These days, it is more and more common to see people sporting crazy coloured hair. Pink, green, blue, rainbow bright.. nothing shocks us anymore. If anything, we envy those bold enough to dare challenge the norm and dye their locks an unusual shade.
But this trend is nothing new. People were already dying their hair pink and blue one century ago. It was all Lady Lucy Duff-Gordon’s doing. The first British-based designer to achieve international acclaim, at the beginning of 1814 Lucy decided to show some of her prettiest models with charming shades of pink, blue, purple, and green hair. Why?
“My discovery came about this way. I made a dress. It was for a very beautiful dark Pariesienne. It was a very beautiful dress. The girl tried it on and was delighted. I was not. It was more beautiful off her than on and that should not be. What was the trouble? Its colors wore harmonious, vibrant, living, but on her there came a slowing of the vibrant quality, a dulling.
Suddenly I knew what it was. It was her hair. Her hair was a peculiarly deep black, more brooding than alive you will understand me. I touched it with a blue powder and gave it here and there the flash you get in the wing of the bluebird. And lo! At once the dress grew more alive, more vibrant than it had been when she had not worn it. It was just that note that it needed. It tuned it up, accelerated it, gave it the proper pitch – completed both dress and woman.”
The trend caught on and, soon, all the fashionable ladies started sporting coloured wigs at parties. But not everyone was a fan. Some people worried that dying your hair an unnatural colour was immoral! Lady Duff-Gordon thought such worries ridiculous, and said so in the Omaha Sunday Bee Magazine:
“Our hair now is simply and frankly an ornament. If one, for instance, decided that she wanted to have her head shaved, would it be thought immoral If she did so? Decidedly- not. Absurd, perhaps, but not Immoral. Why then should it be thought immoral to put on more hair, or to change the color of that already on?
There are always a vast number of folk who feel more or less acutely that all beauty is of the evil one, that one can’t be gay without being wicked and that the only proper vocation of mankind is to mourn. These folk have even tinctured the minds of the normal with a shade of their apprehension. Consequently cutting off the hair raises no question of morality because it makes one ugly, and anything ugly can’t possibly be of Satan.
But because changing the color of one’s hair can be done for no other reason than to make one more attractive, it must necessarily be looked upon with suspicion.. And how utterly unintelligent is that viewpoint! I think it Is immoral not to make oneself as beautiful as one can.
[…] If we’re to stick through thick and thin to the natural color of our hair, why shouldn’t we stick to the natural color of skin and hide no more than necessary? So far as comfort and necessity go we could do easily with the clothes we wear, few as they are now. There isn’t the faintest reason in nature for wearing skirts to the ankles, nor waists to the neck.
There isn’t any reason for either shoes or stockings a good part of the year. The hair is only an ornament. It is as much a part of dress as the hat, or the laces of a gown. There is nothing either moral or immoral about it or what we do with. It’s just hair.”
The fad was short-lived. By May, English women were sporting a new trend: their own grey hair!
Would you have worn crazy-coloured wigs back then? And would you dye your locks an unusual colour now?