The dialogue between folk attires, bourgeois fashion, and high-quality dressmaking is rarely discussed, as they seem to be contradictory phenomena. Traditional folk costumes come about as the product of a community or the individual influence of unknown creators. They are tied to a single region and symbolise permanence.

Two magazines for needlework

In the early thirties, in the poor economic situation caused by the global crisis, it became increasingly difficult to travel abroad and acquire fashionable clothes. Consequently, more and more of the customers turned to cheaper domestic seamstresses and ready-made garments. Thus, the Hungarian Dress Movement was launched at that time.

Folk attires used to play an essential role in social contact. In peasant culture, it was a vital communication code that indicated belonging to a community, but it also referred to the socio-economic status of the individual, their ethnicity, religious affiliation, occupation or even age. It reflected the significance of the event when it was worn (religious festivities, extraordinary family events, etc.) and its emotional characteristics (grief, joy). The ceremonial dresses differed according to the festive occasion held in the village.

The  Fly, Peacock Competition held in 1969-70 and the Dance House Movement starting in 1972 created a national trend both in interior design and fashion. One of the most important cult places was Kassák Club. In addition to certain types of blouses and shirts available in folk art stores, folk-inspired clothing also appeared in the state-owned department stores. It became fashionable to use homespun, woven, and blue-dye fabric for clothing and home textiles. 

The emergence and rise of modern exercise culture in the late 19th and early 20th centuries brought about changes that liberated society's standard view on women's bodies, behaviour, and duties from the "captivity" of the norms imposed by men. Modern physical culture, originating in Victorian England, made regular exercise popular among women, and the active woman paying attention to herself quickly became the epitome of civic virtue.

Along with Paul Poiret and Elsa Schiaparelli, who "moved" to the Ethnographic Museum for two weeks in 1935 to examine Matyó pattern drawings, many fashion designers of the era came to Hungary to gain inspiration and study Hungarian folk motifs. Edward Molyneux, Robert Piguet and the American fashion designer Main Rousseau Bocher, also known as Mainbocher, did not leave out the "motif hongrois”-the Hungarian motive from his designs.

The Hungarian Dress Movement and its influence on fashion

Kalotaszeg patterns, Rábaköz motifs, and Matyó embroidery are well-known decorative elements of Hungarian folk art, which became symbols of Hungarian identity after the Treaty of Trianon. Since the mid-1930s, the fashion industry has also increasingly used various folk art motifs to decorate clothes. Fashion columns promoted the Hungarian Dress Movement in picture magazines, fashion shows and film.

The use of folk motifs by fashion designers today raises the question of "cultural appropriation." Does borrowing folk art motifs and techniques without mentioning their original context constitute theft? Cultural appropriation is the improper takeover of elements of one culture by members of another – consistently more dominant and stronger – culture. This often profoundly hurts the exploited community and also creates an economic disadvantage as the revenue flows to the secondary creator without supporting the original community. 

Képes Újság (Newspaper with Visuals) reported in 1974: "Soon, the stewardesses of Malév will be wearing Kalocsa aprons. The Kalocsa Folk Art and Home Industry Cooperative have already created the first piece. Its base material is white, and its edge is lined with a 30-centimetre embroidery. The lace-like apron decoration will be a worthy representation of Hungarian folk art.”