An Interview with Batsheva Hay

It’s a common misconception that, in order to change the scheme of things, one must break with tradition. It might not seem the radical thing to dress modestly in the era of Me Too – to the prairie frocks and fusty sunblushed florals that, for many, represent the pretty face of repression – but there’s a reason it feels so instinctively right for our times. Batsheva is a brand that is both restless in its mission to further female agency, and excited to revel in the notion that there’s never been a better time to be a woman. It makes no apologies about the tradition for ornamental silhouette that has stitched the female identity so far; symbols of propriety and virtue, passed down from one generation to the next. Orthodox prairie dresses are paired with subway-stained white low tops and fuddy clogs, or perhaps they’re lacquered like a candy-wrapper in lilac lamé. Transposed with internet culture’s critical debates concerning sexual politics, the pie crust collars and ragdoll sleeves assume a sense of modernity, and so too an intent sense of identity. Suddenly, to be matronly means to be defiant, subversive and loud; none of that can be muted by a garment’s previous association to the meek. Batsheva Hay tells ZOO how reclamation can trump a ruling hand.

REBEKKA AYRES: There’s a very beautiful, and very modern feeling of nostalgia to Batsheva. It got me wondering: What is your earliest memory of dressing?

BATSHEVA HAY: Why, thank you. I remember getting dressed by my mother, always in little smocked dresses from B. Altman and Laura Ashley. Some were secondhand. I just remember marveling at the little details: The piping and smocking and calico prints. I was a flower girl at my aunt’s wedding, and my dress was taffeta with a lace bib. It was heaven.

RA: When a woman wears these dresses, there’s a feeling that she shares a deep connection to the garment, almost like it was once worn by another woman she loves and is close to. Do you see clothing as a tool to build meaningful relationships between women?

BH: Well, my whole brand started because of my obsession with my vintage dresses that I’d worn to pieces, so yes, I am trying to recreate some of that magic: To make something so cherished you would want to hand it down and get it patched up when its fabric tears. That is exactly why my dresses are mostly made of cotton and have pockets. They are meant to get lots of wear and become integrated into the wearer’s personality and life.

RA: You take these very traditional details - which you note are emblematic of restraint and repression – and reformulate them to reject antiquated notions of femininity. What do you see is the strength to be found within these conservative cues?

BH: For me, all the fun is in playing with stereotypes and making them naughty and transgressive. I describe my look as a “housewife on steroids”— it is the steroids that make it fun, that employ satire to show just how ridiculous all these tropes are.

RA: Is your work a response to a certain prescribed sexiness?

BH: Yes of course. I have never wanted to dress to look “hot”— that has always been a nightmare idea for me. I respect anyone who wants to do that, but I have always cared much more about being fun and interesting. Women need more options that are exciting, and not just meant to lure in men.

RA: How do you feel about extravagance? At one side of the spectrum, your collection is founded upon modest fabrics with ditsy florals and gingham, reminiscent of the homemaker, then it morphs into these unbridled bursts of metallic lamé, graphic print and royal velvets.

BH: I am all for adventurous dressing— I wouldn’t say extravagance, as I try to keep the pricing reasonable and the wearability high. Even my velvet and metallic dresses have pockets and are quite comfortable. I want everything to feel accessible, but fun and different — to give women permission to take a chance and try something they might not normally.

RA: Within your personal style, how have you used clothing to reject ideas or express something deep within?

BH: My personal style has always just been the random whims of the old lady within me, expressed with an adolescent spirit. I love old world charm but I am never well-put together. I barely ever wear pants, which I know sounds conservative, but I just don’t like how they feel, and I hate being told I am supposed to wear them to be modern. I am not modern.

RA: Before you entered design, you were a lawyer. How were you thinking about clothing in this setting? Were you weighed down by restrictions, or did you see rules to be broken? Could clothing be a help or a hindrance?

BH: I hated dressing as a lawyer. Lawyers have to blend in, and that is not me – on so many levels. You want your lawyer to look completely reliable and uninteresting, and that was such a constraint for me. I used to hide my outfits in my desk that I would wear out to dinner after work.

RA: How does the patriarchal world of law compare with the fashion industry? Maybe fashion even has some way to go? While women are represented at the top of their field in great numbers, many of the most historicized designers, CEOs and heads of media outlets, are men.

BH: Exactly. The fashion industry runs more on the desires of women, but it is still largely run by men, who make the decisions and investments. Patriarchy is alive and well in both industries.

RA: While women are under a great deal of scrutiny about what they wear, we also have a great deal more freedom to get creative. Men are somewhat restricted to safe options which keep them homogenous. Would you like to see men get a little more adventurous?

BH: I would love everyone to get more adventurous with clothing and have more of a sense of humor. There are so many things in the world to be serious about, and how we dress should not be one of them.