The Pursuit of Art and Professionalism: Dressmaking, Millinery, and Costume Design at Pratt Institute, 1888–1904

The Pursuit of Art and Professionalism: Dressmaking, Millinery, and Costume Design at Pratt... Abstract The first sixteen years of the Pratt Institute Department of Domestic Art—one of the earliest programmes of its kind—were characterized by continual reorganization and shifting purposes. The department initially set out to prepare women for housework or industrial work while promoting a reform of women’s fashion and aligning itself with the Arts and Crafts movement. Over the years, the department increasingly associated dressmaking and millinery with art. Eventually, inspired by the Domestic Art department’s relationship with the Art Department and the teachings of Arthur Wesley Dow, the Domestic Art faculty cautiously embraced fashion and industrialization. A separation between the conceptual designing and physical making of dress took place, and curricular developments reiterated the widely established hierarchy of art, design, and craft. By the early twentieth century, the Domestic Art department was committed to forming its students into intellectual and business-minded professional artists. This paper argues that the ideology and efforts of the Domestic Art faculty during Pratt’s formative years intended to legitimize the image of dressmaking, millinery, and costume design. The continual attempt to garner respect for the work taught in the department reflects women’s changing place in society and sheds light on understudied aspects of contemporary design movements. Pratt Institute and Domestic Art The late nineteenth century was a time of extraordinary change in America: women enrolled in schools and worked outside the home in rising numbers; various forms of higher education—including art and design schools—emerged and were transformed; a number of occupations professionalized; and many people questioned the effects of industrialization on society. The incipient years of the Pratt Institute Department of Domestic Art, one of the earliest programmes of higher education for dressmaking, millinery, and costume design, is a subject that speaks to all of these issues.1 Originally, the department was formed to prepare women for home work or to become labourers and the faculty endorsed a dress reform agenda that agreed with Aesthetic and Arts and Crafts principles. Department faculty espoused artistic and healthful dress and spurned fashion. In order to improve the status of dressmaking and millinery, the Domestic Art department continually sought to make a connection with art. This pursuit eventually resulted in a conceptual and practical separation between the designing and making of dress as well as a reevaluation of the hostility towards fashion. A decisive move away from Arts and Crafts principles, these developments allowed the department to devise a professional image similar to that of male fine artists. By the turn of the century, the Domestic Art department had distanced itself from its original dedication to the home, labour, and ‘women’s work’ to portray dressmakers, milliners, and costume designers as professional artists. In the late 1870s, many educators in America felt that schooling did not reflect the needs of the country: there was a demand for industrial workers and farmers, yet education concentrated on classical studies. In response to this disjunction, the manual training movement strove to develop both the intellect and dexterity. Instruction stressed general hand skills rather than a specific end product. Manual training exercises were intended to be educative and instil respect for manual labour while also preparing students with skills that could be applied to specialized tasks in the workplace. As the new century neared, the trend in education shifted from manual training to industrial training. While manual training had a strong moralistic emphasis, industrial training was vocationally oriented and as such was geared towards the economic benefit of the individual and society.2 Oil tycoon Charles Pratt responded to the call for intelligent industrial workers by founding his eponymous school in Brooklyn, New York in 1887. An unusual combination of an art and design school, Pratt Institute was established to provide manual training and industrial education enhanced by science and art.3 The first sixteen years of the institute were aligned with the Arts and Crafts movement in its objective to unite art, craft, and industry.4 The original departments included Industrial and Fine Arts (the core department of the school), a Regular Course (high school), Mechanic Arts, Building Trades, Shorthand, and Domestic Science.5 The Department of Domestic Science, or the ‘Woman’s Department’ as it was colloquially called, was formed at Pratt in January 1888 primarily to help women become better homemakers and secondarily to train them for industrial jobs.6 In America in the 1870s and 1880s, the fields of domestic science and domestic art, which typically aimed to prepare women for work in the home, were viewed as female counterparts to manual training and industrial education for men.7 Initially, the Pratt Woman’s Department offered courses (programmes of study) in cooking, sewing, dressmaking, millinery, and art embroidery. The department—as well as the institute at large—was continually reorganized over the school’s first years. Because of the rapid growth of the Woman’s Department, the sewing, dressmaking, and millinery courses branched off to form the Department of Domestic Art in 1893.8 The main voice of the Department of Domestic Art was Harriet S. Sackett, the organizer and director of the original Woman’s Department, who served as the Domestic Art department’s director until 1903. Prior to her employment at Pratt, Sackett studied art needlework at the New York Society of Decorative Art (founded by Candace Wheeler) and then taught art needlework at the Rhode Island School of Design.9 At Pratt, Sackett edited the Domestic Art column in the Pratt Institute Monthly, a newsletter for students and the community published from 1893 to 1904 that covered departmental affairs supplemented with editorial columns.10 While the course catalogues and the annual records provide the general structure of the curriculum and basic information on classes, the Pratt Institute Monthly reveals the character and inclinations of the institution from the faculty’s perspective.11 Artistic dress Sackett and other faculty members published numerous articles in the Monthly that promoted a reform of women’s dress.12 At first, this stemmed from antipathy towards mainstream fashion.13 Pratt faculty referred to fashion as a ‘pseudo-goddess’, ‘sham’, and an embodiment of ‘false ideals’.14 At the time, fashion was considered to be the seasonally changing styles that were adapted from designs originating in Paris.15 Since the mid-nineteenth century, individuals, groups, and organizations felt that fashion was variously unhealthful, unreasonable, and inartistic. Some believed fashion was unhealthful thanks to restrictive garments that malformed women’s bodies, silhouettes that inhibited women’s movement, and long, multi-layered, unwashable skirts that trapped dirt. Criticized as ephemeral, frivolous, excessive, and feminine, fashion had also gained a reputation as a manifestation of the mindless consumption spurred by industrialization.16 Prominent artists and design reformers associated with the Aesthetic and Arts and Crafts movements thought that in addition to exemplifying the corruption of industrial capitalism, fashionable dress was inartistic and obfuscated women’s individuality.17 Engaging several of these overlapping arguments, the Pratt Domestic Art department asserted that fashion was both unhealthful and inartistic. Their agenda to reform women’s fashion borrowed from the Arts and Crafts and Aesthetic movements in addition to leading dress reformers in America. As an alternative to French-influenced fashion, the Domestic Art department espoused ‘artistic dress’ that heeded the wearer’s health and complemented her individuality.18 Artistic dress materialized as a corollary to wider design reform and art movements in England in the mid-nineteenth century and subsequently spread to America and the rest of Europe.19 The British Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, beginning in the middle of the century, filled their canvases with women in garments evoking dress from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries.20 John Ruskin—an inspiration and advocate of the Pre-Raphaelites—and William Morris, along with others concerned with design reform, also took up the cause to reform women’s dress.21 The basic concept of artistic dress was that art principles should be applied to the way one dressed.22 In the late nineteenth century, artistic dress, or aesthetic dress as it was sometimes called, primarily implied historicizing dress in a medieval, Renaissance, or classical idiom. It fit more loosely than fashionable dress and was ideally worn without undergarments like corsets or bustles that exaggerated the curves of a woman’s body.23 Besides the styles popularized by the Pre-Raphaelites, Aesthetes also looked to ancient Greece for dress inspiration.24 Later in the century, prominent artists like Frederic Leighton and Lawrence Alma-Tadema featured classically inspired dress in their paintings, and the consummate aesthete, Oscar Wilde, praised the beautiful and healthful principles of the classical figure and ancient Greek dress.25 Among those who wore artistic dress were individuals associated with the Arts and Crafts movement, just coalescing in America around the time of Pratt’s founding. As Marsha Morton has shown in Pratt and Its Gallery: The Arts & Crafts Years, the school ideologically aligned with Arts and Crafts principles until 1904.26 The first Pratt catalogue elaborated on the institute’s social values and intentions: ‘The need of manual training as a developing power is scarcely less than that of industrial education—such education as shall best enable men and women to earn their own living by applied knowledge and the skillful use of their hands in the various productive industries…. The twofold aim of the Institute is based on an appreciation of the dignity as well as the value of intelligent handicraft and skilled manual labor’.27 The attempt to unite the mind and the hand and re-instil respect for labour were goals shared by the manual training and Arts and Crafts movements.28 Writers in the Monthly, including Domestic Art faculty, frequently referenced and quoted pioneers of the British Arts and Crafts movement such as John Ruskin as well as William Morris, Thomas Carlyle, and Walter Crane. Reinforcing Pratt’s mission to take up the cause on the American side of the Atlantic, the inaugural issue of the Monthly asserted, ‘the distinction between the fine and useful arts should be forgotten’.29 The Arts and Crafts movement was largely motivated by the sentiment that industrialization had led to a proliferation of poorly designed, poor-quality goods that corrupted society. A reconfiguration of man’s relationship with machines was in order, and carriers of the torch lit by Ruskin and Morris opposed industrialization to varying degrees.30 Initially, the Domestic Art department expressed an antagonism towards industrialization that went hand-in-hand with their antagonism for fashion. In an article on French fashion history, a Monthly writer claimed, ‘The improvements on the sewing-machine laid new snares. Since there were hemmers, fellers, tuckers, rufflers, and plaiters, woman felt in duty bound to envelop herself in all their works’.31 Elsewhere, Sackett asserted, ‘The modern age has been one of commercial enterprise. To induce poor human beings to use the largest amount of cloth, ribbons, and feathers, has been the aim of the manufacturer and the modiste’.32 These allegations spoke to recent developments in the sewing machine and the commonly held belief that the sewing machine encouraged the creation of elaborate fashions.33 Many specialized sewing machines, including ruffling and pleating machines alluded to in the Monthly, were introduced in the 1870s and 1880s.34 Such devices quickly produced a running yardage of trims that could be applied to a garment to create the highly embellished styles recently in fashion. The unbridled ornamentation that the machines seemed to foster was anathema to the tenets of artistic dress, which upheld the simplified drapery in historical dress over applied decoration. Pratt faculty blamed the sewing machine, an exemplary industrial product, for ‘inartistic’ fashionable styles that they believed benefited the producers of fashion who preyed on unwitting consumers. Many of the views towards women’s dress that Pratt faculty endorsed were shared by prominent dress reformers in America, particularly Annie Jenness Miller and Frances M. Steele. These women were not directly associated with the Aesthetic movement, the Arts and Crafts movement, nor wider design reform, yet they shared many of the same objectives: they desired to make dress ‘artistic’, they promoted the Greek ideal, and they believed dress should express a person’s individuality.35 Jenness Miller was a guest lecturer at Pratt and the Monthly reproduced both Jenness Miller’s and Steele’s writings.36 Pratt faculty reiterated these women’s progressive ideas on dress reform by writing: The department of Domestic Art has for several years been trying to influence its students to adopt the same ideals in relation to dress, as those held by the Chicago Society. This aim has been sought by means of lectures upon anatomy, physiology, physical culture, and artistic dress; by teaching the students to draw; by filling its rooms with beautiful casts and photographs of the figure. To wage war against fashions, is a long and labored battle. But progress has been made, since even Fashion herself now and then becomes artistic. It may not be long before Brooklyn also can boast of her Correct Dress Club.37 The Chicago Society for the Promotion of Physical Culture and Correct Dress was the largest dress reform organization in America when it was established in 1888. Both Jenness Miller and Steele were linked with the organization.38 In the few extant photographs of the Domestic Art department, the students are wearing typical fashionable day dress and most of the garments the students are working on also follow fashion [1], [2], [3], yet there is evidence that artistic dress—as the term was understood at the time—was produced at Pratt. In 1893, Pratt students and alumni participated in the Chicago World’s Columbian Exposition, where dress reform was a hot topic.39 The Pratt gowns were not displayed on ordinary dressmaker’s mannequins but were shown on dress forms with ‘proportions of a normal human figure’.40 In a photo of the Domestic Art section of the exposition, there is a light-coloured dress in profile that has a full body, a voluminous Watteau back, and high, puffed sleeves [4]. Another example can be seen in a photo of a Domestic Art class from the mid-1890s [3]. There is a dark-coloured garment on a dress form in the back of the room (left of centre in the photo) that has a bodice with a rectilinear neckline embellished with a heavy braid, a tall, ruff-like collar, and high puffed sleeves that appear to be slashed. The silhouettes and historicizing features of these dresses fit the profile of artistic dress.41 Fig 1. View largeDownload slide Department of Domestic Art, Pratt Institute, ca. 1900, CL-46, Photograph Collection. The Pratt Institute Archives, Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York. Reproduced Journal of Design History with permission from the Pratt Institute Archives. Fig 1. View largeDownload slide Department of Domestic Art, Pratt Institute, ca. 1900, CL-46, Photograph Collection. The Pratt Institute Archives, Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York. Reproduced Journal of Design History with permission from the Pratt Institute Archives. Fig 2. View largeDownload slide Millinery Class, Department of Domestic Art, Pratt Institute, 1899–1900, MI-01, Photograph Collection. The Pratt Institute Archives, Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York. Reproduced Journal of Design History with permission from the Pratt Institute Archives. Fig 2. View largeDownload slide Millinery Class, Department of Domestic Art, Pratt Institute, 1899–1900, MI-01, Photograph Collection. The Pratt Institute Archives, Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York. Reproduced Journal of Design History with permission from the Pratt Institute Archives. Fig 3. View largeDownload slide Department of Domestic Art, Pratt Institute, 1894–95, CL-53, Photograph Collection. The Pratt Institute Archives, Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York. Reproduced Journal of Design History with permission from the Pratt Institute Archives. Fig 3. View largeDownload slide Department of Domestic Art, Pratt Institute, 1894–95, CL-53, Photograph Collection. The Pratt Institute Archives, Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York. Reproduced Journal of Design History with permission from the Pratt Institute Archives. Fig 4. View largeDownload slide Exhibit of the Department of Domestic Art, Pratt Institute, at the Chicago World’s Columbian Exposition, Pratt Institute Monthly, (Brooklyn, 1893), 279. Fig 4. View largeDownload slide Exhibit of the Department of Domestic Art, Pratt Institute, at the Chicago World’s Columbian Exposition, Pratt Institute Monthly, (Brooklyn, 1893), 279. In order to motivate students to design artistic dress that drew on historical precedents, the Domestic Art department at Pratt promoted the study of costume history and advocated the classical figure. The Monthly reproduced artwork, including Pre-Raphaelite paintings and classical sculptures, that depicted admirable forms of dress and published articles on costume history, a subject that was also taught in regular lectures beginning in 1895.42 Faculty further encouraged students to study the classical figure through exposure to original antiquities and replicas. Sackett organized a field trip for the Domestic Art department to visit The Metropolitan Museum of Art to study Greek sculptures. In the classrooms at Pratt, miniature plaster casts of classical bas-reliefs and sculptures were installed for general inspiration as well as specific study during drawing and watercolour classes [1].43 Besides focusing on dress history, the Domestic Art faculty urged students to look to nature for inspiration. One Domestic Art writer reported on typical Aesthetic colours that she spotted during an outing in the mountains: The lovely velvety green of the moss-covered rocks and old tree-trunks in shady dells showed us every shade, from the cool blue and gray-greens to the warmest, most brilliant yellow-green. To add greater brilliancy still, a golden-yellow mushroom, bunches of the scarlet cornel-berries, or of the rich blue clintonia berries looked out of the green mosses at us. In one spot we exclaimed with delight as we caught sight of masses of shell-pink and transparent white dotting the dark-green carpet under our feet.44 The writer noted that the experience reminded her of Ruskin’s writings. She advised students to follow Ruskin’s advice and study nature to develop ‘a sensitive eye for color’.45 Along with promoting Ruskinian ideals in the Monthly, faculty also made an effort to bring nature into the classroom. The Domestic Art department possessed a collection of stones from the Massachusetts seashore for the students to study the ‘infinite range of color in the most delicate and beautiful shades’.46 In a photo of a millinery class, there are drawings of leaves on the bulletin board next to sketches of hat designs, suggesting a relationship between nature and hat-making [2]. When Pratt hosted an exhibition of a butterfly collection, Domestic Art students were instructed to sketch the butterflies and then design a dress inspired by the colour combinations and forms of the insects.47 A later Monthly included a dressmaking student’s drawing of an ‘original design suggested by [a] butterfly’ [5].48 Fig 5. View largeDownload slide Dressmaking student’s design ‘suggested by [a] butterfly’, Pratt Institute Monthly (Brooklyn, 1902), 98. Fig 5. View largeDownload slide Dressmaking student’s design ‘suggested by [a] butterfly’, Pratt Institute Monthly (Brooklyn, 1902), 98. Along with an interest in nature, a shared goal of both the Aesthetic and Arts and Crafts movements was to infuse art into everyday objects with special interest in the domestic environment. For the Domestic Art department, an alignment with these values could help improve the disrepute that clothing had earned through the negative connotations of fashion. Sackett seconded design reformers’ espousal of a complete artistic environment. She advocated for the significance of one’s immediate surroundings, such as the home and clothing, as much as paintings, sculptures, and architecture.49 Such thoughtful consideration of common objects reflected Japanese culture. The Japanese treated utilitarian objects with the care and admiration customarily reserved for fine art in the West. A fascination with Japanese design had permeated Europe and America by the late nineteenth century, and design reformers often looked to Japanese culture for inspiration. Frederic Pratt, Charles’s son, who became the director of the school in 1891, travelled to Japan and amassed a collection of Japanese objects.50 Mirroring this enthusiasm, the Domestic Art instructor Edith S. Sackett (Harriet’s younger sister) explained that Japanese textiles provided a source for students to refine their sense of colour.51 Elsewhere, Harriet Sackett described how Japanese women were taught flower-arranging as an art form.52 From the contemporary American viewpoint, Japanese flower-arranging elevated a seemingly simple domestic act into an art. The domestic artist The traditional Japanese esteem for all kinds of man-made objects was unlike western attitudes, in which a hierarchy between art and craft had been deeply ingrained since the eighteenth century. As Larry Shiner has explained, from antiquity into the eighteenth century, objects that fell in the nineteenth-century categories of ‘art’ and ‘craft’ all had a use and the modern distinction between ‘artist’ and ‘artisan’ did not exist. In other words, all makers of things were artists/artisans. The status of painters, sculptors, and architects began to rise during the Renaissance and by the end of the eighteenth century, because of various institutional, social, and economic changes, the dominant conception of ‘artist’ and ‘artisan’ embodied opposing characteristics; objects that were art/craft became either art or craft. The term ‘fine art’ included painting, sculpture, architecture, music, and poetry and implied inspiration and genius (a quality gendered as exclusively male). On the other hand, artisans were associated with technical skill, rules, and objects that had a use.53 Some of the earliest designers for industry—those that provided the conception or plan for others to execute—were painters or sculptors.54 The intellectual aspect of design was related to the conception or plan while the execution of the object was regarded as inferior since it relied on manual trade skills that did not require a liberal arts education.55 In the nineteenth century, the conceptual gap between artist and artisan increased. Industrialization relegated many artisans to factories and an artisan’s work came to imply imitation, factory work, and trade. Artists were considered autonomous and supposedly fulfilled a loftier, spiritual calling.56 Though not possessing the prestige of an artist, designers of industrial objects held the highest position in the factory system.57 Although the Arts and Crafts movement claimed to view art and craft as equally significant, in a certain respect, the current hierarchy between art and craft remained in place. While the movement foregrounded craft and everyday objects that had a use over painting and sculpture, the ideology affirmed the elevated status of art.58 Proponents believed mass production resulted in a loss of artistry in utilitarian objects and they sought to reinfuse art into everyday things—craft had fallen from the rank it used to share with art. Likewise, although Pratt faculty claimed ‘the distinction between the fine and useful arts should be forgotten’, they nonetheless maintained that an artist was above an artisan/craftsman. A Monthly writer stated, ‘even the small every-day things for every-day uses might be artistic in form and color and texture, if the artisan of to-day were an artist, as in times gone by’.59 Harriet Sackett expressed the same values by writing, ‘Should not the woman who can clothe herself and others in such a manner as to preserve health and grace and enhance beauty be considered an artist rather than an artisan?’60 The promotion of artistic dress and the Arts and Crafts movement established a desire to correlate dress with art early on. Plausibly, the Arts and Crafts movement would enable the crafts (including dressmaking and millinery) to access the distinction of art. Along with encouraging students to create artistic dress, the Domestic Art department associated dress with art by increasingly incorporating art education in the curriculum. In 1890, classes in freehand drawing and design began in the dressmaking and millinery courses under the Art Department’s supervision.61 The Art Department’s approach to drawing opposed the South Kensington model, the prevailing system in industrial education.62 The South Kensington model involved copying prints and underscored technical proficiency and rules rather than creativity. In the Domestic Art drawing classes, students first studied drapery and cylindrical objects in pencil, then drew garments and experimented with colour, and finally used watercolours, studied the outline of the human body, and designed garments or hats.63 The instruction was based on casts of figures and ornaments, photographs of statues and paintings, and plates of historic dress.64 Initially, the drawing classes were optional and attendance was poor.65 The Domestic Art department continually increased emphasis on drawing and by 1893, the dressmaking and millinery students were required to take drawing classes during every grade of instruction.66 Pratt faculty repeatedly defended the relevance of drawing for Domestic Art students.67 They believed the study of freehand drawing, specifically of classical casts, was exceptional for a dressmaking or millinery school.68 Domestic Art instructors contended that drawing classes provided many skills applicable to dressmaking and millinery. For one, it helped teach the students how to design: drawing developed a connection between the eye and the hand, helped the student understand the classical body, and cultivated taste in the pupil.69 Furthermore, the ability to draw allowed the student to plan a garment or hat before making it. This step would enable her to see how effective or ‘ludicrous’ her idea was, and the teacher could correct the conception prior to execution.70 The faculty’s pride in and promotion of freehand drawing was surely intended to distinguish the drawing done in Domestic Art from the type of drawing associated with genteel women’s education and ladylike pastimes that entailed copying prints. On the contrary, drawing from classical casts reflected instruction at esteemed academic art schools such as the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris.71 In the Pratt Art Department at this time, both the Design and Regular (fine art) tracks likewise combined French academic art training with a British-influenced Arts and Crafts approach.72 The relationship of dress education with art education was greatly influenced by the arrival of Arthur Wesley Dow in the Art Department in 1895. Dow was an extremely influential educator whose approach to art, craft, and design instruction transformed the way the subjects were taught in America. Dow also played a role in the development of the Arts and Crafts movement and modern art. Prominent artists and craftspeople studied under him, including ceramicists Adelaide Alsop Robineau and Margaret and Mary Frances Overbeck, as well as modern painters Georgia O’Keeffe and Max Weber.73 Dow’s 1899 book Composition, based on his instruction at Pratt, was widely used in art and design teaching; by 1941 it had been printed in twenty editions.74 Dow’s revolutionary teaching methods opposed traditional academic art education that prioritized technical expertise and realistic representation of nature. Instead, he championed a personal notion of beauty through training in composition. His instruction focused on harmony of line, colour, and notan, a Japanese term for the relationship between light and dark areas. A notable feature of Dow’s composition instruction was the practice of creating multiple versions of a design with slight variations in line, proportion, and shading. By comparing the versions with the instructor, the student would cultivate judgement to decide what was most beautiful. Dow’s approach strove to incite students to develop their own judgement and create original work that conveyed an idea. Affirming all media were equally relevant and could use the same foundational training, his philosophies blurred the distinction between art, craft, and design. According to Dow, the origin of academic art, which concentrated on imitation, could be traced to the Renaissance; prior, all the arts and crafts were valued equally and training in composition was a shared foundation.75 While Dow did not advocate copying historical art and design, he did support studying art history, especially work from ancient Greece and the early European Renaissance along with traditional Japanese objects. Dow’s praise of East Asian design and art history together with his dedication to all art, design, and craft suited the established mission of Domestic Art. Soon after his arrival, Dow’s influence extended beyond the Art Department to Domestic Art faculty, whose rhetoric in the Monthly emulated the values that Dow promoted, especially the interest in composition and spatial relations to achieve harmony and beauty above all. In an 1897 article called ‘Art in Dress’, the department secretary Susan Hoagland explained, ‘During the past year an especial study has been made in our drawing-classes of artistic composition and good proportion in lines and spaces…. Drawings are made of the different styles of bows, after which, class discussion and criticism bring out ideas of light-and-shade and of good design’.76 The application of Dow’s teaching to the practice of dressmaking and millinery was reflected elsewhere in the Monthly. In 1899, Harriet Sackett wrote, ‘Beauty, we are told, is the interrelation of things, the establishment of harmonies or pleasing relations between things’.77 The following year, a student in the department explained, ‘In the drawing class [students] soon discover the value of good, true, definite lines, the equal balancing of masses, necessity of contrast of line and form in good proportion’.78 The writer claimed that drawing, moreover, enabled students to develop their own sense of beauty.79 Art, craft, and design training became closely related through Dow’s pedagogy.80 Yet, even though the crossover between the Art Department and Domestic Art increased towards the turn of the century, a divide emerged between designing and making in Domestic Art. In 1898, a costume design course was introduced under the Art Department’s direction.81 Costume design taught designing and drawing dress (of everyday clothes as opposed to theatrical costumes) as preparation to become illustrators or designers [6].82 The course did not teach the physical making of clothing or hats—the core skills of Domestic Art. Students spent the first two years of the course in the Art Department, either in the Regular (fine art) or Design course, and then spent the third year of study in the Domestic Art department. By 1902, costume design students were taking classes with Dow in composition and design.83 In costume design, the separation between designing and making was intrinsic to the course’s purpose, yet a degree of separation also occurred in dressmaking and millinery courses that distanced the conceptual from the physical part of the work. Although students still had to learn the entire process of making an object, by 1902, dressmaking students who proved they could construct their garments were no longer required to do so; they could hire a seamstress to create their designs from their sketches so they could ‘devote more time to the artistic part’.84 In the same year, the Domestic Art department as a whole devoted ‘more attention to ideas and design, and less to art technique’ than in previous years.85 This was meant to encourage students to experiment with their own ideas, learn to trust their inclinations, and identify the beautiful elements in fashionable dress rather than thoughtlessly adopting trends.86 These motivations are all redolent of Dow who deemphasized technical/academic art training. In this line of thinking, ‘art’, ‘design’, and ‘ideas’ were related concepts that deserved the most attention. Although the Domestic Art department still expressed value for technical training, once a student had attained the level of designer, the student could pass on the manual part to someone with less education. When the costume design course was created, it was longer—requiring more education—than the dressmaking and millinery courses. The curriculum further emphasized the intellectual nature of clothing design by requiring the costume design students to take art history courses in the Art Department in addition to costume history. In contrast, faculty encouraged, but did not require, dressmaking students to take art history.87 These developments that associated technique, labour, and mimesis on the one hand and ideas, inspiration, education, design, and art on the other hand resembled the prevailing dichotomy between ‘artist’ and ‘artisan’. Fig 6. View largeDownload slide Dress design by costume design student, Pratt Institute Monthly (Brooklyn, 1904), 103. Fig 6. View largeDownload slide Dress design by costume design student, Pratt Institute Monthly (Brooklyn, 1904), 103. Professionalization It was evident from the outset that the Domestic Art department believed that the design of women’s dress was a serious matter. For the women at Pratt, the crusade to improve their standing was motivated by fashion’s questionable reputation, in addition to the notion that women were naturally endowed with the capability to be copyists, like artisans, instead of creators like male artists.88 For a program of higher education trying to raise the quality and status of the work done in their department, the Arts and Crafts ideology ostensibly suited this goal. Yet, as I have shown, the relationship with the Art Department encouraged a tendency to prioritize the concept over the execution. Likely because traditional gendered divisions of labour and amateur connotations of craft persisted under the Arts and Crafts movement, the Domestic Art department moved the emphasis away from the home, labour, and craft to pursue an even stronger affiliation with art as well as with professionalism.89 The term ‘profession’, by at least the eighteenth century, commonly referred to the occupations with shared roots in the first universities: law, medicine, the clergy, and university teaching.90 The professions were typically characterized by formal training that resulted in specialized knowledge and credentials, a service mission, and clubs or associations.91 Alongside industrialization in the nineteenth century, many middle-class occupations went through a professionalizing process by fulfilling these requirements.92 The label ‘profession’ instilled a sense of authority and autonomy and elevated an occupation’s status by identifying with the elite liberal education of the original learned professions, thereby dissociating from inferior trades.93 Male artists (painters and sculptors) in America initiated the process towards professionalization by differentiating their work from that of artisans.94 In the 1870s and 1880s, male artists solidified their professional image through the establishment of academic art education that provided systematic training and credentials, and they subsequently formed associations.95 Pratt had many ingredients for professionalization: graded courses, written examinations, certificates, a service mission provided by dress reform and Arts and Crafts ideology, and eventually, an alumnae association. Yet, for women, these attributes did not guarantee professional status. Although women were making certain strides into the workplace, the professions were populated largely by men, and by the end of the nineteenth century they were still difficult for women to enter.96 Domesticity and professionalism were typically considered at odds. The female-dominated occupations that made inroads in professionalization in the nineteenth century undertook work that was justified as a natural extension of femininity.97 Laura Prieto has researched the particular challenges female painters and sculptors experienced as they attempted to professionalize between 1870 to 1900. She argues that female artists pursued men’s steps to professionalization to the degree that social conventions permitted. Because certain key professionalizing institutions were closed off to them (namely, life study of the nude figure and clubs and associations that only admitted male members), they carved a parallel route to professionalization that embraced the separate spheres ideology. Prieto claims that female artists engaged with both domesticity and professionalism in order to work as artists; it was through professionalization that female artists could unite the concepts of femininity and artist. Women artists embraced the gendered connotations of amateur art such as watercolour and drawing, pursuits considered appropriate for respectable women. It was also appropriate for women to study art in school, and by the late nineteenth century, the training women had access to was roughly comparable to that of male artists. Thus, women artists eventually entered the art world by assuming the guise of middle-class female propriety. Prieto argues that, furthermore, men’s involvement in the Aesthetic and Arts and Crafts movements raised the status of gendered activities like embroidery and home decorating, narrowing the gap between unserious ladylike pastimes and serious art. To make the leap from amateur women’s art associated with the home to professionalism, female artists formed their own clubs, networks, associations, and exhibitions.98 While female artists engaged with the gendered connotations of home work as a conduit to professionalization, home economists viewed the home as the locus of professionalization. The field of home economics emerged parallel to manual training and coalesced into an organized movement in the late nineteenth century. Home economists believed house work played a vital role in individual families as well as wider society. Ellen Richards, a pioneer of the movement, not only sought to systematize housework, but also hoped to elevate and professionalize the field in order to gain respect for the work.99 For Richards, a key part of this effort was incorporating home economics into the curriculum of the elite eastern women’s colleges, the female equivalents to the male Ivy League schools. In 1899 when the organizers decided on an official name for the movement, which previously went by various names including domestic science and domestic art among other iterations, they specifically did not choose ‘household arts’ because they felt the name had unintellectual connotations and would repel the elite women’s colleges.100 Richards herself was not interested in the ‘arts’ aspect of home economics as much as the application of science and economy to home work.101 Originally, the Pratt Domestic Art department was in step with the home economics movement in its primary focus on home work and secondary focus on industrial work. Similar to home economists, Pratt faculty viewed the home as a source for women to develop worthy careers rather than a restrictive domain that stifled women’s minds.102 In the early years, the Domestic Art department often referred to the kinds of work that Pratt students were preparing for as ‘self-supporting’, which they considered to be any work, paid or unpaid.103 By using a term that implied financial independence for work that included unpaid housework, Pratt further aligned with the mission of home economics. At the same time, Pratt faculty betrayed a sensitivity towards the stigma attached to wage-earning work done by women: in the early 1890s, the Domestic Art department used the word professional as a euphemism for paid work.104 This was not the traditional understanding of a profession. With time, the purpose of the Domestic Art department shifted away from the original mission, and the meaning of ‘professional’ would change. Although Pratt was established to provide manual training and industrial education, in the 1890s, the institute evolved into a school that mainly produced teachers.105 The Domestic Art department had acknowledged a demand for elementary and high school teachers by 1892, and in 1895 a ‘normal course’ for teacher training was added.106 This still aligned with home economics: most of the women who entered programs of higher learning in domestic art, domestic science, and other programs associated with home economics that were established in the 1870s and 1880s became teachers of the subject.107 Then, at the outset of the 1901–1902 school year, Frederic Pratt announced that the institution was concentrating on industrial education.108 While this, in fact, realigned with the original purpose of the school, for Domestic Art, this contributed to a break with its home economics-oriented origins. In this year, the normal course was removed from Domestic Art. Harriet Sackett explained that the current demand was for elementary school teachers who taught basic domestic science and domestic art together. Therefore, a normal course was only offered in Domestic Science, which included basic sewing and some drawing instruction.109 The 1901 course catalogue confirmed a reorientation in Domestic Art from the school’s early years: it declared that the Domestic Art department’s objective was primarily to provide professional training and secondarily to supply training for the home.110 This was a decisive step away from home economics, a field centred around work in the home that also trained teachers of the subject.111 The use of the word ‘professional’ here diverges from the home economist’s correlation of home work with professionalism; according to the Domestic Art writings, ‘home’ and ‘professional’ were mutually exclusive. For the female painters and sculptors who associated with the home in order to professionalize, the affiliation with amateurism—a negative term at the end of the century—became an obstacle to gaining the respect and authority, as well as a place on the art market, that were otherwise concomitant with artists’ professional credentials.112 Unlike domestic economists and female artists, the Domestic Art department distanced itself from the connection with home work. The model Domestic Art student was not preparing for home work nor was she training to become a teacher (one of the few wage-earning jobs that, throughout the nineteenth century, had been acceptable for a genteel woman), but was preparing to become some other kind of professional. The Domestic Art department’s use of the word professional increased around the turn of the century and the meaning had changed from the early usage. Now faculty used the term in its traditional sense. Edith Sackett argued that to be the best professionals, dressmakers and milliners must become artists as well as technicians. She defended her strategic word choice that associated dressmaking and millinery with the work of lawyers and doctors, two of the traditional learned professions: ‘I say profession thoughtfully and conscientiously, feeling that the business of making man as beautiful as utility and fashion will permit is as necessary and ennobling as settling the quarrels and altercations of men, filling their teeth, or prescribing for their aches and pains’.113 Unlike home economists, the Pratt Domestic Art department attempted to professionalize specifically through an association with art. A relationship with the Art Department was a major legitimizing factor for the department. Edith Sackett explained, ‘We have been particularly fortunate in being associated with a Department of Fine Arts that is appreciative and helpful, taking us seriously and approving our work or criticizing us in a friendly spirit’.114 The Domestic Art department looked up to the Art Department and relied on its guidance. This relationship ultimately provided the Domestic Art department with certain qualities essential for a professional. Emma Simonson, an assistant instructor of dressmaking, stated: If one doubts our right to use the word professional in relation to dressmaking, he has not followed the march of progress in this line of work. He is still thinking of the time before the common use of the sewing-machine, when the work was somewhat mechanical, and did not require a person of much general or artistic education. In those days, the object of dress was simply to warm and to cover the body in conformity with the prevailing fashion; but times have changed, and now we are required to beautify.115 The view towards the sewing machine had changed since the department’s inception, when it was blamed for the corruption of fashionable dress. Now, under the control and direction of the educated professional, the sewing machine was a tool to aid in artistic design. It is notable that for Domestic Art, Pratt’s refocus on industrial education meant that the students would, in the best case, become directors of industrial work—essentially, designers—rather than factory labourers. Frederic Pratt even used the costume design course as an example of how the school was successfully answering the call for industrial education.116 Significantly, the costume design course was the most divided Domestic Art course in terms of the idea and execution of the object. Similar to how artists were highly regarded for the intellectual nature of their work, professionals relied on their expert knowledge and intellects—their minds made them professionals more than their bodies. By becoming artists, the Domestic Art students embodied another key characteristic of a professional that was otherwise considered unfemale: autonomy.117 The Domestic Art student, unlike the stereotypical woman, did not merely copy or imitate but rather used her expert training and individual perspective to determine what was beautiful and to create. Although the Domestic Art faculty claimed dressmaking and millinery should be considered professions, a Pratt education was not a guarantee of professional status. Something else was required to achieve this, something that could not be taught: ‘talent’.118 When Simonson elaborated on the right to call dressmakers professionals she stated, ‘Never has it been such a study to bring out the artistic in dress. We, as dressmakers, are required to create, which means to originate…. To be able to do this requires a liberal education…. Dressmaking is something that cannot be poured in, but, like all other knowledge, must grow from within’.119 Here and elsewhere faculty expressed that only if a student possessed talent, an innate quality like the genius and inspiration that artists possessed, then with the Pratt education, a student could become a professional. As the Domestic Art department increasingly aligned their students with artists, their strict stance against fashion eased. In particular, in the mid-1890s, the department began to praise Charles Frederick Worth.120 Largely credited for initiating the haute couture system in the 1860s, Worth developed a business in which he, the designer, devised seasonal models of dress for clients to choose from. Worth selected the fabrics and trims and directed the execution of the models in his workshop. Thereafter, the (oftentimes male) couturier became the main arbiter of fashion, whereas previously, a dressmaker was primarily a craftsperson (usually female) hired to adapt fashion according to a client’s instruction using preselected fabric.121 The output of Worth’s couture house was prolific: his gowns were sometimes extremely bright colours made from aniline dyes (pointedly anti-Arts and Crafts), yet he also created dresses in fashionable silhouettes with unusual colour schemes that recall Aesthetic interiors.122 Worth was known for incorporating historicizing details in fashionable silhouettes, and in other cases, the house of Worth fully embraced artistic dress.123 He created a massive business that resembled mass-production, yet he managed to portray himself as an artist and associate his work with fine art instead of industry and craft.124 Worth’s image as an artist who had a special gift to create allowed him to convince clients that he knew what would complement them more than they did.125 He stated, ‘My business is not only to execute but especially to invent. My invention is the secret of my success’.126 In the Monthly, Domestic Art faculty claimed Worth studied statues and other art forms and also looked to nature for inspiration.127 The department’s fixation with Worth is significant considering its tendency to equate dress with art and isolate dress design from labour, especially female labour. By the turn of the century, Domestic Art faculty qualified their earlier wholehearted espousal of historical and hygienic dress and adopted a discretionary approach to fashion. Instructor Celia Seymour even conceded to the limited wearability of some versions of reform dress by writing, ‘Often in the so-called reform gowns we see designs fit only for house gowns’.128 While the faculty still did not champion all fashionable dress, they now sought an intermediary between fashion and historic and hygienic dress. Edith Sackett wrote: First we had only hygienic and natural figures, and then gradually came such as approach the fashion-plate, although we know that they are often impossible and at the best unusual. But we do wish style, a good style. The ideal is, many individual styles, all of them good. It is a step in this direction to have each student draw three styles of figure, trying to make each good of its kind. To try each extreme and them something between the two seems the quickest way to bring out a happy medium. It is interesting to put a hygienic form beside a stylish design, and then clothe it in the same way, but alter the angles and the directions of some of the lines so that in the end scarcely any difference in the forms underneath is apparent. Changes in the arrangement of the dark and light may have the same effect. The apparent change in a line through the relative position of other lines is very interesting.129 Replacing a repudiation of fashionable dress, the new goal of Domestic Art was harmony and beauty in dress with a continued interest in individuality.130 The reconciliation between reform dress and fashion owed thanks to Dow’s comparison method and attention to subtleties in line and shade. His concept of beauty was a subjective yet informed notion that did not necessarily preclude changing styles. Harriet Sackett explained that, actually, ‘the style of our garments must change gradually to harmonize with our architecture, climate, occupations, and habits of life’ since beauty was ‘the interrelation of things, the establishment of harmonies or pleasing relations between things’.131 Like harmony, the pursuit of beauty was central to Dow’s philosophy and allowed the Domestic Art department to transcend the perceived limitations of fashion. It was the onus of the dressmaker, milliner, and costume designer to use their skills and judgement and adapt fashion to enhance the unique wearer. The Domestic Art department felt that Liberty & Co. had designed successful reform dress, proclaiming that its designs at the turn of the century were graceful and appeared to be modelled on classical principles.132 Liberty’s wares had been associated with Aestheticism and artistic living since the early 1880s.133 When the company established its clothing department in 1884 under the direction of architect-designer E. W. Godwin, it aimed to create new styles of dress rather than fully abiding by mainstream fashion or faithfully recreating historic dress per Pre-Raphaelite practice.134 The designs in the Liberty catalogues from this time do, in fact, exhibit a compromise between fashion and artistic dress. The garments are illustrated on bodies with natural proportions rather than elongated fashion figures, and the designs embrace a range of styles, from moderated fashionable silhouettes with light historical references to more overtly historicizing dresses. In the Monthly, certain student designs demonstrate a similar approach. In 1902, a costume design student conceived of an ‘original design for [a] princesse gown worn by [an] uncorseted figure’.135 The silhouette reflects contemporary fashion, yet the waist is fuller than the fashionable ideal. Tabs on the hem and centre-front bodice provide a subtle Renaissance reference. Another student created an ‘original design for [an] artistic evening gown’ that is more strongly historicizing, akin to Liberty’s less conventional options [7]. Fig 7. View largeDownload slide Normal student’s design for an ‘artistic evening gown’, Pratt Institute Monthly (Brooklyn, 1902), 99. Fig 7. View largeDownload slide Normal student’s design for an ‘artistic evening gown’, Pratt Institute Monthly (Brooklyn, 1902), 99. The design houses of Liberty and Worth produced clothing associated with artistry and were also viewed as successful businesses. Commerce was customarily considered distinct from the professions. Yet American artists had long engaged with business, and as artists pursued an image of professionalization they did not sever ties with enterprise.136 Likewise, as the exemplary Domestic Art student became more of an artist than a homemaker, labourer, or teacher, she gained business skills to become a professional. The department explained that because professional education for business differed greatly from teacher education and education for home use, it required ‘practical’ training.137 In the second half of the 1890s, some students in the department began taking outside orders. In 1901, instruction in ‘business methods’, including keeping accounts and writing bills, was introduced. The Monthly reported in 1903 that ‘many’ dressmaking graduates had set up their own small dressmaking ‘establishments’, with some even successfully creating larger businesses making ‘expensive’ gowns.138 From the faculty’s perspective, this was the most desirable position a Pratt graduate could obtain—that of proprietor. Admittedly, those who had become proprietors by the turn of the century made up the smallest percentage of graduates. Yet faculty explained that if one were able to acquire the capital and invest the hard work and time required to earn a good reputation to attract clients, the establishment owner would be in a place to avoid ‘drudgery’ work and utilize her ‘taste and skill’ in designing.139 Contrary to the earlier evasiveness about wage-earning work, by the early twentieth century, the department expressed enthusiasm towards women in business and regularly boasted about the high wages of their alumni.140 In the best scenario, Domestic Art graduates would not only be intellectually autonomous but financially autonomous. Conclusion The materialization of the image of the professional artist in the Domestic Art department anticipated an institution-wide shift away from the Arts and Crafts movement in 1903.141 In the Monthly this year, Frederic Pratt proclaimed: ‘The arts and crafts endeavour is not a solution of the industrial art problem. The movement is amateur both in spirit and in result and has trained but few workers in professional fields’.142 Coincidentally, both Arthur Wesley Dow and Harriet Sackett resigned from Pratt in the 1903–1904 school year.143 The end of the Arts and Crafts years also coincided with the end of the Pratt Institute Monthly, the voice of the institution’s formative years that revealed the progressive nature of the Department of Domestic Art. In 1903, there were 839 students enrolled in the Domestic Art department at Pratt Institute.144 While the women involved in the department did not achieve the fame of Worth or Liberty, many did go on to write about, create, and teach dressmaking and millinery well beyond Pratt. When Harriet Sackett was at Pratt, she served as the vice president of the New York Association of Sewing Schools.145 Emma Simonson published a series of articles on dressmaking in McCall’s Magazine, and another instructor, Emily Bishop, wrote a book on physical culture.146 Of the alumni who worked in the fields of dressmaking and millinery, some were employed by well-known stores in New York including B. Altman, Stern Bros, Redfern, J. A. McCreery’s, and Aitken’s.147 According to regular alumni reports in the Monthly, most of the Domestic Art graduates went on to teach sewing, dressmaking, and millinery in public schools. Two students secured positions as supervisors of sewing for the public schools in Brooklyn and Providence, Rhode Island. Alumni also taught in settlement schools, manual training schools, industrial schools, church schools, and YWCAs. The majority took positions in the New York metropolitan area but some obtained positions further afield—as far away as Colorado, Alabama, and Canada. A number of graduates became teachers in higher education: alumni taught at Straight University in New Orleans, Berea College in Kentucky, the Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, and one student became the superintendent of sewing and dressmaking at Kansas State Agricultural College. Other graduates procured teaching positions at schools that had dressmaking and millinery courses similar to Pratt’s: three graduates taught at the Armour Institute of Technology in Chicago, Illinois, four taught at Drexel Institute of Technology in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, one taught at Teachers College at Columbia University in New York, New York, and two taught at the Rochester Athenæum and Mechanics Institute in Rochester, New York. The ideology and aims of the Domestic Art department at Pratt speak to many broader issues of the time: the hierarchy of art, craft, and design; the role of gender in the art hierarchy; identity and image formation of dressmakers, milliners, and costume designers; the professionalization of dressmaking, millinery, and costume design; women’s changing place in society and the struggle that working and creative women encountered; and the role of dress education in the American Arts and Crafts movement. Throughout the Arts and Crafts years at Pratt, the Domestic Art department continually sought to associate dressmaking and millinery with art to elevate the status of the work. At first, the department aligned with home economics, and the art connection was pursued through an anti-industrial Arts and Crafts philosophy and a dress reform agenda that promoted artistic dress as an alternative to mainstream fashion. Proponents of artistic and healthful dress had always found it difficult to actualize their beliefs and produce reform clothing, and the Pratt Domestic Art department is significant as a program of higher education that responded to the need for enlightened dressmakers and milliners.148 The Arts and Crafts movement did not, after all, challenge the gendered nature and low status of home crafts. Suggesting that the Domestic Art department’s initial ideology did not provide the validation they were after, the faculty gradually redirected their attention away from domesticity and mitigated their emphasis on dress reform. The department continued to pursue an alliance with art through a stronger relationship with art education and by aligning dressmakers and milliners with the qualities of male professional artists. Unlike most women-dominated fields that attempted to professionalize, the Domestic Art department dissociated itself from the domestic sphere because of the unintellectual and amateur implications of women’s work and the home. The shift in focus away from labour and craft was spurred by the influence of Arthur Wesley Dow, whose instruction in composition played a significant role in the Domestic Art department’s development. Dow’s methods easily adapted to dress and hat design, and his philosophy that favoured individual judgement and creativity in all areas of art, craft, and design fuelled the argument that dressmakers, milliners, and costume designers were artists. While historians have documented Dow’s impact on art, craft, and design in America, his specific influence on dressmaking and millinery education has not been addressed. Contrary to Dow’s values and Arts and Crafts aims, the identity formation of dressmakers, milliners, and costume designers at Pratt ultimately reiterated the existing art hierarchy where ‘artist’ was the highest rank to which a maker could aspire. During the years considered in this paper, Pratt’s directors repeatedly addressed the quandary of industrial education. The Domestic Art department struggled to define their goals and image as respectable, productive, wage-earning female workers in an industrialized society. Its answer to the industrial question, by the end of the Arts and Crafts years, was a conceptual alignment with art rather than craft—the enlightened designer was the industrial saviour. While still valuing manual skills, the department prioritized the design over the production of dress. Simultaneously, Domestic Art faculty reevaluated its view towards fashion; mainstream fashionable dress was cautiously embraced as long as it was associated with artistry. Faculty even admired select purveyors of fashion like Worth and Liberty who had successfully correlated dress with art while also engaging with industry and business. By the early twentieth century, the ideal Domestic Art student had moved out of the home, factory, and classroom to become an intelligent, creative, and autonomous professional artist. Alison Kowalski is an independent design historian. She earned a Bachelor of Fine Arts from Pratt Institute and a Master of Arts from the Bard Graduate Center in New York City. Alison has conducted research for museums, galleries, and auction houses in New York and has taught courses on design history at Parsons School of Design, Drexel University, and Rutgers University. Presently, she teaches at the College for Creative Studies in Detroit. If you have any comments to make in relation to this article, please go to the journal website on http://jdh.oxfordjournals.org and access this article. There is a facility on the site for sending e-mail responses to the editorial board and other readers. Footnotes 1 Other schools that offered higher education in dressmaking and millinery in the late nineteenth century included Drexel Institute of Technology (Philadelphia, PA), Rochester Athenæum and Mechanics Institute (Rochester, NY), Teachers College at Columbia University (New York, NY), and the Armour Institute of Technology (Chicago, IL). Additionally, some land-grant colleges offered sewing and dressmaking instruction intended to prepare women for homemaking. 2 On manual training and industrial education, see Lawrence A. Cremin, The Transformation of the School: Progressivism in American Education, 1876–1957 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961), 23–41; John L. Rury, ‘Vocationalism for Home and Work: Women’s Education in the United States, 1880–1930’, History of Education Quarterly 24 (1984): 21–44; and Herbert M. Kliebard, Schooled to Work: Vocationalism and the American Curriculum, 1876–1946 (New York: Teachers College Press, 1999), 1–6. 3 Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, N.Y.: 1888 (New York: Fleming, Brewster & Alley, 1888), n.p. Course catalogue. 4 Marsha Morton, Pratt and Its Gallery: The Arts & Crafts Years: An Exhibition of Paintings, Drawings, Photographs and Decorative Arts Representative of Works Shown at the Pratt Gallery During Its Critical First Decade, 1894–1904 (Brooklyn: Pratt Institute, 1999). 5 A. N. Usher, ‘Visitors’ Day at Pratt Institute’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (December 1892): 70. Art, design, and craft (including classes in drawing, design, clay modeling, wood carving, architectural drawing, and mechanical drawing) were all taught in the Department of Industrial and Fine Arts through the time period considered in this paper. In 1890, the name of the department changed to the ‘Art Department’. In 1892, the name changed back to the ‘Department of Industrial and Fine Arts’. In 1894, the name changed to the ‘Department of Fine Arts’. For the rest of the paper, I will refer to this department as the Art Department. 6 Pratt Institute: 1888, op. cit., n.p. 7 Sarah Stage, ‘Ellen Richards and the Social Significance of the Home Economics Movement’, in Rethinking Home Economics: Women and the History of a Profession, eds. Sarah Stage and Virginia B. Vincenti (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997), 23; Mary Donahue, ‘Design and the Industrial Arts in America, 1894–1940: An Inquiry into Fashion Design and Art and Industry’ (PhD diss., City University of New York, 2001), 38–39. 8 Art embroidery was moved to the Art Department in 1890, allegedly a better fit for the subject. In 1892, the official name of the Woman’s Department changed from the ‘Department of Domestic Science’ to the ‘Department of Domestic Art and Science’, with two divisions: the Domestic Science division offered courses in household science, hygiene and home nursing, cookery, laundry, and a ‘normal’ course that trained teachers of domestic science while the Domestic Art division offered courses in sewing, dressmaking, and millinery. The sewing course differed from the dressmaking course in that it prepared women to become seamstresses or to enter the dressmaking course. A seamstress had less training than a dressmaker: she learned sufficient skills to make undergarments, shirtwaists, and simple dresses made of washable fabrics. At Pratt, the sewing course was considered preparation for the dressmaking course, which taught women how to make a diverse array of garments from conception to finish. Pratt Institute Record 2 (Brooklyn: Pratt Institute, 1890), 37; ‘Personals and Various Topics’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (July–August 1893): 332; See also Pratt Institute catalogues. 9 ‘Personals and Various Topics’ Monthly 1: 332; Rhode Island School of Design, ‘Rhode Island School of Design: School of art needle work’ (1879). Rider Broadsides. Brown Digital Repository. Brown University Library. 10 Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (October 1892): 1; Frederic B. Pratt, ‘Report of Pratt Institute for the Year Ending June 23, 1893’, Pratt Institute Monthly 2 (October 1893): 37. 11 Mary Donahue has included the history of costume design instruction at Pratt in her dissertation on fashion design and industry in New York from 1894 to 1940. Her valuable study focuses on the curriculum as a representation of wider issues related to the gendered nature of fashion design education. Donahue relies primarily on Pratt course catalogues; she does not examine the Pratt Institute Monthly nor the Pratt Institute Record. Her central interest in the Domestic Art department during the years from 1888 to 1904 lies in the relationship between costume design and drawing instruction, which she assumes to be akin to nineteenth-century industrial drawing education. Her analysis presumes that art and industry were compatible in the late nineteenth century. Donahue also claims that the Domestic Art department remained focused on domesticity into the twentieth century. See Donahue, op. cit., 37–58. My paper expands on issues that Donahue introduces by studying the Pratt Institute Monthly and considering the influence of the Arts and Crafts movement, Arthur Wesley Dow, the art-design-craft hierarchy, and the professionalization process, and I propose an alternative interpretation of the relationship between art, craft, and industry in the Pratt Domestic Art department during its early years. 12 Ibid., 50–51. 13 ‘Department of Domestic Art—Correct Dress Society’, Pratt Institute Monthly 2 (June 1894): 335; ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (January 1893): 101–102. 14 ‘Editorial’, Pratt Institute Monthly 2 (January 1894): 134; ‘Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (June 1893): 261; Valentine Adams, ‘The Development of French Costume’, Pratt Institute Monthly 2 (February 1894): 177. 15 For a more detailed explanation of fashion in the nineteenth century, see Patricia A. Cunningham, Reforming Women’s Fashion, 1850–1920: Politics, Health, and Art (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2003), 3, 7. 16 Ibid., 139. 17 Historians have used the term ‘dress reform’ as an umbrella term for the various reactions against mainstream fashion. At the time, different groups preferred different terms. See Cunningham, op. cit. and Stella M. Newton, Health, Art and Reason: Dress Reformers of the 19th Century (London: J. Murray, 1974). 18 ‘Artistic dress’ is the term the Domestic Art department used most frequently. Other descriptors used by faculty to describe admirable dress were ‘healthful’ and ‘hygienic’. ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (November 1892): 40; ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (February 1893): 138–139; ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 2 (October 1893): 39; ‘Department of Domestic Art—Correct Dress Society’, Monthly 2: 335; ‘Teachers, Students, and Things’, Pratt Institute Monthly 3 (January 1895): 99. 19 See Cunningham, op. cit., 103–168 and Newton, op. cit. 20 Cunningham, op. cit., 105–109. 21 Ibid., 103–134. 22 Ibid., 116. 23 Ibid., 113. 24 Newton, op. cit., 76–78, 157. 25 Cunningham, op. cit., 112; Oscar Wilde helped spread artistic dress in America during his tour in 1882. Cunningham, op. cit., 136–137; Oscar Wilde, Art and Decoration: Being Extracts from Reviews and Miscellanies (London: Methuen, 1920), 56–65. 26 See Morton, op. cit. 27 Pratt Institute: 1888, op. cit., n.p. 28 Kliebard, op. cit., 22–23; Morton, op. cit., 8–10. 29 Monthly 1 (October 1892): 2. 30 See Wendy Kaplan, ‘The Lamp of the British Precedent: An Introduction to the Arts and Crafts Movement’ and Eileen Boris, ‘Dreams of Brotherhood and Beauty’: The Social Ideals of the Arts and Crafts Movement’ in ‘The Art that is Life’: The Arts & Crafts Movement in America, 1875–1920 (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1998), 52–60, 208–222. 31 Adams, ‘The Development of French Costume’, Monthly 2: 177. 32 Harriet S. Sackett, ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 2 (November 1893): 82. 33 Caroline R. Milbank, New York Fashion: The Evolution of American Style (New York: Abrams, 1989), 16, 18; Penelope Byrde, Nineteenth Century Fashion (London: B. T. Batsford, 1992), 142; Rob Schorman, Selling Style: Clothing and Social Change at the Turn of the Century (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003), 78. 34 Grace R. Cooper, The Sewing Machine: Its Invention and Development, 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1976), 59, 156, 159. 35 Cunningham, op. cit., 138–142. Jenness Miller advocated an exercise system called the Americanized Delsarte System that sought to develop the body into the classical ideal. The Delsarte System was taught in physical culture classes in the Pratt Domestic Art department beginning in 1892. 36 ‘Department Notes’, Pratt Institute Monthly 8 (February 1900): 91; Amos R. Wells, ‘A Psychological View of Pockets,’ Pratt Institute Monthly 5 (January 1897): 154–156; ‘Library Bulletin’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (December 1892): 89; ‘Department of Domestic Art—Correct Dress Society’, Monthly 2: 334–335. 37 ‘Department of Domestic Art—Correct Dress Society’, Monthly 2: 335. 38 Cunningham, op. cit., 89, 164–165. 39 Ibid., 62–65. 40 ‘The Pratt Institute Exhibit at the World’s Columbian Exposition’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (July–August 1893): 280. 41 For comparable examples of artistic/aesthetic dress, see Newton, op. cit., Figs. 26, 29, 52 and Cunningham, op. cit., Figs. 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 64, 66, 69, 73. See also Cunningham, op. cit., 103. 42 ‘Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 3 (November 1894): 62; ‘Teachers, Students, and Things’, Pratt Institute Monthly 3 (April 1895): 168; ‘Teachers, Students, and Things’, Pratt Institute Monthly 4 (December 1895): 115; Helen M. Burgess, ‘The Revival of Mediæval Costume in Modern Dress’, Pratt Institute Monthly 6 (June 1898): 259–264; Adams, ‘The Development of French Costume’, Monthly 2: 141–145, 171–177. 43 ‘Teachers, Students, and, Things’, Pratt Institute Monthly 4 (April 1896): 240; Classical bas-reliefs and casts and photographs of classical sculpture are pictured in several other photographs of Domestic Art classrooms in the Pratt archives. The casts were frequently commented on in the Monthly. 44 ‘Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 4 (October 1895): 53. 45 Ibid., 54. 46 ‘Department of Domestic Art and Science’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (October 1892): 12. 47 Edith S. Sackett, ‘Costume Design’, Pratt Institute Monthly 8 (February 1900): 78. 48 E. Sackett, ‘Drawing in Connection with Dressmaking and Millinery’, Pratt Institute Monthly 10 (February 1902): 98. 49 H. Sackett, ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Monthly 2: 82–83. 50 Morton, op. cit., 16, 39, 62n51. 51 E. Sackett, ‘Costume Design’, Monthly 8: 74. 52 H. Sackett, ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Monthly 2: 83. 53 See Larry Shiner, The Invention of Art: A Cultural History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), especially chapters 6–13. 54 See Adrian Forty, Objects of Desire: Design and Society since 1750 (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1992), 34–36 and Carl Goldstein, Teaching Art: Academies and Schools from Vasari to Albers (Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 253–254. 55 Shiner, op. cit., 46, 67–68, 82; Forty, op. cit., 34–36; Goldstein, op. cit., 254. 56 Shiner, op. cit. 57 Ibid., 209–210. 58 Ibid., 239. 59 ‘Editorial’, Pratt Institute Monthly 2 (March 1894): 198. 60 H. Sackett, ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Monthly 2: 83. 61 Pratt Institute Record, No. 2, op. cit., 34, 36. 62 Morton, op. cit., 11–12. 63 Catalogue, Pratt Institute:1890–1891 (Brooklyn: Pratt Institute, 1890), 48; Catalogue, Pratt Institute:1892–1893 (Brooklyn: Pratt Institute, 1892), 35. 64 Catalogue, Pratt Institute:1896–1897 (Brooklyn: Pratt Institute, 1896), 64–65. 65 Pratt Institute Record, No. 2, op. cit., 36. 66 ‘Department of Domestic Art and Science’, Monthly 1: 12; ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Monthly 2: 39. 67 ‘Teachers, Students, and Things’, Pratt Institute Monthly 2 (October 1893): 48; Susan Hoagland, ‘Art in Dress’, Pratt Institute Monthly 5 (April 1897): 243; E. Sackett, ‘Costume Design’, Monthly 8: 73; Grace Roberts, ‘A Twentieth Century View of Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 9 (February 1901): 85; Pratt Institute Record, No. 2, op. cit., 36. 68 Hoagland, ‘Art in Dress’, Monthly 5: 243. 69 A. Cicerone, ‘Around the Institute in 80 Minutes’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (July–August 1893): 297. 70 ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (May 1893): 228. 71 Laura R. Prieto, At Home in the Studio: The Professionalization of Women Artists in America (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2001), 24. 72 Morton, op. cit., 38–39. 73 For Dow’s involvement in the Pratt Art Department, see Morton, op. cit., 39–49. For Dow’s broader influence, see Nancy E. Green, ‘Arthur Wesley Dow, Artist and Educator’ in Arthur Wesley Dow and American Arts & Crafts, eds. Nancy E. Green and Jessie Poesch (New York: American Federation of Arts in association with H.N. Abrams, 2000), 66–74 and Nancy E. Green, ‘Arthur Wesley Dow: His Art and His Influence’ and Marilee B. Meyer, ‘Arthur Wesley Dow and His Influence on Arts and Crafts’ in Arthur Wesley Dow (1857–1922): His Art and His Influence (New York: Spanierman Gallery, 1999), 8–37, 44–75. 74 Frederick C. Moffatt, Arthur Wesley Dow (1857–1922) (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1977), 84. 75 Arthur W. Dow, ‘The Place of Composition in Art Education’, Pratt Institute Monthly 4 (February 1896): 159–162; Arthur W. Dow, Composition: A Series of Exercises Selected from a New System of Art Education, 5th ed. (New York: Baker and Taylor Company, 1903). 76 Hoagland, ‘Art in Dress’, Monthly 5: 243. 77 H. Sackett, ‘Good Taste’, Pratt Institute Monthly 7 (February 1899): 93. 78 G. R., ‘From a Normal Student’s Standpoint’, Pratt Institute Monthly 8 (February 1900): 78. 79 Ibid., 79. 80 Morton, op. cit., 39–49. 81 Catalogue, Pratt Institute:1898–1899 (Brooklyn: Pratt Institute, 1898), 37. 82 Ibid., 38. 83 Celia B. Seymour, ‘Full-Day Course in Costume Design’, Pratt Institute Monthly 10 (February 1902): 106. 84 Emma E. Simonson, ‘Dressmaking: Full-Day Dressmaking Course’, Pratt Institute Monthly 10 (February 1902): 90. 85 E. Sackett, ‘Drawing in Connection with Dressmaking and Millinery’, Monthly 10: 99. 86 Ibid. 87 Catalogue, Pratt Institute: 1902–1903 (Brooklyn: Pratt Institute, 1902), 45, 50. 88 Shiner, op. cit., 119–123, 200. 89 See Anthea Callen, Women Artists of the Arts and Crafts Movement, 1870–1914 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1979) and Eileen Boris, Art and Labor: Ruskin, Morris, and the Craftsman Ideal in America (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986), 99–121. On the professionalization of American women fashion designers at a later time, see Sheryl F. Leipzig, Jean L. Parsons, and Jane Farrell-Beck, ‘It is a Profession that is New, Unlimited, and Rich: Promotion of the American Designer in the 1930s’, Dress 35 (2008): 30–47. 90 Bruce A. Kimball, The ‘True Professional Ideal’ in America: A History (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1995), 6–9; Earl F. Cheit, The Useful Arts and the Liberal Tradition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975), 1–2; Magali S. Larson, The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), 4–5. 91 Larson, op. cit., i–xi; William J. Goode, ‘The Theoretical Limits of Professionalization’, in The Semi-Professions and Their Organization: Teachers, Nurses, Social Workers, ed. Amitai Etzioni (New York: Free Press, 1969), 274–80. 92 Larson, op. cit., 104–158; Goode, op. cit., 266–313; Eliot Freidson, Professional Powers: A Study of the Institutionalization of Formal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 32–35. 93 Freidson, op. cit., 32; Samuel Haber, The Quest for Authority and Honor in the American Professions, 1750–1900 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), ix–xiv. 94 Neil Harris, The Artist in American Society; the Formative Years, 1790–1860. (New York: George Braziller, 1966), 75. 95 Kirsten Swinth, Painting Professionals: Women Artists & the Development of Modern American Art, 1870–1930 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 2–3, 5–6, 15–16, 215n13. 96 See Nancy F. Cott, ‘Professionalism and Feminism’, in Nancy F. Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987), 215–239. 97 See Penina M. Glazer and Miriam Slater, Unequal Colleagues: The Entrance of Women into the Professions, 1890–1940 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1987). 98 See Prieto, op. cit. 99 See Sarah Stage, ‘Introduction: Home Economics, What’s in a Name?’, Stage, ‘Ellen Richards’, and Rima Apple, ‘Liberal Arts or Vocational Training? Home Economics Education for Girls’, in Rethinking Home Economics: Women and the History of a Profession, ed. Stage and Vincenti, op.cit., 1–14, 17–33, 79–96 and Emma S. Weigley, ‘It Might Have Been Euthenics: The Lake Placid Conferences and the Home Economics Movement’, American Quarterly 26 (March 1974): 79–96. 100 Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics: Proceedings of the First, Second and Third Conferences (Lake Placid, NY, 1901), 4–5. http://hearth.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=hearth;idno=6060826_5315_002 accessed 5 June 2017; See also Stage, ‘Introduction’, op. cit., 6–7. 101 Stage, ‘Introduction’, op. cit., 6. 102 ‘The Inspector of Customs’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (November 1892): 36; ‘Self-Supporting Women’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (November 1892): 51; ‘The Pratt Institute Exhibit at the World’s Columbian Exposition’, Monthly 1: 283; ‘Department of Domestic Science’, Catalogue, Pratt Institute:1890–1891 (Brooklyn: Pratt Institute, 1890), n.p. 103 ‘Self-Supporting Women’, Monthly 1: 51; ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (April 1893): 188; ‘Teachers, Students, and Things’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (April 1893): 196. 104 ‘Self-Supporting Women’, Monthly 1: 51; ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (December 1892): 81. ‘Teachers, Students, and Things’, Monthly 1: 196; ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Monthly 1 (May 1893): 229; ‘Teachers, Students, and Things’, Monthly 2: 48. 105 Pratt, ‘Founder’s Day, 1897’, Pratt Institute Monthly 6 (October 1897): 13. 106 ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Monthly 1: 81; Catalogue, Pratt Institute: 1895–1896 (Brooklyn, Pratt Institute: 1895), 55–56. 107 Stage, ‘Introduction’, op. cit., 8. 108 Pratt, ‘Annual Report of the Secretary’, Pratt Institute Monthly 10 (November 1901): 5. 109 H. Sackett, ‘Annual Report of the Department of Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 10 (February 1902): 83–86. The following year, the normal course partly re-entered Domestic Art: the first year of the course was spent in Domestic Science and then for the second year, the normal student chose either a Domestic Science or Domestic Art track and the instruction took place in the respective department. 110 Catalogue, Pratt Institute: 1901–1902 (Brooklyn, Pratt Institute: 1901), 33–34. See also H. Sackett, ‘Annual Report of the Department of Domestic Art’, Monthly 10: 86. 111 Donahue claims that the Domestic Art department remained aligned with domestic science and home economics until the 1960s. Donahue, op. cit., 42. 112 Prieto, op. cit., 122; Swinth, op. cit., 27. 113 E. Sackett, ‘Drawing in Connection with Dressmaking and Millinery’, Monthly 10: 97. 114 Ibid., 100. 115 Simonson, ‘Dressmaking: Full-Day Dressmaking Course’, Monthly 10: 88. 116 Pratt, ‘Annual Report of the Secretary’, Pratt Institute Monthly 12 (October 1903): 11–12. 117 For an explanation of the unfemale associations of the professions, see Swinth, Painting Professionals, op. cit., 14. 118 S. Ella Huntington, ‘Millinery’, Pratt Institute Monthly 10 (February 1902): 96; ‘Technical Course in Dressmaking for Professional Use’, Pratt Institute Monthly 11 (May 1903): 180; ‘Full-Time Course in Sewing’, Pratt Institute Monthly 12 (January 1904): 86. 119 Simonson, ‘Dressmaking: Full-Day Dressmaking Course’, Monthly 10: 88–89. 120 ‘Domestic Art’, Monthly 3: 63; Seymour, ‘Costume Design as a Profession’, Pratt Institute Monthly 8 (February 1900): 80. 121 See Elizabeth A. Coleman, The Opulent Era: Fashions of Worth, Doucet and Pingat (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1989), 33–34; Nancy J. Troy, Couture Culture: A Study in Modern Art and Fashion (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003), 18–31; Wendy Gamber, The Female Economy: The Millinery and Dressmaking Trades, 1860–1930 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997), 111. 122 For examples of dresses in Aesthetic colors, see Charles Frederick Worth, Evening Ensemble, 1887, silk, metal, Metropolitan Museum, 2009.300.1094a-g and Charles Frederick Worth, Afternoon Dress, 1883–84, satin, chiffon, Museum of the City of New York, 31.3.5A-B. 123 See Diana De Marly, Worth: Father of Haute Couture (London: Elm Tree Books, 1980), 115–119 and Coleman, op. cit., 37, 47–64. 124 To portray himself as an artist, Worth posed for photographs in historicizing dress in the manner of a seventeenth-century painter. The well-known portrait of Worth in this garb was reproduced in the Monthly in February 1899. See Coleman, op. cit., 64 and Troy, op. cit. 125 Coleman, op. cit., 25. 126 Charles. Worth quoted in F. Adolphus, Some Memories of Paris (New York: Henry Holt, 1895), 190. 127 ‘Domestic Art’, Monthly 3: 63; Seymour, ‘Costume Design as a Profession’, Monthly 8: 80. 128 Seymour, ‘Full-Day Course in Costume Design’, Monthly 10:105. 129 E. Sackett, ‘Costume Design’, Monthly 8: 77. 130 H. Sackett, ‘Good Taste’, Monthly 7: 93–94. 131 Ibid., 93. 132 Seymour, ‘Full-Day Course in Costume Design’, Monthly 10: 105. 133 Alison Adburgham, Liberty’s: A Biography of a Shop (London: Allen & Unwin, 1975), 32–33, 51–53. 134 Cunningham, op. cit., 126. 135 Seymour, ‘Full-Day Course in Costume Design’, Monthly 10: 106. 136 See Harris, op. cit., 218–220 and Sarah Burns, Inventing the Modern Artist: Art and Culture in Gilded Age America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), 35–38. 137 ‘Technical Course in Dressmaking for Professional Use’, Monthly 11: 181. 138 Ibid., 181–182. It was reported in the Monthly that a graduate, with her business partner, designed the dresses the famous actress Leslie Carter wore in the 1901–1902 play Du Barry. 139 Ibid. 140 Seymour, ‘Costume Design as a Profession’, Monthly 8: 82; ‘Technical Course in Dressmaking for Professional Use’, Monthly 11: 182; ‘Dressmaking. Full-Time Course for Professional Use’, Pratt Institute Monthly 12 (January 1904): 92. 141 Morton, op. cit., 58–59. 142 Pratt, ‘Annual Report of the Secretary’, Monthly 12: 12. 143 Sackett resigned to get married. 144 The first man in the department enrolled the previous year. 145 ‘Teachers, Students, and Things’, Pratt Institute Monthly 5 (April 1897): 245. 146 Simonson’s articles were published monthly in McCall’s Magazine from June 1903 to January 1904. For example, see Simonson, ‘Lessons in Dressmaking: The Modern Waist and Just How to Make It. The New Shirred Waist’, McCall’s Magazine, July 1903: 840–41, 870–71; Emily M. Bishop, Americanized Delsarte Culture (Washington, DC: Emily M. Bishop, 1892). 147 See Pratt Institute Monthlies. 148 Cunningham, op. cit., 152–53. © The Author(s) [2018]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Design History Society. All rights reserved. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Design History Oxford University Press

The Pursuit of Art and Professionalism: Dressmaking, Millinery, and Costume Design at Pratt Institute, 1888–1904

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/the-pursuit-of-art-and-professionalism-dressmaking-millinery-and-vE69T8pXOh
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) [2018]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Design History Society. All rights reserved.
ISSN
0952-4649
eISSN
1741-7279
D.O.I.
10.1093/jdh/epy018
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract The first sixteen years of the Pratt Institute Department of Domestic Art—one of the earliest programmes of its kind—were characterized by continual reorganization and shifting purposes. The department initially set out to prepare women for housework or industrial work while promoting a reform of women’s fashion and aligning itself with the Arts and Crafts movement. Over the years, the department increasingly associated dressmaking and millinery with art. Eventually, inspired by the Domestic Art department’s relationship with the Art Department and the teachings of Arthur Wesley Dow, the Domestic Art faculty cautiously embraced fashion and industrialization. A separation between the conceptual designing and physical making of dress took place, and curricular developments reiterated the widely established hierarchy of art, design, and craft. By the early twentieth century, the Domestic Art department was committed to forming its students into intellectual and business-minded professional artists. This paper argues that the ideology and efforts of the Domestic Art faculty during Pratt’s formative years intended to legitimize the image of dressmaking, millinery, and costume design. The continual attempt to garner respect for the work taught in the department reflects women’s changing place in society and sheds light on understudied aspects of contemporary design movements. Pratt Institute and Domestic Art The late nineteenth century was a time of extraordinary change in America: women enrolled in schools and worked outside the home in rising numbers; various forms of higher education—including art and design schools—emerged and were transformed; a number of occupations professionalized; and many people questioned the effects of industrialization on society. The incipient years of the Pratt Institute Department of Domestic Art, one of the earliest programmes of higher education for dressmaking, millinery, and costume design, is a subject that speaks to all of these issues.1 Originally, the department was formed to prepare women for home work or to become labourers and the faculty endorsed a dress reform agenda that agreed with Aesthetic and Arts and Crafts principles. Department faculty espoused artistic and healthful dress and spurned fashion. In order to improve the status of dressmaking and millinery, the Domestic Art department continually sought to make a connection with art. This pursuit eventually resulted in a conceptual and practical separation between the designing and making of dress as well as a reevaluation of the hostility towards fashion. A decisive move away from Arts and Crafts principles, these developments allowed the department to devise a professional image similar to that of male fine artists. By the turn of the century, the Domestic Art department had distanced itself from its original dedication to the home, labour, and ‘women’s work’ to portray dressmakers, milliners, and costume designers as professional artists. In the late 1870s, many educators in America felt that schooling did not reflect the needs of the country: there was a demand for industrial workers and farmers, yet education concentrated on classical studies. In response to this disjunction, the manual training movement strove to develop both the intellect and dexterity. Instruction stressed general hand skills rather than a specific end product. Manual training exercises were intended to be educative and instil respect for manual labour while also preparing students with skills that could be applied to specialized tasks in the workplace. As the new century neared, the trend in education shifted from manual training to industrial training. While manual training had a strong moralistic emphasis, industrial training was vocationally oriented and as such was geared towards the economic benefit of the individual and society.2 Oil tycoon Charles Pratt responded to the call for intelligent industrial workers by founding his eponymous school in Brooklyn, New York in 1887. An unusual combination of an art and design school, Pratt Institute was established to provide manual training and industrial education enhanced by science and art.3 The first sixteen years of the institute were aligned with the Arts and Crafts movement in its objective to unite art, craft, and industry.4 The original departments included Industrial and Fine Arts (the core department of the school), a Regular Course (high school), Mechanic Arts, Building Trades, Shorthand, and Domestic Science.5 The Department of Domestic Science, or the ‘Woman’s Department’ as it was colloquially called, was formed at Pratt in January 1888 primarily to help women become better homemakers and secondarily to train them for industrial jobs.6 In America in the 1870s and 1880s, the fields of domestic science and domestic art, which typically aimed to prepare women for work in the home, were viewed as female counterparts to manual training and industrial education for men.7 Initially, the Pratt Woman’s Department offered courses (programmes of study) in cooking, sewing, dressmaking, millinery, and art embroidery. The department—as well as the institute at large—was continually reorganized over the school’s first years. Because of the rapid growth of the Woman’s Department, the sewing, dressmaking, and millinery courses branched off to form the Department of Domestic Art in 1893.8 The main voice of the Department of Domestic Art was Harriet S. Sackett, the organizer and director of the original Woman’s Department, who served as the Domestic Art department’s director until 1903. Prior to her employment at Pratt, Sackett studied art needlework at the New York Society of Decorative Art (founded by Candace Wheeler) and then taught art needlework at the Rhode Island School of Design.9 At Pratt, Sackett edited the Domestic Art column in the Pratt Institute Monthly, a newsletter for students and the community published from 1893 to 1904 that covered departmental affairs supplemented with editorial columns.10 While the course catalogues and the annual records provide the general structure of the curriculum and basic information on classes, the Pratt Institute Monthly reveals the character and inclinations of the institution from the faculty’s perspective.11 Artistic dress Sackett and other faculty members published numerous articles in the Monthly that promoted a reform of women’s dress.12 At first, this stemmed from antipathy towards mainstream fashion.13 Pratt faculty referred to fashion as a ‘pseudo-goddess’, ‘sham’, and an embodiment of ‘false ideals’.14 At the time, fashion was considered to be the seasonally changing styles that were adapted from designs originating in Paris.15 Since the mid-nineteenth century, individuals, groups, and organizations felt that fashion was variously unhealthful, unreasonable, and inartistic. Some believed fashion was unhealthful thanks to restrictive garments that malformed women’s bodies, silhouettes that inhibited women’s movement, and long, multi-layered, unwashable skirts that trapped dirt. Criticized as ephemeral, frivolous, excessive, and feminine, fashion had also gained a reputation as a manifestation of the mindless consumption spurred by industrialization.16 Prominent artists and design reformers associated with the Aesthetic and Arts and Crafts movements thought that in addition to exemplifying the corruption of industrial capitalism, fashionable dress was inartistic and obfuscated women’s individuality.17 Engaging several of these overlapping arguments, the Pratt Domestic Art department asserted that fashion was both unhealthful and inartistic. Their agenda to reform women’s fashion borrowed from the Arts and Crafts and Aesthetic movements in addition to leading dress reformers in America. As an alternative to French-influenced fashion, the Domestic Art department espoused ‘artistic dress’ that heeded the wearer’s health and complemented her individuality.18 Artistic dress materialized as a corollary to wider design reform and art movements in England in the mid-nineteenth century and subsequently spread to America and the rest of Europe.19 The British Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, beginning in the middle of the century, filled their canvases with women in garments evoking dress from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries.20 John Ruskin—an inspiration and advocate of the Pre-Raphaelites—and William Morris, along with others concerned with design reform, also took up the cause to reform women’s dress.21 The basic concept of artistic dress was that art principles should be applied to the way one dressed.22 In the late nineteenth century, artistic dress, or aesthetic dress as it was sometimes called, primarily implied historicizing dress in a medieval, Renaissance, or classical idiom. It fit more loosely than fashionable dress and was ideally worn without undergarments like corsets or bustles that exaggerated the curves of a woman’s body.23 Besides the styles popularized by the Pre-Raphaelites, Aesthetes also looked to ancient Greece for dress inspiration.24 Later in the century, prominent artists like Frederic Leighton and Lawrence Alma-Tadema featured classically inspired dress in their paintings, and the consummate aesthete, Oscar Wilde, praised the beautiful and healthful principles of the classical figure and ancient Greek dress.25 Among those who wore artistic dress were individuals associated with the Arts and Crafts movement, just coalescing in America around the time of Pratt’s founding. As Marsha Morton has shown in Pratt and Its Gallery: The Arts & Crafts Years, the school ideologically aligned with Arts and Crafts principles until 1904.26 The first Pratt catalogue elaborated on the institute’s social values and intentions: ‘The need of manual training as a developing power is scarcely less than that of industrial education—such education as shall best enable men and women to earn their own living by applied knowledge and the skillful use of their hands in the various productive industries…. The twofold aim of the Institute is based on an appreciation of the dignity as well as the value of intelligent handicraft and skilled manual labor’.27 The attempt to unite the mind and the hand and re-instil respect for labour were goals shared by the manual training and Arts and Crafts movements.28 Writers in the Monthly, including Domestic Art faculty, frequently referenced and quoted pioneers of the British Arts and Crafts movement such as John Ruskin as well as William Morris, Thomas Carlyle, and Walter Crane. Reinforcing Pratt’s mission to take up the cause on the American side of the Atlantic, the inaugural issue of the Monthly asserted, ‘the distinction between the fine and useful arts should be forgotten’.29 The Arts and Crafts movement was largely motivated by the sentiment that industrialization had led to a proliferation of poorly designed, poor-quality goods that corrupted society. A reconfiguration of man’s relationship with machines was in order, and carriers of the torch lit by Ruskin and Morris opposed industrialization to varying degrees.30 Initially, the Domestic Art department expressed an antagonism towards industrialization that went hand-in-hand with their antagonism for fashion. In an article on French fashion history, a Monthly writer claimed, ‘The improvements on the sewing-machine laid new snares. Since there were hemmers, fellers, tuckers, rufflers, and plaiters, woman felt in duty bound to envelop herself in all their works’.31 Elsewhere, Sackett asserted, ‘The modern age has been one of commercial enterprise. To induce poor human beings to use the largest amount of cloth, ribbons, and feathers, has been the aim of the manufacturer and the modiste’.32 These allegations spoke to recent developments in the sewing machine and the commonly held belief that the sewing machine encouraged the creation of elaborate fashions.33 Many specialized sewing machines, including ruffling and pleating machines alluded to in the Monthly, were introduced in the 1870s and 1880s.34 Such devices quickly produced a running yardage of trims that could be applied to a garment to create the highly embellished styles recently in fashion. The unbridled ornamentation that the machines seemed to foster was anathema to the tenets of artistic dress, which upheld the simplified drapery in historical dress over applied decoration. Pratt faculty blamed the sewing machine, an exemplary industrial product, for ‘inartistic’ fashionable styles that they believed benefited the producers of fashion who preyed on unwitting consumers. Many of the views towards women’s dress that Pratt faculty endorsed were shared by prominent dress reformers in America, particularly Annie Jenness Miller and Frances M. Steele. These women were not directly associated with the Aesthetic movement, the Arts and Crafts movement, nor wider design reform, yet they shared many of the same objectives: they desired to make dress ‘artistic’, they promoted the Greek ideal, and they believed dress should express a person’s individuality.35 Jenness Miller was a guest lecturer at Pratt and the Monthly reproduced both Jenness Miller’s and Steele’s writings.36 Pratt faculty reiterated these women’s progressive ideas on dress reform by writing: The department of Domestic Art has for several years been trying to influence its students to adopt the same ideals in relation to dress, as those held by the Chicago Society. This aim has been sought by means of lectures upon anatomy, physiology, physical culture, and artistic dress; by teaching the students to draw; by filling its rooms with beautiful casts and photographs of the figure. To wage war against fashions, is a long and labored battle. But progress has been made, since even Fashion herself now and then becomes artistic. It may not be long before Brooklyn also can boast of her Correct Dress Club.37 The Chicago Society for the Promotion of Physical Culture and Correct Dress was the largest dress reform organization in America when it was established in 1888. Both Jenness Miller and Steele were linked with the organization.38 In the few extant photographs of the Domestic Art department, the students are wearing typical fashionable day dress and most of the garments the students are working on also follow fashion [1], [2], [3], yet there is evidence that artistic dress—as the term was understood at the time—was produced at Pratt. In 1893, Pratt students and alumni participated in the Chicago World’s Columbian Exposition, where dress reform was a hot topic.39 The Pratt gowns were not displayed on ordinary dressmaker’s mannequins but were shown on dress forms with ‘proportions of a normal human figure’.40 In a photo of the Domestic Art section of the exposition, there is a light-coloured dress in profile that has a full body, a voluminous Watteau back, and high, puffed sleeves [4]. Another example can be seen in a photo of a Domestic Art class from the mid-1890s [3]. There is a dark-coloured garment on a dress form in the back of the room (left of centre in the photo) that has a bodice with a rectilinear neckline embellished with a heavy braid, a tall, ruff-like collar, and high puffed sleeves that appear to be slashed. The silhouettes and historicizing features of these dresses fit the profile of artistic dress.41 Fig 1. View largeDownload slide Department of Domestic Art, Pratt Institute, ca. 1900, CL-46, Photograph Collection. The Pratt Institute Archives, Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York. Reproduced Journal of Design History with permission from the Pratt Institute Archives. Fig 1. View largeDownload slide Department of Domestic Art, Pratt Institute, ca. 1900, CL-46, Photograph Collection. The Pratt Institute Archives, Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York. Reproduced Journal of Design History with permission from the Pratt Institute Archives. Fig 2. View largeDownload slide Millinery Class, Department of Domestic Art, Pratt Institute, 1899–1900, MI-01, Photograph Collection. The Pratt Institute Archives, Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York. Reproduced Journal of Design History with permission from the Pratt Institute Archives. Fig 2. View largeDownload slide Millinery Class, Department of Domestic Art, Pratt Institute, 1899–1900, MI-01, Photograph Collection. The Pratt Institute Archives, Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York. Reproduced Journal of Design History with permission from the Pratt Institute Archives. Fig 3. View largeDownload slide Department of Domestic Art, Pratt Institute, 1894–95, CL-53, Photograph Collection. The Pratt Institute Archives, Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York. Reproduced Journal of Design History with permission from the Pratt Institute Archives. Fig 3. View largeDownload slide Department of Domestic Art, Pratt Institute, 1894–95, CL-53, Photograph Collection. The Pratt Institute Archives, Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, New York. Reproduced Journal of Design History with permission from the Pratt Institute Archives. Fig 4. View largeDownload slide Exhibit of the Department of Domestic Art, Pratt Institute, at the Chicago World’s Columbian Exposition, Pratt Institute Monthly, (Brooklyn, 1893), 279. Fig 4. View largeDownload slide Exhibit of the Department of Domestic Art, Pratt Institute, at the Chicago World’s Columbian Exposition, Pratt Institute Monthly, (Brooklyn, 1893), 279. In order to motivate students to design artistic dress that drew on historical precedents, the Domestic Art department at Pratt promoted the study of costume history and advocated the classical figure. The Monthly reproduced artwork, including Pre-Raphaelite paintings and classical sculptures, that depicted admirable forms of dress and published articles on costume history, a subject that was also taught in regular lectures beginning in 1895.42 Faculty further encouraged students to study the classical figure through exposure to original antiquities and replicas. Sackett organized a field trip for the Domestic Art department to visit The Metropolitan Museum of Art to study Greek sculptures. In the classrooms at Pratt, miniature plaster casts of classical bas-reliefs and sculptures were installed for general inspiration as well as specific study during drawing and watercolour classes [1].43 Besides focusing on dress history, the Domestic Art faculty urged students to look to nature for inspiration. One Domestic Art writer reported on typical Aesthetic colours that she spotted during an outing in the mountains: The lovely velvety green of the moss-covered rocks and old tree-trunks in shady dells showed us every shade, from the cool blue and gray-greens to the warmest, most brilliant yellow-green. To add greater brilliancy still, a golden-yellow mushroom, bunches of the scarlet cornel-berries, or of the rich blue clintonia berries looked out of the green mosses at us. In one spot we exclaimed with delight as we caught sight of masses of shell-pink and transparent white dotting the dark-green carpet under our feet.44 The writer noted that the experience reminded her of Ruskin’s writings. She advised students to follow Ruskin’s advice and study nature to develop ‘a sensitive eye for color’.45 Along with promoting Ruskinian ideals in the Monthly, faculty also made an effort to bring nature into the classroom. The Domestic Art department possessed a collection of stones from the Massachusetts seashore for the students to study the ‘infinite range of color in the most delicate and beautiful shades’.46 In a photo of a millinery class, there are drawings of leaves on the bulletin board next to sketches of hat designs, suggesting a relationship between nature and hat-making [2]. When Pratt hosted an exhibition of a butterfly collection, Domestic Art students were instructed to sketch the butterflies and then design a dress inspired by the colour combinations and forms of the insects.47 A later Monthly included a dressmaking student’s drawing of an ‘original design suggested by [a] butterfly’ [5].48 Fig 5. View largeDownload slide Dressmaking student’s design ‘suggested by [a] butterfly’, Pratt Institute Monthly (Brooklyn, 1902), 98. Fig 5. View largeDownload slide Dressmaking student’s design ‘suggested by [a] butterfly’, Pratt Institute Monthly (Brooklyn, 1902), 98. Along with an interest in nature, a shared goal of both the Aesthetic and Arts and Crafts movements was to infuse art into everyday objects with special interest in the domestic environment. For the Domestic Art department, an alignment with these values could help improve the disrepute that clothing had earned through the negative connotations of fashion. Sackett seconded design reformers’ espousal of a complete artistic environment. She advocated for the significance of one’s immediate surroundings, such as the home and clothing, as much as paintings, sculptures, and architecture.49 Such thoughtful consideration of common objects reflected Japanese culture. The Japanese treated utilitarian objects with the care and admiration customarily reserved for fine art in the West. A fascination with Japanese design had permeated Europe and America by the late nineteenth century, and design reformers often looked to Japanese culture for inspiration. Frederic Pratt, Charles’s son, who became the director of the school in 1891, travelled to Japan and amassed a collection of Japanese objects.50 Mirroring this enthusiasm, the Domestic Art instructor Edith S. Sackett (Harriet’s younger sister) explained that Japanese textiles provided a source for students to refine their sense of colour.51 Elsewhere, Harriet Sackett described how Japanese women were taught flower-arranging as an art form.52 From the contemporary American viewpoint, Japanese flower-arranging elevated a seemingly simple domestic act into an art. The domestic artist The traditional Japanese esteem for all kinds of man-made objects was unlike western attitudes, in which a hierarchy between art and craft had been deeply ingrained since the eighteenth century. As Larry Shiner has explained, from antiquity into the eighteenth century, objects that fell in the nineteenth-century categories of ‘art’ and ‘craft’ all had a use and the modern distinction between ‘artist’ and ‘artisan’ did not exist. In other words, all makers of things were artists/artisans. The status of painters, sculptors, and architects began to rise during the Renaissance and by the end of the eighteenth century, because of various institutional, social, and economic changes, the dominant conception of ‘artist’ and ‘artisan’ embodied opposing characteristics; objects that were art/craft became either art or craft. The term ‘fine art’ included painting, sculpture, architecture, music, and poetry and implied inspiration and genius (a quality gendered as exclusively male). On the other hand, artisans were associated with technical skill, rules, and objects that had a use.53 Some of the earliest designers for industry—those that provided the conception or plan for others to execute—were painters or sculptors.54 The intellectual aspect of design was related to the conception or plan while the execution of the object was regarded as inferior since it relied on manual trade skills that did not require a liberal arts education.55 In the nineteenth century, the conceptual gap between artist and artisan increased. Industrialization relegated many artisans to factories and an artisan’s work came to imply imitation, factory work, and trade. Artists were considered autonomous and supposedly fulfilled a loftier, spiritual calling.56 Though not possessing the prestige of an artist, designers of industrial objects held the highest position in the factory system.57 Although the Arts and Crafts movement claimed to view art and craft as equally significant, in a certain respect, the current hierarchy between art and craft remained in place. While the movement foregrounded craft and everyday objects that had a use over painting and sculpture, the ideology affirmed the elevated status of art.58 Proponents believed mass production resulted in a loss of artistry in utilitarian objects and they sought to reinfuse art into everyday things—craft had fallen from the rank it used to share with art. Likewise, although Pratt faculty claimed ‘the distinction between the fine and useful arts should be forgotten’, they nonetheless maintained that an artist was above an artisan/craftsman. A Monthly writer stated, ‘even the small every-day things for every-day uses might be artistic in form and color and texture, if the artisan of to-day were an artist, as in times gone by’.59 Harriet Sackett expressed the same values by writing, ‘Should not the woman who can clothe herself and others in such a manner as to preserve health and grace and enhance beauty be considered an artist rather than an artisan?’60 The promotion of artistic dress and the Arts and Crafts movement established a desire to correlate dress with art early on. Plausibly, the Arts and Crafts movement would enable the crafts (including dressmaking and millinery) to access the distinction of art. Along with encouraging students to create artistic dress, the Domestic Art department associated dress with art by increasingly incorporating art education in the curriculum. In 1890, classes in freehand drawing and design began in the dressmaking and millinery courses under the Art Department’s supervision.61 The Art Department’s approach to drawing opposed the South Kensington model, the prevailing system in industrial education.62 The South Kensington model involved copying prints and underscored technical proficiency and rules rather than creativity. In the Domestic Art drawing classes, students first studied drapery and cylindrical objects in pencil, then drew garments and experimented with colour, and finally used watercolours, studied the outline of the human body, and designed garments or hats.63 The instruction was based on casts of figures and ornaments, photographs of statues and paintings, and plates of historic dress.64 Initially, the drawing classes were optional and attendance was poor.65 The Domestic Art department continually increased emphasis on drawing and by 1893, the dressmaking and millinery students were required to take drawing classes during every grade of instruction.66 Pratt faculty repeatedly defended the relevance of drawing for Domestic Art students.67 They believed the study of freehand drawing, specifically of classical casts, was exceptional for a dressmaking or millinery school.68 Domestic Art instructors contended that drawing classes provided many skills applicable to dressmaking and millinery. For one, it helped teach the students how to design: drawing developed a connection between the eye and the hand, helped the student understand the classical body, and cultivated taste in the pupil.69 Furthermore, the ability to draw allowed the student to plan a garment or hat before making it. This step would enable her to see how effective or ‘ludicrous’ her idea was, and the teacher could correct the conception prior to execution.70 The faculty’s pride in and promotion of freehand drawing was surely intended to distinguish the drawing done in Domestic Art from the type of drawing associated with genteel women’s education and ladylike pastimes that entailed copying prints. On the contrary, drawing from classical casts reflected instruction at esteemed academic art schools such as the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris.71 In the Pratt Art Department at this time, both the Design and Regular (fine art) tracks likewise combined French academic art training with a British-influenced Arts and Crafts approach.72 The relationship of dress education with art education was greatly influenced by the arrival of Arthur Wesley Dow in the Art Department in 1895. Dow was an extremely influential educator whose approach to art, craft, and design instruction transformed the way the subjects were taught in America. Dow also played a role in the development of the Arts and Crafts movement and modern art. Prominent artists and craftspeople studied under him, including ceramicists Adelaide Alsop Robineau and Margaret and Mary Frances Overbeck, as well as modern painters Georgia O’Keeffe and Max Weber.73 Dow’s 1899 book Composition, based on his instruction at Pratt, was widely used in art and design teaching; by 1941 it had been printed in twenty editions.74 Dow’s revolutionary teaching methods opposed traditional academic art education that prioritized technical expertise and realistic representation of nature. Instead, he championed a personal notion of beauty through training in composition. His instruction focused on harmony of line, colour, and notan, a Japanese term for the relationship between light and dark areas. A notable feature of Dow’s composition instruction was the practice of creating multiple versions of a design with slight variations in line, proportion, and shading. By comparing the versions with the instructor, the student would cultivate judgement to decide what was most beautiful. Dow’s approach strove to incite students to develop their own judgement and create original work that conveyed an idea. Affirming all media were equally relevant and could use the same foundational training, his philosophies blurred the distinction between art, craft, and design. According to Dow, the origin of academic art, which concentrated on imitation, could be traced to the Renaissance; prior, all the arts and crafts were valued equally and training in composition was a shared foundation.75 While Dow did not advocate copying historical art and design, he did support studying art history, especially work from ancient Greece and the early European Renaissance along with traditional Japanese objects. Dow’s praise of East Asian design and art history together with his dedication to all art, design, and craft suited the established mission of Domestic Art. Soon after his arrival, Dow’s influence extended beyond the Art Department to Domestic Art faculty, whose rhetoric in the Monthly emulated the values that Dow promoted, especially the interest in composition and spatial relations to achieve harmony and beauty above all. In an 1897 article called ‘Art in Dress’, the department secretary Susan Hoagland explained, ‘During the past year an especial study has been made in our drawing-classes of artistic composition and good proportion in lines and spaces…. Drawings are made of the different styles of bows, after which, class discussion and criticism bring out ideas of light-and-shade and of good design’.76 The application of Dow’s teaching to the practice of dressmaking and millinery was reflected elsewhere in the Monthly. In 1899, Harriet Sackett wrote, ‘Beauty, we are told, is the interrelation of things, the establishment of harmonies or pleasing relations between things’.77 The following year, a student in the department explained, ‘In the drawing class [students] soon discover the value of good, true, definite lines, the equal balancing of masses, necessity of contrast of line and form in good proportion’.78 The writer claimed that drawing, moreover, enabled students to develop their own sense of beauty.79 Art, craft, and design training became closely related through Dow’s pedagogy.80 Yet, even though the crossover between the Art Department and Domestic Art increased towards the turn of the century, a divide emerged between designing and making in Domestic Art. In 1898, a costume design course was introduced under the Art Department’s direction.81 Costume design taught designing and drawing dress (of everyday clothes as opposed to theatrical costumes) as preparation to become illustrators or designers [6].82 The course did not teach the physical making of clothing or hats—the core skills of Domestic Art. Students spent the first two years of the course in the Art Department, either in the Regular (fine art) or Design course, and then spent the third year of study in the Domestic Art department. By 1902, costume design students were taking classes with Dow in composition and design.83 In costume design, the separation between designing and making was intrinsic to the course’s purpose, yet a degree of separation also occurred in dressmaking and millinery courses that distanced the conceptual from the physical part of the work. Although students still had to learn the entire process of making an object, by 1902, dressmaking students who proved they could construct their garments were no longer required to do so; they could hire a seamstress to create their designs from their sketches so they could ‘devote more time to the artistic part’.84 In the same year, the Domestic Art department as a whole devoted ‘more attention to ideas and design, and less to art technique’ than in previous years.85 This was meant to encourage students to experiment with their own ideas, learn to trust their inclinations, and identify the beautiful elements in fashionable dress rather than thoughtlessly adopting trends.86 These motivations are all redolent of Dow who deemphasized technical/academic art training. In this line of thinking, ‘art’, ‘design’, and ‘ideas’ were related concepts that deserved the most attention. Although the Domestic Art department still expressed value for technical training, once a student had attained the level of designer, the student could pass on the manual part to someone with less education. When the costume design course was created, it was longer—requiring more education—than the dressmaking and millinery courses. The curriculum further emphasized the intellectual nature of clothing design by requiring the costume design students to take art history courses in the Art Department in addition to costume history. In contrast, faculty encouraged, but did not require, dressmaking students to take art history.87 These developments that associated technique, labour, and mimesis on the one hand and ideas, inspiration, education, design, and art on the other hand resembled the prevailing dichotomy between ‘artist’ and ‘artisan’. Fig 6. View largeDownload slide Dress design by costume design student, Pratt Institute Monthly (Brooklyn, 1904), 103. Fig 6. View largeDownload slide Dress design by costume design student, Pratt Institute Monthly (Brooklyn, 1904), 103. Professionalization It was evident from the outset that the Domestic Art department believed that the design of women’s dress was a serious matter. For the women at Pratt, the crusade to improve their standing was motivated by fashion’s questionable reputation, in addition to the notion that women were naturally endowed with the capability to be copyists, like artisans, instead of creators like male artists.88 For a program of higher education trying to raise the quality and status of the work done in their department, the Arts and Crafts ideology ostensibly suited this goal. Yet, as I have shown, the relationship with the Art Department encouraged a tendency to prioritize the concept over the execution. Likely because traditional gendered divisions of labour and amateur connotations of craft persisted under the Arts and Crafts movement, the Domestic Art department moved the emphasis away from the home, labour, and craft to pursue an even stronger affiliation with art as well as with professionalism.89 The term ‘profession’, by at least the eighteenth century, commonly referred to the occupations with shared roots in the first universities: law, medicine, the clergy, and university teaching.90 The professions were typically characterized by formal training that resulted in specialized knowledge and credentials, a service mission, and clubs or associations.91 Alongside industrialization in the nineteenth century, many middle-class occupations went through a professionalizing process by fulfilling these requirements.92 The label ‘profession’ instilled a sense of authority and autonomy and elevated an occupation’s status by identifying with the elite liberal education of the original learned professions, thereby dissociating from inferior trades.93 Male artists (painters and sculptors) in America initiated the process towards professionalization by differentiating their work from that of artisans.94 In the 1870s and 1880s, male artists solidified their professional image through the establishment of academic art education that provided systematic training and credentials, and they subsequently formed associations.95 Pratt had many ingredients for professionalization: graded courses, written examinations, certificates, a service mission provided by dress reform and Arts and Crafts ideology, and eventually, an alumnae association. Yet, for women, these attributes did not guarantee professional status. Although women were making certain strides into the workplace, the professions were populated largely by men, and by the end of the nineteenth century they were still difficult for women to enter.96 Domesticity and professionalism were typically considered at odds. The female-dominated occupations that made inroads in professionalization in the nineteenth century undertook work that was justified as a natural extension of femininity.97 Laura Prieto has researched the particular challenges female painters and sculptors experienced as they attempted to professionalize between 1870 to 1900. She argues that female artists pursued men’s steps to professionalization to the degree that social conventions permitted. Because certain key professionalizing institutions were closed off to them (namely, life study of the nude figure and clubs and associations that only admitted male members), they carved a parallel route to professionalization that embraced the separate spheres ideology. Prieto claims that female artists engaged with both domesticity and professionalism in order to work as artists; it was through professionalization that female artists could unite the concepts of femininity and artist. Women artists embraced the gendered connotations of amateur art such as watercolour and drawing, pursuits considered appropriate for respectable women. It was also appropriate for women to study art in school, and by the late nineteenth century, the training women had access to was roughly comparable to that of male artists. Thus, women artists eventually entered the art world by assuming the guise of middle-class female propriety. Prieto argues that, furthermore, men’s involvement in the Aesthetic and Arts and Crafts movements raised the status of gendered activities like embroidery and home decorating, narrowing the gap between unserious ladylike pastimes and serious art. To make the leap from amateur women’s art associated with the home to professionalism, female artists formed their own clubs, networks, associations, and exhibitions.98 While female artists engaged with the gendered connotations of home work as a conduit to professionalization, home economists viewed the home as the locus of professionalization. The field of home economics emerged parallel to manual training and coalesced into an organized movement in the late nineteenth century. Home economists believed house work played a vital role in individual families as well as wider society. Ellen Richards, a pioneer of the movement, not only sought to systematize housework, but also hoped to elevate and professionalize the field in order to gain respect for the work.99 For Richards, a key part of this effort was incorporating home economics into the curriculum of the elite eastern women’s colleges, the female equivalents to the male Ivy League schools. In 1899 when the organizers decided on an official name for the movement, which previously went by various names including domestic science and domestic art among other iterations, they specifically did not choose ‘household arts’ because they felt the name had unintellectual connotations and would repel the elite women’s colleges.100 Richards herself was not interested in the ‘arts’ aspect of home economics as much as the application of science and economy to home work.101 Originally, the Pratt Domestic Art department was in step with the home economics movement in its primary focus on home work and secondary focus on industrial work. Similar to home economists, Pratt faculty viewed the home as a source for women to develop worthy careers rather than a restrictive domain that stifled women’s minds.102 In the early years, the Domestic Art department often referred to the kinds of work that Pratt students were preparing for as ‘self-supporting’, which they considered to be any work, paid or unpaid.103 By using a term that implied financial independence for work that included unpaid housework, Pratt further aligned with the mission of home economics. At the same time, Pratt faculty betrayed a sensitivity towards the stigma attached to wage-earning work done by women: in the early 1890s, the Domestic Art department used the word professional as a euphemism for paid work.104 This was not the traditional understanding of a profession. With time, the purpose of the Domestic Art department shifted away from the original mission, and the meaning of ‘professional’ would change. Although Pratt was established to provide manual training and industrial education, in the 1890s, the institute evolved into a school that mainly produced teachers.105 The Domestic Art department had acknowledged a demand for elementary and high school teachers by 1892, and in 1895 a ‘normal course’ for teacher training was added.106 This still aligned with home economics: most of the women who entered programs of higher learning in domestic art, domestic science, and other programs associated with home economics that were established in the 1870s and 1880s became teachers of the subject.107 Then, at the outset of the 1901–1902 school year, Frederic Pratt announced that the institution was concentrating on industrial education.108 While this, in fact, realigned with the original purpose of the school, for Domestic Art, this contributed to a break with its home economics-oriented origins. In this year, the normal course was removed from Domestic Art. Harriet Sackett explained that the current demand was for elementary school teachers who taught basic domestic science and domestic art together. Therefore, a normal course was only offered in Domestic Science, which included basic sewing and some drawing instruction.109 The 1901 course catalogue confirmed a reorientation in Domestic Art from the school’s early years: it declared that the Domestic Art department’s objective was primarily to provide professional training and secondarily to supply training for the home.110 This was a decisive step away from home economics, a field centred around work in the home that also trained teachers of the subject.111 The use of the word ‘professional’ here diverges from the home economist’s correlation of home work with professionalism; according to the Domestic Art writings, ‘home’ and ‘professional’ were mutually exclusive. For the female painters and sculptors who associated with the home in order to professionalize, the affiliation with amateurism—a negative term at the end of the century—became an obstacle to gaining the respect and authority, as well as a place on the art market, that were otherwise concomitant with artists’ professional credentials.112 Unlike domestic economists and female artists, the Domestic Art department distanced itself from the connection with home work. The model Domestic Art student was not preparing for home work nor was she training to become a teacher (one of the few wage-earning jobs that, throughout the nineteenth century, had been acceptable for a genteel woman), but was preparing to become some other kind of professional. The Domestic Art department’s use of the word professional increased around the turn of the century and the meaning had changed from the early usage. Now faculty used the term in its traditional sense. Edith Sackett argued that to be the best professionals, dressmakers and milliners must become artists as well as technicians. She defended her strategic word choice that associated dressmaking and millinery with the work of lawyers and doctors, two of the traditional learned professions: ‘I say profession thoughtfully and conscientiously, feeling that the business of making man as beautiful as utility and fashion will permit is as necessary and ennobling as settling the quarrels and altercations of men, filling their teeth, or prescribing for their aches and pains’.113 Unlike home economists, the Pratt Domestic Art department attempted to professionalize specifically through an association with art. A relationship with the Art Department was a major legitimizing factor for the department. Edith Sackett explained, ‘We have been particularly fortunate in being associated with a Department of Fine Arts that is appreciative and helpful, taking us seriously and approving our work or criticizing us in a friendly spirit’.114 The Domestic Art department looked up to the Art Department and relied on its guidance. This relationship ultimately provided the Domestic Art department with certain qualities essential for a professional. Emma Simonson, an assistant instructor of dressmaking, stated: If one doubts our right to use the word professional in relation to dressmaking, he has not followed the march of progress in this line of work. He is still thinking of the time before the common use of the sewing-machine, when the work was somewhat mechanical, and did not require a person of much general or artistic education. In those days, the object of dress was simply to warm and to cover the body in conformity with the prevailing fashion; but times have changed, and now we are required to beautify.115 The view towards the sewing machine had changed since the department’s inception, when it was blamed for the corruption of fashionable dress. Now, under the control and direction of the educated professional, the sewing machine was a tool to aid in artistic design. It is notable that for Domestic Art, Pratt’s refocus on industrial education meant that the students would, in the best case, become directors of industrial work—essentially, designers—rather than factory labourers. Frederic Pratt even used the costume design course as an example of how the school was successfully answering the call for industrial education.116 Significantly, the costume design course was the most divided Domestic Art course in terms of the idea and execution of the object. Similar to how artists were highly regarded for the intellectual nature of their work, professionals relied on their expert knowledge and intellects—their minds made them professionals more than their bodies. By becoming artists, the Domestic Art students embodied another key characteristic of a professional that was otherwise considered unfemale: autonomy.117 The Domestic Art student, unlike the stereotypical woman, did not merely copy or imitate but rather used her expert training and individual perspective to determine what was beautiful and to create. Although the Domestic Art faculty claimed dressmaking and millinery should be considered professions, a Pratt education was not a guarantee of professional status. Something else was required to achieve this, something that could not be taught: ‘talent’.118 When Simonson elaborated on the right to call dressmakers professionals she stated, ‘Never has it been such a study to bring out the artistic in dress. We, as dressmakers, are required to create, which means to originate…. To be able to do this requires a liberal education…. Dressmaking is something that cannot be poured in, but, like all other knowledge, must grow from within’.119 Here and elsewhere faculty expressed that only if a student possessed talent, an innate quality like the genius and inspiration that artists possessed, then with the Pratt education, a student could become a professional. As the Domestic Art department increasingly aligned their students with artists, their strict stance against fashion eased. In particular, in the mid-1890s, the department began to praise Charles Frederick Worth.120 Largely credited for initiating the haute couture system in the 1860s, Worth developed a business in which he, the designer, devised seasonal models of dress for clients to choose from. Worth selected the fabrics and trims and directed the execution of the models in his workshop. Thereafter, the (oftentimes male) couturier became the main arbiter of fashion, whereas previously, a dressmaker was primarily a craftsperson (usually female) hired to adapt fashion according to a client’s instruction using preselected fabric.121 The output of Worth’s couture house was prolific: his gowns were sometimes extremely bright colours made from aniline dyes (pointedly anti-Arts and Crafts), yet he also created dresses in fashionable silhouettes with unusual colour schemes that recall Aesthetic interiors.122 Worth was known for incorporating historicizing details in fashionable silhouettes, and in other cases, the house of Worth fully embraced artistic dress.123 He created a massive business that resembled mass-production, yet he managed to portray himself as an artist and associate his work with fine art instead of industry and craft.124 Worth’s image as an artist who had a special gift to create allowed him to convince clients that he knew what would complement them more than they did.125 He stated, ‘My business is not only to execute but especially to invent. My invention is the secret of my success’.126 In the Monthly, Domestic Art faculty claimed Worth studied statues and other art forms and also looked to nature for inspiration.127 The department’s fixation with Worth is significant considering its tendency to equate dress with art and isolate dress design from labour, especially female labour. By the turn of the century, Domestic Art faculty qualified their earlier wholehearted espousal of historical and hygienic dress and adopted a discretionary approach to fashion. Instructor Celia Seymour even conceded to the limited wearability of some versions of reform dress by writing, ‘Often in the so-called reform gowns we see designs fit only for house gowns’.128 While the faculty still did not champion all fashionable dress, they now sought an intermediary between fashion and historic and hygienic dress. Edith Sackett wrote: First we had only hygienic and natural figures, and then gradually came such as approach the fashion-plate, although we know that they are often impossible and at the best unusual. But we do wish style, a good style. The ideal is, many individual styles, all of them good. It is a step in this direction to have each student draw three styles of figure, trying to make each good of its kind. To try each extreme and them something between the two seems the quickest way to bring out a happy medium. It is interesting to put a hygienic form beside a stylish design, and then clothe it in the same way, but alter the angles and the directions of some of the lines so that in the end scarcely any difference in the forms underneath is apparent. Changes in the arrangement of the dark and light may have the same effect. The apparent change in a line through the relative position of other lines is very interesting.129 Replacing a repudiation of fashionable dress, the new goal of Domestic Art was harmony and beauty in dress with a continued interest in individuality.130 The reconciliation between reform dress and fashion owed thanks to Dow’s comparison method and attention to subtleties in line and shade. His concept of beauty was a subjective yet informed notion that did not necessarily preclude changing styles. Harriet Sackett explained that, actually, ‘the style of our garments must change gradually to harmonize with our architecture, climate, occupations, and habits of life’ since beauty was ‘the interrelation of things, the establishment of harmonies or pleasing relations between things’.131 Like harmony, the pursuit of beauty was central to Dow’s philosophy and allowed the Domestic Art department to transcend the perceived limitations of fashion. It was the onus of the dressmaker, milliner, and costume designer to use their skills and judgement and adapt fashion to enhance the unique wearer. The Domestic Art department felt that Liberty & Co. had designed successful reform dress, proclaiming that its designs at the turn of the century were graceful and appeared to be modelled on classical principles.132 Liberty’s wares had been associated with Aestheticism and artistic living since the early 1880s.133 When the company established its clothing department in 1884 under the direction of architect-designer E. W. Godwin, it aimed to create new styles of dress rather than fully abiding by mainstream fashion or faithfully recreating historic dress per Pre-Raphaelite practice.134 The designs in the Liberty catalogues from this time do, in fact, exhibit a compromise between fashion and artistic dress. The garments are illustrated on bodies with natural proportions rather than elongated fashion figures, and the designs embrace a range of styles, from moderated fashionable silhouettes with light historical references to more overtly historicizing dresses. In the Monthly, certain student designs demonstrate a similar approach. In 1902, a costume design student conceived of an ‘original design for [a] princesse gown worn by [an] uncorseted figure’.135 The silhouette reflects contemporary fashion, yet the waist is fuller than the fashionable ideal. Tabs on the hem and centre-front bodice provide a subtle Renaissance reference. Another student created an ‘original design for [an] artistic evening gown’ that is more strongly historicizing, akin to Liberty’s less conventional options [7]. Fig 7. View largeDownload slide Normal student’s design for an ‘artistic evening gown’, Pratt Institute Monthly (Brooklyn, 1902), 99. Fig 7. View largeDownload slide Normal student’s design for an ‘artistic evening gown’, Pratt Institute Monthly (Brooklyn, 1902), 99. The design houses of Liberty and Worth produced clothing associated with artistry and were also viewed as successful businesses. Commerce was customarily considered distinct from the professions. Yet American artists had long engaged with business, and as artists pursued an image of professionalization they did not sever ties with enterprise.136 Likewise, as the exemplary Domestic Art student became more of an artist than a homemaker, labourer, or teacher, she gained business skills to become a professional. The department explained that because professional education for business differed greatly from teacher education and education for home use, it required ‘practical’ training.137 In the second half of the 1890s, some students in the department began taking outside orders. In 1901, instruction in ‘business methods’, including keeping accounts and writing bills, was introduced. The Monthly reported in 1903 that ‘many’ dressmaking graduates had set up their own small dressmaking ‘establishments’, with some even successfully creating larger businesses making ‘expensive’ gowns.138 From the faculty’s perspective, this was the most desirable position a Pratt graduate could obtain—that of proprietor. Admittedly, those who had become proprietors by the turn of the century made up the smallest percentage of graduates. Yet faculty explained that if one were able to acquire the capital and invest the hard work and time required to earn a good reputation to attract clients, the establishment owner would be in a place to avoid ‘drudgery’ work and utilize her ‘taste and skill’ in designing.139 Contrary to the earlier evasiveness about wage-earning work, by the early twentieth century, the department expressed enthusiasm towards women in business and regularly boasted about the high wages of their alumni.140 In the best scenario, Domestic Art graduates would not only be intellectually autonomous but financially autonomous. Conclusion The materialization of the image of the professional artist in the Domestic Art department anticipated an institution-wide shift away from the Arts and Crafts movement in 1903.141 In the Monthly this year, Frederic Pratt proclaimed: ‘The arts and crafts endeavour is not a solution of the industrial art problem. The movement is amateur both in spirit and in result and has trained but few workers in professional fields’.142 Coincidentally, both Arthur Wesley Dow and Harriet Sackett resigned from Pratt in the 1903–1904 school year.143 The end of the Arts and Crafts years also coincided with the end of the Pratt Institute Monthly, the voice of the institution’s formative years that revealed the progressive nature of the Department of Domestic Art. In 1903, there were 839 students enrolled in the Domestic Art department at Pratt Institute.144 While the women involved in the department did not achieve the fame of Worth or Liberty, many did go on to write about, create, and teach dressmaking and millinery well beyond Pratt. When Harriet Sackett was at Pratt, she served as the vice president of the New York Association of Sewing Schools.145 Emma Simonson published a series of articles on dressmaking in McCall’s Magazine, and another instructor, Emily Bishop, wrote a book on physical culture.146 Of the alumni who worked in the fields of dressmaking and millinery, some were employed by well-known stores in New York including B. Altman, Stern Bros, Redfern, J. A. McCreery’s, and Aitken’s.147 According to regular alumni reports in the Monthly, most of the Domestic Art graduates went on to teach sewing, dressmaking, and millinery in public schools. Two students secured positions as supervisors of sewing for the public schools in Brooklyn and Providence, Rhode Island. Alumni also taught in settlement schools, manual training schools, industrial schools, church schools, and YWCAs. The majority took positions in the New York metropolitan area but some obtained positions further afield—as far away as Colorado, Alabama, and Canada. A number of graduates became teachers in higher education: alumni taught at Straight University in New Orleans, Berea College in Kentucky, the Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts, and one student became the superintendent of sewing and dressmaking at Kansas State Agricultural College. Other graduates procured teaching positions at schools that had dressmaking and millinery courses similar to Pratt’s: three graduates taught at the Armour Institute of Technology in Chicago, Illinois, four taught at Drexel Institute of Technology in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, one taught at Teachers College at Columbia University in New York, New York, and two taught at the Rochester Athenæum and Mechanics Institute in Rochester, New York. The ideology and aims of the Domestic Art department at Pratt speak to many broader issues of the time: the hierarchy of art, craft, and design; the role of gender in the art hierarchy; identity and image formation of dressmakers, milliners, and costume designers; the professionalization of dressmaking, millinery, and costume design; women’s changing place in society and the struggle that working and creative women encountered; and the role of dress education in the American Arts and Crafts movement. Throughout the Arts and Crafts years at Pratt, the Domestic Art department continually sought to associate dressmaking and millinery with art to elevate the status of the work. At first, the department aligned with home economics, and the art connection was pursued through an anti-industrial Arts and Crafts philosophy and a dress reform agenda that promoted artistic dress as an alternative to mainstream fashion. Proponents of artistic and healthful dress had always found it difficult to actualize their beliefs and produce reform clothing, and the Pratt Domestic Art department is significant as a program of higher education that responded to the need for enlightened dressmakers and milliners.148 The Arts and Crafts movement did not, after all, challenge the gendered nature and low status of home crafts. Suggesting that the Domestic Art department’s initial ideology did not provide the validation they were after, the faculty gradually redirected their attention away from domesticity and mitigated their emphasis on dress reform. The department continued to pursue an alliance with art through a stronger relationship with art education and by aligning dressmakers and milliners with the qualities of male professional artists. Unlike most women-dominated fields that attempted to professionalize, the Domestic Art department dissociated itself from the domestic sphere because of the unintellectual and amateur implications of women’s work and the home. The shift in focus away from labour and craft was spurred by the influence of Arthur Wesley Dow, whose instruction in composition played a significant role in the Domestic Art department’s development. Dow’s methods easily adapted to dress and hat design, and his philosophy that favoured individual judgement and creativity in all areas of art, craft, and design fuelled the argument that dressmakers, milliners, and costume designers were artists. While historians have documented Dow’s impact on art, craft, and design in America, his specific influence on dressmaking and millinery education has not been addressed. Contrary to Dow’s values and Arts and Crafts aims, the identity formation of dressmakers, milliners, and costume designers at Pratt ultimately reiterated the existing art hierarchy where ‘artist’ was the highest rank to which a maker could aspire. During the years considered in this paper, Pratt’s directors repeatedly addressed the quandary of industrial education. The Domestic Art department struggled to define their goals and image as respectable, productive, wage-earning female workers in an industrialized society. Its answer to the industrial question, by the end of the Arts and Crafts years, was a conceptual alignment with art rather than craft—the enlightened designer was the industrial saviour. While still valuing manual skills, the department prioritized the design over the production of dress. Simultaneously, Domestic Art faculty reevaluated its view towards fashion; mainstream fashionable dress was cautiously embraced as long as it was associated with artistry. Faculty even admired select purveyors of fashion like Worth and Liberty who had successfully correlated dress with art while also engaging with industry and business. By the early twentieth century, the ideal Domestic Art student had moved out of the home, factory, and classroom to become an intelligent, creative, and autonomous professional artist. Alison Kowalski is an independent design historian. She earned a Bachelor of Fine Arts from Pratt Institute and a Master of Arts from the Bard Graduate Center in New York City. Alison has conducted research for museums, galleries, and auction houses in New York and has taught courses on design history at Parsons School of Design, Drexel University, and Rutgers University. Presently, she teaches at the College for Creative Studies in Detroit. If you have any comments to make in relation to this article, please go to the journal website on http://jdh.oxfordjournals.org and access this article. There is a facility on the site for sending e-mail responses to the editorial board and other readers. Footnotes 1 Other schools that offered higher education in dressmaking and millinery in the late nineteenth century included Drexel Institute of Technology (Philadelphia, PA), Rochester Athenæum and Mechanics Institute (Rochester, NY), Teachers College at Columbia University (New York, NY), and the Armour Institute of Technology (Chicago, IL). Additionally, some land-grant colleges offered sewing and dressmaking instruction intended to prepare women for homemaking. 2 On manual training and industrial education, see Lawrence A. Cremin, The Transformation of the School: Progressivism in American Education, 1876–1957 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961), 23–41; John L. Rury, ‘Vocationalism for Home and Work: Women’s Education in the United States, 1880–1930’, History of Education Quarterly 24 (1984): 21–44; and Herbert M. Kliebard, Schooled to Work: Vocationalism and the American Curriculum, 1876–1946 (New York: Teachers College Press, 1999), 1–6. 3 Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, N.Y.: 1888 (New York: Fleming, Brewster & Alley, 1888), n.p. Course catalogue. 4 Marsha Morton, Pratt and Its Gallery: The Arts & Crafts Years: An Exhibition of Paintings, Drawings, Photographs and Decorative Arts Representative of Works Shown at the Pratt Gallery During Its Critical First Decade, 1894–1904 (Brooklyn: Pratt Institute, 1999). 5 A. N. Usher, ‘Visitors’ Day at Pratt Institute’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (December 1892): 70. Art, design, and craft (including classes in drawing, design, clay modeling, wood carving, architectural drawing, and mechanical drawing) were all taught in the Department of Industrial and Fine Arts through the time period considered in this paper. In 1890, the name of the department changed to the ‘Art Department’. In 1892, the name changed back to the ‘Department of Industrial and Fine Arts’. In 1894, the name changed to the ‘Department of Fine Arts’. For the rest of the paper, I will refer to this department as the Art Department. 6 Pratt Institute: 1888, op. cit., n.p. 7 Sarah Stage, ‘Ellen Richards and the Social Significance of the Home Economics Movement’, in Rethinking Home Economics: Women and the History of a Profession, eds. Sarah Stage and Virginia B. Vincenti (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997), 23; Mary Donahue, ‘Design and the Industrial Arts in America, 1894–1940: An Inquiry into Fashion Design and Art and Industry’ (PhD diss., City University of New York, 2001), 38–39. 8 Art embroidery was moved to the Art Department in 1890, allegedly a better fit for the subject. In 1892, the official name of the Woman’s Department changed from the ‘Department of Domestic Science’ to the ‘Department of Domestic Art and Science’, with two divisions: the Domestic Science division offered courses in household science, hygiene and home nursing, cookery, laundry, and a ‘normal’ course that trained teachers of domestic science while the Domestic Art division offered courses in sewing, dressmaking, and millinery. The sewing course differed from the dressmaking course in that it prepared women to become seamstresses or to enter the dressmaking course. A seamstress had less training than a dressmaker: she learned sufficient skills to make undergarments, shirtwaists, and simple dresses made of washable fabrics. At Pratt, the sewing course was considered preparation for the dressmaking course, which taught women how to make a diverse array of garments from conception to finish. Pratt Institute Record 2 (Brooklyn: Pratt Institute, 1890), 37; ‘Personals and Various Topics’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (July–August 1893): 332; See also Pratt Institute catalogues. 9 ‘Personals and Various Topics’ Monthly 1: 332; Rhode Island School of Design, ‘Rhode Island School of Design: School of art needle work’ (1879). Rider Broadsides. Brown Digital Repository. Brown University Library. 10 Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (October 1892): 1; Frederic B. Pratt, ‘Report of Pratt Institute for the Year Ending June 23, 1893’, Pratt Institute Monthly 2 (October 1893): 37. 11 Mary Donahue has included the history of costume design instruction at Pratt in her dissertation on fashion design and industry in New York from 1894 to 1940. Her valuable study focuses on the curriculum as a representation of wider issues related to the gendered nature of fashion design education. Donahue relies primarily on Pratt course catalogues; she does not examine the Pratt Institute Monthly nor the Pratt Institute Record. Her central interest in the Domestic Art department during the years from 1888 to 1904 lies in the relationship between costume design and drawing instruction, which she assumes to be akin to nineteenth-century industrial drawing education. Her analysis presumes that art and industry were compatible in the late nineteenth century. Donahue also claims that the Domestic Art department remained focused on domesticity into the twentieth century. See Donahue, op. cit., 37–58. My paper expands on issues that Donahue introduces by studying the Pratt Institute Monthly and considering the influence of the Arts and Crafts movement, Arthur Wesley Dow, the art-design-craft hierarchy, and the professionalization process, and I propose an alternative interpretation of the relationship between art, craft, and industry in the Pratt Domestic Art department during its early years. 12 Ibid., 50–51. 13 ‘Department of Domestic Art—Correct Dress Society’, Pratt Institute Monthly 2 (June 1894): 335; ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (January 1893): 101–102. 14 ‘Editorial’, Pratt Institute Monthly 2 (January 1894): 134; ‘Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (June 1893): 261; Valentine Adams, ‘The Development of French Costume’, Pratt Institute Monthly 2 (February 1894): 177. 15 For a more detailed explanation of fashion in the nineteenth century, see Patricia A. Cunningham, Reforming Women’s Fashion, 1850–1920: Politics, Health, and Art (Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 2003), 3, 7. 16 Ibid., 139. 17 Historians have used the term ‘dress reform’ as an umbrella term for the various reactions against mainstream fashion. At the time, different groups preferred different terms. See Cunningham, op. cit. and Stella M. Newton, Health, Art and Reason: Dress Reformers of the 19th Century (London: J. Murray, 1974). 18 ‘Artistic dress’ is the term the Domestic Art department used most frequently. Other descriptors used by faculty to describe admirable dress were ‘healthful’ and ‘hygienic’. ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (November 1892): 40; ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (February 1893): 138–139; ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 2 (October 1893): 39; ‘Department of Domestic Art—Correct Dress Society’, Monthly 2: 335; ‘Teachers, Students, and Things’, Pratt Institute Monthly 3 (January 1895): 99. 19 See Cunningham, op. cit., 103–168 and Newton, op. cit. 20 Cunningham, op. cit., 105–109. 21 Ibid., 103–134. 22 Ibid., 116. 23 Ibid., 113. 24 Newton, op. cit., 76–78, 157. 25 Cunningham, op. cit., 112; Oscar Wilde helped spread artistic dress in America during his tour in 1882. Cunningham, op. cit., 136–137; Oscar Wilde, Art and Decoration: Being Extracts from Reviews and Miscellanies (London: Methuen, 1920), 56–65. 26 See Morton, op. cit. 27 Pratt Institute: 1888, op. cit., n.p. 28 Kliebard, op. cit., 22–23; Morton, op. cit., 8–10. 29 Monthly 1 (October 1892): 2. 30 See Wendy Kaplan, ‘The Lamp of the British Precedent: An Introduction to the Arts and Crafts Movement’ and Eileen Boris, ‘Dreams of Brotherhood and Beauty’: The Social Ideals of the Arts and Crafts Movement’ in ‘The Art that is Life’: The Arts & Crafts Movement in America, 1875–1920 (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1998), 52–60, 208–222. 31 Adams, ‘The Development of French Costume’, Monthly 2: 177. 32 Harriet S. Sackett, ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 2 (November 1893): 82. 33 Caroline R. Milbank, New York Fashion: The Evolution of American Style (New York: Abrams, 1989), 16, 18; Penelope Byrde, Nineteenth Century Fashion (London: B. T. Batsford, 1992), 142; Rob Schorman, Selling Style: Clothing and Social Change at the Turn of the Century (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003), 78. 34 Grace R. Cooper, The Sewing Machine: Its Invention and Development, 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1976), 59, 156, 159. 35 Cunningham, op. cit., 138–142. Jenness Miller advocated an exercise system called the Americanized Delsarte System that sought to develop the body into the classical ideal. The Delsarte System was taught in physical culture classes in the Pratt Domestic Art department beginning in 1892. 36 ‘Department Notes’, Pratt Institute Monthly 8 (February 1900): 91; Amos R. Wells, ‘A Psychological View of Pockets,’ Pratt Institute Monthly 5 (January 1897): 154–156; ‘Library Bulletin’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (December 1892): 89; ‘Department of Domestic Art—Correct Dress Society’, Monthly 2: 334–335. 37 ‘Department of Domestic Art—Correct Dress Society’, Monthly 2: 335. 38 Cunningham, op. cit., 89, 164–165. 39 Ibid., 62–65. 40 ‘The Pratt Institute Exhibit at the World’s Columbian Exposition’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (July–August 1893): 280. 41 For comparable examples of artistic/aesthetic dress, see Newton, op. cit., Figs. 26, 29, 52 and Cunningham, op. cit., Figs. 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 64, 66, 69, 73. See also Cunningham, op. cit., 103. 42 ‘Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 3 (November 1894): 62; ‘Teachers, Students, and Things’, Pratt Institute Monthly 3 (April 1895): 168; ‘Teachers, Students, and Things’, Pratt Institute Monthly 4 (December 1895): 115; Helen M. Burgess, ‘The Revival of Mediæval Costume in Modern Dress’, Pratt Institute Monthly 6 (June 1898): 259–264; Adams, ‘The Development of French Costume’, Monthly 2: 141–145, 171–177. 43 ‘Teachers, Students, and, Things’, Pratt Institute Monthly 4 (April 1896): 240; Classical bas-reliefs and casts and photographs of classical sculpture are pictured in several other photographs of Domestic Art classrooms in the Pratt archives. The casts were frequently commented on in the Monthly. 44 ‘Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 4 (October 1895): 53. 45 Ibid., 54. 46 ‘Department of Domestic Art and Science’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (October 1892): 12. 47 Edith S. Sackett, ‘Costume Design’, Pratt Institute Monthly 8 (February 1900): 78. 48 E. Sackett, ‘Drawing in Connection with Dressmaking and Millinery’, Pratt Institute Monthly 10 (February 1902): 98. 49 H. Sackett, ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Monthly 2: 82–83. 50 Morton, op. cit., 16, 39, 62n51. 51 E. Sackett, ‘Costume Design’, Monthly 8: 74. 52 H. Sackett, ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Monthly 2: 83. 53 See Larry Shiner, The Invention of Art: A Cultural History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), especially chapters 6–13. 54 See Adrian Forty, Objects of Desire: Design and Society since 1750 (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1992), 34–36 and Carl Goldstein, Teaching Art: Academies and Schools from Vasari to Albers (Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 253–254. 55 Shiner, op. cit., 46, 67–68, 82; Forty, op. cit., 34–36; Goldstein, op. cit., 254. 56 Shiner, op. cit. 57 Ibid., 209–210. 58 Ibid., 239. 59 ‘Editorial’, Pratt Institute Monthly 2 (March 1894): 198. 60 H. Sackett, ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Monthly 2: 83. 61 Pratt Institute Record, No. 2, op. cit., 34, 36. 62 Morton, op. cit., 11–12. 63 Catalogue, Pratt Institute:1890–1891 (Brooklyn: Pratt Institute, 1890), 48; Catalogue, Pratt Institute:1892–1893 (Brooklyn: Pratt Institute, 1892), 35. 64 Catalogue, Pratt Institute:1896–1897 (Brooklyn: Pratt Institute, 1896), 64–65. 65 Pratt Institute Record, No. 2, op. cit., 36. 66 ‘Department of Domestic Art and Science’, Monthly 1: 12; ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Monthly 2: 39. 67 ‘Teachers, Students, and Things’, Pratt Institute Monthly 2 (October 1893): 48; Susan Hoagland, ‘Art in Dress’, Pratt Institute Monthly 5 (April 1897): 243; E. Sackett, ‘Costume Design’, Monthly 8: 73; Grace Roberts, ‘A Twentieth Century View of Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 9 (February 1901): 85; Pratt Institute Record, No. 2, op. cit., 36. 68 Hoagland, ‘Art in Dress’, Monthly 5: 243. 69 A. Cicerone, ‘Around the Institute in 80 Minutes’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (July–August 1893): 297. 70 ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (May 1893): 228. 71 Laura R. Prieto, At Home in the Studio: The Professionalization of Women Artists in America (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2001), 24. 72 Morton, op. cit., 38–39. 73 For Dow’s involvement in the Pratt Art Department, see Morton, op. cit., 39–49. For Dow’s broader influence, see Nancy E. Green, ‘Arthur Wesley Dow, Artist and Educator’ in Arthur Wesley Dow and American Arts & Crafts, eds. Nancy E. Green and Jessie Poesch (New York: American Federation of Arts in association with H.N. Abrams, 2000), 66–74 and Nancy E. Green, ‘Arthur Wesley Dow: His Art and His Influence’ and Marilee B. Meyer, ‘Arthur Wesley Dow and His Influence on Arts and Crafts’ in Arthur Wesley Dow (1857–1922): His Art and His Influence (New York: Spanierman Gallery, 1999), 8–37, 44–75. 74 Frederick C. Moffatt, Arthur Wesley Dow (1857–1922) (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1977), 84. 75 Arthur W. Dow, ‘The Place of Composition in Art Education’, Pratt Institute Monthly 4 (February 1896): 159–162; Arthur W. Dow, Composition: A Series of Exercises Selected from a New System of Art Education, 5th ed. (New York: Baker and Taylor Company, 1903). 76 Hoagland, ‘Art in Dress’, Monthly 5: 243. 77 H. Sackett, ‘Good Taste’, Pratt Institute Monthly 7 (February 1899): 93. 78 G. R., ‘From a Normal Student’s Standpoint’, Pratt Institute Monthly 8 (February 1900): 78. 79 Ibid., 79. 80 Morton, op. cit., 39–49. 81 Catalogue, Pratt Institute:1898–1899 (Brooklyn: Pratt Institute, 1898), 37. 82 Ibid., 38. 83 Celia B. Seymour, ‘Full-Day Course in Costume Design’, Pratt Institute Monthly 10 (February 1902): 106. 84 Emma E. Simonson, ‘Dressmaking: Full-Day Dressmaking Course’, Pratt Institute Monthly 10 (February 1902): 90. 85 E. Sackett, ‘Drawing in Connection with Dressmaking and Millinery’, Monthly 10: 99. 86 Ibid. 87 Catalogue, Pratt Institute: 1902–1903 (Brooklyn: Pratt Institute, 1902), 45, 50. 88 Shiner, op. cit., 119–123, 200. 89 See Anthea Callen, Women Artists of the Arts and Crafts Movement, 1870–1914 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1979) and Eileen Boris, Art and Labor: Ruskin, Morris, and the Craftsman Ideal in America (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986), 99–121. On the professionalization of American women fashion designers at a later time, see Sheryl F. Leipzig, Jean L. Parsons, and Jane Farrell-Beck, ‘It is a Profession that is New, Unlimited, and Rich: Promotion of the American Designer in the 1930s’, Dress 35 (2008): 30–47. 90 Bruce A. Kimball, The ‘True Professional Ideal’ in America: A History (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1995), 6–9; Earl F. Cheit, The Useful Arts and the Liberal Tradition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975), 1–2; Magali S. Larson, The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), 4–5. 91 Larson, op. cit., i–xi; William J. Goode, ‘The Theoretical Limits of Professionalization’, in The Semi-Professions and Their Organization: Teachers, Nurses, Social Workers, ed. Amitai Etzioni (New York: Free Press, 1969), 274–80. 92 Larson, op. cit., 104–158; Goode, op. cit., 266–313; Eliot Freidson, Professional Powers: A Study of the Institutionalization of Formal Knowledge (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 32–35. 93 Freidson, op. cit., 32; Samuel Haber, The Quest for Authority and Honor in the American Professions, 1750–1900 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), ix–xiv. 94 Neil Harris, The Artist in American Society; the Formative Years, 1790–1860. (New York: George Braziller, 1966), 75. 95 Kirsten Swinth, Painting Professionals: Women Artists & the Development of Modern American Art, 1870–1930 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2001), 2–3, 5–6, 15–16, 215n13. 96 See Nancy F. Cott, ‘Professionalism and Feminism’, in Nancy F. Cott, The Grounding of Modern Feminism (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987), 215–239. 97 See Penina M. Glazer and Miriam Slater, Unequal Colleagues: The Entrance of Women into the Professions, 1890–1940 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1987). 98 See Prieto, op. cit. 99 See Sarah Stage, ‘Introduction: Home Economics, What’s in a Name?’, Stage, ‘Ellen Richards’, and Rima Apple, ‘Liberal Arts or Vocational Training? Home Economics Education for Girls’, in Rethinking Home Economics: Women and the History of a Profession, ed. Stage and Vincenti, op.cit., 1–14, 17–33, 79–96 and Emma S. Weigley, ‘It Might Have Been Euthenics: The Lake Placid Conferences and the Home Economics Movement’, American Quarterly 26 (March 1974): 79–96. 100 Lake Placid Conference on Home Economics: Proceedings of the First, Second and Third Conferences (Lake Placid, NY, 1901), 4–5. http://hearth.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=hearth;idno=6060826_5315_002 accessed 5 June 2017; See also Stage, ‘Introduction’, op. cit., 6–7. 101 Stage, ‘Introduction’, op. cit., 6. 102 ‘The Inspector of Customs’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (November 1892): 36; ‘Self-Supporting Women’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (November 1892): 51; ‘The Pratt Institute Exhibit at the World’s Columbian Exposition’, Monthly 1: 283; ‘Department of Domestic Science’, Catalogue, Pratt Institute:1890–1891 (Brooklyn: Pratt Institute, 1890), n.p. 103 ‘Self-Supporting Women’, Monthly 1: 51; ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (April 1893): 188; ‘Teachers, Students, and Things’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (April 1893): 196. 104 ‘Self-Supporting Women’, Monthly 1: 51; ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 1 (December 1892): 81. ‘Teachers, Students, and Things’, Monthly 1: 196; ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Monthly 1 (May 1893): 229; ‘Teachers, Students, and Things’, Monthly 2: 48. 105 Pratt, ‘Founder’s Day, 1897’, Pratt Institute Monthly 6 (October 1897): 13. 106 ‘Department of Domestic Art’, Monthly 1: 81; Catalogue, Pratt Institute: 1895–1896 (Brooklyn, Pratt Institute: 1895), 55–56. 107 Stage, ‘Introduction’, op. cit., 8. 108 Pratt, ‘Annual Report of the Secretary’, Pratt Institute Monthly 10 (November 1901): 5. 109 H. Sackett, ‘Annual Report of the Department of Domestic Art’, Pratt Institute Monthly 10 (February 1902): 83–86. The following year, the normal course partly re-entered Domestic Art: the first year of the course was spent in Domestic Science and then for the second year, the normal student chose either a Domestic Science or Domestic Art track and the instruction took place in the respective department. 110 Catalogue, Pratt Institute: 1901–1902 (Brooklyn, Pratt Institute: 1901), 33–34. See also H. Sackett, ‘Annual Report of the Department of Domestic Art’, Monthly 10: 86. 111 Donahue claims that the Domestic Art department remained aligned with domestic science and home economics until the 1960s. Donahue, op. cit., 42. 112 Prieto, op. cit., 122; Swinth, op. cit., 27. 113 E. Sackett, ‘Drawing in Connection with Dressmaking and Millinery’, Monthly 10: 97. 114 Ibid., 100. 115 Simonson, ‘Dressmaking: Full-Day Dressmaking Course’, Monthly 10: 88. 116 Pratt, ‘Annual Report of the Secretary’, Pratt Institute Monthly 12 (October 1903): 11–12. 117 For an explanation of the unfemale associations of the professions, see Swinth, Painting Professionals, op. cit., 14. 118 S. Ella Huntington, ‘Millinery’, Pratt Institute Monthly 10 (February 1902): 96; ‘Technical Course in Dressmaking for Professional Use’, Pratt Institute Monthly 11 (May 1903): 180; ‘Full-Time Course in Sewing’, Pratt Institute Monthly 12 (January 1904): 86. 119 Simonson, ‘Dressmaking: Full-Day Dressmaking Course’, Monthly 10: 88–89. 120 ‘Domestic Art’, Monthly 3: 63; Seymour, ‘Costume Design as a Profession’, Pratt Institute Monthly 8 (February 1900): 80. 121 See Elizabeth A. Coleman, The Opulent Era: Fashions of Worth, Doucet and Pingat (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1989), 33–34; Nancy J. Troy, Couture Culture: A Study in Modern Art and Fashion (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003), 18–31; Wendy Gamber, The Female Economy: The Millinery and Dressmaking Trades, 1860–1930 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997), 111. 122 For examples of dresses in Aesthetic colors, see Charles Frederick Worth, Evening Ensemble, 1887, silk, metal, Metropolitan Museum, 2009.300.1094a-g and Charles Frederick Worth, Afternoon Dress, 1883–84, satin, chiffon, Museum of the City of New York, 31.3.5A-B. 123 See Diana De Marly, Worth: Father of Haute Couture (London: Elm Tree Books, 1980), 115–119 and Coleman, op. cit., 37, 47–64. 124 To portray himself as an artist, Worth posed for photographs in historicizing dress in the manner of a seventeenth-century painter. The well-known portrait of Worth in this garb was reproduced in the Monthly in February 1899. See Coleman, op. cit., 64 and Troy, op. cit. 125 Coleman, op. cit., 25. 126 Charles. Worth quoted in F. Adolphus, Some Memories of Paris (New York: Henry Holt, 1895), 190. 127 ‘Domestic Art’, Monthly 3: 63; Seymour, ‘Costume Design as a Profession’, Monthly 8: 80. 128 Seymour, ‘Full-Day Course in Costume Design’, Monthly 10:105. 129 E. Sackett, ‘Costume Design’, Monthly 8: 77. 130 H. Sackett, ‘Good Taste’, Monthly 7: 93–94. 131 Ibid., 93. 132 Seymour, ‘Full-Day Course in Costume Design’, Monthly 10: 105. 133 Alison Adburgham, Liberty’s: A Biography of a Shop (London: Allen & Unwin, 1975), 32–33, 51–53. 134 Cunningham, op. cit., 126. 135 Seymour, ‘Full-Day Course in Costume Design’, Monthly 10: 106. 136 See Harris, op. cit., 218–220 and Sarah Burns, Inventing the Modern Artist: Art and Culture in Gilded Age America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996), 35–38. 137 ‘Technical Course in Dressmaking for Professional Use’, Monthly 11: 181. 138 Ibid., 181–182. It was reported in the Monthly that a graduate, with her business partner, designed the dresses the famous actress Leslie Carter wore in the 1901–1902 play Du Barry. 139 Ibid. 140 Seymour, ‘Costume Design as a Profession’, Monthly 8: 82; ‘Technical Course in Dressmaking for Professional Use’, Monthly 11: 182; ‘Dressmaking. Full-Time Course for Professional Use’, Pratt Institute Monthly 12 (January 1904): 92. 141 Morton, op. cit., 58–59. 142 Pratt, ‘Annual Report of the Secretary’, Monthly 12: 12. 143 Sackett resigned to get married. 144 The first man in the department enrolled the previous year. 145 ‘Teachers, Students, and Things’, Pratt Institute Monthly 5 (April 1897): 245. 146 Simonson’s articles were published monthly in McCall’s Magazine from June 1903 to January 1904. For example, see Simonson, ‘Lessons in Dressmaking: The Modern Waist and Just How to Make It. The New Shirred Waist’, McCall’s Magazine, July 1903: 840–41, 870–71; Emily M. Bishop, Americanized Delsarte Culture (Washington, DC: Emily M. Bishop, 1892). 147 See Pratt Institute Monthlies. 148 Cunningham, op. cit., 152–53. © The Author(s) [2018]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Design History Society. All rights reserved. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)

Journal

Journal of Design HistoryOxford University Press

Published: Apr 30, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off