Blogs

  • News
  • |
  • Art
  • |
  • History
  • |
  • Food and Travel
  • |
  • Science
Collage of Arts & Sciences

Where the studio meets the research lab

Design Decoded

Sketching the blueprints behind everyday things

threaded

Your go-to fashion blog for all things historical and sartorial

Retina

The Best Visuals from Smithsonian and the Web


October 23, 2012

Dress Codes and Etiquette, Part 2: Diana Vreeland vs. Emily Post on Vulgarity

Emily Post (left): Photo by Philippe Halsman, 1946, National Portrait Gallery. Diana Vreeland (right): Drawing by Richard Ely, 1989, National Portrait Gallery.

This weekend, I saw the documentary, The Eye Has to Travel, a portrait of the legendary fashion editor and larger-than-life eccentric Diana Vreeland. Just like her friend Coco Chanel, who was well-known for her quips, or Chanelisms as they were often called, Vreeland also had her own one-liners on life and style.

Frequently during the film Vreeland tossed around the word “vulgar.” Never fear being vulgar, just boring,” was one of her familiar sayings. Another was “Vulgarity is a very important ingredient in life. I’m a great believer in vulgarity—if it’s got vitality. A little bad taste is like a nice splash of paprika. We all need a splash of bad taste—it’s hearty, it’s healthy, it’s physical. I think we could use more of it. No taste is what I’m against.”

Vulgar. I don’t hear the word that often. It doesn’t appear much in the lexicon of fashion writing these days. But I have been more attuned to it since I’ve been reading excerpts of Etiquette by Emily Post for the series on dress codes and etiquette. The lady of manners uses the descriptor repeatedly and relentlessly in the chapter “The Clothes of a Lady.”

The Oxford dictionary defines vulgar as:1) Lacking sophistication or good taste: a vulgar check suit, 2) making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude: a vulgar joke, 3) dated characteristic of or belonging to ordinary people.”

I’ve excerpted a few (amusing) quotes from the 1945 edition of Post’s Etiquette from the chapter, “The Clothes of a Lady.” (Italics are my own.)

“The Clothes of the Lady” chapter introduction:

Not even the most beautiful background could in itself suggest a brilliant gathering if the majority of those present were frumps—or vulgarians! Rather be frumpy than vulgar! Much. Frumps are often celebrities in disguise—but a person of vulgar appearance is pretty sure to be vulgar all through.

Vulgar Clothes

Vulgar clothes are those which, no matter what the fashion of the moment may be, are always too elaborate for the occasion. . . . A woman may be stared at because she is ill-behaved, or because she looks like a freak of the circus or because she is enchanting to behold. If you are much stared at, what sort of stare do you usually meet?

The Sheep

Frumps are not very typical of America; vulgarians are somewhat more numerous; but most numerous of all are the quietly dressed, unnoticeable men and women who make up the representative backbone in every city.

On the Woman Who is Chic

’Chic’ (pronounced sheek) is a borrowed adjective, but unfortunately no word in our language expresses its meaning. Our adjective ‘elegant’—which before it was vulgarized, most nearly approached it—rather suggested the mother of the young woman who is chic.

On Principles of Taste Apart From Fashion

A lady in a ball dress with nothing added to the head looks a little like being hatless in the street. This sounds like a contradiction of the criticism of the vulgarian. But because a diadem or a jeweled filet or other ornament is beautiful at a ball, it does not follow that all these should be put on together and worn in a restaurant—which is just what the vulgarian would do.

Emily Post, obviously an anti-vulgarian, and Diana Vreeland, an advocate for that trait over dullness, would have had a heated debate about its merits or lack thereof. I’d stand on the sidelines, enthralled and entertained, as both of their maxims feel so far removed from my life, and, in my opinion, the way we describe—and clothe—ourselves today. Though I would side with Vreeland.



***

Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.

6 Comments »

  1. Bee says:

    It sounds to me as if Post is reminding us not to “put on airs” because we often impress others with our misunderstanding of current styles. Vreeland seems to advocate personal style which knowingly breaks rules from time to time. Both appear to be reminding us to dress to please ourselves: Post by addressing those who seek to fit in, and Vreeland by addressing those who wish to experiment to establish their own style.

  2. Dawn Stanyon says:

    Love this post! We’ll be tweeting!

  3. kplr says:

    Sorry, Emily, give me the artistic genius!

    Like many people, I work in what one writer called a giant brown egg carton and I deeply appreciate people like Diana Vreeland.

  4. I am obsessed with DV, her style and her home and I’m dying to see this doc. Thanks for sharing. What an original she was. It seems like there are so few true innovators in the fashion publishing world these days, I guess because most magazines and fashion houses are owned by conglomerates. Oh well. She was a great romantic who inspired and terrified many!

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until Smithsonian.com has approved them. Smithsonian reserves the right not to post any comments that are unlawful, threatening, offensive, defamatory, invasive of a person's privacy, inappropriate, confidential or proprietary, political messages, product endorsements, or other content that might otherwise violate any laws or policies.

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free

Advertisement



Follow Us

Travel with Smithsonian






Advertisement