Jean wrote:

> Not sure about specific artists, but check out crucifixion scenes and
> look for Mary Magdalene. She is very often distinguished from the
> other women by wearing something outlandish, particularly in sleeves
> or headgear.

Tea rose wrote:

> Maybe you could find a well-illustrated book with a general overview
> of Flemish saints or something? I just picked up a pretty nice little
> book about angels from Taschen.

I'm guessing these are indeed the sort of thing E was looking for, but
just in case, it's worth making a clarification: Not all non-realistic
costumes are allegorical. Allegory is a particular kind of non-literal
portrayal (the presentation of a quality or concept via symbols) -- think
of images of the virtues or Fate or the Church. The use of attributes to
identify saints is iconographical, not allegorical. The use of "foreign"
or "historic" elements to mark characters in a story is a visual means of
showing distance in place or time. You can have allegorical elements
working in the same figure as iconography or other visual symbolism, but
they're not all the same thing.

So: Mary Magdalen is not an allegorical figure; she's
historical/religious/biblical. Her costume may include specific accepted
attributes for identification (e.g. the ointment jar), symbols to put her
in a time/place context (foreign headdress, Biblical sandals), and/or
elements to indicate her personal characteristics (sexy or expensive
clothing to indicate her background as a courtesan, undone hair to
indicate grief, a cross or rosary to indicate piety, etc.). None of those
happen to be allegorical in the technical sense.

Costumer's shorthand, though, tends to call all of these things
"allegorical," because they are all unreliable for a realistic
interpretation. And I think we all understand that, but I figured it was
worth pointing out that not all scholars outside of costume would
understand the term in this way. So if E wants to ask an art historian for
examples of "allegorical art," she'll get only a subset of what she's
probably looking for. And if she describes certain uses as allegorical,
some people will misunderstand what she is saying.

This is something I have been sloppy about in the past, and I should have
known better, since my original exposure to this terminology was through
art history and literary criticism, not costume! I tend to be much more
careful when talking with other scholars than when I'm talking with
costumers who I'm certain are more interested in the basic distinction of
real/not-real, not "why is it not real."

E, if you're looking for the migration of certain costume elements from
real life to symbolic use, or the other way around, you might do well to
distinguish the various types of symbolic use, e.g. you may find the
pattern in some forms of painting but not others. To the medieval artist,
there was as much difference between an historical treatment and an
allegorical one as there was between a either of those and a portrait. And
as much overlap!

--Robin

--Robin

_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume

Reply via email to