With Veblen’s piece on women’s dress in mind, what do you think Sargent is trying to convey about Mrs. Hugh Hammersley in her portrait? What’s a detail that makes you see the portrait the way you do? Feel free to address a different portrait from the powerpoint file if you prefer.
5 thoughts on “”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Sargent’s portait of Mrs. Hugh Hammersley embodies Veblen’s explanation of women’s dress in his essay, The Economic Theory of Women’s Dress. The progression of women’s dress in the nineteenth century evolved through the theory of “conspicuous consumption,” wherein men and women showed their social status through material goods such as clothing. As previously stated, Sargent’s portrait portrays the three elements of Veblen’s theory of dress, expensiveness, novelty, and ineptitude. From Mrs. Hugh Hammersley’s stature, dress, and surrounding it is easy to assume that she is from an elite family and is well dressed to make this known. The shape of her dress along with her heels signify her ineptitude because of her inability to be active due to her attire. The elegance, fabric, and detailing of her dress and the backdrop of the painting show the viewer her expensive lifestyle that leads us to believe her social status as an elite. Lastly, the use of color and suggestive posture in the portrait elude to the sense of novelty. Sargent conveys the use of women as material goods or as Veblen stated, “chattel,” very well in his portrait of Mrs. Hugh Hammersley.
In this portrait of Mrs. Hugh Hammersley we understand a number of things about Mrs. Hammersley, and also Mr. Hammersley. During the patriarchal society of that time, a woman’s dress functioned as an index of wealth of its wearer, owner and respective man of the household. As a result, we can strongly infer that the Hammersley’s were an upperclass family. As mentioned in previous comments, this dress encompasses the three elements of Veblen’s theory of dress: expensiveness, novelty and ineptitude. This dress is clearly expensive and looks completely uneconomical. We can infer that this dress has not been worn may times before, if not ever by Mrs. Hammersley because she most likely understood the strong importance of novelty in women’s fashion. Lastly,
we see the woman appearing inept, mainly because of her constricting and uncomfortable dress. Women of high rank were not supposed to wear comfortable dresses, as the most expensive dresses were supposed to
“injure the wearer” (72). Mrs. Hammersley looks incapable of performing any physical labor in this expensive dress, once again symbolizing her great affluence and high social status.
Going off of what Zakary and Liam have pointed out, the woman in the painting displays the classic signs of wealth that Veblen enumerates in his article. Her dress is seemingly made of lavish, delicate material which suggests that she will only wear it a few times. The exceedingly long length of the dress supports Veblen’s theory of ineptitude as a representation of wealth as she obviously cannot accomplish any strenuous tasks while wearing it. Additionally, like many of the women in the other portraits, this woman is sitting down on a sofa. This detail calls attention to the fact that the lady has nothing better to do than lounge around, which parallels Veblen’s notion that the ability to idly waste time symbolizes a superior economic status. The woman’s opulent and cumbersome dress leads the viewer to infer that she is the physical manifestation of her husband’s economic success.
Veblen’s article makes clear that the development of dress served a specific social purpose. In his painting it appears that Sargent is attempting to depict the three principles of woman’s dress that form the ornamental and object like appearance consistent among period portraits. Mrs. Hammersley’s dress, accessories and surrounding furniture perpetuate the notion of wealth in the portrait and are rendered to depict the class that she belongs to. The excess length of her dress adds to the novelty, ineptitude and expensiveness that Veblen writes of and draws the connection between the novelty desired in dress and the gender roles for women of this period. The dress is ornamental, and excessive, and retains an idleness that likens it to the perceived idle role that women of this period must have taken to be respected.
Veblen’s three principles of women’s dress– expense, novelty, and ineptitude– are all present in the portrait of Mrs. Hammersley. The lavish golden ornamentation around the shoulders, wrists, and feet suggests a sort of expensive novelty by skillfully balancing between the outlandish and the refined. The third principle, ineptitude, is suggested multiple ways. The subject is seated, suggesting immobility, and the wearing of high heels (an accessory Veblen specifically mentions) furthers solidifies Mrs. Hammersley’s inability to do any sort of practical physical work. All in all, Sargent conveys a role for women as beautiful items created solely to be adorned and admired on the sofa, acting as manifestations of their husband’s wealth.