BRIAN writes:

From your posts on “trash-the-dress,” you obviously don’t understand what it’s all about.

Firstly, there are two totally different types of trash-the-dress photoshoots.

The most common one has the intention of taking beautiful photos of the bride (and sometimes the groom as well) away from the overly sterile traditional settings. Some of these photographs are truly beautiful and far from being anti-traditional actually hark back to very old styles of photography. These may or may not include stunning water scenes. In many cases the beauty of the bride is emphasized by the use of contrasting backgrounds, such as an industrial type background. In nearly all these cases, the dress is not truly “trashed” and can be dry cleaned.

In true “trash-the-dress” shoots, which are a tiny minority, the reasoning of the brides is exactly the opposite of what you state. If you ask them, they will say things like, “It’s a statement of commitment. The wedding is over. My marriage is forever. I am never going to need a wedding dress again and destroying it is a way of graphically saying that.” Even in situations like mud, many times the dress can still be rescued. When it can’t, realistically the chances of a daughter wanting to wear her other’s dress are very small. Fashions change and most daughters marrying now wouldn’t be seen dead in their mother’s wedding dress.

The comments on your blog are harsh and critical without every trying to understand the real reason, so the commentators simply put their own ideas of what a bride is doing or saying by doing that shoot, in other words, putting words into their mouths, rather than actually asking them what they are thinking.

          — Brian – an ex-photographer who has never actually done a “trash the dress” shoot.

Laura writes:

You write:

[T]here are two totally different types of trash the dress photoshoots.

The most common one has the intention of taking beautiful photos of the bride (and sometimes the groom as well) away from the overly sterile traditional settings.

But then in what sense is that a “trash-the-dress” shoot? My commenters said nothing about taking photos in non-traditional settings so how do you know their opinion of that? I’m not sure what is “overly-sterile” about a picture of a bride in a garden, a traditional setting for a bridal shoot. In any event, I don’t put these non-traditional photos in the same category as destroying a dress by jumping in an urban fountain. They are two different things.

As for the other type of “trash-the-dress” shoot, which does involve destroying an expensive and beautiful garment, I don’t understand. It strikes me as an attention-getting stunt rather than some meaningful statement. Haven’t the brides already made vows? How about smashing a wedding glass or a bottle of champagne? What about flinging their bouquets?

You say women don’t wear vintage weddings dresses today. Many don’t, but others deliberately seek them out in vintage stores and they can be fairly expensive. Many women don’t wear their mother’s wedding dresses because their mothers didn’t have extravagant wedding dresses or because they may be swept up in the materialistic bridal ethic. Many probably don’t wear their mother’s dress because their mothers are divorced. There is no beauty in the wedding  dress of a divorced woman. In any event, anyone who has purchased a dress they admire would normally want it to be admired in the future. Perhaps instead of trashing a dress, a bride could offer it on e-Bay or at a charity event to someone who cannot afford a new dress.

It’s nice when couples have beautiful photos of the day they vowed to remain together through thick and thin. But it’s only important because future generations may find it meaningful. After a few years, no one else will. The photo of a mother or grandmother destroying (or just damaging) her wedding dress will be seen in light of all else that mother or grandmother has been and done. In other words, it may symbolize something the bride never intended.

                                 — Comments —

Hurricane Betsy writes:

Let’s tell it like it is. Those ugly industrial-setting wedding photos are just another fad eagerly gobbled up by young people who cannot think for themselves. I saw one taking place the other day as we were driving at the edge of a dark, abandoned industrial area and didn’t have a clue what was going on. It was just awful.

Just who might have convinced brides & grooms that anything traditional is “overly sterile”? It wouldn’t be the photographic “profession” itself, would it?

Laura writes:

Call me stodgy, but the beauty of this bride is not emphasized by standing in front of old circuit breakers. These two look like they’ve just had a fight.

This look is dumb. It’s inspired by fashion photography, which loves to show women in anything but conventional settings.

Karen I. writes:

Another reason many women do not wear their mother’s wedding gown is because they are too fat to fit the vintage dress.

I hope the “trash the dress” fad does not carry over to children. I can imagine little girls in their First Communion dresses playing in mud or babies eating strained peas in their Baptism gowns –without a bib.

Elizabeth writes:

Has anyone pointed out yet that this wasteful practice is not a “green” thing to do? If they want to trash the dress, it should be made of compostable materials.

Laura writes:

Or at least the dress should be made out of recycled materials.

Lydia Sherman writes:

The practice of wearing your best clothes (rather than buying an expensive wedding dress), in the 1930’s and 1940’s, did not seem to invite the criticism of lavish, “sterile” traditional weddings, nor did it inspire the desire to trash the wedding clothes. Wearing your best dress for your wedding was in-between lavishness and come-as-you-are type of clothing. There might be some connection between the expense of the wedding and the longevity of the marriage. Many of those couples were married for 60 years.

Instead of giving your daughters an expensive wedding, why not simply buy her a new dress, and just use the money to help the couple buy a house?

Brian replies to Laura:

I agree with you 100 percent on one thing. Most “trash-the-dress” shoots (do a search on youtube, there are literally thousands of them) should NOT be called trash-the-dress. They are called that because one photographer got a lot of publicity by doing the very first shoot called “trash-the-dress” (the dress was APPARENTLY on fire while the model was still wearing it – sounds horrible, but the photos were incredible, how the photographer managed to use the flames to light her face and hair without burning her, I shall never know, but it was very skillful). After the publicity from that shoot, photographers around the USA and the world simply jumped on the bandwagon.

On water type shoots: Many brides have commented in blogs after doing trash-the-dress shoots in fountain or the sea that the dresses were perfectly “rescueable” afterwards. In fact, some blogs have had brides doing other trash the dress shoots in the same dress after a water shoot, so the dress must have survived so well that it was good enough even for modelling afterwards. In some cases this has even been after a shoot where the dress got muddy.

As for the shoots which do destroy the dress, obviously not everyone wants to do that, but to suggest as some of the comments on your page do, that it’s because the bride thinks any less of her marriage is judgemental and plain wrong. You may disagree with their reasoning, but it is unfair to make attacks on their commitment and their morality simply because they want to do something which you wouldn’t want to do.

Laura writes:

Let me respond to your last point first.

It is not unfair to criticize ugliness. It is not unfair to object to vandalism. The exact opposite is true. It’s unfair not to object to ugliness, especially when it involves the trashing of common rituals. Destroying one’s own wedding dress is a form of vandalism, regardless of the bride’s intentions and even if some consider it high art. It’s an ugly, meretricious gesture. No one who appreciates the meaning of marriage would find it entertaining or moving. Whatever the inner logic of a person who does this or of those who applaud, what matters is how people in general read it. Weddings are ceremonies, not avant-garde art exhibitions. And the message of trashing one’s dress is: “This whole ceremony was empty display.” You say it means for the bride that she is putting the wedding behind her. The marriage counts and not the wedding. And I am saying, this is dishonest. Everyone knows the wedding itself is an event and that it matters. If a bride wishes to make a dramatic gesture about the relative unimportance of the wedding, she could have a much less extravagant event. She could wear a modest white dress and veil. The party could involve tea sandwiches and champagne – and that’s it. Friends could take the pictures.

As for photos of brides romping in the ocean or a fountain, that may work for erotic fashion photography, but not a wedding. Only a pervert wants to see a bride in a wet wedding dress.

The photographer who captured a woman in a flaming wedding gown introduced more shlocky postmodern art values into the field of wedding photography. Whether it is “skillful” or not is irrelevant. It’s ugly, adolescent and shockingly stupid, not to mention dangerous.

In all of Western patriarchal history, the ritual of burning or drowning wedding dresses never took hold. It took feminism – that woman-loathing movement – to set the stage for these overtly misogynist gestures. If men had implemented this ritual, history books would be filled with accounts of women oppressed by those who made them burn their gowns. The strange thing is, women revel in this childish self-destruction. Any photographer who thinks this is adorable or meaningful has very poor taste.

Sarah Nelson writes:

I tend to be a bit cynical when it comes to fashion trends. All the ridiculous reasons suggested for why a woman would destroy a very expensive and beautiful dress are probably each a little true. However, like most new wedding “traditions” I propose the trash-the-dress concept has more to do with making the wedding industry money. Ruining a dress makes money for the photographer and the bridal shop.

The “professional photographer” has morphed from a competent photographer who will pose and direct beautiful photos into an entertainer of sorts. He/she makes wise cracks and quips, cajoles wedding guests to do silly things, and can now charge extra for the “expanded package” that includes multiple locations and a trash the dress shoot for x number of dollars more.

Also trashing the dress effectively limits the second hand and rental market for a wedding dress, another benefit to the wedding industry. A new dress costs a tidy sum. If it is only worn once and ruined then bridal stores can sell more dresses. I was able to purchase a beautiful dress (not even three months old and worn only once) off craigslist, hire a seamstress from church to alter it, and wear it. For less than some women in my area spend on a purse. After my ceremony, I was able to sell my dress to a bridal rental store (as it was a very stunning “this year’s” dress) for quite a bit of money. As a housewife and household bookkeeper I couldn’t justify another $200 dollars paid to the dry cleaner in order to preserve my wedding dress – then there was the matter of where I would store the large box. We live in a small city apartment and every bit of space is required!

My personal pet peeve (like your distaste for pizza) is that my generation has embraced wastefulness as a virtue. Women have been brainwashed into believing that our worth is determined by the price paid for our clothing and accessories. Nothing embodies this like wearing a gown just once and trashing it.

Laura writes:

Women have lost control of their weddings just like they have lost control of their homes. They are the pawns of commercial interests like never before. Where once they controlled their purses, they now fling their money away. They are too distracted to govern the areas of their lives that matter most.

Mrs. P. writes:

It appears that brides who trash their wedding gowns do it for the fun of it mostly.

In that case, this is profanity. Throughout the world and throughout history cultures have seen the wedding as a sacred and solemn occasion. Trashing one’s wedding gown just for the fun of it amounts to trashing the wedding itself.

Unlike the former Greek tradition of breaking perfectly good dinner plates at the wedding as symbolizing a departure from the old life and the beginning of a new life, trashing the wedding gown for fun has no such meaning. All it can possibly mean is that the bride is silly and stupid.

Rather than trashing her wedding gown, a bride should consider turning it into something that is truly meaningful and respectful of her wedding and her marriage. Seamstresses exist who specialize in turning wedding gowns into baptismal outfits and covers for bassinets. This way the bride’s wedding gown escapes being entombed in a box for years and years and continues to live on in a new form that will grace her future children and become a cherished family heirloom.

A reader writes:

I didn’t know this was such a big thing to do – so many clips on youtube – the grease monkey one had mechanic’s grease spread on the dress. Here’s an underwater one.

Please follow and like us: