From 1920s till her death Chanel pioneered innovative designs for women. Almost singlehandedly introduced ‘sportswear, the poor boy look, designer perfume, suntans and the little black dress’ Her inspirations derived from ongoing change of society and a common man (explaining how the androgynous look developed). During late 1920s to early 1930s, Chanel was part of a group of well-dressed woman and gradually ‘everyone was copying her’ (Field 1983 pg.104). The trend that Chanel started saw woman gradually wearing trousers as it was a garment far more aesthetically pleasing and practical compared to a dress. It was a new silhouette for women and the ‘most spectacular innovation brought about by Chanel’ (Charles-Roux). The dramatic change of silhouette during the era was positively accepted and believed to be ‘quintessentially …show more content…
It would have been impossible for such actions to come from a woman before 1920s. Women were yet to be emancipated from the corset – a large boned structure worn underneath a dress to create a voluminous silhouette. Society was poles apart in the space of a decade. Life for a British woman was ‘mainly tied to a life of domesticity’ (Bourke 2011) their rights were still very restricted as they were considered differently to men. Since they were severely constricted it was not until the war this began to change. Suddenly as more men were needed at the frontline, workforce was needed aside from the war such as the continuing jobs of ‘factory work and harvesting crops’ (Bourke 2011). The stereotype jobs were handled by women and eventually were being called the ‘Land Army Girls’. Contrasting to the domestic jobs, actual physical force was needed and as the men left so were the uniforms. As it was adapted to their needs it explains how women initially wore trousers. The purpose of the change was not about their image but for comfort and practicality. Between 1914 and 1918 ‘more than a million women took the chance to join’ and contributed towards the war. It was due to the women that ‘back at home’, the economy was still