Latest Posts

Terminology: What is Dazzle?

Dazzle‘ (or ‘Razzle-Dazzle, or Dazzle Camouflage) was an early use of camouflage in modern warfare. It looked like this:

RMS Olympic (sister ship of the RMS Titanic) in dazzle camouflage while in service as a troopship during the Great War.

RMS Olympic (sister ship of the RMS Titanic) in dazzle camouflage while in service as a troopship during the Great War.

And this:

Arthur Lismer (1885—1969)   Title English- Olympic with Returned Soldiers, 1919

Arthur Lismer (1885—1969) Title English- Olympic with Returned Soldiers, 1919

Starting in WWI, Allied ships, and, less frequently, airplanes, canons and tents, were painted in a series of broken stripes and intersecting geometric shapes – not to hide an object, but to confuse, or ‘dazzle’ the eyes of observers.  The point was not to conceal a ship, but to make it hard to tell precisely what kind of ship it was, where a ship was, which direction it was going in, and how fast it was travelling.

The goal of Dazzle, as the British Admiralty explained was:

…to make it look as if your stern was where your head ought to be.

British Kil class patrol gunboat HMS Killbride painted in dazzle camouflage. Between 1916 and 1918

British Kil class patrol gunboat HMS Killbride painted in dazzle camouflage. Between 1916 and 1918

If you think that a Dazzle painted ship looks like a cubist artwork, you’re absolutely right.  The concept of Dazzle is generally credited to  artist Norman Wilkinson (though zooologist John Graham Kerr had earlier proposed a disruption system inspired by animal camouflage). He knew that steamships could not be hidden because of the trail of smoke they left, so he thought of a system which was designed

…not for low visibility, but in such a way as to break up her form and thus confuse a submarine officer as to the course on which she was heading.

Most World War I era  Dazzle patterns were designed by modern artists, some of whom documented the ships in striking geometric paintings. On seeing a be-Dazzled cannon Pablo Picasso claimed Cubists had ‘invented’ Dazzle, but both influencing the other throughout the war and in the decades that followed (Dazzle was also used on some ships in World War II).  Artists pushed themselves to create patterns for ships the further de-constructed the ships shape, and artists looking at Dazzled items attempted to apply the same de-construction to non-military items.

'Dazzle-ships in Drydock at Liverpool', Edward Wadsworth, 1919

‘Dazzle-ships in Drydock at Liverpool’, Edward Wadsworth, 1919

In a world of khaki, rationing (yes, there was rationing during WWI in many countries), and dye shortages, the Dazzle ships, painted in a myriad of bright colours, were a novel and appealing sight.  They immediately caught the imagination of the patriotic but novelty and colour-starved public – and fashion designers.

An experimental scheme of Dazzle for merchant marine shipping, WWI

An experimental scheme of Dazzle for merchant marine shipping, WWI

Dazzle’s popularity was immediately reflected in fashion, though more extravagant interpretations had to wait until war was over, and curfews and rationing ended.

Interestingly there were three completely different ways in which ‘Dazzle’ was interpreted in fashion.  A  Feb 1920 London fashion column describes the first:

“The coming season will reveal the most dazzling frocks which London has ever seen” they didn’t mean that designers were producing  ensembles in shiny fabrics, shimmering in  sequins and dripping glittering jewels. This, however, was not at all what the columnist meant. Instead “dresses will have the queer, fantastic effect of the patchwork quilts of our grandmothers days, for they will be a jumble of startling colours.” The article goes on to explain that “the completed dress will rather resemble the highly decorated ‘dazzle’ ships which sailed our shores in war-time.”

This  appliqued velvet dress by Natalia Goncharova for Mybor shows a bit of this type of Dazzle inspiration (filtered through Goncharova’s own take on Cubism).

Evening dress of multi-coloured silk and velvet applique on red silk. Designed by Natalia Goncharova for Maison Mybor, Paris, about 1923, V&A

Evening dress of multi-coloured silk and velvet applique on red silk. Designed by Natalia Goncharova for Maison Mybor, Paris, about 1923, V&A

This type of dazzle was also seen on swimwear on beaches around the world in 1918 and 1919, with fashionistas who donned the vivid suits wittily claiming that it did not matter how scant their swimwear because:

No one will notice my bathing suit / after it has made them notice me.

"Dazzle Bathing Suits the Latest Vogue', Free Lance, 6 August 1919, Page 18

“Dazzle Bathing Suits the Latest Vogue’, Free Lance, 6 August 1919, Page 18

As the Washington Herald described it:

Camouflage, according to the general understanding, is intended to conceal, but the young lady who sprung a “camouflage” bathing suit at Coney Island this afternoon–providing that was her intention–failed to accomplish any such purpose.

It is doubtful if anything about the suit, or the young lady, escaped the attention of the several thousand persons on the beach. No two could be found who agreed on the details of the costume, but they all agreed beautifully regarding the details of the young lady.

Dazzle Swimsuits on display

The second way in which dazzle influenced fashion was in a fad for bold checks and stripes in the late ‘teens and early ’20s.  These appeared mainly in sports and casual wear, often combined in vivid, clashing, improbably colour combinations. Fashion columns of 1919 describe ‘dazzle’ waistcoats with “loud checks and stripes” often paired with matching stockings.

Woman modeling sport suit, 11 June 1920

Woman modeling sport suit, 11 June 1920

Finally, on a more subdued note, dazzle brought in a trend towards monochromatic black and white garments (which were previously rarely seen except for mourning).

Jean Philippe Worth (1856—1926), Afternoon dress

Dazzle ships were usually brightly coloured, but the black and white photographs of them shown around the world led people to assume (as some still do) that the patterns were monochrome, not brilliant, contributing to a fad for black and white.

Phillips, C. Coles. (illus). Calling Costume from la Maison Week.   The Crowell Publishing Company. 1916

Phillips, C. Coles. (illus). Calling Costume from la Maison Week. The Crowell Publishing Company. 1916

The black and white trend was particularly popular because fabric dyes were also in short supply during WWI.  Germany had been the world’s biggest  supplier of fabric dye prior to the war, leaving the Allied powers with significant shortages during the war.  Britain had also been an important dye manufacturer, but manufacturing priority was given to the war effort, and the chemicals used in dyes were wanted for weapons manufacture.  By 1916 dyes were already in short supply, so subdued colours and monochromatic  schemes were considered patriotic, and were widely shown in fashion magazines.  Dazzle fit in perfectly with this.

Black and white dazzle fashions were originally in bold stripes and geometric patterns, but quickly becoming more subdued, and resulting in the classic black ‘poet suit’ with white collar and cuffs, and the timeless ‘little black dress.’

There was one particularly dazzling offshoot of Dazzle:  ‘Dazzle’ themed balls, with black and white decorations and geometric fancy dress, were all the rage between 1919 and 1921, the most famous one being the Chelsea Arts Ball in 1919.

Dazzle ball costume

 

In the Southern Hemisphere, a Dazzle ball was held in Nelson in 1919, and there were ‘Dazzle’ performances at other NZ balls and concerts.  The concept was so popular it appeared in plays as well.  A Dazzle fancy dress ball held in Melbourne in 1920 received widespread coverage in New Zealand newspapers – though much of it was quite disproving, with tsking over ‘forced and unwholesome gaiety’ and comments on scant skirts and bare backs, chidings people “whose taste (or lack of it) inspires them to make an extremely liberal display of shoulders.”

Postcard of Dazzle Ball at Chelsea Arts Club, 1919

Postcard of Dazzle Ball at Chelsea Arts Club, 1919

Despite its popularity and its use both in WWI, and WWII, there were no studies done to test whether Dazzle camouflage was actually effective.  There was a great array of designs, and the different designs were never tested and analyzed to see which worked best, so we still don’t know if it worked at all for its intended purpose.

It was definitely quite effective, however, as a method of sparking public interest, and boosting spirits during wartime, as well as a fashion inspiration.  The Dazzle trend died out fairly soon after the war, but reappeared under the name of Jazz Stripes, or Jazz colours.

Rate the Dress: Blue & White chiffon & lace

Last week I showed you something a bit more recent than the usual Rate the Dress fare: a 1970s avante garde swimsuit.  It, uh, mostly wasn’t liked.  At all.  Which wasn’t actually a surprise.  In fact, I was surprised and delighted by those of you who did like it (and by a certain delicious rant – who doesn’t like a good rant?).  Despite a handful of enthusiastic likes, it only managed 4.3 out of 10, which is one of the lowest scores ever.

In addition to not liking it, many of you thought it was just for lounging by the pool, not getting in the pool.  You’re probably technically right that it was more of a sunning suit than actual swimming suit, but I both liked it, and would like to see it in the water.

There is a tradition in Hawaii of swimming in muu’muu, and there is a Hawaiian artist who paints lovely dreamy underwater images of girls in muu’muu swimming (sadly I cannot recall the name of the artist, and google searches were both fruitless and frustrating, because the internet has decided that everything Hawaii + female must be sexualised to the nth degree), and the swimsuit/playsuit reminded me of that.  I’ve swam in clothes, and while they aren’t good for speed, the way a good voluminous garment floats and twists around you can be quite effective.  I’ve got a bunch of viscose knit…might have to give that swimsuit a try!

This week we return to the usual Rate the Dress programming with a 1910s reception dress  – with a twist.

The  Hull Museums Collection: Wilberforce House Museum have this lovely blue chiffon and white lace reception gown.  Their current object photo shows the dress looking like this:

But there is also this version of the photo doing the rounds on pinterest:

Same photo, same dress, very different colour balance, which gives the dress quite a different character.

Personally, I think the first photo is slightly washed out, and the second too dark and vivid.  So here is my best guess at what the dress really looks like (though, of course, every garment is going to look different depending on lighting and circumstances):

What do you think?  Do you prefer it in evening blue, cobalt blue, or copenhagen  blue?  And what do you think of it as a dress, regardless of colour?

Rate the Dress on a Scale of 1 to 10.

How to fix cricket

Francis Cotes, The Young Cricketer, 1768

Francis Cotes, The Young Cricketer, 1768

If you read my blog a lot, you may have picked up on the fact that I’m not exactly what you would call interested in sports.

Mr D, however, is very interested in sports.  Two sports in particular in fact: cricket, and rugby league (though he will also watch rugby union, football (the kind where the foot actually hits the ball a lot, not the kind where they throw a ball around and call it football anyway), basketball, hockey (the field kind, not the ice kind) and even netball if there is nothing else that involves ovoids or spheres flying through the air on TV).

So, there is a lot of sports on in my house, and, despite my best efforts not to, I’ve acquired a rather impressive amount of sports knowledge by sheer osmosis.

And when I say a lot of sports, I mostly mean cricket, because cricket comes in a variety of forms of a lot: too much (20/20 – basically a whole afternoon); even more (1 day matches); ummm…this is getting ridiculous (3 day matches); and holy crap, it goes for FIVE days!?! (test matches).

And this is the root of the problem with cricket.

See, cricket is long, and for most of the long, cricket is boring.

Cricket is so boring that for whole hour long stretches in a match of cricket the entire crowd (and these are people who have not only voluntarily agreed to watch this, but actually paid money to do so) will chant “Booooring.”  Over, and over.  And over.

Cricket is so boring they have to hire a DJ to play songs to try to get the crowd to sing along to keep them from chanting  “Booooring.”

Cricket is so boring that the players on the field chat to the fans and sign autographs for little kids, while the game is going on.

Cricket is so boring that during the match the two announcers (there are always two, like airline pilots, to keep each other from falling asleep) will discuss the colours of the players socks, and how they compare to yesterday’s sock colours, and what that means about the player’s mindset.  Or the different genera of seagulls that can be seen flying around the stadium.  Or the flowers that are about to bloom on the trees around the stadium, and how they will check back each day of the 5 day match so you can watch the buds open.  (I am not making these up or exaggerating in the slightest by the way – these are all actual things I’ve seen/heard while trying not to watch cricket).

That’s right.  Cricket is so boring that watching flowers open is more exciting.

I would not be remotely surprised if there has been a cricket match where the cameras have swung over to watch the progress on a house next to the stadium that is being  painted, because watching paint dry is more exciting than cricket.

Cricket is so boring that its only exciting if a batsman accidentally manages to hit a seagull (of any genus).

And the seagull comes back to life instead of just dying.

Not only is cricket deadly boring for the spectators, the announcers, and some of the fielders, but at any given time all but the two batsmen from  one team are stuck sitting on a bench, knowing they might sit there for hours and hours without a chance to do anything else.  So those guys are tense and bored too.

And, to top off all this bored-ness, half the time a cricket match ends with no result.  That’s right.  Five days, and there isn’t even a winner!

But, ladies and gentlemen, I’m not just here to tell you how boring cricket is.  I’m here because I’ve figured out how to FIX it.  I’ve figured out a way to keep cricket interesting for the cricket fans, make cricket interesting for me, and give the announcers and everyone else something to look at and talk about and keep interested in during the boring bits.  And, as a bonus, it would also mean that there would be a winner at every match.

The solution revolves around those players on the batting team sitting on the bench, waiting for their turn to bat (which may never come, because theoretically an entire game could end with only the first two batsmen getting a chance to bat).

Instead of just sitting there on the bench, the yet-to-go or already-gone-and-got-out batsmen should do handwork.

You know, knitting, crochet, embroidery, tatting, lacemaking, macrame…

They would have something to do and whenever the announcers had nothing cricket-y to talk about a camera could just swing over and check out what the not-batsmen were working on, and the announcers could tell us “Oh, look’s like Warner’s  finished up the daisy stitch and has started on the French knots.  Look at that nice tight knotwork” and “Oh my, Guptill’s doing Tunisian crocket.  We don’t see much of that at all, very unusual skill” or “Kholi started that cardigan during the South African tour.  He’s made great progress – only needs the final ribbing.”

Plus, there could be a display at all the cricket matches with the finished work, so while Mr D was watching the game I could be drooling over the tape lace and developing a  crush on Vettori’s beautiful whitework skills.

Also looking at the pieces, of course, would be the judges.  At the end of the match they would declare a winning team based on points, so that even if there wasn’t a cricket result, there would be a handwork result.

But wait, there’s more!

The finished pieces could be sold off for charity!  Imagine owning a piece made by your cricket hero!  Or one that was completed during your favourite cricket moment!  How amazing would that be?

You have to admit.  It’s brilliant.  It totally works.

Get to it ICC!

*In the interests of fairness/preserving my marriage I should mention that the Cricket World Cup is currently taking place in Australia and New Zealand, and New Zealand will be facing South Africa in the semifinals later this week, and New Zealand just beat the West Indies in the quarterfinals in Wellington and apparently it was a very exciting match (all 7 hours of it) and world records were broken (but no, Mr D, I’m still not sorry that I declined the offers to go).