Author: Nicki Chaput

Nicki Chaput is a writer and illustrator based in Huntington Beach, California. Their artwork takes inspiration from fashion, acrobatics, media, folklore, mythology, and the macabre.
two film stills depicting the heroines of "All That Heaven Allows" (left) and "Far From Heaven" (right)

Film Style in the Work of Douglas Sirk and Todd Haynes

In the aftermath of World War II, the nuptiality and fertility rates of the United States boomed as the U.S. entered one of the most iconic eras in American history. The early Atomic Era ushered in a wave of economic prosperity, as well as a desire to reinstate the patriarchal norms that had shifted during the war. The aesthetics of the 1950s remain prevalent in nostalgia and Americana today: discussions of the American Dream often elude to an idealized home with a “white picket fence” found in middle class suburbia, films such as Carol or Pleasantville take place in or are inspired by the 50s, and the large “retro” or “pinup” subculture takes inspiration from fashion after Dior’s “New Look” in 1947 more than any other period in the 20th century. One prominent element of 1950s iconography was the melodrama, the genre German-born director Douglas Sirk excelled at crafting. Nowadays, the melodrama doesn’t stand on its own and is rarely “played straight” by filmmakers; writers and directors usually add elements of satire, parody, or deconstruction to “update” the melodrama for a contemporary audience. One such filmmaker is Todd Haynes, whose 2002 film Far From Heaven appropriates the aesthetics and substance of Douglas Sirk’s 1955 melodrama All That Heaven Allows while examining topics that would have been too taboo or transgressive for Sirk to address directly. Both films center around the conflict between the insular middle class of suburbia and the down-to-earth intellectual working class, as well as how the bonds of marriage stifle the autonomy of women, relegating them to wives, mothers, and caretakers. The major difference between the two is Far From Heaven’s retrospective look at attitudes towards homosexuality, race, and interracial relationships. Through their very prominent uses of film style, both filmmakers made their audiences question the status quo of the society they inhabited. Sirk used the subtext found in his style to hint at a more critical view of 1950s American society than outwardly apparent, whereas Haynes used the 50s as a setting to compare and contrast the world of 2002 with the world almost 5 decades before.

On the surface, All That Heaven Allows appears to be a trite tale about how love can conquer all, even the prejudices of a pompous country club. The story follows Cary, a widow with two college-age children trapped in the home of her dead husband. Cary longs for romance, not just the companionship the older man Harvey (whom her children desperately want her to marry) offers her, and freedom from the confines of her previous marriage. She meets Ron, the son of her late gardener, and immediately becomes enthralled with the change of pace his transcendentalist lifestyle gives her. He asks her to marry him, her friends and family don’t like him, and she breaks off the engagement, only to come rushing to his aid after inadvertently causing him to fall off a cliff. The film ends with Cary returning to her role as a caretaker, clutching Ron’s hand in hers as a deer (which Ron had hand-fed in an earlier scene) looks on at them from outside. While the film is certainly a bit of wish fulfillment for suburban women longing for romantic thrills, the subtext within the mise-en-scene and cinematography of All That Heaven Allows sends a bit of a different message than “love conquers all.”

Sirk uses color coding in costuming, sets, and props to symbolize different characters’ relationships with their society. The color red symbolizes sexuality and womanhood, most prominently in Cary’s red dress early in the film, but also in how red consumes Kay’s costuming as she matures and eventually gets engaged. The partygoers at Mick and Alida’s house wear mostly earth-toned clothing in contrast with Cary’s grey suit, making Cary stand out visually to emphasize how she doesn’t quite fit in as well as alluding to the partygoers’ closeness to nature. Even the cars represent the different types of people in the community: Cary’s pristine sedan embodies her character as a middle class suburban mother, while Ron’s dingy brown truck alludes to his nature as a non-materialistic working class bachelor. The mise-en-scene used to separate the worlds of Cary and Ron suggests a dichotomy of haves and have nots that cannot be overcome rather than a spectrum of wealth and class where individuals can elevate their economic standings.

Similarly, the cinematography and staging of Cary work together to illustrate how marriage traps women in patriarchal confines, particularly with the motifs of mirrors and windows. The mirror motif first appears early in the film, trapping Cary and her two children in its reflection as Kay literally talks about how ancient Egyptians used to seal the wives of deceased men along with them in their tombs. It returns with a vengeance towards the end of the film when Kay and Ned buy Cary a TV set, the salesman droning on about how it’s the only companion she’ll ever need, as the camera zooms in to reveal her morose expression staring back at her, stuck within the frame of the television.

While mirrors serve to illustrate how Cary feels suffocated by her late husband and children, windows represent her longing for freedom (and, by extension, Ron). When Ron asks her to marry him, the camera pans as Cary walks from the warm red hearth (a common symbol of family) over to the large window Ron had put in and stares out into the blue winter, the light rendering her and Ron in silhouette. After reconciling her doubts about marrying Ron, the camera once again depicts Ron and Cary in front of the window, this time in a medium long shot with warm undertones in the coloration rather than the more intimate medium close-up of the instance before, suggesting the acceptance of a return to the institution of marriage. After breaking up with Ron, the front window of Cary’s house acts as a barrier between the happiness she desires and the conventions of society trapping her in her home, the camera zooming in on her to highlight the tears streaming down her face as children pass by singing Christmas carols. Most significantly, in the final shot of the film, the camera tilts up from Ron bedridden on the couch as Cary asserts that she’s home to the giant window, nature looking on fondly at the pair, as the film ends. The windows throughout the film, in particular the large window in the mill, suggest that the freedom from societal conventions Cary needs for her relationship with Ron is out of reach, blocked by an invisible force, as even though the film ends optimistically, none of the conflicts created by this force have been resolved.

In Far From Heaven, Haynes took the color symbolism in Sirk’s film and amplified it, matching characters with props and their surroundings to enhance the narrative. As Cathy perches on her couch in a vibrant blue dress answering questions for a local magazine, she mirrors a Magnatech advertisement on the wall behind her, illustrating her embodiment of the ultimate wife and mother. Later, during a lunch date with her friends where Cathy awkwardly realizes she’s the only one whose husband never has sex with her, not only are all the women dressed in color-coordinated outfits, but the color scheme makes them blend into the fall foliage of Hartford, representing their seamless integration into not only their community, but also to the gender roles expected of them. Throughout the film, Cathy primarily wears bold red, green, or blue outfits, and like All That Heaven Allows the dramatic lighting often takes on the same hues to heighten the intensity of the scene and sense of the characters’ emotions. Green lighting in particular indicates unease, such as when Cathy picks Frank up from the station in the beginning or when Cathy discovers Frank kissing a man in his office (this scene even has Cathy wear a green coat to accentuate this stylistic choice). Those three colors come together when Cathy—wearing a green dress and hat—meets Raymond in the modern art gallery, gazing at a Miró painting that epitomizes the contrast of blue and red as Raymond posits that modern art “pares [divinity] down to the basic parts of shape and color.”

The cinematography often adds a sense of unease throughout the film, mirroring the discomfort the characters feel about the artifice and hollowness in their lives. In many shot-reverse-shot sequences with Cathy and Raymond, when we see Cathy’s face, Raymond’s head is completely out of frame, rendering him a headless, intimidating form, illustrating Cathy’s unease talking to a black man. In scenes set in the Whitaker house such as when Frank tries to have sex with Cathy or when the children open presents on Christmas day, the film utilizes long shots to emphasize the the vast emptiness of the house, mirroring the emptiness and loneliness of the characters. The short focal lengths used to create wide shots throughout the film make the characters seem small within the frame compositions, as if they’re swallowed up by their environments (which they often blend into due to mise-en-scene), exacerbating the conformity present in Hartford.

Both All That Heaven Allows and Far From Heaven use film style to highlight the facade of tolerance and progressiveness that Americans perpetuate. In the beginning of All That Heaven Allows, Kay waxes on about how glad she is that women aren’t considered property anymore and widows aren’t walled up with their deceased husbands, even though Cary is obviously an object to the community and to her family, and she’s metaphorically trapped in her late husband’s tomb. (In a self-aware response to Kay saying the practice doesn’t happen anymore, Cary jokes, “Doesn’t it?”) The community and children pretend to support Cary in her romantic endeavors, but only if she chooses the man they want her to marry: Harvey. But when Cary deviates from the patriarchal norm, marrying someone younger than her from a lower socioeconomic standing, they ostracize and threaten her until she conforms to their practices. Even after Cary abandons her dull, comfortable life for Ron at the end, the film ends with the uncomfortable reality that Ron and Cary are still outcasts whom Cary’s family and friends will never truly accept. This ending suggests a discrepancy between the romantic ideal of upward social mobility and the reality of America’s rigid caste system; the sign for Cary’s country club embodies this rigidity, reading, “for members exclusively.” In the midst of the Red Scare and McCarthyism, rampant social conformity was a symptom of widespread fear of outsiders. Deviation from the conservative, consumerist lifestyle of American suburbia, such as the transcendentalist lifestyle lived by Ron and his associates, indicated a rejection of so-called “American values” that Cary hesitates to abandon. The visual distinction between Ron’s circle and the country club acts as a physical representation of how othered Ron and his friends are from mainstream suburbia.

Similarly, in Far From Heaven, there are multiple scenes where characters talk about how progressive they are, highlighting Cathy especially as being “kind to Negroes.” Cathy herself has one particularly hilarious moment in the art gallery with Raymond where she awkwardly rambles about how she’s “not prejudiced.” Yet despite all their talk, the citizens of Hartford—even the children—are not even subtly racist, glaring at Cathy for daring to speak to a black man in public, throwing rocks at Raymond’s daughter Sarah because her father has a “white girl,” and ostracizing Cathy for nothing more than unsubstantiated rumors about her relationship with Raymond. Notably, in All That Heaven Allows, Cary’s best friend Sara defends her in the country club despite believing that Cary’s making a mistake marrying Ron, while in Far From Heaven, Cathy’s best friend Eleanor immediately turns against her after she indicates she might have minutely romantic feelings towards Raymond, indicating an even larger disparity between surface progressivism and deep seated bigotry than in Sirk’s film. Yet unlike Cary, who lacked agency and direction but at least had some protective instinct towards Ron, Cathy directly lies about her relationship with Raymond, claiming she didn’t go with him to a restaurant not only to protect her reputation but also to distance herself from the shame their relationship gives her. While Cary tries to be the ultimate mother, putting her fickle, selfish children’s needs in front of her own, Cathy only embodies the image of the perfect mother, like the Magnatech poster seen early in the film: when Raymond tells her he and Sarah are moving to Baltimore, Cathy doesn’t hesitate to offer to join him, not thinking about her children stuck in the middle of a divorce.

Another theme both films examine is how marriage traps women into unfulfilling relationships or lifestyles. For Cary, her marriage to Martin defines her even after his death, the house remaining the same as when he was alive, including one of his trophies on the mantelpiece. With the exception of the bright red dress towards the beginning, Cary wears mostly dark or dreary clothing typical of a widow; when she wears the aforementioned red number, Kay commends her for wearing “something besides that old black velvet.” But even after getting together with Ron her wardrobe stays desaturated, suggesting that despite outward appearances, her situation hasn’t changed much. Even before she decides to stay with Ron at the end, her life was never truly free from the control of men: in his father’s absence, Ned takes up the mantle of patriarch, waiting up for his mother to return from the party with Ron framed in the manner of a stern father admonishing his teenage child for staying out too late. Cary at her core wants love, be it romantic, familial, or platonic, but the death of her first husband inhibits her pursuit of romantic love in his absence; her love for Ron is add odds with, as Ned puts it, her “sense of obligation to [Martin’s] memory.”

Cathy, meanwhile, does not cherish her status as a wife or mother, instead craving the more carnal aspects of marriage. When her husband cannot satisfy her needs for sex or romance, she turns to Raymond for companionship, toward the end of the film developing one-sided romantic feelings towards him. But her marriage to Frank prevents her from ever getting what she wants: if she’s faithful (unlike him) to her husband, she’ll remain sexually frustrated, but if she starts an affair with Raymond, her reputation will be ruined and she’d put Raymond and his daughter in danger. (In fact, she doesn’t even start an actual affair with Raymond, yet all of the above still happens over the course of the film.) The cinematography and set design of the Whitaker household, which minimize the space figures take up in the frame, illustrate the emptiness Cathy’s seemingly perfect life provides her; after Frank and Cathy get divorced, the film reveals that this emptiness is also literal in the sense that the family has no savings, nothing to fall back on after Cathy is stuck with the children and Frank loses his job.The 1950s were a time of conservative conformity, and any deviation from “traditional American values” resulted in expulsion from the elitist general public. Yet those traditional values benefit only certain groups (men, upper-middle to upper-class people, white people) while trapping others in unfulfilling and displeasing lifestyles. Douglas Sirk and Todd Haynes explore the consequences of that conformity in All That Heaven Allows and Far From Heaven respectively through film style, with both films criticizing how marriage takes away the autonomy of women in their pursuits of happiness and how shallow the tolerance Americans purport to have is.

person wearing a sweater and jean jacket, pulling the jacket into their chest

Somaesthetics and Androgynous Fashion

Featured image  by James Balensiefen on Unsplash

For millennia, clothing—pragmatically used to increase comfort in harsh climates and terrain—has served a secondary function as a signifier for countless social categories, including class, ethnicity, profession, religion, and gender. Though styles have changed drastically throughout history and still vary regionally, the contemporary fashion industry still serves to delineate people into cultural roles, sometimes to the point of being oppressive. However, since the 20th century, both in avante garde circles and increasingly in mainstream design studios, an emphasis on blurring the lines between masculinity and femininity has become increasingly popular. Androgyny in fashion, from the boyish figures of the flappers to Michael Fish’s dresses for men in the late sixties, challenges the definitions of “man” and “woman,” “masculine” and “feminine.” The changes in these previously hard and fast distinctions in recent decades have allowed gender variant people to be more present in mainstream culture and to gain awareness and acceptance from the cisgender majority; it has also allowed members of that cisgender majority with inclinations towards gender nonconformity, such as effeminacy or crossdressing, to embrace their individual gender identities. Somaesthetics explores, amongst other things, how gender and clothing impact people’s somatic experiences. Thus, taking into account somaesthetics when designing clothing can critically change the way people view their bodies, as change in external gender perception can influence changes in one’s perception of the body.

A Brief History of Clothing

Photo by Parker Burchfield on Unsplash

Clothing’s primary purpose is to protect the body. Clothing can warm or cool the body; protect it from sunburn, wind damage, fire, and plants; and shield it from bug and animal stings and bites. Yet as long as clothing has existed, it has also been one of the primary tools that people use to categorize others both within their culture and outside of it.

Designers draft clothing not only to achieve a certain look, but to also make sure a garment feels and moves a certain way. Textile considerations are also important, not only from a structural perspective, but also a tactile one: how a garment feels greatly impacts its effects on wearers. The amount of mobility in various garments reflects the lifestyles (and thus class, gender, race, etc.) of the individuals wearing them: more restrictive clothing indicates a more sedentary or upper class lifestyle, whereas loose fitting or elastic clothing indicates a laborious or athletic way of life. Religious doctrines like the Book of Mormon and Quran have also greatly shaped fashion, dictating what is and is not acceptable to wear day to day and on special occasions.

Fashion and Gender

Gender is the the primary social category that fashion defines. Almost every culture has different styles of clothing for different genders. Some differences are practical, such as accommodations for proportional differences between sexes, and others are reflections of the gender roles of particular cultures. For instance, in much of contemporary Western fashion, men’s clothing is typically designed to be functional first, then fashionable, whereas women’s clothing is ornamental first, sometimes to the point of being outright impractical (tops and bottoms that lack pockets, shoes that hurt the feet and shorten the stride, shirts that are too sheer to wear without something underneath, etc.). While there has been a growth in so-called unisex or gender neutral clothing since the early 20th century (such as pantsuits becoming acceptable work and formal attire for women), most unisex clothing takes men’s clothing as a template.

Gender differentiation varies across cultures. For example, in the West trousers were until very recently considered men’s garments, while in Asia (where they originated) they were a unisex garment. Trends in men’s and women’s clothing have also changed throughout time: until the late 1800s, both boys and girls wore dresses, the former transitioning into men’s clothing at around age seven or eight. Some garments have even changed gender, so to speak, like fedoras, which were at first women’s hats, and high heeled boots, which were men’s shoes worn during horseback riding.

Similarly, makeup has also become a gendered aspect of fashion. Different types of makeup throughout the world developed for different uses and aesthetics, such as kohl in Egypt that protected the eyes from the sun, but most cultures have historically used makeup to enhance the face or exaggerate its features for theater, like Kabuki makeup in Japan. While makeup use used to be prevalent in both sexes, by the 16th century the market had shifted towards catering more to women, likely due to the emphasis on physical beauty for women as a means for acquiring husbands. When cinema entered the picture in the 1910s, makeup for men came back—briefly—as young men took inspiration from Hollywood. However, makeup for men outside of film (and later television) did not become the norm like it is for women.

What is Androgyny?

Androgyny, coming from the Greek ἀνήρ (anēr, man) and γυνή (gunē, woman), is the combination of masculine and feminine characteristics in gender expression and/or gender identity. While often associated with non-binary or genderqueer people, androgynous people may identify as any gender. Androgyny refers to both physical attributes of people (typically ambiguous secondary sex characteristics) as well as their fashion choices, including makeup, hairstyles, and clothing.

Androgynous people have had a variety of roles in different cultures. In Sumer and Mesopotamia, “hermaphroditic” men called gala in Sumer and kurgarrū and assinnu in Mesopotamia served as priests of Innana and Ishtar, goddesses of love, beauty, war, and desire . As for cultures still around today, there are the hijra of India—a legally recognized third gender, the kathoey of Thailand, the fa’afafine in Polynesia, and the people who identify with the various two-spirit genders of indigenous North Americans, who are mostly karyotypically male people fulfilling stereotypically female roles in their communities. While there are karyotypically female people who fulfill male gender roles in some cultures, such as the Cree napêhkân, the Ojibwe ininiikaazo, and the Jewish ay’lonit, “effeminate males” are much more common throughout the world, particularly in Asia.

Aside from traditional religious and cultural third genders, androgyny is a critical aspect of the Bem Sex Role Inventory, a test the categorizes people into one of four gender roles: masculine, feminine, androgynous, or undifferentiated. In this inventory, an androgynous person ranks high on both feminine and masculine traits, while an undifferentiated person ranks low on both. Both “androgynous” and “undifferentiated” in this instance are typically referred to as androgynous in other situations, one being the mixture of masculinity and femininity and the other being an ambiguous gender expression.

Androgyny and Fashion

Photo by Tom Sodoge on Unsplash

Fashion has a direct link to gender expression and thus links to gender identity as well . Before sexual reassignment surgery or hormone replacement therapy, the only way gender-nonconforming, non-binary, or transgender people could communicate their gender identities physically was through fashion (including clothing, hair, and makeup). While not all non-binary people present as androgynous (and not all androgynous people are non-binary), androgyny in fashion is an easy visual way for people to communicate that they aren’t squarely men or women, whether they are a combination of the two, neither, or something else all together.

Androgynous fashion has mostly incorporated “masculine” elements to women’s clothing, such as the practice of wearing trousers, obfuscating curvaceous or “womanly” figures, or cutting hair short. The praxis of men dressing in “women’s” fashions, such as frocks and makeup, has yet to become remotely mainstream. Overwhelmingly, androgynous or “gender neutral” fashion has skewed towards traditionally male clothing rather than women’s clothing or an even mixture of men’s and women’s garments. In “Sissies and Tomboys,” D’Lane Compton and Emily Knox note that effeminacy has traditionally been discouraged in boys and men, whereas girls lack the same amount of pressure to conform to pre-established gender roles. Still, gender scholar Jack Halberstam argues that as girls grow up, masculinity in appearance is increasingly discouraged. Still, despite the rigid policing of gender roles—particularly towards boys—and the polarized perception of masculinity and femininity, a study by Evelyn J. Michaelson and Leigh M. Aaland found that many people actually admire individuals with a mix of masculine and feminine characteristics, at least when it comes to temperament (269).

Androgyny in the Mainstream

Many designers and celebrities have been forerunners of androgynous fashion throughout its periods in vogue, starting in the early 20th century. In the roaring 20s, Rudolph Valentino exemplified the tall, dark and handsome ideal, becoming an international sex symbol; meanwhile, female celebrities like Louise Brooks challenged the voluptuous ideals of the past with cropped haircuts and clothing that obscured (or even suppressed) their natural figures. In the 1960s, the ideal woman changed once again, this time with women emulating Twiggy, a young, skinny girl from northern London who took the world by storm, becoming the Daily Express’s “Face of ‘66” at 16 years old. Haute couture and bespoke designers also began experimenting with androgynous fashion. Michael Fish, also from London, amongst other fashion projects, experimented with “dresses for men,” working with musicians such as David Bowie and Mick Jagger. In women’s fashion, Yves Saint Laurent, a French designer who studied under Christian Dior, created Le Smoking suit in 1966, the first tuxedo designed for women (though for years many places did not consider it appropriate formal attire for women). In the 70s and 80s, the rise of glam rock, glam metal, new wave, synth-pop, and camp and kitsch in general brought androgyny even more to the forefront of the pop-cultural consciousness, with bands and musicians such as David Bowie, The Eurythmics, KISS, Queen, and the B-52’s performing extravagant and theatrical shows. Recently, some models and other celebrities have incorporated androgyny into their editorial fashion (a genre that tends to be very experimental), including Ezra Miller, Jaden Smith, Andreja Pejić, and Rain Dove.

Somaesthetic Relationships Between Clothing and the Body

Photo by Pooja Chaudhary on Unsplash

The clothing we wear affects our somaesthetic experiences in many ways. Some of the more obvious experiences include foot pain from too-small shoes, cool comfort from silk undergarments, or warmth from a fluffy ushanka. But some of the more subtle effects include awkwardness in ill-fitting clothes, sight of the world from a different angle in heels of varying heights, and lightness or heaviness depending on the fabric and construction of clothing. Clothing also has the more subtle effect of making people feel like they are a part of some in-group; as Shusterman writes in Fits of Fashion, “We have considerable choice in what we wear but we often use that choice to identify ourselves with certain social groups or classes” (95). These effects change habits of movement; people tend to act more rigid and reserved wearing formal attire than they do in casual clothes. Some of these habits manifest even if people aren’t wearing the clothing that formed those habits, like when women who frequently wear steel-boned corsets sit up straighter even without the corset on. While clothing is not a direct aspect of representational somaesthetics like like makeup or body modifications, since people are rarely seen nude, the clothing they wear becomes an ancillary part of their body.

Gender and Somaesthetics

Body type is a major influence of the somatic experience. A person who is short perceives the world differently than someone who is tall, someone who is fat moves differently than someone who is thin, a person with long hair experiences wind differently than someone with short hair. As such, it is not irrational to examine how karyotypically male and female people experience their environments disparately. But the binary designations of male, a person with XY chromosomes, and female, a person with XX chromosomes, is not enough to account for the differences between “biologically” male and female people. For starters, it neglects the approximate 1.7% of people born intersex: karyotypically and/or phenotypically aberrant from that binary. The binary also neglects to account for differences within people of the same sex such as hormone levels.

Perception of one’s own gender also plays a role in one’s somatic experience. Gender dysphoria, which includes “a strong desire to be rid of one’s sexual characteristics due to incongruence with one’s experienced or expressed gender” (DSM-5 451-460), can lead to a negative perception of one’s body and thus negative bodily experiences. A transgender woman may dislike how her large feet force her to walk in uncomfortably small shoes, or a neutrois person may dislike how their breasts move when exercising; both situations exacerbate gender dysphoria due to negative somatic stimulation. Moreover, while gender identity for some is mostly an internal experience, a lot of transgender people want to be seen as the gender with which they identify. As transgender YouTuber Natalie Wynn puts it, “I want people calling me ‘she’ not out of politeness or respect for my identity as a trans woman, but just because I seem like a woman to them… I live with this constant crushing anxiety that I don’t seem like a woman to other people” (Wynn, 2018). Thus, gender expression is a critical aspect of most trans and non-binary people’s somatic experiences.

The Somaesthetics of Androgynous Fashion

Since gender expression is a crucial element of gender identity for many non-binary and trans people, and fashion is historically the most significant non-biological indication of gender, androgynous fashion serves the important purpose of giving gender variant people a way to express themselves that matches their internal perception of their own gender. The various design choices involved in making garments can drastically affect how people feel about their bodies, and in people who experience gender dysphoria due to their sexual characteristics being incongruous with their identity, masking sexual characteristics or combining traditionally masculine and feminine traits can help alleviate the stress caused by dysphoria. While mainstream acceptance of non-binary genders, both in identity and expression, is not universal, the act of dressing androgynously can still indicate to even bigoted people that someone does not identify as the established gender norm of a man or a woman. According to Tiffany R. Glynn et al., there is a positive correlation between psychological and social affirmation of one’s gender and self esteem for transgender women; being recognized by the gender one identifies as, even begrudgingly, helps increase one’s self confidence and thus bolsters a positive relationship with one’s body.

In “Somaesthetic Design,” Kristina Höök and her collaborators discuss how to incorporate somaesthetic considerations into the design of furniture. Höök et al. assert, “Somaesthetic design focuses on making people more aware of their felt body experiences” (27). This same emphasis on somaesthetics in fashion design has the potential to create clothing that not only emphasizes people’s outward appearances, but provides wearers with a “space for reflection” (Ståhl 6) on their own bodies, reflection that may assuage feelings of gender dysphoria.

Conclusion

Fashion is inextricably linked with gender expression. Since gender expression is an important aspect of communicating gender identity for many transgender and non-binary people, androgynous fashion is a godsend for gender variant people as it enables people to instantaneously display to strangers and friends alike that they lie somewhere on the transgender or genderqueer spectrum. Even for cisgender people, the rising acceptance and pervasiveness of gender nonconforming fashion may come as a relief to those who identify as a certain gender but wish to express the aesthetics of another one. Taking into account the effects of gender dysphoria on the mind and body, somaesthetic design principles as applied to androgynous fashion can help eliminate negative perceptions of the body as well as change the external perceptions of it, enhancing the somaesthetic experiences of all who wear it.

Bibliography

Angeloglou, Maggie. A History of Make-Up. Studio Vista, 1970.

Baumgarten, Linda. “Cradle to Coffin: Life Passages Reflected in Clothing.” What Clothes Reveal: the Language of Clothing in Colonial and Federal America, by Linda Baumgarten, Yale University Press, 2012, pp. 140–181.

Blackless, Melanie, et al. “How Sexually Dimorphic Are We? Review and Synthesis.” American Journal of Human Biology, vol. 12, no. 2, 2000, p. 151, doi:10.1002/(sici)15206300(200003/04)12:23.3.co;2-6.

Butler, Judith. “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.” Theatre Journal, vol. 40, no. 4, Dec. 1988, pp. 519–531, doi:10.2307/3207893.

Compton, D’lane, and Emily Knox. “Sissies and Tomboys.” The International Encyclopedia of Human Sexuality, 2015, pp. 1115–1354., doi:10.1002/9781118896877.wbiehs485.

Conekin, Becky E. “Eugene Vernier and ‘Vogue’ Models in Early ‘Swinging London’: Creating the Fashionable Look of the 1960s.” Women’s Studies Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 1/2, 2012, pp. 89–107. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23611773.

DeFrancisco, Victoria L., et al. Gender in Communication: a Critical Introduction. SAGE, 2014.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5. American Psychiatric Association, 2013.

Glynn, Tiffany R., et al. “The Role of Gender Affirmation in Psychological Well-Being among Transgender Women.” Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, vol. 3, no. 3, Sept. 2016, pp. 336–344. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1037/sgd0000171.

“Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People.” American Psychologist, vol. 70, no. 9, 2015, pp. 832–864., doi:10.1037/a0039906.

Halberstam, Jack. Female Masculinity. Duke University Press, 1998.

Haraway, Donna Jeanne. “A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century.” Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: the Reinvention of Nature, by Donna Jeanne Haraway, Routledge, 1991, pp. 149–181.

Höök, Kristina, et al. “Somaesthetic Design.” Interactions, 2015, pp. 26–33.

Judith A. Peraino. “Plumbing the Surface of Sound and Vision: David Bowie, Andy Warhol, and the Art of Posing.” Qui Parle, vol. 21, no. 1, 2012, pp. 151–184. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.5250/quiparle.21.1.0151.

Kennedy, Maev. “Face of 2009: Gallery Celebrates Twiggy’s Career.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 8 July 2009, www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jul/08/twiggy- exhibition-national-portrait-gallery.

Leick, Gwendolyn. Sex and Eroticism in Mesopotamian Literature. Taylor and Francis, 2013.

Mazur, Allan. “U.S. Trends in Feminine Beauty and Overadaptation.” The Journal of Sex Research, vol. 22, no. 3, 1986, pp. 281–303. JSTOR, JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/3812567.

Michaelson, Evalyn Jacobson, and Leigh M. Aaland. “Masculinity, Feminity, and Androgyny.” Ethos, vol. 4, no. 2, 1976, pp. 251–270. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/639937.

Newton, Esther. Mother Camp: Female Impersonators in America. University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Piggford, George. “‘Who’s That Girl?”: Annie Lennox, Woolf’s Orlando, and Female Camp Androgyny.” Mosaic : a Journal for the Interdisciplinary Study of Literature, vol. 30, no. 3, Sept. 1997, pp. 39–58.

Treuer, Anton. “The Nature of Ojibwe Leadership.” The Assassination of Hole in the Day, by Anton Treuer, Borealis Books, 2011, pp. 9–34.

Shusterman, Richard. “Fits of Fashion: The Somaesthetics of Style.” Philosophical Perspectives on Fashion, by Giovanni Matteucci and Stefano Marino, Bloomsbury Academic, an Imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2017, pp. 91–106.

Shusterman, Richard. “Somaesthetics and ‘The Second Sex’: A Pragmatist Reading of a Feminist Classic.” Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, vol. 18, no. 4, Sept. 2003, pp. 106–136. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=phl&AN=PHL1774117&site=ehost-live.

Shusterman, Richard. “Somaesthetics: A Disciplinary Proposal.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 57, no. 3, 1999, pp. 299–313., doi:10.2307/432196.

Ståhl, Anna, and Heekyoung Jung. “Soma-Wearable Design: Integrating Somaesthetic Practice and Fashion Design for Somatic Wellbeing.” ResearchGate, June 2018, www. researchgate.net/publication/324896224_Soma-Wearable_Design_Integrating_ Somaesthetic_Practice_and_Fashion_Design_for_Somatic_Wellbeing.

Vowel, Chelsea. Indigenous Writes: a Guide to First Nations, Métis & Inuit Issues in Canada. HighWater Press, 2016.Wynn, Natalie, director. Pronouns | ContraPoints. YouTube, YouTube, 2 Nov. 2018, www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bbINLWtMKI.

two women posing in front of a fireplace in library

Smart Elegance

Smart Elegance

Producer and Stylist: Lacy Brunnette

Photographer: Austin Hyler Day

Production Assistant: Nicki Chaput

Hair Stylist: Alicia Irlmeier, Oliver & James

Makeup Artist: Annie Clevenger

Models: Ellen Dunn, Oxana Zhirnova

Location: Salisbury House & Gardens

Special Thanks: Jeff Naples, Kit Curran, Genevieve Dean

***

Once again, I had a great time working with Lacy and the whole crew!

person in leotard holding two first place medals

The Thrilling Anticlimax

Hello everyone,

As I mentioned in previous posts, I had AAU Trampoline Nationals at the Junior Olympics two weeks ago. As per usual with my meets, I had grand designs of filming all of my competition, compiling it into a video, uploading it to YouTube, and cross posting on my website and Tumblr. Unfortunately, I hardly got any usable footage of the prelims, double mini finals, or synchro, and have decided that making a video would be kind of pointless. I am instead going to write a post about it.

First, I had preliminaries for double mini and trampoline. I competed against 5 girls on double mini and 3 on trampoline. Usually, I excel at DMT and struggle with trampoline, but I suppose it was opposite day, as I finished 2nd on trampoline with a score of 18.0 and in 4th place (really 5th as there was a tie ahead of me) on DMT with a score of 38.5. Unfortunately, I had had a significant form error in my first pass (on a straddle jump of all things) and scored a measly 18.8.

The next day (well, two days later) I had trampoline finals. In the prelims I was 0.7 behind the girl in first; we had the same execution score, but since AAU includes difficulty at my level she edged me out by having an additional barani in her pass. I did even better in finals than I did in prelims, and actually got a higher execution score than the girl who had beat me in prelims, but unfortunately her difficulty still put me 0.8 behind her. I got second place overall with a score of 36.3, which I am certainly very proud of.

The day after that was double mini finals and synchronized trampoline. I changed my first pass from the spotter straddle dismount pike barani pass I had thrown in prelims to a spotter tuck dismount tuck barani and had much better pass, scoring 0.8 higher than I did in prelims. My second pass was the same and I also got a very good score on it, rounding out the total to 78.0. Unfortunately, because of my error in prelims I had no real chance of moving up in the rankings and ended up 5th. It was a bummer, to say the least, especially since I was state champion on DMT and generally consider DMT to be my better event.

Then I had synchro. This was entirely for fun, especially since my partner (who is seven years younger than me) and I were the only ones in our age group. We had only practiced our routine about 5 times in the gym before we got to warm up before competition. Unfortunately, my partner was much less confident in the air than me and ended up not jumping high enough to stay in sync with me; I tried to catch up, but after the third skill in our pass she was a full skill ahead of me. We ended up scoring 12.9. Now, since this was my first time competing synchro, I have no idea how the scoring works, but this score struck me as seriously low; I know our sync score was terrible, but I would have thought the execution scores would have been fairly okay. But what do I know?

Despite my disappointment with double mini, I had a great time at JOs. I especially enjoyed being able to watch my team mates compete. It was a much smaller competition that USTA nationals, and things went by a whole lot quicker (although there was a parade the day I had tramp finals that set everything back an hour… but never mind that). I kind of feel like I ended my amateur trampoline career on a bit of an anticlimax, but I am excited to see where I go with diving (and possibly continue with trampoline at school by starting a club).

~Nicki