Defining Masculinities (Or Not): The Art of Menswear @ V&A, London

Disappointingly this exhibition doesn’t really do what it says on the tin. Whilst it has an impressive comparative display of clothes through time (mostly Western focused) it displays without really analysing and the information alongside takes a polemical tone. (Which is annoying as there’s a lot more to say). It’s also very much Carry On Defining Masculinities — ‘ooh missus, look at that Elizabethan Italian holding his sword hilt suggestively; phwoar, look at how the swaggering naval commanders pose draws your attention to his groin’. Much is made of gender fluidity, neutralness and the Queer Gaze whilst seeming to ignore, well, a lot of other men and to end by defining masculinity in drag forms, again seeming to miss out a lot of other men. An unusual ending for an exhibition which seeks to be inclusive.

There are big gaping holes in this exhibition and I’m not talking about the jock strap! Whilst I appreciate that the focus is on art and design, missing is any real mention of Working Class men and their fashion (and how fashion moved between the classes, particularly with the used clothes and rag trades, and how different classes followed fashion trends); and really much at all about the move from formal suits to lounge wear or the wider sporting looks from the 1900s onwards. (Future Edward VIII is mentioned briefly). Hats are limited to bowlers and top hats — no caps!!!! or snap backs!!! (Or who wore them beyond gender foci). Indeed no sports wear at all, which is shocking, apart from riding coats into formal coats or the hunting dog handkerchief.

Grooming is hinted at, but could have been much deeper. How much presentation was expectedly generally over time? (and for whom, by whom?) There are good links between body sculpting and famous ancient statues (I wish they had a Hercules cast)- but there was little critique of the body issues with men of all ages today. So this is ok then — the desire for buffness and youthfulness? Much more could have been of male grooming overall — such as Dickens peacocking in waistcoats even as suits became darker, and hair styles over time. Shamefully there was nothing from the 1980s (no yuppie braces! or shell suits) and no James Bond suit (pink or otherwise) which would have added to a wider discussion of tailoring as opposed to ready to wear. Where was the ready to wear?!! Where also were the diverse male fashions such as the sharp suits worn in Harlem or by the Windrush generation? Nor was there any Pandemic/working from home on a Zoom fashion — this that may have been covered by the pants opening section! The colour section was brilliant (comparing ancient and modern men’s suits), but more was needed — a lot of the pink section was a cheat (i.e. a dramatic ‘pink’ cloak was originally red and faded in one very military painting) and really more ‘why’ should have been in place throughout Why were certain colours and textures/textiles in vogue at certain times? Apart from sumptuary laws and elite access, why? More could have been said about the wearing of black before the 19th century. Also why did the male silhouette change? Which parts of the male silhouette were being emphasised at different times, in different cultures, and why?

This exhibition is a bit like being beaten over the head repeatedly — whilst admirably keen to point out that the profits of misery enabled conspicuous consumption, it ignores the colonial question more widely when it comes to a Western tailor chopping up beautiful Asian textiles to turn into Western style clothing, (or how many textiles were acquired, by whom, from whom and why?) Similarly it happily delights in the Queer Gaze, but ignores the exploitation of the male body (under any gaze) to achieve buffness and easy access into carrot jeans (leading to over excising, eating disorders, terrible mental health struggles). Equally gender neutralness is celebrated which isn’t so much defining masculinity as ignoring it entirely. Women appropriating traditional male clothing is equally lauded, but what about the ordinary bloke who actually likes their gender without being pompous or creepy about it? Where are they? Which is why the focus on global elites and designers alone in defining masculinity in fashion shocks me. Equally shocking was the lack of Working Class fashion and little in the way of counter culture beyond Pierre Cardin, a Neo-Edwardian and some photos from the 1960s. Where were the hippies, the duffle coat, the ready to wear, the rain coat beloved by detectives and commuters — surely an egalitarian item if ever there was one? No denim or jeans?!!! The anorak — from CND protestors to hill walkers to the Gallagher brothers?!! (Although I did like Marcus Rashford’s take on Burberry).

Most of all the lack of analysis was poor — nothing was said of why lesbians were being called ‘masculine’ (beyond that they were being called this) nor of why merchants and traders wanted to be painted as huntin’ shootin’ fishin’ land owning squires.

The lace was fun (and ribbons and rosettes), as was the armour and cape posing — nothing about cod pieces though, which surprises me given the sexually observant tone of the exhibition.

Equally I wonder are men being impacted by the slow fashion movement? Apart from Jimi Hendrix recycling of uniforms, nothing was mentioned ..

Overall, more could have been said about male grooming, and wider economic concerns — do times of feast or famine and war impact men’s fashion? Given the obsession with the sheer glamour of military and naval uniforms (not just groins!) in the 18th-19th centuries, a wider look at growing standardisation of military clothes in the 20th, which lead to style and technological developments in civilian society (and reusing ideas/techniques/materials) could have been carried out. Again the body beautiful was used by Fascists and Eugenicists, so what about other bodies and their fashion? Something too could have been made of World War One and Two plastic surgery, the tin masks painted to cover a face and the glass eyes and carved limbs of the 18th and 19th centuries. Where was George IV’s military obsession?

This is a pretty collection of stuff, but the info cards and the sections themselves miss the mark. I enjoyed seeing Nelson’s uniform (complete with delicately pinned up sleeve) and the book on how to tie a cravat, with a cheat’s version if this was too time consuming; also the Asian textile including embroidery with real peacock feathers was stunning. So too were some of the Indian ensembles on display in terms of cut and gathering/folding. And Billy Porter’s intricate, spectacular cape and sparkly jumpsuit — masculinity should have more fun in fashion!

However, the ending of this exhibition — various frilly ballgowns left me thinking — so what? By ending in this way — who or what has been defined? Are we essentially left thinking that fashion, clothing is genderless? Brad Pitt’s skirt and David Beckham’s sarong should have been there, but what about traditional Arabic and African nation fashions (such as the enforcing of beards in some societies and others shaving them off as a rebellion? More widely, what happened in different cultures where men fail to adopt the expected facial look? How about cultural/political objects such as the Fez, which defined a certain type of masculinity and political/cultural stance?) Something too was needed on working men’s boots and shoes as well as the trainer that becomes a costly status symbol, not something you exercise in! Urban and rural men — where was their fashion? I would have liked to know more about tailors creating masculine looks in different era and times (and where was the black barbershop?) Another missed opportunity was fashion in war zones such as the male Ukrainian civilians who are fund raising for their own boots and body armour or the Russians wearing or not wearing a Z. Not to mention Kanye and Kendrick…or Quentin Crisp. The selection was narrow and I’ve been left wondering what it was trying to define…