A pattern invented by painters, issued by armies, worn in protest, and hung in a gallery — and it has never once made anyone invisible.
By Florencia Macri, Creative Director — Come On
Researched and edited with AI assistance.
There is one pattern in the history of dress that was designed, with actual scientific intent, to make the wearer disappear.
It is now the most visible pattern in the world.
You can see it from across a street. You can identify it at night. It survives being printed on a tulle top, a mini skirt, a bag, a pair of trainers, a phone case. Nobody wearing it is hiding from anything, and everybody wearing it knows that.
That contradiction is not a failure. It is the entire story.
The pattern was invented by painters
Camouflage as a formal military discipline is barely a century old, and it did not come from soldiers.
In 1915, the French army established a dedicated camouflage unit — the Section de Camouflage — under the direction of Lucien-Victor Guirand de Scévola, a portrait painter. The men recruited into it were called camoufleurs, and they were largely artists, scenic painters and set designers, pulled out of studios and put to work disguising artillery. The word itself comes from the French camoufler, to disguise.
The reason to hire painters was straightforward. The problem was not engineering. The problem was perception — how the eye reads a shape against a background, and how to break that reading apart. That is a question about painting.
Gertrude Stein recounts walking through Paris with Picasso when a camouflaged cannon passed them in the street, and Picasso remarking that it was the Cubists who had made it. Whether or not the exchange happened exactly as she wrote it down, the observation is difficult to argue with. Flattening a solid object into fragments of contradictory colour so the eye can no longer resolve its edges is, quite precisely, what Cubism had been doing for years. The army did in the field what the studios had been doing on canvas, and it did it about five years later.
Around the same time, the British marine painter Norman Wilkinson proposed the opposite approach for ships. Rather than trying to hide a vessel on open water — which is close to impossible — he covered it in violent geometric stripes designed to confuse an observer’s judgement of its speed and heading. It was called dazzle. It made ships more visible, not less, and it made them harder to hit.
Two founding gestures, then. One to vanish. One to bewilder.
The second one is the one that stuck to clothing.
Then it got a grammar
Once armies took the idea seriously, camouflage became a system with dialects.
Every country developed its own patterns, revised across decades, each tuned to a specific terrain and light. The British had Disruptive Pattern Material. The Americans developed the leaf pattern that would later be known by the initials of the engineering laboratory that produced it, and, in Vietnam, the dense broken bands that came to be called tiger stripe.
These are not decorative variations. They are documents. A pattern tells you which army, which decade, which climate, which war. People who collect this material read it the way other people read a record label and a catalogue number.
And that is the point at which camouflage stopped being an optical technique and became something closer to a language — a set of marks carrying information about origin. Which is what a pattern has to be before fashion can use it at all.
1971: the uniform turned against itself
Here is where it becomes interesting for anyone who cares about what clothing can say.
In April 1971, in Washington, veterans of the Vietnam War gathered for a protest organised by Vietnam Veterans Against the War. They called it Operation Dewey Canyon III. Over several days, men who had been to the war marched, testified, and finally threw their medals and ribbons back over a fence at the Capitol.
Many of them were wearing their fatigues.
This is one of the most sophisticated things clothing has ever done. They did not dress in opposition to the uniform. They wore the uniform, and by wearing it in that place, at that moment, made it say the reverse of what it was issued to say. The garment did not change. Only the sentence around it did.
Nothing in fashion has ever matched the efficiency of that gesture, and everything camouflage has done since is downstream of it.
Because after the war, the surplus stores filled up.
Fatigues became the cheapest durable clothing available in almost every city in Europe and North America, and an entire generation with no money and considerable style dressed itself out of them. Punk, post-punk, industrial, hardcore, anarcho: the surplus store is a constant across all of them, not as an aesthetic decision but as an economic one that turned into an aesthetic decision, which is how most real style begins.
The clothes were cheap, they were well made, and they annoyed people. Three qualities that rarely appear together.
1986: Warhol paints it
In 1986, in the last full year of his life, Andy Warhol made a series of paintings of camouflage.
Enormous canvases. The pattern enlarged, recoloured — pinks, reds, tones no army ever issued — and presented as nothing but itself. He also used it over his own face in a self-portrait. He died in February 1987.
It is a strange and very deliberate late gesture. Warhol spent his career painting things that were already images: soup cans, celebrities, disasters reproduced in newsprint. Camouflage is the logical end of that project. It is an image with no subject. It refers to nothing, it depicts nothing, and it was engineered to be looked past rather than looked at. He put it on a wall and made it impossible to look past.
Shortly after, the designer Stephen Sprouse — who worked directly with Warhol’s imagery — put those camouflage prints onto garments.
So the sequence completes itself: painters invent the pattern for the army, the army standardises it, the anti-war movement inverts it, a painter returns it to the gallery as pure surface, and a designer puts it back on a body.
Roughly seventy years, and it never once did the job it was invented for.
Nobody is hiding
Which brings us to the present, and to the only honest position left.
Camouflage today is worn by people who want to be seen. It signals a lineage — surplus, subculture, refusal — to anyone who can read it, and it reads as pure graphic to anyone who cannot. It has been absorbed by luxury, by streetwear, by fast fashion, by the military reenactment of all three, and it has survived every one of those absorptions without losing its edge, because its meaning was never in the print. Its meaning is in what the print has been through.
That is why we keep coming back to it, and it is also why we treat it as a pattern rather than as a costume.
We are not interested in dressing anyone as a soldier. The reference we care about is the second one — the surplus store, the borrowed uniform, the pattern used to say something it was not built to say. Cut for a body that no army ever measured, made in small runs, made to be worn out at night rather than in a field.
A pattern designed to disappear, used by people who have no intention of doing so.
The Camo pieces
Made without gender or age in mind. Produced in small runs.
-
Camo Jacket — the surplus silhouette, recut.
-
Camo Trouser — the workhorse of the collection.
-
Camo Mini Skirt — the pattern taken off duty entirely.
-
Camo Tulle Crop Top — military print on a fabric that hides nothing at all.
Explore the full collection · Join the list — early access to every drop.
Frequently asked
Who invented camouflage?
Modern military camouflage was formalised in 1915 by the French army’s Section de Camouflage, directed by the portrait painter Lucien-Victor Guirand de Scévola and staffed largely by artists and scenic painters, known as camoufleurs. The word comes from the French camoufler, to disguise.
What is dazzle camouflage?
An approach proposed during the First World War by the British marine painter Norman Wilkinson for ships. Instead of concealing a vessel, bold geometric stripes were used to confuse an observer’s estimate of its speed and direction. It made ships more visible and harder to target.
Why do the different camouflage patterns look so different?
Because each was designed for a specific terrain, light condition and era, and each army developed its own. British Disruptive Pattern Material, the American leaf patterns, and the Vietnam-era tiger stripe are distinct visual languages, and collectors read them as markers of country and decade.
Did Andy Warhol paint camouflage?
Yes. Warhol produced a series of camouflage paintings in 1986, including a self-portrait overlaid with the pattern, in the last full year of his life. He died in February 1987. The designer Stephen Sprouse subsequently used Warhol’s camouflage imagery on clothing.
How do you wear camo without looking like a costume?
Treat it as a pattern, not as a uniform. One camouflage piece against solid black, with a silhouette that has nothing military about it, reads as graphic rather than as fancy dress. Take the camouflage, leave the uniform behind.
Come on is an independent clothing brand rooted in counterculture, inspired by punk and surrealism, made in small runs.
We take cues from punk, post-punk, new wave, indie music, cult cinema, pop culture, and our own fantasies, reaching into the emerging glitch rock and techno artists. A little nostalgic, a little offbeat, always unapologetic.
We keep it real, surreal, and a little chaotic, just the way we like it.
NO RULES TO GET DRESSED. FOLLOW CULTURE, NOT THE ALGORITHM.