Though law and fashion may not initially seem like overlapping domains, given the central nature of each of these fields it is no surprise that they do have an impact on one another. Over the years, fashion has been important to decisions about how jurists visually demonstrate their expertise and law has served to circumscribe how fashion is created, distributed, and consumed.
The latest exhibit from the Harvard Law School Library, “What Not to Wear: Fashion and the Law,” looks at some of these intersections of fashion and the law, from historic laws setting strict class distinctions for fashion, to modern intellectual property law’s approach to protecting those who design and create fashion.
Curated by Mindy Kent, Meg Kribble, and Carli Spina, “What Not to Wear” is on view in the HLS Library’s Caspersen Room daily from 9 am–5 pm through August 12, 2016.
You can also see an online addenda to the exhibit at http://exhibits.law.harvard.edu/current-exhibit (selected entries below).
You can find information about HLS Library online at https://hls.harvard.edu/library, or visit their blog, Et Seq. to learn more.
Sumptuous Origins
1. a. Of buildings, apparel, repasts, and the like: Made or produced at great cost; costly and (hence) magnificent in workmanship, construction, decoration, etc.
sumptuary, adj. (and n.)
a. Pertaining to or regulating expenditure.sumptuary law, a law regulating expenditure, esp. with a view to restraining excess in food, dress, equipage, etc.
—Oxford English Dictionary, 3d edition” float=”center” background_color=”robin_blue”]
Over the millennia, sumptuary laws–those governing the consumption and display of luxury goods–have been used to reinforce social hierarchy, protect public morals, control trade, and identify those viewed as “other”—namely non-Christians and prostitutes. Sumptuary laws over the centuries, ranging from the humorous to the sinister are the focus of this section of the exhibit.
Source: ‘The National Portrait Gallery History of the Kings and Queens of England’ by David WilliamsonIn England under Edward IV came the first iterations of the sumptuary laws that we are perhaps most familiar with today: those restricting the wearing of purple silk, sable fur, and cloth of gold to those of the rank of knight or lord and above. A closer view of cloth of gold trimmed with ermine and jewels is available in this sumptuous coronation portrait of Elizabeth I, whose reign began in 1558. Elizabeth also enacted sumptuary laws, some reinforcing the laws passed by her predecessors; another specifying the allowable length of swords and daggers; and one from 1562 returning to the matter of trade and restricting the sale of foreign apparel to subjects worth at least £3000 per year.
Depending on the net worth of this woman’s father or husband, she may have been breaking the law if she wore this hood and lace trimmed garments in the Massachusetts colony. The General Court of Massachusetts, the colonial legislature, didn’t mince words declaring its ‘…utter detestation and dislike, that men or women of mean condition, should take upon them the garb of Gentlemen, by wearing Gold or Silver lace, or Buttons, or Points at their knees, or to walk in great Boots; or Women of the same rank to wear Silk or Tiffiny hoods, or Scarfes, which though allowable to persons of greater Estates, or more liberal education, yet we cannot but judge it intolerable in persons of such like condition.’
Ceremony and Significance
This well-dressed scholar models the costume of a professor of law in the late 18th/early 19th century Ottoman empire. According to the European travelers who created this image, Ottoman legal professionals were required to move up through a series of graduated ranks from student, through various judicial positions, until they could reach the highest level of Kadiaskar, superior judge of Europe and Asia. Each office holder’s rank was marked by the size of his turban.
Although sumptuary laws may no longer restrict who can wear gold or lace, the law and regulations of many societies require specific uniforms and insignia to indicate position and authority. Other communities adopt ceremonial regalia to emphasize a connection with history or a sense of occasion. Uniforms demonstrate power and immediately identify role and rank, whether military or civil. Examples in this exhibit show how different governments and organizations choose to distinguish and represent their authority.
Professional and community dress codes can be just as powerful.
Judicial robes project authority; academic robes and regalia recall tradition and achievement; the right suit, tie, or string of pearls can demonstrate professionalism and belonging.
The portraits on display in this exhibit and throughout the Harvard Law School Library’s Legal Portrait Collection give an overview of the evolving standards of legal and academic dress.
Under this uniformity, however, we can still see flashes of individuality. From a lace jabot to the cut of a suit, judges, lawyers, and law students still find ways to stand out from the crowd. Read More
Credit: Mark Wilson/Getty ImagesThough basic black judicial robes may not seem to allow much room for individual expression, some United States Supreme Court Justices have found ways to personalize their attire. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (back row, left) has long been known for her collection of jabots (the ornamental neckwear or frill that she wears with her robes)–including a specific jabot that she wears when reading her dissents–while the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist (front row, center) made his robes unique by adding four gold stripes to the sleeves as an homage to a character in Iolanthe, one of Gilbert and Sullivan’s operettas.
Rules and Regulations
Over the course of history, law has been called upon to regulate fashion in a number of ways. Often this regulation pertains to issues of public health. Though we may not frequently think about it, clothing does have the potential to be toxic, a fact that was driven home in the late 1800s by the health problems that arose from the use of arsenic in certain dyes. This may have been an early and dramatic example of laws being used to protect people from the chemicals in their clothing, but it is by no means that only example. In this way, fashion can intersect with even health and safety legislation.
As a creative field, those working in the fashion world also look to the law to protect their work and livelihood. Intellectual property law has long struggled with how fashion and its related innovations fit into the realms of patent, trademark, and copyright law. Though many of these questions have not been definitively answered, this is a fascinating area of ongoing legal debate and another way in which the law intersects with fashion. Read More
By Arroser (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia CommonsIntellectual property protection is always complicated, but this is particularly true in the fashion world. Since U.S. copyright law does not protect fashion design as a rule, results arise that may at first seem surprising and fashion designers must turn to other legal theories to protect their creations. Some designers turn to trademark law, attempting to use this theory to protect design elements that are distinctive to their brand. Recently, Christian Louboutin used this theory against Yves Saint Laurent, based on the well-known (and trademarked!) red sole of Louboutin shoes.
“What (not) to Wear: Fashion and the Law” is on display in the Harvard Law School Library’s Caspersen Room daily from 9 am — 5 pm through Friday (August 12). For more information about this and other Law Library exhibits, its digital collections, its historical and special collections and much more, visit http://hls.harvard.edu/library/