Preference and Inspiration

A huge part of my development as a corsetiere has been in moving closer and closer to creating the silhouette(s) that I love. This is a question of refinement of aesthetic sensibility, of creating shapes that resonate most deeply with the things you love. On the whole, as discussed in The Six Rules of Good Corsetry, modern corsetmakers are interested in a contemporary-Victorian silhouette... a flat-fronted line (like an athletic abdomen), with hourglass shaping through the sides and side-back. We see again and again (through feedback from clients, forums, other makers, etc.) that this is the currently prevailing most popular shape. Perhaps because it is reasonably “naturalistic”, perhaps because we are exposed to this shape most frequently (a vertically seamed “Victorian” corset is the simplest to pattern, cut and construct), perhaps due to some biological attraction to large hipsprings... The top and bottom lines may change, but the overall torso shaping is pretty standard (figure 1).

Figure 1: Ignoring the top and bottom style lines, the corset pretty much has
the prevailing torso shape for contemporary corsetry...
Smooth, hourglass curves and a flat front.

There are, of course, exceptions to this (most notably corsets created for historical reenactment), but certainly this is the common silhouette of “fashion” corsetry.

What does this mean for us as corsetmakers? Are we limiting ourselves to this silhouette out of laziness? Because we don't realise there are other possibilities? Because this is what sells? Are there variations within this generic shape that are worth exploring? Should we each have a familiarity with all the differing variants?

Those of us who create bespoke pieces can, of course, if we wish, pick and choose patterning/shaping from a variety of sources to suit any particular client's body and purpose. We don't need to be slaves to vertical-Victorians. But neither do we need to be so lacking in identity that each piece we produce looks wildly different... Instead, if we like, we can each develop a “house style” that forms the backbone of our brand and aesthetic, which we both return to again and again and also use as a springboard for variation when appropriate.

Possible Silhouettes

Certainly, there are details of silhouette that have emerged in my work naturally and others that I am now consciously building upon as a result of those natural tendencies. Furthermore, I feel that having shaping that is recognisably you is not only a positive for your brand, it is also a positive for your skills and creativity going forward.

Whilst it would be simple to stick to basic-to-intermediate notions of silhouette, I am actually interested in demonstrating how the subtleties of cut can make the difference between something being a recognisable house style or not. This is something that I think I am only really beginning to be conscious of, so it is a topic I'm very interested in at present and hope you will be too.

We'll start with some basics, but please read this with the understanding that I am trying to demonstrate how a one-word name for a particular shape isn't actually enough to convey the intricacies and specificities of a house style.

Figure 2: Some basic shapes

Top left: Stays – There's a lot more to it than this, but let's work on the basic assumption that “stays” feature a conical line from bust-to-waist, compress the bust, and don't shape the waist much, if at all.

Top right: Regency – The archetypal regency corset is more about round, separated breasts, with empire line dresses meaning that shaping through the torso is minimal.

Lower left: Victorian – Again, there is a huge wealth of variety to be seen here, but in general let's say that a Victorian corset compresses the waist, dishes at the front, reaches to the mid-bust in a smooth supporting line, and extends over the hips for an hourglass shape.

Lower right: Edwardian – Working from instantly recognisable “Edwardian” lines, let's say that an Edwardian corset features a flat-front anchored/tilted to the thighs by suspenders, with a low-cut bust to assist with a pigeon-chested shape, and an S-curve to the spine with fullness in the side and back hips for a visually lengthened silhouette.

Not shown: Contemporary – The contemporary “fashion” corset shape could mostly be seen to be Victorian, with elements of Edwardian thrown in (eg: the flat rather than dished front). It is a sort of “athletic” variant, perhaps developed from this idea of an “internalised corset”. Women now aspire to a flat abdomen with an hourglass shape from the front (ie: the sort of figure we're encouraged to attain through exercising our “core”), and this seems to be what contemporary customers want from their corsets as an instant effect, perceptible at first lacing.

The above represents the way I think many of us view silhouette, especially when we are new to the topic... each corset is of a given time and shaped accordingly, end of story. If we zoom in on one particular area, we can go into further detail. Historians may, for example, notice which time periods of the Victorian era incorporated longline hips, cording and spoon busks in order to create corsets appropriate to wear beneath historically-accurate costume.

But what I am interested in exploring today is cut in a pure sense, shaping just for its own sake and beauty... looking at smaller elements of shape that can be cherry-picked and expanded upon in the creation of a house style.

If we zoom in again on Victorian and Edwardian corsetry, this brings us to a couple of tighter definitions for shape (figure 3), used most often by contemporary wearers and corset enthusiasts.

Figure 3: a sketch showing (from top-left) conical hourglass, hourglass, wasp-waist, stem-waist, tubular

Depending upon who you talk to and what you read, each of these terms can vary wildly. A conical hourglass may or may not have a smooth hipspring, a wasp-waist may or may not be very similar to an hourglass, and a stem-waist may (when very slight) look a lot like some people's wasp-waisted corsets. So the terminology is fluid and indistinct, but at least we are starting to see that there are more variations of silhouette possible through the torso than our basic understanding of shape allowed for.

I would argue that this is the point at which one-word names for silhouettes cease to work effectively. The specificities beyond these shapes are where you can be creative and assert your brand's house style or identity. Figure 4 shows you one of my three preferred silhouettes (exaggerated for the sketch), the conical hourglass, of which you can also see a glimpse in figure 5. I will discuss my preferred shaping in more detail in Part 2.

Figure 4: an exaggerated sketch showing one of my three preferred silhouettes, the conical hourglass.

Figure 5: a conical hourglass on the body.

Historical Inspirations

When looking to historical corsetry for inspiration, we need to keep the lessons we learn in balance. Many of the beautiful Victorian corsets I love, for example, weren't made with the levels of cinch that my contemporary clients desire or expect; they can be rather mild in proportion. Yet despite their apparent gentleness of cinch, the shaping through the waist of these antique proportions can, if translated directly to a contemporary client's measurements, result in something beautiful but too smooth to accommodate the client's untrained ribs and fully-developed hips. This isn't a foregone conclusion (and after all, this sort of shaping can work for some figures and those who waist-train [warning: NSFW, not safe for work] ), but it's something to be aware of.

With all that in mind, we can still look to historical corsetry for inspiration. Not only inspiration in silhouette (shaping through the torso), but also in style-lines (shaping of the top and bottom edges). Beyond whether a corset has unusual seams or not, we can study proportion and shape simply based upon whether we think it beautiful. Figures 6 through 9 all give vaguely hourglass shaping, but which lines/proportions appeal to you most?

Figure 6: With a gentleness of line, this corset is about an extended, smooth, and fluid shape.





Figure 7: By contrast to figure 6, this 1882 corset has a dramatic inwards shaping at the waist. But the waist itself is placed high, almost beneath the bust, for a corset that (on a contemporary wearer) would more shape superfluous bodyfat than nip in around the skeletal structure. It also curves over the abdomen in a rounded, almost maternal shape. Would this work for your clients?

Figure 8: Building upon figure 7, this corset's waist is lengthened, seemingly giving a narrow ribcage before flaring out over the hips, with a gentle dish to the centre-front. I can see this translating well on someone who already has a very narrow ribcage or back and no lower abdomen fleshiness, otherwise it might prove too tight/uncomfortable/unflattering.Figure 9: Lastly, this 1900's corset features the lower, tight waist of turn-of-the-century and Edwardian lines. The resulting hipspring is very dramatic and rounded (like many contemporary corsets)., whilst the length from bust to hip is visually extended (a less matronly shape than figure 7, for example).

Contemporary Inspirations

Alison of CrikeyAphrodite! recently explained to me that she aims for her bespoke corsets to function as “a second skin, but with that shaped waist.” You can intuit from this that her work is all about comfort for the contemporary wearer, a subtly flattering cinch.

As Alison later said on her facebook page, she prefers her corset shaping as...

“an exaggerated second skin. I like my corsets to follow the curves of the body, giving a quite natural shape but with a reduced waist of course. I like to work with the body, not against it. I curve the corset gently to cup the ribs for comfort and extra visual emphasis of the waist, support the bust and smooth the hips. The goal is comfort and a wearable shape. How exaggerated the form is depends on your body shape's receptiveness to corsetry.”

Figure 10: A CrikeyAphrodite! Corset, image copyright Louise Cantwell Photography 2012 Model: Kasumi Noir.

Julia of MarmaladeKiss and SewCurvy is interested in a similar contemporary shape, but with a more dramatic nip at the waist, with the resulting fullness of hip giving a smooth but dramatic hipspring.

Figure 11: A MarmaladeKiss corset, creating a sharply cinched and beautiful waist.

Some contemporary makers create corsets with obsessively flat abdomens (and the vertical seams that can help allow for this), some create dramatic S-curve shapes forcing the body into a posture (that I believe to be actually far more dramatically shaped than the S-curves of the time), some compress the busts, others cup the busts, some have no seams/shaping through the back half of the corset, some smooth over the ribs and cinch the waist very little, others cup the ribs to the point of giving a squared-off or barrel shape to the upper torso. Now, if you're up to speed with some of the corsetmakers out there, you may recognise a few of these brands just from my brief descriptions here...

That's the joy of a recognisable house style and it's a little corsetry in-joke many of us have often made, that if we were tasked to each create corsets using the exact same materials and basic specifications (eg: a red overbust Victorian), even if for the exact same client, the results would still be different from corset to corset. What's more, they should be. You should be able to go along this fictional line-up and say, “there's the X, there's the piece by Y, oh there's the piece by Z!” Great corset design is about more than the colour and trims, it's something inherent in every detail of the construction and shape. Certainly, the corsetmakers that I am most impressed by are those whose work I always recognise instantly, whatever the context and design. They have a house style, and the challenge isn't to emulate their style but to develop your own. Something beyond the colours, trims, fabrics, branding, etc.

Figure 12: The aim, for me, would be for you to recognise a Sparklewren corset from even a tiny glimpse like this.

So whilst I wouldn't suggest lifting a fellow maker's shaping for your own work, you can certainly be inspired by it... the particular flare of one maker's gusseted front-hip, the way another navigates the ribs, or how their chosen construction methods allow for their chosen silhouette. These are details that inspire me in my peers' work, and I think it can open up your own creativity to be aware of them.

Mannequin versus Human

I love my mannequins... Not just for their beauty and usefulness as display items, but also for their usefulness when assessing shape, considering silhouette, and thinking about proportion.

Figure 13: Contemporary mannequins with an authentic early 1900s shape.

One of the main things I have noticed about my aesthetic preferences is that I am quite drawn to a vaguely conical torso with full, rounded hip and dramatic hip-spring (see figures 4 and 5). This was something that I only articulated this year (2012), having previously not explored it in quite as much subtlety, or as consciously. Evenings were spent trawling the internet for photos and illustrations of late-Victorian corsetry and I realised that the vertical distances above and below the waist really affected how beautiful I did or didn't find the corset (this is often a question of the corset being cut at midbust level as per the first corset I made for Immodesty, or having a longline hip to balance the height of the upper torso, as per the first Cranberry corset in figure 14).

Figure 14: This was a dramatically shaped Sparklewren corset, but you can see how the mannequin makes it look even wilder than it was.

Hours were devoted to considering the differences between my Edwardian-shaped mannequin and a real human client, which lead me to think of each imagined as a cross-section and understanding how the mannequin was more oval shaped from front-to-back than side-to-side, thus giving every corset a narrower line through the ribs despite being the same overall dimension (observe the difference between figures 15 and 16).

Figure 15: the second version of the Cranberry corset, shown on my Edwardian mannequin. The design was elaborated upon for my client whilst proportion was also kept in mind, with the lowest point of the plunge minimising the risk of the high bustline looking too top-heavy.
Figure 16: corsetmaking friend Lucy in one of her Sparklewren
corsets. An angled view, to show the difference between the
way an Edwardian mannequin and human body “fill out” the corset.

Certainly, despite the fact that a corseted human body and corseted mannequin do not behave in the same way, mannequins have their own lessons to teach and are invaluable as tools for creativity. It was in fact partly through studying my corsets on mannequins with both Victorian and Edwardian silhouettes that I realised the smoothness of the upper torso was best when in balance with a full and rounded hip (to my eye, at any rate). A smooth hip was just slightly less enchanting. Even corsets that would mould perfectly to a curvy, borderline waspy shape (figure 17), would appear smooth and mild on this mannequin (figure 18), which was one thing that helped teach me my aesthetic preferences. Of course, along with the differences between mannequins, dressforms, and real humans, one must also consider the differences between individual clients' bodies, which I will write more on in Part 2.

Figure 17: a screencap of the same underbust on
bonnie Lucy of Lucy's Corsetry.
Figure 18: an underbust on my Victorian-shaped mannequin.
GNU General Public LicenseFigure 19: the same underbust on beautiful SamiO with her “untrained” waist.

Personal Preferences

All in the name of Silhouette Research, one lovely and unplanned evening was given over to drinking G&Ts with Julia whilst we fawned endlessly over images of a perfectly proportioned couture corset, constantly exclaiming, “why is it so beautiful?!”

Excitedly trying to explain this obscene level of beauty let us both break down what it was we individually adored about the shape so we were able to articulate the sort of silhouettes we wanted to create in minute detail. The wonderful part was that despite feeling inspired by the same couture piece, we each then asserted that different things were what made it most beautiful. I kept insisting upon a vaguely conical rib, whilst she kept insisting upon a cupped rib that highlighted the cinched waist. We both knew that each preference came with its own set of limitations, but that each also has scope for excessive beauty. We even challenged our facebook page followers to see how shape affected perception of size along with personal preference, which was great fun.

So you can see how numerous influences and studies can affect this process of moving towards a signature shape (or selection of shapes).

Conclusion

The answer to “what is most beautiful?”, for me, is subtlety of expression. That might sound surprising given that my silhouettes are quite cinched. But I don't mean an obvious “subtle = simple” or “ordinary” sense, but in the sense of each element (shape, embellishment, and so on) being a beautiful expression of its own particular characteristics, including the imperfections/limitations of that characteristic. I've talked before about a sort of “imperfect perfection” and this is something I strive for. To make things that are affective or moving. I look at the artworks or couture or corsetry that makes me sigh and think, “I want to make people sigh too.”

Figure 20: The Winter Rose corset. “More and more and more” is what I'm always thinking with my corsets... More refinement, better quality, a nicer lightness of touch... It is taking time, but it's wonderfully satisfying (and horrifically infuriating!) trying to get there.

But despite all this talk of subtlety and refinement, there is still a balance to be struck. I still want my corsets to look dramatic... Too much subtlety can leave one thinking, “why make a corset at all?”, whilst too much drama can sometimes become impressive but less pretty. Being shocking just for the sake of it doesn't interest me, otherwise I would only work with the most dedicated extreme tight-lacers!

The tricky part is in being able to stick to the principles of the shaping options you find beautiful, whilst also navigating the client's particular curves and requirements. I will write on this more next time, but for now I will say that I am fortunate that I get bored very easily... Being intrigued by a couple of different silhouette variants allows me to work around client figure requirements whilst also producing shapes I love that are becoming more and more typically “Sparklewren”, which is a very satisfying process.

Of course, I hope that many of you disagree with me on my ideas of beautiful shaping. The whole point is to be assured and passionate about your own silhouette(s). I hope some of you read this and think, “you're wrong Sparklewren, subtlety is pants, 16” wasp-waists only!” or “I hate round hips, we must have smooth, straight lines!” This way we will know that you're on the way to creating your own signature silhouette.

add