Has the wearing of camouflage clothing by civilians turned against the military?
James Mylne, Camberwell College of Arts, MA, Digital Arts, 10/01/2006.
Abstract
Camouflage is an important part of the military’s public image. So when civilians from all walks of life begin wearing it, does it, or doesn’t it undermine the military’s image of authority and power over civilians. I believe it does, or at least, it is beginning to. There are powerful feelings surrounding the wearing of camouflage that seem to be emerging from two sides of society. The clothes designer, Hardy Blechman, was wearing a camouflage jacket in the Tate whilst visiting an exhibition when a man approached him and asked him where the bloodstains were.
I can understand that when ex-military servicemen who wore camouflage as a real tool for their survival, for our benefit, see civilians wearing it as a casual fashion statement feel a little confused. On the other hand I now understand that there are different, more positive, reasons inspiring artists and designers like Hardy Blechman to use and adapt camouflage into their work and collections.
How camouflage came to be worn as a fashion statement by civilians and how now military camouflage is becoming undermined not only by the evolution of war but also by the perception and use of camouflage by civilians is a question that I will now consider.
Literature review
The most comprehensive book ever published on camouflage (DPM), which was written by Hardy Blechman in 2005 (consisting of around 1000 pages) helped me develop this argument more than any other source. It not only gives an accurate history of the development of camouflage and its use in the natural world, but more importantly for me, a contextual analysis of its role in modern cultural society. It describes how camouflage has arrived on the high streets all over the world with the force it has today.
Alongside that, it was important for me to understand the ways in which the military has influenced modern society and how it has directly influenced youth culture. Most of this influence today is noticeable through technological introductions from early military developments and experiments. In this case Tim Druckrey’s book Ars Electronica: FaWith all my effort I could not find any other books other than DPM that look into the wearing of camouflage by modern civilians, so much of my research relied on the Internet. By refining my searches, I was pleasantly surprised to find more than I expected available on this subject. A website called peacecrane.com came useful as the site is run by young and opinionated Japanese artists who specialise in origami, using paper with modern camouflage patterns printed on. They offered a page giving not only a decent history of camouflage but also a small section called Camouflage Today and Beyond. This helped highlight, clarify, and confirm certain ideas central to my argument.
Two other references in my text came off the Internet, they are important as they are based on official military statistics and investigations. (SGR and Counter Recruiter).cing The Future served its purpose.
How the wearing of camouflage by civilians is a bad sign for the military.
No one can argue against the fact that the military has influenced many aspects of civilian life going back thousands of years.
Military technology has contributed centrally to the shaping of the world in which we live. The economic and political dominance of the industrialised countries is in part the legacy of innovations in military technology in Europe and later in the USA. The power and range of military activities is, in a variety of ways, closely linked with the expertise of scientists, engineers and technologists engaged in or funded by the military sector. (SGR. 2005: Internet accessed)
Just a few groundbreaking impacts that the military has made on civilian life recently include GPS (global positioning system), production and management systems, and the Internet, which grew out of military funded ARPANET. It is, however, only since the 1970s that military influence has directly influenced youth culture. A good example of this is computer games. New technology developed by the US during the cold war resulted in a crossover between the military and the software and electronic industries.
Up to the end of the ‘80s, military simulators-the American SIMNET and applications like flight simulators-were considered to be the genesis of commercial video games. (Druckrey. 1999: p339)
What I am writing about is another extremely influential force on modern society, which is more under-stated than others, namely: surplus military clothing.
With so many military personnel requiring clothing, and with the cost of a uniform being so low in comparison with the cost of weaponry, military budgets allow for an enormous surplus in uniforms. These garments then find their way to the surplus market, where they are traded at a price far lower than the cost of manufacture (as they are subsidised by defence budgets), providing affordable clothing that is functional, strong, durable, and now fashionable. Many military clothes manufacturers crossed over from purely military distribution into civilian distribution. Spiewalk were developing military clothes for the US Navy in the 1950’s and have now launched fashion divisions employing crossover military detailing. Surplus clothing shops have been around for some time, for example, Laurence Corner opened in Euston, London, in 1953.
Mainstream youth culture began to adopt camouflage as a symbol of rebellion after the anti-Vietnam War protests in the 1960’s; and after these protests people began to customize their surplus clothes with peace symbols and other designs.
Camouflage garments also entered the civilian market via the trade in surplus government uniforms, and during the 1960’s were worn as a means of political protest by anti-war campaigners. Surplus military clothing – cheap, well made, and comfortable – was brought up and worn by members of the general public, and its popularity inspired designers to incorporate camouflage into their collections. (Blechman. 2004: p273)
Music has been a major influence for the adoption of camouflage clothing by modern civilians. Many artists wear, and have worn, camouflage as a symbol of their rebellious nature and political views. An early example of this is Jamaican reggae artists in the 70s, who obtained their clothing when it was brought back from Cuban military training camps set up as part of Fidel Castro’s plan to spread communism across the Caribbean. Early British examples are the bands Thunderclap, and The Clash, who arguably pioneered the wearing of camouflage in mainstream media.
Then early Hip-hop bands naturally took on and used this image in its performances also as a symbol of rebellion. Public Enemy have one of the most memorable examples of this, when they were photographed in urban camouflage for the sleeve of their 1988 Def Jam album, ‘It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold us Back.’ In more recent times, though, Hip-hop has become assimilated into mainstream culture and the use of camouflage is seen as less rebellious and more fashionable. As a result many contemporary fashion designers have used camouflage in their collections, such as Tommy Hilfiger, Issey Miyake, Jean-Paul Gaultier, and Louis Viutton.
Camouflage was first conceived and created by artists during the cubist period in France, and now it seems that artists are trying to pull camouflage back into their artistic domain. This can first be seen by Andy Warhol’s work when he replaced the green and brown shapes in camouflage with pink and red pop combinations in his camouflage plates in 1986. He was effectively taking a symbol of state authority and turning it into décor.
I believe that today the best way to view this development is on the thousands of different clothes products, sporting camouflage, walking up and down high streets all over the world. And it isn’t just clothes where camouflage has entered mainstream markets. Camouflage patterns have found their way onto numerous commercial products including iPod skins, bedding, guitar straps, women’s high heels, business card holders, and even on house keys. To name just a few.
There are places though where the tension felt by the state due to civilians wearing camouflage has boiled over. This exception is found in countries, such as Zimbabwe, where, if civilians are caught wearing camouflage, they can be arrested and flogged. In fact, on the 27th January 1999, a ten-year old boy, on entering Barbados, was arrested by airport officials for wearing camouflage clothing, as it is illegal for anyone except the military to wear camouflage there.
Thanks to the anti-Vietnam war protestors and hippies who wore camouflage, civilians who now wear it can be seen as conscientious objectors. Fashion designers, like Hardy Blechman and his clothing label Maharishi, believe that, by creating military style clothes, they are ‘nullifying’ the military associations that have up until recently inherently come with camouflage. He does this by negating the practicality of camouflage by combining it with high-visibility fabrics.
To begin with he bought and adjusted stuff he liked – changing the cut, adding screen prints or computerised embroidery – but soon he started to design his own clothes, using synthetic microfibre fabrics to create the ‘combat chic’ on which his success as a seller of streetwear is based. He feels, most ardently, that the military should not be allowed to ‘maintain its dominion over these patterns that were originally influenced by artists’ interpretations of the natural world’ He argues that the more camouflage is used outside the military, the less likely it is that camo-clad civilians like himself will continue to attract abuse. (Wright. 2005: Internet).
The practical use of camouflage even by troops in combat is now questionable. This is due to widespread developments and distribution of technology and equipment such as night vision, heat-sensitive, and infrared systems. The use of camouflage by armies now seems to be increasingly symbolic rather than purely for combat use. Army recruiting officers in America use the persuasion of having a new camouflage uniform as a selling point for attracting young and financially deprived individuals in the street. The officers themselves wear clean well-creased camouflage uniforms.
Today's camouflage is not only customized for terrain, weather and light conditions, it also symbolizes the national identity for the military. Idiosyncratic designs represent a face much like a flag. (e22.com, 2005: Internet accessed).
The military has long used camouflage to promote its image and pride to all ages. This is well recognised in the toy industry, where children's toys have been accurately decorated with camouflage since the 1880s. As the military goes about using camouflage to distinguish and promote itself to civilians, more and more people are buying modified and adjusted camouflage fashion items as “conscientious objectors”. There is an inevitable meeting point here, where the differences in opinion and political territory clash. On a right wing American web page I found the following:
The anti-American group Code Pink is trying to remove what they concider 'pro-war propoganda' toys from store shelves. They say and I quote: "Every holiday season manufactures prey on our children with pro-war propaganda disguised as innocent toys. Don't let your child be a victim of G.I. Joe! As you're out buying holiday gifts, make a point this year to show little ones that war is not game. Set an example for the children in your life and use the opportunity to teach them non-violence. Dress up in awesome pink camouflage gear or wear a fun holiday costume like an elf and stand outside stores that sell war toys with anti-war toy banners reminding gift buyers to shop responsibly. Hand out flyer's to shoppers about why they shouldn't buy them and give them suggestions for alternative gifts they can purchase for the little ones in their lives. Place "surgeon general-type" warning labels on war toys in the stores. Simple mailing labels that you can print off at home are perfect for this action. Use the samples below or get creative and design your own." (Dan. 2005: Internet accessed).
Average consumers are not buying and wearing camouflage clothes out of respect for the military. They wear it because it is fashionable. It is also fashionable, or at least, popular opinion, now, to be against military action in its seemingly imperialist behaviour and role all over the world. Camouflage on consumers is acting as a symbol of the increasing skepticism by the increasingly well aware public of the military and its controversial public image.
Summary
It is possible to observe two extremes of society who wear camouflage. On the one side are the proud military personnel of the establishment. On the other are the civilians who wear camouflage to subvert its symbol of authority as a means of empowering themselves and making sure others take notice of their message, which is often anti-capitalist, anti-war, and environment friendly. These two sides represent extreme political standpoints, but in-between are millions of normal civilians, who wear it for their own purposes, according to their own political stances. Except at this point in time the public’s view of the military and war is not what it used to be. This is due to more accurate media coverage of incidents like the “illegal” war and invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo Bay torture, and the Deepcut army barracks suicides. In fact, in America, recruitment levels are at their lowest for decades.
Final numbers are in from the Department of Defense, and as expected, the Army missed its fiscal 2005 recruiting goal by a wide margin, falling short by more than 6,600 soldiers. The Army National Guard, Army Reserve, Navy Reserve and Air National Guard also all missed their recruiting goals, each pulling in less than 90 percent of their targets. While some divisions of the armed forces did meet their year-end goals, even some in the military admit the situation is worse than it may appear. (Aaron, K. (2005): Internet accessed).
Due to the current weakness in the military’s image, those who wear camouflage, not as a flag for patriotism, but as a symbol of nature, peace, and anti-war, worldwide, seem to be the ones with the lauder voice.
If artists and civilians continue the accelerated adoption and customisation of camouflage, then surely it will begin to lose its firm association with the armed forces that it still enjoys. When this happens, the military may have to make some kind of change in order to distinguish itself and its authority from others once again. While camouflage on civilians may not be directly responsible for the decline of military approval worldwide, those who are at the front of this disapproval, are wearing it, and even making it. There is no doubt that at the moment, their influence on society (specifically young generations) and their political standpoints, seems to be stronger than the military’s. So while these people continue to wear camouflage, they are corrupting the image the military hold, who are wearing it themselves.
Reference
Aaron, K. (2005), Final recruiting Numbers Worse Than They May Appear. (Internet), Available from: military_recruiting_news (accessed on 10/01/2006).
Blechman, H. (2004), DPM: Disruptive Pattern Material, London: DPM Ltd.
Dan. 2005, They Have Gone To far? (Internet), 7 December 2005. FlawedSociety.com, E-Blogger, Available from flawedsociety.blogspot.com (accessed on 3/01/2006).
Druckrey, T, Richard, B. (1999), Ars Electronica Facing the Future. US: MIT Press.
E22.com. 2005, History of Camouflage, (Internet), 11/11/2005, Operation Peace Crane, Available from: peacecrane/camo (accessed on 3/01/2006).
Langley, C. SGR: Scientists for Global Responsibility, 2005, Soldiers In The Laboratory: military involvement in science and technology and some alternatives, (Internet), Available from sgr.org.uk/downloads (accessed on 8/12/2005).
Wright, P. 2005. Cubist Slugs. (Internet), 23 June 2005, LRB.co.uk, Available from: .lrb.co.uk (accessed on 1/01/2006).
Bibliography
Adie, K. (2003), Corsets to Camouflage. Women and War, London: Hodder and Stoughten.
Drury, B, Farrelly, L, Futura, Holmes, A. (2001), Futura, (London): Booth-Cibborn Editions Limited.
Reza, F. (2003), Anti Imperialism. A Guide to The Movement, London: Bookmarks Publications.