In other cultures, the bride-to-be might marry in colors that symbolize her family lineage or be adorned with pieces to honor her ancestors. These traditions have survived for centuries.

But in the West, the blushing bride’s gown (as well as the rest of the wedding party’s attire) has gone through as many transformations as the women who wear them. For that very reason, Director of Collections Charles Mo has put together a new exhibition at Charlotte’s Mint Museum of Art entitled “To Have and To Hold: 135 Years of Wedding Fashions.”

Mo knew “To Have and To Hold” was “an exhibition waiting to happen” after finding a wealth of wedding fashions while doing another show, “Evening Elegance.” From the museum’s collection, Mo was able to find wedding attire — dresses and tuxedos, accessories and undergarments — from as early as the 1840s to as recent as the 1980s.

The curator was happy to be able to showcase some of the older costumes because, he said, they won’t last forever.

“These are what I call living entities,” Mo said. “They’re (made of) natural materials and … no matter how well a collector does or how much conservation care a museum or gallery can give … or how much loving protection (comes from) the owner or the family … eventually, this material, by its inherent nature, starts to break down. It’s so sad to see that. We have some on display that are so delicate … .”

He even went as far as replacing the ribbon of a tarlatan dress with a very dainty one from France to ensure that he “give it back that feeling of what it looked like.”

The fragile nature of the dresses of the mid-19th century, though, is not only reflected in the materials from which they were made but also in the form.

Because women were “a lot smaller” during that century, dresses were designed to enhance their petite figures.

“The 1840s is when we see a real artificial silhouette, the idea that a woman’s body is really being manipulated in molding,” Mo explained. “A lot of this hinged on the undergarments, including corsets and large, full crinoline skirts supported by wearing six, seven, eight, nine petticoats to give it volume.” Hooped crinolines were introduced in the 1860s, which gave women a little more freedom to move and, in the 1870s, full, round, dome-like skirts changed to half-crinolines making a “flatter, smoother drop in profile and fullness moving to the back of the dress.”

The pinch-waisted, full-bustled, leg-of- mutton-sleeved bridal gown styles often worn by Americans during the latter part of that century were greatly influenced by European designers.

Though Anna Violet Kline of Allentown, Pa., never wore the rose point-lace skirt and bodice jacket ensemble she bought in 1890, she, like many other “ladies of means,” was able to purchase hers in Paris which was, Mo said, the fashion center of the world.

In the 1880s, some popular women’s fashion magazines threw a curve ball into the wedding dress game: They suggested that women consider wearing a bridal gown that (gasp!) was not white — a fashion move probably inspired by Queen Victoria’s tiara-less white wedding in 1840 — and opt for a more practical cream or beige or burgundy or brown.

“This is not yet the period of the concept of having a special dress and wearing it just once and packing it away. People wore their clothes again,” Mo explained. “It was tradition in the 19th century that the bride would wear the wedding dress to the various balls and receptions that were held in honor of the bride and groom for the first year of their marriage. … Then, if families and friends … didn’t get in town to see the wedding, you could see the bride in her wedding dress again. Dresses were also used as afternoon or ‘Sunday-go-meeting’ dresses.”

At the turn of the century, dresses began to change in shape and silhouettes became much slimmer.

“The popular silhouette was often sleek, tubular … almost boy-like, because the fashionable vogue was small breasts, small hips, basically no waist,” Mo said, “so this straight look was really fashionable.”

But as an alternative, a style coming out of Paris was a throwback to the former century and “a modification in the hip level” was created with wire, hoops, cluster pads of tulle or horsehair.

Also in the the 20s, hemlines went up; and as they got higher, veils and trains got longer and more fun. Shoulder trains became all the rage.

As the third decade of the 1900s was ushered in, so was the Depression, when Americans retreated to movie houses to escape the reality of economic hardship.

“Movie designers had a great impact on American design,” Mo said. “Through the bias-cut dresses of the ’30s that we saw in the movies … it was the first time that Vogue magazine used the word ‘sexy’ to describe a dress.”

The 1930s was also the decade when white dresses, or variations thereof, grew in popularity — and when our country was introduced to a second world war.

But, Mo continued, it wasn’t always about formal weddings.

In the ’30s, a very popular style of dress called the garden frock showed up, which was often used as a bridal dress. To top it off, many times wide-brimmed, silk flower or fabric streamer-decorated hats would be worn.

Mo has on display a mid-’30s bias-cut dress made of “fabulous” silk-satin combinations, which he admitted is one of his favorite costumes to work with.

“I find that the satins and silks from the ’30s are without compare. They are so fluid, so beautiful … .”

But when our country was ushered into a second world war, it was understood that most silks and satins had to be reallocated to the war effort. Fortunately, brides-to-be didn’t find that a problem.

“There were two schools of thought then,” Mo pointed out. “There were some brides who felt it was their patriotic duty to forgo a big, expensive, white wedding … .” Those were the ones who used government-issued, large, triangular panels of “parachute silk,” or nylon to make their dresses. After all, it was white.

“I’m pleased to have one (on display) because it is a good reminder of some of the deprivations some brides experienced during the war, but it also shows their resourcefulness.”

But, Mo continued, those who refused to sacrifice a traditional dress said, “No. Either … we could modify the family dress or save our rations,” as did Queen Elizabeth II, who bought the dress for her 1947 wedding with ration coupons.”

One thing that did help brides looking for the perfect attire was the development of professional associations dedicated to promoting the wedding industry. In fact, when the government rationed the use of certain materials, the American Bridal Association lobbied Congress and argued that “weddings and wedding fashions and the materials needed to go into a wedding were just as important as Mom’s apple pie.

“This is what the boys were fighting for!” Mo said the ABA argued. “Congress bought the argument and reduced the restrictions on a lot of these goods. … That’s why you had beautiful, formal, elegant gowns coming out of the war years, even though you hear stories of, ‘God, it was so hard during the war.’ ”

Yet one more way World War II helped the bridal fashion industry is by restricting the importation of sexy creations from the world’s fashion centers — which were now behind enemy lines.

“That really gave American designers the opportunity to sparkle and glow, and we see a number of American designers come to the forefront,” Mo remarked. “We see that there is a strong creativity that comes about. With regard to the actual creative process and the manufacturing process, I don’t think anyone can beat the United States in terms of fashion” — especially, he said, as Christian Dior “rocked” the fashion world in 1947.

Bridal fashion markets took off in the ’50s with the explosion of the country’s prosperity and in the 1960s came names that became synonymous with fine wedding dresses, including Galina, House of Bianchi and Priscilla of Boston.

The look of gowns became “ambiguous” in the middle of the 20th century, reflecting the nation’s own social and political conflicts. Some returned to the traditional nipped-in waists and long, full skirts on the one hand, others, in the spirit of rebellion, wore minidress-styled gowns in which to be wed. Even Mo’s own wife, Holly Katherine Blanke, wore a dress that “was very ’71: the empire style, the bishop sleeve,” for her big day.

The 1970s also brought a renewed appreciation for ethnic heritage and many designers created African and Latino-inspired pieces.

Finally, with the resurgence of a stable economy came a revival of the extremely elaborate gowns. And to prove it in the early ’80s, Arnold Scaasi created a platinum dress done in a metallic silver brocade with white mink at the cuffs and shoulders.

But grooms weren’t left out in this show. Mo included seven men’s outfits that reflect the same chronological revolution as did the dresses. The curator even said the frock look in men’s tuxedos from past decades is again becoming popular.

Bridal fashions seem to have come full circle. “It really is difficult to have some creative genius come out where you’re doing something that’s never been done before,” Mo said, but the idea of a special ceremony celebrating the union of two people enamored by each other will always remain constant.

“Yes, it is an exhibition about wedding fashions, but it’s also an exhibition about stylistic changes and the whole evolution of fashion,” Mo explained. “What you see consistent is not a case of style but a matter of concept — the idea that a bride and a groom look special on their wedding day. All brides are beautiful and it’s true because it’s part of the heritage, the tradition, the custom that comes along with our celebration of a wedding. And for that occasion, whether you’re wearing your very best business suit or you’re wearing white tie and tails or you’re wearing a big wedding gown or a very fashionable day dress, it’s part of what says ‘This is our special time, this is our special day.’ ”

n