1

Fashion. Exploring Critical Issues

Mansfield College, Oxford, 22-25 September 2011

FULL PAPER DRAFT

Fashion Museology: Identifying and Contesting Fashion in Museums

By Marie Riegels Melchior

Abstract
In many museums, fashion is collected, displayed, and subjected to research endeavors. This reveals the
interest of museums in fashionable clothing as representative of past and present style, identity and culture.
In recent years, fashion has appeared with increasing frequency across museums of art and cultural history.
But what accounts for this recent obsession with fashion and fashion heritage? In this paper I explore and
discuss the prevalence of fashion in museums in relation to the paradigm of new museology (that is,
reflexive museology). I argue that museums perceive fashion as a strategy to engage with new museology,
although in reality the display of fashion raises new complications. In essence, museums traditionally
present an authoritarian, often mono-vocal voice of truth and neglect topics of conflict or disagreement that
are equally vital parts of fashion and its heritage. I therefore consider it necessary to identify what I term a
fashion museology to explore and discuss the potential of fashion in museums that is, fashions ability to
transform museums into visitor-centered forums for interpreting the complex cultural, socio-political and
behavioral reality surrounding them in past and present. The paper is based on a recently conducted
qualitative research project for Designmuseum Danmark, based on case studies including the Victoria &
Albert Museum and the Fashion & Textile Museum in London, the Fashion Museum in Bath, the Bowes
Museum in Barnard Castle, the Gallery of Costume in Manchester, Snibston Discovery Museum in
Coalville, the Nordic Museum in Stockholm, Rhsska museet in Gothenburg, Mode Museum in Antwerp, the
Museum at the Fashion Institute of Technology and the Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art
in New York.

Key words: Fashion, museums, new museology, dress museology, fashion museology

Introduction
Fashion is in fashion in museums this is the obvious conclusion upon looking at current tendencies in
museums. Art and design museums seem to lead the trend, followed by cultural historic museums, and not
least by the growing number of new museums specializing in fashion such as Mode Museum in Antwerp
(established in 2002), the Fashion & Textile Museum in London (established in 2003), Museo de la Moda in
Santiago, Chile (established in 2006), MUDE museo do design et da moda in Lisbon (established in 2008),
and Palazzo Morando Costume Moda Immagine in Milan (established in 2010), to mention a few recent
examples. Other countries have had fashion museums for some time as in Japans Kyoto Costume Institute
(established in 1976), Americas Costume Institute (established in 1937) and the Museum at the Fashion
Institute of Technology (established in 1967), Frances Galliera - Muse de la Mode de la Ville de Paris
(established in 1977) and Muse de la Mode Les Arts Decoratifs (established in 1986), and Great Britains
Victoria & Albert Museum (established in 1852) and Fashion Museum in Bath (established in 1963). In
other countries, museums that do not yet have a fashion focus are already making steps that reveal their
aspiration.i
 2

But what accounts for this interest and fascination with fashion in museums? Though the question is
easy to pose, it is far more difficult to give a conclusive answer. Each museum has a unique situation and
history and therefore their reasons for focusing on fashion are diverse. However, several common themes
arise in investigating the growing interest of museums in fashion. In the article Museums as Fashion
Media, Fiona Anderson has stated that it all comes down to economy. The point is that many museums are
in need of economic support because they cannot generate the money themselves to run a self-sufficient
modern museum. Fashion exhibitions, notably those dealing with contemporary designer fashion or 20th
century fashion history, are considered audience magnets that generate a much needed entrance revenue as
well as a large increase in visitors numbers (often a significant driver for the financial public or private
support of museums). The challenge to museums is, however, according to Anderson, that this exposes the
museum as a strategic tool for the fashion industry (Anderson 2000). In more critical terms, Andersons
argument has been echoed by art critics and journalists who state that museums exhibit fashion because of its
commercial potential for the museum. People want to see fashion exhibitions, but because they are expensive
to produce, museums are forced to seek corporate sponsorship that makes the museums dependent on
commercial interests and puts the scholarly integrity of the museum at a high risk.ii At the same time, another
reason for the popularity of fashion in museums is put forth in the review article Dress and Fashion
Museums in the 2010 Berg Encyclopedia of Worlds Dress and Fashion namely that fashion in museums
goes hand-in-hand with a new, broader reception of what constitutes art, as well as a growing academic
interest in fashion studies (Fukai 2010:288).
These different answers are also recognized in the research I conduct through case studies, though
more nuanced conclusions are also found. For one, the focus on fashion in museums is not generally
perceived by the museums themselves as economically beneficial. The case of the Costume Institute at the
Metropolitan Museum of Art is though one exception and the one that easily become the general example
critics are referring to. But only due to very specific, historically determined circumstances is the department
economically beneficial. Over the years, the department has built up a strong relationship with the influential
fashion magazine American Vogue, its Editor-in-Chief Anna Wintour, and its publisher Cond Nast. In
collaboration with Anna Wintour, the curators of the department are able to fundraise millions of U.S.
dollars per year in addition to corporate sponsorships for the special exhibitions program.iii For other
museums, reality is rather that the focus on fashion does not generate money so much as visibility. Fashion is
eye-catching. And when fashion is on display in museums, it is more likely to attract media attention.iv
Fashion puts the museum in the general news as well as in specialized fashion media such as magazines,
blogs, etc. In this way, museums reach other kinds of news channels and different audiences than those that
normally visit museums on a regular basis. Museums attracting large groups with an interest in fashion are
normally located in big international cities. Even so, the visitor numbers for fashion exhibitions are not
comparable to the numbers for exhibitions of world-famous fine art or world-renowned cultural heritage, at
least in the experience of the Costume Institute at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. v At the Victoria & Albert
Museum, the experience has though been somewhat different: their most successful special exhibition to date
 3

was the 2007 Kylie: The Exhibition with an audience of 271,000 people during the three months the show
was on display.vi
The strength of fashion exhibitions is, in other words, their ability to reach new audiences for the
museum, in terms of both age and socioeconomic background. Why is this? The answer seems to be that
fashion exhibitions have a unique potential to produce presence within the context of interpreted meaning.
The objects displayed, their authenticity and aura, make the museum visit special and different from other
visits to cultural institutions, due to the presence they produce. Presence, as defined by Hans Ulrich
Gumbrecht, is in this context understood as how the concrete, the material overwhelms us when we are
confronted with it (Gumbrecht 2004). Fashion can have this effect. The extravaganza is often overwhelming
when it comes to high profiled fashion design, but we are still able to understand it without much reference
to other knowledge of art history, literature, sociology etc., as it can be read through bodily syntax how the
body is concealed, revealed, or imaged. For example, the casual viewer is easily amazed by the narrow
waistlines of 19th-century corsets and can almost feel the pressure of the tight lacing on his or her own body,
relating to the feelings of women of the time who wore such garments. Clothes are the short hand for being
human, as Claire Wilconx, the senior curator of fashion at the Victoria & Albert Museum, has stated
(Taylor 2004:1). Museum visitors can easily engage with clothing, which give legacy to fashion heritage in
museums. It is part of everyday life, popular culture, and entertainment in television, magazines, and
consumerism. In the museum context further knowledge can be added to our immediate understanding, and
here lies the challenge: not to discourage people but to catch their attention and pique their curiosity to
explore the museum further during their visit.

Fashion in museums: past and present

Fashion in museums is a 20th-century phenomenon. Yet the history of the exhibition of fashion provides
additional understanding of its recent prominence in museums. The historic development of fashion in
museums can be viewed through a structure of at least three different periods of time, from the birth of the
phenomenon to its establishment and fruition. The first initiatives were taken in the years just before the
Second World War. The focus then was less on fashion than on dress or costume. Fashion became
visible in museums in the second period, from the 1960s to the end of the 1990s. The third period, from the
late 1990s until today, shows an intensified focus on fashion in museums, the development of new
specialized fashion museums, the spread of fashion exhibitions to museums without a fashion or dress
collection, and the display of fashion in spectacular visual shows modeled on the high-profile haute couture
fashion shows in Paris.

The First Period

The birth of fashion in museums can be observed through the case studies of the Costume Institute in New
York and The Gallery of Costume at Platt Hall in Manchester, regardless of the very different character of
their collections. In general, though, collecting clothing at this time was not unusual for museums,
 4

particularly those of cultural history. By 1930, the main Scandinavian cultural historic museums (the
National Museum in Denmark and the Nordic Museum in Sweden) had well-established dress collections, as
did several provincial museums of cultural history (Leilund 2007, Liby 2010). These dress collections,
consisting mostly of pre-industrial-era clothing, were collected to show how people had dressed throughout
history, from peasant to aristocrat, and across geographic regions. A new development in the years just
before the Second World War found dress collections becoming part of art museums (such as the connection
between the Costume Institute and the Metropolitan Museum of Art or the link between The Gallery of
Costumes and the Manchester City Art Galleries). For both departments, the critical factors in building their
collections were the style, cut and material of dresses their aesthetic value as well as their design. The
focus on material was shared by decorative art museums, which assembled textile collections that later in
many cases developed into textile and dress collections, if not full-fledged fashion collections.
This first period of fashion in museums was not dominated by a specifically identifiable fashion
museology, but rather by what could be termed a dress museology. The building block of this approach was
the single piece of clothing, in terms of collection, registration, research, communication and conservation.
The scholarly work done in museums began with the museum collection of dress, and the accurate
description of single pieces of clothing became the aim of what were later known as dress history or dress
studies (Taylor 2004). Not surprisingly, this provided the context for the formulation of the international
guidelines for handling dress in museums, known as ICOM Costume Committees Guidelines of Costume.vii
If fashion was of interest in this context, it was viewed as an ideal type, as an attribute of dress defined either
by the users or by a renowned fashion designer creating the new style.

The Second Period:

During the 1960s and 1970s, fashion in museums gained more interest. During these years the Victoria &
Albert Museum founded its fashion focus, including (among others) the 1971 special exhibition Fashion, an
anthology, curated by the fashion photographer Cecil Beaton (1904-1980). Across the Atlantic, the Fashion
Institute of Technology founded what later became its museum in 1967. At the same time, the British
collector Doris Langley Moore established the Museum of Costume (known as the Fashion Museum since
2007) in Bath. The influence of popular culture at this time in history cannot be ignored, as it went hand-in-
hand with a recognition of fashion as part of our collective cultural heritage.
At the same time the Costume Institute in New York was heavily shaped by Diana Vreeland, the
former Editor-in-Chief of American Vogue (1963-1971). Employed as a consultant for the department,
Vreeland organized numerous special exhibitions between 1972 and 1989. The exhibitions were highly
staged and usually the focus was on contemporary fashion and its designers rather than fashion history. The
faithfulness of the display to historical fact was less of a priority than the expression of the creative talent of
the fashion designer. Vreelands curation moved the focus from the single piece of clothing to the dream of
fashion through the display of high-end, avant-garde fashion design, a change perceived as progress for
existing fashion. Vreelands exhibitions were very popular, visited by large audiences, and are still
 5

considered as a significant as well as problematic reference points in the discussion of fashion in museums
by fashion scholars and museum professionals (Steele 2008).
In this second period, it gradually became clear that fashion in museums consisted of a front-stage
and a back-stage perception and handling of dress. The handling of dress back-stage was formed and shaped
by the ICOM guidelines. In the front-stage, the display of fashion was shaped and inspired by the experience
of the commercial fashion shows with a less focus on the actual piece of clothing, but on creating an
atmosphere, feeling or experience.

The Third Period

In the third period, the contemporary phase, the tendency of museums towards fashion is exploding in
popularity; it seems more appropriate to speak of a fashion museology. Fashion has transitioned from a
collection of objects, to an expression of an idea, feeling, atmosphere, to including a strategic focus for
museum management teams. The interest in fashion still mainly concerns contemporary fashion designers or
20th-century fashion history, which visitors find appealing. It makes museums livelier and more eye-catching.
These exhibitions, however, occasionally compromise the ICOM guidelines for proper handling of dress in a
museum context, intended to safeguard the clothing as part of our cultural heritage for future generations.
The museum collection often becomes secondary to the special exhibition program. For the relatively new
museum, The Fashion and Textile Museum in London (established in 2003) the choice has even been to limit
its collection as much as possible. And in the recent case of the Costume Institutes critically-acclaimed
special fashion exhibition Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty (4 May 7 August, 2011) the majority of the
objects on display belong to the private archive of the Alexander McQueen fashion house. The exhibition is
a spectacular display that stimulates all of the senses. It is beautiful and scenographic. But as it is not
museums objects on display, the guidelines for displaying dress need not be followed as extensively, as the
objects are not classified as museum objects; the private owner can by example decide whether the objects
should be behind glass or not, if their priority is the protection of the clothing or the more sensuous
experience of the visitor. Fashion exhibitions not only call attention to the museum, it also update the
museum, providing it with a trendy image through the spectacle of fashion displays, but at the same time
make a new separation between the museum collection and the special exhibition program.

Dress Museology versus Fashion Museology

According to this brief review of the history of fashion in museums, from the late 1930s until today, I would
argue that the emergence of a fashion museology has taken place. To understand fashion in museums, it is
necessary to distinguish between the concept of dress museology and fashion museology. In fact, it is
precisely the difference between the two that marks the interest of museums in fashion. Currently, museums
are not particularly keen on dress, on the actual material or the process of collecting dress: it is costly and
often requires large, climate-controlled storage facilities and rigorous handling and maintenance. Museums
are keener on fashion. A telling case can be found in Danish museums and their priorities. Since 2001, no
 6

curator has been employed to care for the huge and historically significant dress collection of the National
Museum in Copenhagen. No new exhibitions have been made on the subject of clothing, besides the digital
reproduction of a permanent display of dress made in 1993 and still on view in the exhibition galleries at
Brede Vrk North of Copenhagen.viii However, fashion is a priority of Designmuseum Danmark. The
museum has decided to extend its fashion focus by developing a new fashion museum within the museum.
The research project forming the basis of this paper is sponsored by the museum to achieve a nuanced
understanding of how and why other museums perform their fashion focus. In other words, the priority rests
in fashion, not dress.
What is the difference between dress and fashion museology? To put it short, I argue that dress
museology is based on the ICOM Costume guidelines for handling dress. It is a hands-on practice, an
established method for the careful handling of dress in the interest of its future preservation. It provides the
foundation for the development of dress history, and its precise description of objects is very valuable in
adding to the understanding of the cut, construction and making of dress.
Fashion museology, on the other hand I argue, is an extension of dress museology. It has its outset in
dress, fashion being perceived as a specific type of dress. But it draws further on the staging and visual
performance of fashion within the fashion industry as an integrated formula for exhibition displays. Fashion
museology also concerns the marketing logic of the fashion industry, adapted by museum management as a
way to focus on new and celebrated fashion designers as exhibition topics. This approach presents the
museum as dynamic and engaged in ordinary societys interests in consumer and celebrity culture. But
fashion museology also pertains to a new way for museums to collaborate with the fashion industry in order
to economically sustain the museum. Through fashion, the museum extends its network with corporate
companies and thereby becomes part of the fashion system, legitimizing fashion as a cultural phenomenon
that is necessary to understand our cultural heritage. In short, fashion museology concerns not only the
methods of handling dress in a museum context, but more importantly the purpose of the museum, how it
can become relevant to people and society, how it reaches atypical museum-goers, and how it can be run
economically while governments reduce budgets for the support of cultural institutions.

A New Museology Controversy

Fashion museology, and simply the presence of fashion in museums, are part of the celebration of the new,
a paradigm characteristic of our time. Fashion particularly the display of contemporary fashion designers
dusts off the museum and makes it inviting, dynamic and attractive. It would not be a huge stretch to view
fashion in museums as an answer to new museology, as defined in museum studies since the 1970s. In this
context, new indicated the ideological program of academics to transform museums into reflexive
institutions, in contrast to their previous image as exclusive, powerful and socially divisive (Hooper-
Greenhill 1992). In order to achieve legitimacy, museums should instead be accessible to the general public,
and increasingly operate as agents of social change for a more equitable society. Through the concept of new
museology, academics (and, to some extent, museum staff) displaced the concerns of the museum from its
 7

methods to its purpose (Vergo 1989). As a result, the new museology has imposed a much stronger visitor-
centred ethos to museums, including outreach initiatives to create dialogue with non-museum-goers. The role
of museums, in terms of new museology, is not simply to keep our tangible heritage enclosed in a precious
19th-century building; it is more importantly to create a forum, a democratic platform for open participation,
dialogue and discussion.
To push this idea to the limit, one could view new museums (Newhouse 1998, Message 2006), as
termed within museum studies, as a response to the new museology not necessarily from the perspective of
museum scholars or professionals, but from the perspective of governments and local politicians, often
important instigators of new museums. They invest economically in the establishment of new museums
because they believe in their potential to become modern cultural centers that engage the public, rejuvenate a
place (most often a city) and subsequently strengthen the economic growth potential of the place and region
where the museum is located. The prime example of the new museum model is the Museo Guggenheim
Bilbao; it can be characterized as follows, in the words of Kylie Message:

New museums are described as physically new institutions that are dedicated to
the exhibition of cultural objects, artefacts and experiences. Emerging from about
1990, they exist globally, but are most numerous in Western cities because of the
interrelationship between these representational spaces and late capitalist systems
of sponsorship (being funded generally as joint initiatives by governments,
private donations and corporate interests. () Unlike museums of the past,
which have been defined according to the categories of objects they collect,
research and display, new museums aim to be defined primarily against a highly
self-conscious image of newness. They seek to blur disciplinary boundaries,
and promote interpretation according to a wide and inclusive scope of reference.
This image of newness refers to the style of architecture, the approaches towards
installation, and the modes of publicity circulating around the museum, rather
than to what is exhibited. () While the term new refers thus to a particular
style of museum that has emerged recently, it also and more importantly,
indicates a desire for museums to appear relevant and appealing to contemporary
society. (Message 2006:604).

In this respect, fashion in museums can be perceived as a phenomenon that cultivates the production of
newness by new museums, as well as by old museums that aim to update their image. Fashion in museums
can, in this context, be seen as a means to make a museum appear relevant and appealing to contemporary
society. But in actually visiting fashion exhibitions, it is striking how traditional and limited they are in their
interpretations, especially with respect to the extensive fashion research available. The field is dominated by
fashion designer retrospective exhibitions, despite often very innovative scenographic displays most often
taking a hagiographic approach to the biographic interpretation. This indicates a dilemma in fashion in
museums: on one hand, fashion gives museums new or old the potential to appear relevant and capable of
generating greater visitor numbers and broader demographics. On the other hand, one must question the
relevance of fashion exhibitions beyond their ability to entertain through the display of a fashion designer,
his or her creativity, or the joy of beauty expressed via clothing and body adornment. New museologys aim
 8

of reflexiveness towards our cultural heritage is not, in general, fulfilled by fashion in museums. Instead,
fashion in museums demonstrates an alternative to new museology a fashion museology that appeals to
broader visitor groups. However, the typical fashion exhibition thus far has not been driven by an
ideological, more reflexive approach to our cultural heritage; rather, these exhibitions tend to withhold the
traditionally authoritarian, mono-vocal voice of the truth belonging to the museum. They tend not to engage
with topics of conflict and debate in the field of fashion, such as fashion and the environment, fashion and
women rights, etc.
In this respect, fashion in museums throws light on what I would call a new museology controversy.
New museology has made museums more visitor-oriented; the next aim is to provide a more nuanced
understanding of our past and present world through dialogue and critical analysis. The way that fashion is
currently displayed and communicated in a museum context, as a means to strengthen visitor orientation,
neither stimulates a reflexive world view nor an understanding of the complexity of fashion, the industry,
celebrity and consumer culture, ethics and the environment, etc. At least the exhibitions build on this aim are
limited in numbers and do not reach the major art museums display of fashion.
Fashion museology has therefore future potential. As fashion is a subject that engages non-standard
museum-goers, it can become a lens through which our past and present can be told and explored in a much
more nuanced way. However, it can also very easily risk the corporate sponsorship of museums, if a more
critical interpretation of fashion discourages new museum-goers or fails to interest them in more critical
matters concerning fashion production, distribution and consumption. The challenge is to find the right
balance to sustain the interest of visitors and corporate sponsors while maintaining the objectives of the
new museology paradigm, strengthening critical reflection and understanding our contemporary world and
cultural heritage.

Concluding Remarks
So far in this paper, the aim has been to discuss and further understand the popularity of fashion in museums
in relation to the aim of new museology and new museums. It has been recognized that fashion in museums
appeals to visitors, especially visitors beyond regular museum audiences. Fashion in museums has an equally
strong appeal to museum management, as it enters the museum into the fashion system and provides it with
benefits such as more media attention and relationships to corporations in or related to the fashion industry.
However, fashion in museum can also be seen as the source of dilemmas. It pushes a separation
between objects of museum collection and objects of museum display. It does not address more critical
issues while engaging visitors and attracting new audiences to museums. Fashion in museums highlights the
fact that visitor focus does not necessarily turn museums into agents of social change for a more equitable
society. In that respect, fashion in museums now opens the door to other opportunities for museums to adopt
a potentially more critical voice. The future challenge must be to make fashion-focused museums dare to
take a stronger critical approach. They must utilize the acclaimed international fashion research currently
flourishing at universities and in international, academic publications. Museums cannot give up on their
 9

educational purpose, but develop it with a higher degree of reflexibility: it is the ultimate aim of the new
museology paradigm, and it could equally be the aim of the fashion museology paradigm as well.

Bibliography

Anderson, Fiona. Museums as Fashion Media. In Fashion Cultures: Theories, Explorations and Analysis,
edited by Stella Bruzzi, 371-389, London: Routledge, 2000.

Fukai, Akiko. Dress and Fashion Museums, In Berg Encyclopedia of World Dress and Fashion, volume
10, edited by Joanne B. Eicher, 280-294, Oxord: Berg, 2010.

Gumbrecth, Hans Ulrich. Production of Presence. What Meaning Cannot Convey, Stanford, California:
Stanford University Press, 2004.

Hooper-Greenhill, Eilian. Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge, London: Routledge, 1992.

Leilund, Helle. Dragter og tekstiler p Nationalmuseet. In Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 1807-2007,

edited by Carsten U. Larsen and Bente Gammeltoft, Copenhagen: Nationalmuseet, 2007.

Liby, Hkon.Svensk folkdrkt og folklig modedrkt. In Modemedvetna museer, edited by Christina

Westergren and Berit Eldvik, 17-35, Fataburen Nordiska museet and Skansens Yearbook, Stockholm:
Nordiska museet frlag, 2010.

Message, Kylie. New Museums and the Making of Culture, Oxford: Berg, 2006.

Newhouse, Victoria. Towards a New Museum, New York: The Monacelli Press, 1998.

Steele, Valerie.Museum Quality: The Rise if the Fashion Exhibition. In: Exhibitionism, edited by Valerie
Steele and Alexandra Palmer, special issue of Fashion Theory. The Journal of Dress, Body & Culture,
volume 12, issue1, 7-30, Oxford: Berg, 2008.

Taylor, Lou. Establishing Dress History, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004.

Vergo, Peter. The New Museology, London: Reaktion Books, 1989.

Marie Riegels Melchior is Research Fellow at Designmuseum Danmark. With a Master in European Ethnology
(University of Copenhagen) and a PhD in Danish fashion history (The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts), her main
interest is in the cultural history of fashion, fashion and museology, fashion and national identity, fashion and
globalization in particularly in the context of 20th century and contemporary Danish history.
i
For example, in Denmark, the Designmuseum Danmark is currently undertaking a research project of best
international practices for displaying fashion in museums, in order to develop the Designmuseums future fashion
focus. I am employed to conduct the research for the museum, and this paper is partially based on the research results.
But a similar situation is occurring in other countries, such as in India, where initiatives are being taken to establish a
local fashion museum, as stated in a recent article in the Times of India (https://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/times-
of-india-the/mi_8012/is_20110513/fashion-archived-designers/ai_n57476418/ (accessed 02.06.11)).
ii
For example, in the New York Times article Museums Are Finding Room for Couturiers by Geraldine Fabrikant,
April 20 2011 (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/fashion/21MUSEUM.html (accessed 02.6.11)). But also the
exhibition on Giorgio Armani at the Solomon R. Guggenheim museum in New York in 2000 was by a number of art
critics criticized for its dependence of the Italian fashion house and its founders significant financial support of the
museum at the same time.
iii
This year, the Costume Institute raised 10.8 million U.S. dollars just from the Party of the Year fundraising event
celebrating the opening of the Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty special exhibition on May 4, 2011 (according to
Curator-in-Charge Harold Koda, interview May 12th, 2011).
iv
This is a common point made in my interviews with fashion curators at the Fashion Museum in Bath (interview with
Rosemary Harden March 2nd 2011), the Bowes Museum in Barnard Castle (interview with Joanna Hashagen April 6th
2011), Snibston Discovery Museum in Coalville (interview with Phillip Warren June 2nd 2011), and at Rhsska museet
(interview with Ted Hesselbom May 4th 2011).
v
According to Curator in Charge, Harold Koda, exhibitions of world-famous art attracts record visitor numbers making
fashion exhibitions second or third in ranking (interview with Harold Koda May 12th 2011).
vi
See the exhibition visitor statistics in the museums annual report and accounts from 2007-2008, page 9
(http://media.vam.ac.uk/media/documents/legacy_documents/file_upload/50207_file.pdf) (accessed 12.07.11).
vii
See: www.costume-committee.org.
viii
The web-exhibition can be seen at the following site: www.tidenstoej.natmus.dk.