Blending in by standing out

Back before our time towards the end of the 19th Century, military uniforms were traditionally brightly coloured. (Think bright red jackets worn by horsemen charging across green fields with their muskets at the ready.)

These distinctive forms of uniform had a number of strategic purposes: it allowed generals (or whoever was in charge) to see at a glance where their own troops were, it stopped soldiers from unintentionally slaying one of their own, and in certain cases where a particular regiment had a fearsome reputation, the mere sight of their distinctive colours could be enough to send terror through the enemy, forcing a retreat. (See an interesting history of military camouflage clothing, here.)

However time marched on, military technology improved, and with the development of weapons with longer ranges and greater accuracy (e.g. rifles, machine guns, grenades, missiles) it was not advantageous to signpost to the enemy exactly where you were.

So, what we now think of as regular army dress (khaki and camouflage) was developed as a way of disguising personnel in the field. The mottled colouration of garments is designed to blend with the natural background and it is available in a variety of colourways to blend with different environments.

However one instance where it would have the opposite effect is if you were to wear full camouflage gear and walk through a busy urban area. In fact, far from blending in, it would probably rouse a great deal of suspicion.

It is one of the ironies of the present day that one of the best ways to blend in, in almost any circumstance, is to don a garment which was originally designed to make you stand out - the high-visibility fluoro vest.

Fluorescent clothing was originally a military development (during World War II) designed to protect soldiers from unintentional friendly fire. Now, high-visibility clothing is worn by everyone from post delivery workers to road crew, cyclists to removalists.  If you want to look like you have an 'official' reason to be somewhere, put on a fluoro vest and you can walk around unaccosted.

In an article in The Guardian in 2005, Jon Ronson examined this phenomenon:

"So maybe ubiquity is to blame. Or perhaps, as dazzling as high-visibility clothing is, even more compelling is the public's desire not to notice those people who scurry around at our feet, fixing holes, mending tracks, cleaning up after us. We trust them and we don't want to think about them. This is how Bryan Ferry's son Otis and the other fox hunting aficionados got into the House of Commons to disrupt a debate last year. They put on fluorescent jackets and told the first policeman they met that they were "going to inspect the electrics". The policeman shrugged and waved them on.

The surveillance specialist Peter Jenkins - who teaches private investigators how to follow people without being spotted - is a fan of the fluorescent jacket, too. He says that if you're observing a target in a rural environment, use hedges and ditches and trees. But if you want to be invisible in a city, just put on a fluorescent jacket and sit in the passenger seat of a transit van, or queue up at a telephone box. (Remember to turn off your mobile phone first.)"

I drove past a neighbour's house a few days ago where two guys wearing high-vis tops were filling an unmarked truck with furniture and effects from the house. They (the neighbours) may have actually been being robbed, but the wearing of the high-vis clothing reassured me that a legitimate house move was taking place.

But was this a fair assumption?

According to an item on the BBC website, thieves just this month targeted homes in an English housing estate while clean-up from a flood was occurring:

"Walsall Council leader Mike Bird said thieves had been spotted wearing high-visibility vests to blend in with council workers helping with the clear up."

We rarely give a second glance to 'fluoro-collar workers'. Add an ID on a lanyard round their necks and we'd never question their legitimacy. 

But the flip side of this, is that we also don't notice those workers. They are, in fact, rendered invisible by their visibility and we don't necessarily see them as individuals doing a valued job.

UK photographer, Stephen Gill explored this concept in his 2005 book and exhibition, Invisible which contained photographs of all those people who, by the wearing of high-visibility clothing were rendered invisible to the general public. He was inspired by his own experience as a photographer. He had discovered that by wearing a fluoro vest he drew very little attention to himself when carrying a camera, far less than if he wasn't wearing one.

Do you notice the 'fluoro-collar' workers? Is it time for a new form of high-visibility?

Where have all the jumpers gone?

Last week I saw a few snippets of some 1990s sitcoms I used to enjoy watching on TV. Apart from reeling at how corny they seem now, the other thing that struck me was how many of the characters were wearing jumpers (sweaters, pullovers, jerseys - depending on where you live.)

And I don't mean thin cashmere knits. These were serious jumpers. Thick woolly jumpers. Textured, multi-coloured jumpers. Jumpers with cables and high round necks.

Exactly the type of jumper I remember wearing myself in the 1980s and 1990s.

But do I ever wear one nowadays? Do I ever see them on people on the street?

Rarely.

Today I conducted a small survey of everyone I saw within a 90 minute period while doing the school pick-up and ducking into the local shops. I saw lots of fleece hoodies. Plenty of thin shirts, topped by a jacket. A multitude of layered fine knits.

The grand total of jumpers spotted? Two. (And one of those was bordering on a fine knit.)

Is the woollen knitted jumper a dying breed?

Before our time, jumpers were always made of wool and were a reasonably heavy garment intended to cover the torso and arms of the human body to provide warmth.

Have space-aged fabrics such as polar fleece made heavy jumpers redundant? Can we now obtain the warmth required without the bulk?

Perhaps it's just where I live. Do you see many thick jumpers in your part of the world?

Should we cast our nighted colour off?

Good Hamlet, cast thy nighted colour off.

W. Shakespeare (1564-1616) from Hamlet. Hamlet's mother/aunt asking him to stop wearing his dark funeral clothing after the death of his father

Funeral wear is such a sombre topic for this time of year so I apologise for mentioning it however I have been to three funerals in the last 14 months, the most recent yesterday, and this is a topic that is front of mind for many attending these ceremonies.

Before our time attendance at a western Christian funeral was governed by a strict dress code which reached it's height during the Victorian era following the death, in 1861, of Queen Victoria's consort, Prince Albert. After this period full black mourning dress became essential for the upper and middle classes and their service staff. For immediate family this form of dress was not only for the funeral but continued for up to two and a half years after the death. Children were often spared this dress code but may have had a purple or black ribbon attached to their clothing instead. Queen Victoria famously wore her "Widows Weeds" for the rest of her life.

In the second half of the twentieth century the funeral dress code relaxed. Fewer people wore mourning dress other than for the funeral itself and other dark or sombre colours such as navy, purple or grey became acceptable provided the clothing was conservatively styled. Prince Charles is said to have worn a navy suit to Diana, Princess of Wales' funeral because it was a suit she liked him to wear.

Today funeral etiquette guides advise attendees to wear conservative clothing in accordance with the grieving family's wishes or belief system. However, what do you wear if this is unstated or unclear? With the relaxation of dress codes comes ambiguity. How many of us really feel we know what is right to wear?

Having attended three funerals recently, and following discussion with other funeral attendees, I found that many agree that funeral attire depends on the context of each death that is being mourned. As such I have developed a personal guide to what I would wear for each context. This guide assumes that no specific dress code has been requested (eg. everyone wear football colours) and that the funeral is a western-style Christian ceremony, perhaps in a church or cemetery chapel. It also assumes the deceased is an adult.

• Tragic, sudden unexpected death (eg. from an accident) Black or very dark conservative clothing. Minimal accessories. Minimal makeup and waterproof mascara a must. Black in this scenario represents a shared sense of shock.
  
  
• Tragic, but not unexpected death (eg. long illness): Conservative primarily dark clothing, perhaps a touch of colour - especially a favourite colour of the deceased.
  


• Death from old age, expected, lived a long and happy life: Dress in a dignified style that reflects the individual's outlook. Still conservative styling, this is not a dance but a dignified memorial of a life long-lived. I have said to friends that if I manage to live a long life and die in summer - hold a wake in the garden and wear your prettiest floral dress, zimmer frame optional.

It is harder to know what children should wear. At a recent mid-week funeral of a much-loved friend with a young daughter the presence of her classmates dressed in school uniform (most Australian school students have uniforms) was lovely and dignified and reminded we adults that life goes on. Yesterday the 12 year old son of the deceased wore his football uniform and this year's premiership medal, as did the rest of his team. His father was the team manager and this was a touching symbol of his involvement with his children.

This is one 21st century girl's outlook on funeral wear. What do you think? Are there occasions where we should cast of our nighted colour, or should we get back to black as standard funeral wear?