• 1 Elizabeth Wilson, “Magic Fashion”, Fashion Theory, vol. 8, n° 4, 2004, p. 382.
• 2 Donald Winnicott, Playing and Reality, London, Tavistock Publications, 1971, p. 18.

1Fashion historian Elizabeth Wilson described clothes as “vehicles for enchantment”, through which “we may glimpse a different version of the world”.1 While her analysis was not directed specifically at children’s clothing, her insight underscores the imaginative and developmental potential of childhood garments. Wilson also drew on psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott’s theory of transitional objects, through which textiles operate as a bridge between maternal security and independent exploration, forming a “potential space” in which children negotiate between inner imagination and external reality. This space, as Winnicott suggests, is essential for healthy psychological growth.2 Seen in this light, everyday clothing becomes more than simple attire: it can act as a medium through which creative, emotional and relational development unfolds.

• 3 Aude Le Guennec, “Playing dress up or being dressed up?”, Medium, The British Academy [online], 3 J (...)

2Design anthropologist Aude Le Guennec similarly argues for the educational value of clothing in early childhood. She identifies that the daily handling of clothes “is a fundamental aspect of children’s lives” at a formative stage when they are “acting, being and becoming”.3 Despite this, she notes that the educational potential of clothes has been largely overlooked. Building on these theoretical foundations, this article repositions children’s garments as educational tools that cultivate visual literacy and creative engagement in early childhood.

• 4 Anne Kennedy, interview with the author, 10 February 2021.

3To explore this educational potential, this study focuses on the British childrenswear company Clothkits (1968-1988), whose innovative designs transformed clothes into tools for learning and creative expression. Clothkits began life on a kitchen tabletop. It was the idea of London-based textile design graduate Anne Kennedy who, responding to the limited and uninspiring range of children’s clothing available in Britain, created her own.4 She designed garments that appealed to children’s aesthetic sensibilities through bold colours and distinctive patterns. These designs were offered as make-it-yourself kits, which attracted a growing number of working parents who wanted imaginative clothes for their children but had limited time to sew. Each kit contained patterns printed directly onto fabric in simple shapes that were quick and easy to cut out and assemble, along with all the necessary haberdashery to complete the garment (fig. 1).

• 5 Anne and Finn Kennedy, interview with the author, August 2021.

4After its initial beginnings in London, the company relocated to rural south-east England and established itself primarily as a mail-order catalogue business, enabling its products to reach customers across the UK, with some adult ranges introduced at the same time. At its peak, Clothkits employed over 400 people, operated seven shops and achieved an annual turnover of almost ten million pounds.5 Economic and social changes in the 1980s required the company to adapt to a general decline in home sewing and the growth of the readymade clothes market. Despite these shifts, demand for its children’s kits continued, and they remained the company’s most successful products.

• 6 Mathew Thomson, Lost Freedoms: The Landscape of the Child and the British Post-War Settlement, Oxfo (...)
• 7 Hugh Cunningham, The Invention of Childhood, London, BBC Books, 2006, p. 220.

7Clothkits emerged in the late 1960s, a pivotal time when both childhood studies and children’s material culture were undergoing significant transformations. In Britain, these shifts had been developing since 1945, shaped by changing social, political and cultural attitudes towards the child. Historian Mathew Thomson observes that in the aftermath of the Second World War, childhood became a site of heightened social anxiety, leading to an increased separation of children from the adult world. This protectionist model, reinforced by the expanding welfare state, idealised the home as a nurturing space and prioritised the maternal relationship.6 By the 1960s, this protectionist vision sat uneasily alongside the expanding freedoms claimed by women and young people, shaped in part by second-wave feminism. As social historian Hugh Cunningham observes, feminist activism helped to propel the children’s rights agenda from the mid-1960s, as campaigners recognised that the impulse to protect children through restriction mirrored the constraints that had long limited women’s autonomy.7

• 8 Allison James, Alan Prout, “A New Paradigm for the Sociology of Childhood? Provenance, Promise and (...)
• 9 Sophie Heywood, “Children’s 68: introduction”, Strenæ [online], nº 13, 2018, DOI: https://doi.org/1 (...)

8These social changes were accompanied by important developments in childhood studies. The work of social historian Philippe Ariès, in particular, reframed childhood as a socially constructed category, drawing attention to the diversity of children’s experiences across time and place. Such thinking reshaped approaches to education, design and social policy.8 Combined with postwar economic growth and expanded access to consumer goods, these shifts altered everyday family life. As children’s literature scholar Sophie Heywood notes, they were “changing the power dynamics within families”, affecting the kinds of cultural products mothers wanted for their children.9

• 10 Ibid., p. 12.

9Heywood identifies the late 1960s, and especially 1968, the year Anne Kennedy created the first Clothkits designs, as “an important watershed moment” in children’s visual culture. She highlights a new aesthetic emerging in book and print media, marked by vivid colours, fantastical and abstract imagery and an emphasis on handmade forms.10

• 11 Elizabeth Guffey, “When Art Nouveau Became New Again”, in: Retro: The Culture of Revival London, Lo (...)
• 12 Cheryl Buckley, Hazel Clark, Fashion and Everyday Life: London and New York, London, Bloomsbury, 20 (...)

10This aesthetic drew on early‑twentieth‑century design influences that were resurfacing in contemporary fashion and design, where Art Nouveau and Art Deco motifs were reworked alongside the bold palettes of Pop Art.11 By the late 1960s and early 1970s, as mass production accelerated, handmade clothing gained renewed cultural value, associated with affordability and countercultural ideals of participation and authenticity, even as the mainstream shifted toward readymade garments.12 Clothkits reflected this wider visual and cultural shift through its bold use of colour, distinctive patterns and emphasis on domestic making. Yet, unlike most childrenswear retailers, it developed a design language specifically for children, rather than simply miniaturising adult fashions. Strong, sometimes unconventional colour combinations became central to the brand’s identity, while coordinated accessories such as hats, tights and socks, which were unusual at the time, created a cohesive look that acted as a subtle form of branding.

• 13 Kaori O’Connor, “The Ladybird, the Dressing Gown and Pasolds: Cultural Icons of the ‘Golden Age’ of (...)
• 14 Pat Albeck, Printed Textiles, London, Oxford University Press, 1969, p. 65; Noreen Marshall, Dictio (...)

11Few other British children’s clothing companies achieved such a recognisable aesthetic. One notable exception was the Ladybird brand, produced by the large-scale manufacturer Pasolds Ltd. Ladybird’s designs were primarily commercial: they reflected contemporary fashion trends, typically adapting adult styles for children rather than rethinking clothes around children’s visual and imaginative needs.13 By contrast, Clothkits drew on Scandinavian design, global folk dress and continental European aesthetics, presenting a strikingly modern alternative to the restrained colour palettes, plain fabrics and predictable motifs that had dominated much British childrenswear.14 In doing so, Clothkits reimagined children’s clothes as a distinct visual and cultural category, challenging conventional notions of what was appropriate or desirable for children to wear.

• 15 University of Brighton Design Archives, Design Council Archives, accessed 12 September 2025.
• 16 Anne Kennedy, Clothkits catalogue letter, October 1969.
• 17 Janet Kennedy, interview with the author, 12 November 2020.
• 18 Anne Buck, Clothes and the Child, Bedford, Ruth Bean Publishers, 1996, p. 13-15.

12Clothkits was launched at the 1968 Under Fives exhibition at the London Design Centre, organised by the Council for Industrial Design.15 Entries were selected for “their educational value as well as their appearance”.16 The inclusion of clothing in an exhibition devoted to educational design signalled a growing awareness that clothes could contribute to children’s development. Following this early success, Clothkits expanded rapidly both in scale and vision. The appointment of artist and designer Janet Kennedy in 1971 marked a turning point, helping to shape the company’s emerging identity. Her approach was refreshingly direct: “I just did what I thought children would like.”17 This statement challenged the convention that childrenswear should be dictated solely by adult taste.18 Her use of vibrant colour and imaginative, playful motifs complemented Anne Kennedy’s designs, inspired by flora, fauna and folk motifs. Together, their work established the bold, cohesive aesthetic that became synonymous with Clothkits.

• 19 Martin Wood, Laura Ashley, London, Frances Lincoln Ltd, 2009, p. 58; Tony Glenville, Amy de la Haye (...)
• 20 Margaret Maynard, Dress and Globalisation, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2004, p. 121.

14The styles developed by Clothkits’ designers drew on a blend of traditional rural workwear and a range of garment shapes and decorative motifs adapted from international folk traditions. These influences aligned with wider trends in late 1960s and early 1970s visual culture, particularly in adult fashion. Designers such as Laura Ashley revived Victorian and Edwardian rural styles, creating a form of nostalgic pastoral dress, while a growing interest in global textiles and traditional folk dress styles shaped both counterculture and mainstream aesthetics.19 This trend was further fuelled by the expansion of international travel and tourism, which increased access to non-Western design sources and contributed to a revival of folk and handmade forms that appealed to a particular middle-class demographic.20 Although less visible in children’s popular culture, these trends informed Clothkits’ distinct visual identity. Clothkits’ designs appealed particularly to the middle-class customer base drawn both to the rural-romantic styles exemplified by Laura Ashley and to the eclectic global folk dress forms that carried connotations of creativity, openness and a light countercultural sensibility. This combination of rural idealism and global folk influence was reflected in the catalogue’s portrayal of the Clothkits child as active and outdoors, dressed in practical clothing suited to rural play, yet also attuned to the vivid motifs and strong colour contrasts that characterised the brand’s designs (fig. 2).

• 21 Rachel Worth, Fashion for the People: A History of Clothing at Marks & Spencer, Oxford, Berg Publis (...)

15Initially, Clothkits focused on clothing for pre-school children aged two to five, a key market in Britain as school uniforms typically replaced everyday clothing from school age. As the company grew, its range expanded to include babies, older children and, by the mid-1970s, teenagers and adults, creating a wardrobe for the whole family. While this inclusive approach had been established by large British retailers and mail order companies such as Marks & Spencer and Littlewoods from the early to mid-twentieth century, it was unusual for a small-scale retailer.21 Clothkits took this approach further by offering its own particular vision of a wholesome rural family lifestyle that directly related to its clothing.

• 22 Evelyn Arizpe, Kate Noble, Morag Styles, Children Reading Pictures. New Contexts and Approaches to (...)
• 23 Ibid., p. 89-90.

16Situated within the company’s vision was its initial focus on early childhood, paired with an emphasis on the countryside as a nurturing environment. This idealised family lifestyle combined outdoor pursuits with domestic and creative activities that corresponded to the forms of visual learning and engagement that the company expressed in its designs. Starting with pre-school children was not only a practical decision suited to domestic production but also one that offered a clear first step in designing for children, grounded in the distinct needs and visual responsiveness of this age group. The company’s approach can also be understood in relation to developmental theories of visual learning. In his five-stage developmental model, the psychoanalyst Michael Parsons identified the earliest stage as characterised by a response to colour and subject matter.22 In a recent study, children’s literature specialists Evelyn Arizpe, Kate Noble and Morag Styles applied Parsons’ framework empirically, concluding that children favoured visual styles that “amuse, delight and challenge”, qualities central to Clothkits’ design ethos.23 Although not originally conceived with an educational purpose, Clothkits’ designs increasingly reflected pedagogical values through their attention to colour, pattern, playfulness and visual stimulation.

• 24 Sheila Paine, Embroidered Textiles, London, Thames and Hudson, 1990, p. 132-33, 140-41.

17A distinctive feature of Clothkits’ designs was the placement of patterns derived from Asian and European folk traditions. These sources ranged from Eastern European papercuts and folk embroidery to Indian chintz-style patterns and Mexican-inspired motifs. In these traditions, decoration is often concentrated around openings and built up in horizontal layers across garments. Such placements served both practical and symbolic purposes by reinforcing areas of wear and signalling forms of protection.24 Clothkits reinterpreted these conventions within its printed kits, adopting similar structural forms in the arrangement of patterns around necklines, cuffs, hems and pockets. These pattern placements were both decorative and structural, providing a framework that complemented another aspect of folk design on which Clothkits drew: the use of visually engaging, sequential motifs that could suggest a narrative.

• 25 Henry Glassie, The Spirit of Folk Art, New York, Harry N. Abrams. Inc, 1989, p. 110-19.

18Building on this compositional framework, Clothkits adapted the narrative quality of traditional folk patterns, in which simple motifs are arranged in sequences that suggest movement, scenes or symbolic relationships.25 Applied to children’s clothing, the repetition and ordering of related images introduced a subtle narrative dimension, transforming the garments into pictorial surfaces that could be “read” visually, much like a picturebook. In doing so, Clothkits developed patterns that functioned as more than mere decoration, inviting imaginative engagement. The company used motifs including figures, animals, plants and domestic objects that were visually appealing to children, with sources ranging from everyday British imagery to motifs drawn from international folk traditions. A skirt from the Summer 1977 catalogue (fig. 3) demonstrates this approach: decorative patterns accentuate the waist and pockets, while bands of motifs including birds, cats, trees and a female figure encircle the skirt in a rhythmic sequence. Other designs employed similar principles, from Viking-themed dungarees and apple-tree dresses to cat-and-mouse playsuits and Noah’s Ark outfits (fig. 4). Collectively, these garments exemplify Clothkits’ synthesis of folk pattern structures with a child-centred, narrative approach to design.

• 27 Jane Doonan, Looking at Pictures in Picturebooks, Stroud, Thimble Press, 1993, p. 9.
• 28 Maria Nikolajeva and Carole Scott, How Picturebooks Work, London, Routledge, 2006, p. 1-2.
• 29 Pat Hutchins, Rosie’s Walk, London, Red Fox Picture Books, 2009.

22Author and educator Jane Doonan’s description of picturebooks could equally be applied to Clothkits’ textile designs. She considered picturebooks as art objects that nurture aesthetic development, as worlds full of ideas that stimulate imagination and further creativity.27 Building on this, children’s literature specialists Maria Nikolajeva and Carole Scott argue that picturebook imagery functions as a complex, non-linear sign system.28 This concept is particularly relevant to Clothkits’ designs, which similarly rely on visual sequencing, repetition and spatial arrangement rather than linear narrative. This emphasis on wordless visual narratives is especially pertinent, as Clothkits’ garments invited children to construct meaning independently through use, movement and play. Comparisons with picturebooks from the late 1960s–1980s reveal close stylistic affinities with Clothkits’ designs, demonstrating the company’s sophisticated grasp of child-centred aesthetics and visual storytelling. Pat Hutchins’ Rosie’s Walk (1968), for example, employs many of the same devices as Janet’s farm-themed jacket: a limited palette of three or four colours, bold contrasts and simplified imagery enriched with patterned detail. In both cases, each scene—whether a printed page or a section of fabric—contributes to a continuous unfolding narrative, illustrating how visual design can simultaneously delight, educate and engage the child.29

• 30 Frances Robertson, “Redrafting Domestic Life: Women Textile Designers and New Professional Enterpri (...)

23This integration of narrative and design extended beyond garments into related play objects. Clothkits created a series of toys and accessories, many interactive and thematically linked to the clothing designs. As design historian Frances Robertson observes, these products appealed to “the playful and wilful spirit of children, encouraging them to become confident individuals through story, play and the narratives of childhood”.³⁰ The jacket kits exemplified this approach: each came with four animal toys matching the characters on the garments, designed to be carried in specially created pockets (fig. 9). In this way, the jackets functioned as wearable play kits, where pockets became habitats and dressing itself became an act of storytelling and creative engagement.

• 31 “Sasha Doll” official website, URL: https://sashadoll.com/, accessed 21 May 2022.
• 32 AK, email to the author, 12 August 2021.

24By the late 1970s, this fusion of design, play and education found further expression in Cloth Kitty and Cloth Kit, simple rag dolls designed by Janet. The kit included a doll pattern with clothes echoing Clothkits’ signature designs—dungarees, trousers and dresses, bags and accessories. Some clothing kits even included a matching miniature outfit for the doll (fig. 10-11). Janet drew inspiration from Swiss dollmaker Sasha Morgenthaler, whose Sasha dolls of the late 1960s were designed to transcend cultural and racial boundaries.31 In a similar spirit, Cloth Kitty was initially offered in two skin tones, “pink” and “brown”, later referred to as “fair” and “dark”, reflecting Clothkits’ inclusive ethos. The dolls’ enduring appeal is evident in participants’ recollections: AK recalled that while Clothkits’ clothes were central to her childhood, it was the dolls that remained most vivid, kept into adulthood and later remade for the next generation. This continuity underscores the longevity, emotional value and imaginative reach of Clothkits’ designs.32

• 33 CH, email to the author, 12 August 2021.
• 34 SW, interview with the author, 12 June 2021.
• 35 F. Robertson, “Redrafting Domestic Life”, op. cit., p. 23.
• 36 Joanne Turney, “Making Love with Needles: Knitted Objects as Signs of Love?”, Textile. Cloth and cu (...)
• 37 A. Le Guennec, “Playing dress up or being dressed up?”, op. cit.

26The fact that these clothes were made at home, often by a parent or relative with children frequently helping, enhanced their value. CH recalled assisting her mother in cutting out the kits, pinning and tacking the fabric before it was sewn together.33 SW, the eldest of five sisters, remembered that one of her first responsibilities was sewing Clothkits dolls and clothes for her younger siblings.34 As Robertson notes, working through a printed sewing kit was “to become informed about the design and making process”.35 This home-based making imbued the garments with emotional value beyond their material worth. The care and time invested frequently ensured their longevity, with garments passed down between siblings and even across generations. Fashion and design historian Joanne Turney describes such handmade garments as “love objects”, infused with emotion in ways that mass-produced clothes cannot replicate.36 Similarly, Le Guennec reflects on garments as “the embellished memories of your childhood”, suggesting that this connection “is an engaging way to teach children about society and the importance of understanding the past to inform a responsible future”.37

• 38 Amy Twigger Holroyd, Folk Fashion: Understanding Homemade Clothes, London, I.B. Tauris, 2017, p.157

27Knitwear practitioner Amy Twigger Holroyd also highlights the pedagogical value of homemade clothes within a sustainability framework. She argues that domestic making fosters a stronger bond between maker and garment, encouraging mindful consumption and alternatives to mass-production.38 Her call for designers to act as agents of collaborative change closely mirrors the kit-based model that Clothkits pioneered decades earlier. For children, the Clothkits model represented an alternative value system rooted in care, creativity and collaboration, in contrast to the increasingly fast and disposable fashion industry of the late twentieth century. Long before “sustainable design” entered popular use, Clothkits introduced children to the value of materials and making. The company’s approach embodied early sustainable principles: economical fabric use, encouragement of making over passive consumption, local sourcing and the creation of durable, adaptable garments designed to be mended, repurposed and handed down.

• 39 Ibid., p. 8-19, 62.
• 40 Anne Kennedy, interview with the author, 7 February 2023.
• 41 Kay Mawer, interview with the author, 8 August 2022.

28As Twigger Holroyd notes, by the 1980s domestic dressmaking had declined from an everyday necessity to “a relatively minor leisure pursuit” driven by the rise of cheap readymade clothes and changing patterns of women’s employment.39 Clothkits adapted by expanding its readymade range, particularly for adults, while maintaining its children’s kits, which remained among its bestselling products.40 Clothkits ceased trading in 1988 when a series of financial decisions limited its ability to continue operating independently. The brand was subsequently acquired by its knitwear manufacturer and then sold to the mass market catalogue retailer Freemans the following year; it was absorbed into the larger catalogue and became dormant in the early 1990s. Clothkits was relaunched in 2008 amid renewed interest in domestic making and slow fashion. Under new owner Kay Mawer, several of the original children’s kits have been reissued, demonstrating the lasting appeal of both the designs and the participatory process of making them.41

• 42 Morag Styles, Martin Salisbury, Children’s Picturebooks, London, Laurence King, 2012, p. 85.

29Children’s literature specialists Morag Styles and Martin Salisbury argue that “in this increasingly visual world it is essential that children learn the skills of looking, appreciating and interpreting visual material, including its design.”42 While their focus is on picturebooks, clothing offers distinct advantages as a medium for developing visual literacy. Unlike books that are put away or screens that demand regulation, clothing maintains a constant presence in daily life, offering continuous opportunities for visual engagement, tactile learning and creative interpretation.