subtle, but no less influential.  In his hands the man’s shirt was elongated and narrowed into a flattering shirtdress.

Another theme of the exhibition was how each designer used the “exotic” in their designs.  This was quite easy to see in the work of YSL, as he was known for using all kinds of cultural influences in his work.  Whole collections were designed around Russia or China.  In his hands the word “peasant” took on a whole new meaning.

Halston’s use of the exotic often was expressed in the form of caftans and pajama set with capes.  These great tie-dyed pajamas date from 1970, and the red caftan is from 1972.  The set on the left and the caftan are from the wardrobe of Lauren Bacall, who donated 700 items to FIT while she was still alive.

And finally, the exhibition looked at how both designers used historical references in their work.  Again, Saint Laurent was much more literal in his use of historic fashion.  His clothes often contain references to the work of Chanel, and he was especially fond of paying homage to the 1930s and early 40s.

Halston paid his respects to the past in his use of the bias cut in the manner of Vionnet.

And in his hands the cashmere twin set of the 1950s became luxurious (and warm) evening wear.

In taking in this exhibition, and I had to see it twice, I was struck at how my own sense of style was shaped by these two designers.  I was fifteen in 1970, and so these were the years that I was really into fashion.  Many of the shapes and designs in the exhibition have been in my own closet through the years, and I still love a fitted sweater over slacks and a good bomber jacket.

In the late 1970s I made a dress that was very similar to the Halston on the left (are those Warhol flowers?) to wear to work, and I would have worn the YSL on the right as well, given the chance.  I still have a shirtdress in my closet, and I’m seriously thinking of making one in gingham.  Hey, if it was good enough for Lauren Bacall, why not?

This exhibition is in the basement gallery, which I love.  The display space is large and is arranged in a non-linear way so that rambling and contemplation is encouraged.  The clothes are arranged so that most of them can be seen from more than one angle.  In the hallway there is a timeline of the careers of both designers.  It is very helpful in tying it all together, and as a special treat, it’s online.

And I want to say a special thanks to the museum for allowing photos.  This is the first time I’ve ever been to an exhibition there where photos were allowed.  I hope it leads to a loosening of the no-photo policy.

Yves Saint Laurent + Halston: Fashioning the 70s was organized and curated by Patricia Mears and Emma McClendon.  It is open until April 18, 2015.

Ad Campaign – I. Miller Shoes, 1930s

I. Miller gives you summer shoes in color taken from the new flower prints.

On to the American Summer scene of glamorous clothes walk  I. Miller shoes in vibrant flower colors.  Nature’s hues selected with the I. Miller genius for color…for costume relationship. 1937

Israel Miller was the son of a Polish (some sources say Prussian) shoemaker who immigrated to the USA in the 1890s.  He obtained work as a cobbler with John Azzimonti,  an Italian immigrant who was making shoes for the theater.  According to an issue of the Boot and Shoe Recorder, actress Sarah Bernhardt once ordered 244 pairs of boots at one time.  When Azzimonti closed the shoe making business in 1909, his customers put in orders for up to thirty pairs.

They need not have worried about obtaining quality shoes, as Azzimonti’s former employee, Israel Miller was already making shoes and would establish I. Miller by 1911.  His operation was moved to a building near the corner of Broadway and 46th Street, which is in the theater district.  He was soon leasing the two brownstone buildings on the corner, and business was so good that in 1926 he bought both buildings and began renovations that would unify them into a single unit.

The resulting building is seen above,  but in 1926 the statues in the niches were not yet in place.  The next year it was announced that statues of four show women would be chosen to represent the arts of drama, comedy, opera, and movies.  The public was even invited to vote for their favorites, the winners being Ethel Barrymore, Marilyn Miller, Rosa Ponselle, and Mary Pickford.  The statues were made by A. Stirling Calder, the father of Alexander Calder of mobile fame.

Unfortunately Israel Miller did not live to see the unveiling of the completed building.  He died in Paris of a heart attack several months before the October, 1929 unveiling.

 

The Broadway side of the building was quite different from the elegant 46th Street facade.  There were pre-existing billboard leases on that side, and so even in the early days of the store, much of the Broadway facade was given over to advertising.  Today, the main entrance is on Broadway, as that is where most of the traffic is, but when this was a store store to the stars, they entered through 46th Street.

I. Miller shoes closed sometime in the 1970s and the building was bought in 1978 by Riese Restaurants, who ran a TGIFriday restaurant there for several decades.  By the late 1990s Riese was saying the store front would be restored, and though they applied for and were granted landmark status, nothing ever came of it.  Eventually the TGIFriday restaurant was closed, and the building taken over by the Express clothing company.

When I visited New York City in August, 2013, I went by to see the building and was dismayed to see it scaffolded over. In New York that could mean anything from restoration to a complete redoing of the building.  To their great credit, as Express readied the interior of the building  for retail, the exterior was renovated to its former glory.

The four statues had to be removed and restored as they were in terrible condition.  Chunks of marble on the building had to be repaired, the bronze was polished, and the entire facade was given a good cleaning.  Today it is one of the best reminders of what shopping in New York City was like in the early and mid 20th century.

When I first read of the shoe store several years ago it struck me as odd that there would be such an elegant store in a part of the city that was not (at that time, anyway) a shopping district.  A little reading about the subject informed me that this was only one of I. Miller’s stores.  The main store was located on Fifth Avenue, and there were two other New York City branches.  Nationwide there were 228 branch stores and several factories.

The mode for black is charmingly met in.. Monograin silk by I. Miller

As all femininity fares forth in Black, Monograin becomes the overwhelming fashion favorite for wear with the new autumn hats, gloves and handbags of this subtly-woven silk.  1930

Cooper Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum

I’ve been really eager to visit the Smithsonian Design Museum, the Cooper Hewitt ever since I discovered their Object of the Day feature.  Unfortunately for me, the museum had been closed for renovations during my last two trips to New York, but because it has recently reopened I put it at the top of my visit list.  I’m so glad I did, as it was one of the highlights of my New York trip.

While the Smithsonian collections are more associated with Washington, DC than with New York, it is quite appropriate that this branch of the museum is located in New York City.  The core of the collection and the idea of a museum of design started with two New York sisters, Sarah and Eleanor Hewitt, granddaughters of railroad pioneer Peter Cooper.  Cooper had founded the Cooper Union school in New York, a free institution of learning in the fields of applied sciences, such as engineering and architecture.

In 1895 the Hewitt sisters decided to start a working collection of design for the school, and the next year the Cooper Union Museum for the Arts of Decoration was opened.  The women, being products of the Gilded Age, had traveled widely and had collected objects that they thought to be great examples of design.  The collection included everything from textiles to bird cages.

The sisters were aided in their collecting by rich friends, such as J.P. Morgan and members of the Astor family.  The members of their social class often remembered the collection in their wills, and so the collection continued to grow.  The sisters died in 1924 and 1930, but the museum continued on at Cooper Union until 1963, when the museum was closed.  Public outcry led to the collection being acquired by the Smithsonian in 1968.  In 1970 it was moved to its present location, the Andrew Carnegie mansion on Fifth Avenue in New York City.

It is worth a visit to Cooper Hewitt just to see Carnegie’s “understated” mansion.  While the house looks quite extravagant to our modern eyes, by Gilded Age standards it was understated.  At the top you can the main staircase in the house.

There were quite a few exhibitions going on at Cooper Hewitt, but to me the topper was Hewitt Sisters Collect, a sampling of the original collection assembled by Sarah and Eleanor.  The French parchment and ivory fan above is a good example of what the sisters acquired, possibly on one of their trips to France.

There were several 19th century bandboxes in the collection.  This one, a scene of Sandy Hook Lighthouse, was gifted to the collection in 1913.

This piece of silk on linen embroidery was given to the collection by J.P. Morgan in 1902.  The piece is from the 17th century, and is Portuguese.  Can you see the centaurs shooting arrows at dragons?

Here is another textile from the Morgan gift.  It’s a French brocade, circa 1700.  To see more photos of each of these objects and to learn more about them, click on the links I’ve provided.  They go to the Cooper-Hewitt website, where every object in the exhibition is pictured.  It’s a remarkable resource, and it’s not just for the Hewitt Sisters Collect exhibition.  Almost every item on display in the museum has a page on the website that tells more about it and shows more photos.

Making Design fills a large gallery and pulls items from the collection to illustrate the elements of design: line, form, texture, pattern, and color.  It’s my understanding that the items in the exhibition will change, so more of the extensive collection can be seen.

This hanging was made by artist and weaver Lenore Tawney in linen wool and silk in 1959 and 1960.

The textile, called Abacus, was designed by artist Paul Rand in 1946. He used an actual abacus and laid it on photographic paper to create the design.

This is a bound volume of the 1924 issues of French fashion periodical, Gazette du Bon Ton.  The illustration, or pochoir, is of three Jeanne Lanvin fancy ball costumes.  Illustration by Georges Lapape.

What looks like a 1960s pop art textile is actually a piece of a mid 19th century hand woven overshot coverlet made in Georgia.

From Japanese designer Issey Miyake we have a folding skirt and top.  See the origami-looking square on the floor?  It unfolds into a garment like the pieces on the mannequin.  To see how it works, you’ve got to see the videos (scroll down the linked page to see them).

Anyone care to guess what this item is?  You can find the answer in the on-line exhibition, but guessing might be more fun.  I’ll give the correct answer tomorrow. Hint:  it is not a textile.

Cooper Hewitt has lots of fun activities for visitors to become immersed in the design process.  In a room called the Process Lab, I took a stab at making a jacket more high tech by adding a pocket for a cell phone on the sleeve and built-in gloves with conductive finger-tips.  I wish I’d thought of a solar panel on the back that powered a heating system in the jacket.  That is what I really needed for the frigid New York weather!

Currently Viewing: Scatter My Ashes at Bergdorf’s

I do love a good fashion movie.  Unfortunately, Scatter My Ashes at Bergdorf’s is not about fashion.  It is about money – lots of money.

Bergdorf Goodman is a department store.  They just celebrated 112 years in business, so there is a lot of retail history connected to the store.  They are considered to be one of the top, if not the top store in New York.  It seems that one of the main objectives of this film was to convince the viewer that Bergdorf Goodman is not only Number One, but that there are no close competitors.   And a big reason this is so is because the clientele is so special.  That’s because their clientele has money.

There was a steady stream of celebrities (Nicole Richie? Joan Rivers? Susan Lucci? Why?) and fashion people who essentially said the same thing –  that if you do not have your clothes in or if you do not shop at Bergdorf Goodman, then your life is not worth  living.  Okay, I exaggerated that a bit, but after hearing nothing but heaps of praise for the store and how it had changed so many lives, it made a trip to Saks Fifth Avenue sound like slumming.

I guess my expectations were just too high.  I thought there would be a lot about the history of the store and about how they became the best shopping experience in New York.  Instead, the skimpy history was woven through the film by the use of a timeline with tiny print.  And key elements of the story were omitted.   Not a single word was uttered about Bergdorf Goodman’s famous made-to-order salon and workrooms.

There were also inaccuracies.  From the time the store was built in the 1920s until the 1980s, the Goodman family lived in an apartment on the top floor of the building.   In the film one interviewee stated that the Goodmans were listed as the building’s janitors because building codes did not allow just anyone to live above the store.  What the film did not say was that is because the workrooms were classified as a factory, and that was why occupation was not permitted.  People were living above their stores all over the city.

But as tedious as it was at times, I can’t say it was all bad.  Quite a bit of it showed how the holiday windows at the store are developed and executed.  They began with the idea of the 2011 Christmas windows, the Carnival of the Animals, and how the design and the props were made and acquired.  Then we were treated to the installation of the five windows that fit the theme.  I can tell you, there is a lot of time and energy put into those wonderful windows.

But back to my original point, that the film is about money.  They talked about how much things cost.  They talked about how much money the best sales persons make.  They talked about John and Yoko saving Christmas one year by buying $400,000 worth of furs.

I realize that it is pretty difficult to talk about a store without talking about commerce, but the idea put forward over and over that the store is exclusive and aspirational combined with  stress being put on the cost of the merchandise makes one think that perhaps the filmmakers agree with  F. Scott Fitzgerald when he wrote that the very rich really are different from you and me.

Considering that there were over 100 persons interviewed for the film, it seems a bit odd that so many of them were saying pretty much the same thing about the store.  It gave a scripted feel to the work.  Maybe this can be better understood when you know that one of the backers of the film was Andrew Goodman’s grandson, Andrew Malloy.  The Goodman family no longer owns the store, but they do own the building.

And the lack of history can partly be attributed to the lack of an archive.  I read in an interview with the filmmaker that the only archive of the 112 year old business was a group of photographs.   In showing the apartment the film had to use photos that were used in a  1965 magazine article.

Since it is not the holiday season, the Bergdorf Goodman windows were pretty simple.  I loved this modern art angle.  Can you tell that is an Alexander Calder type mobile?  The Thom Browne dress on the left is just as much a piece of modern art.  This was the dress I was so taken with in Saks, and I can tell you that no photo that I can take would ever do it justice.  The folds of the skirt are carefully placed and are attached to an underdress, giving a floating look to the folds.  And you cannot really see the beautiful insets on the bodice that supplied the shape, but this was one special frock.  But, it is not exclusive, as Saks had the same dress on display on the sales floor where shoppers could see it in the round and study the structure. Click the photos to get a better view.