I work in the TCU costume studio and we were recently looking through the vintage and extant clothing section of our stock when we stumbled upon an unlabeled box. We opened the box, pulled aside the tissue paper, and gently lifted the uppermost item to take a closer look. It turned out to be a nurses cap. We had a quick debate as the whether is was an extant piece or a recreation (because of the serging on the inside) but as the rest of the contents of the box were removed, our doubts were quickly dispelled. An entire extant WWI red cross nurses uniform was laid out on the table before us. It was all there: the dress, the starched collar, the cap, the full apron, the blood stains from the wounded and dying soldiers. The others continued to unpack the remaining boxes but I had to stop for a minute. Tears flooded my eyes and I thought of all that this garment meant and said and had gone through. I have always found clothes to be an reflection and gauge of our society. They say something about us as a whole and as individuals. They reflect the times, the climate, and the needs of those people and societies. This uniform spoke of a world of which we can not fully comprehend or imagine because we were not there. We did not go through the horrors the the young girl who wore the red cross badge did or the young men who she tried to save did. Nothing in our society today can compare with the "Great" War and the atrocities that were committed due the advancements in technology.
All of this makes me wonder whether the great strides that we have been making since the turn of the century are really that great after all.
CIM talks about WWI being a major turning point for many things but specifically between the avant-garde and high modernism movements. It mentions those of the avant-garde movement who were killed or wounded and then about Wyndham Lewis who was changed. Lewis, after fighting in the war himself, was commissioned by the government as an official war artist. This experience altered his artistic style. Lewis talked about how before the war he concentrated on how the subject was presented and less on the subject itself but the humanness of the war made him reconsider this choice.
This is one of the major problems that I have with modern art: it is generally about how the subject is presented and not about the subject itself. Although I do think the presentation is very important (it affects how you perceive and understand the subject matter) the subject matter is equally, if not more, important. What good does it due if you draw a windmill and no one but you can tell that it is one. The presentation affects the perception but you have to have something to base your perceptions off of to make an impact. If it is unrelateable then the piece of art has no impact and is easily dismissed. We are creatures of habit and like to categorize everything. If we don't understand something, the average human will just leave it be. I think that art is a way to expand, improve, and express ourselves and how we feel. It is a means of communication but in order to connect, there needs to be something in common that is understood by both parties.
