Fashion as Art as Fashion

8 06 2009

Consuming Fashion...

Since I just did a business overview of Dolce & Gabbana, I was thinking about their controversial ad campaigns. There has been a lot written on the subject, from reports of bans to protests from anti-violence groups.

Most designers from Marc Jacobs to Armani have stated that fashion is not art. In fact, Marc Jacobs was quoted: “Fashion to me is not art because it is only valid if it is lived in and worn.” That’s all good and well in making the attempt to drive mass sales, although Marc’s own collaborations with artists such as Takashi Murakami and Richard Prince – or Armani’s recent museum-touring retrospective – might show that they actually do consider fashion to be art. When creativity meets commerce, does it matter if fashion is not hung on a wall for the occasional observation?

What is art, if not a subject for provocation and inspiration? And, while today’s fashion world may be led by the sales figures of merchandisers more than the creative impulses of artists and designers, there is still an underlying art form in fashion, which seeks to provoke and inspire. If the garments themselves cannot be considered “art” by our anti-commercial definitions, then surely fashion photography can (and should) fill in the gaps.

Fashion has a long relationship with photography. To quote from Cathy Horyn:

“If fashion shows are a way for a designer to think out loud, collaborations with a photographer can help spin those disparate ideas into a story. Both Ralph Lauren and Calvin Klein owe a debt to the visionary eye of Bruce Weber, who is really a storyteller. Gianni Versace frequently paid homage to Richard Avedon, whose pictures lent imaginative energy to Versace’s designs. And it seems doubtful that generations of women would have felt quite the same about Yves Saint Laurent’s pantsuits if Helmut Newton had not made them an object of sex and mystery.” ~from her article When Is a Fashion Ad Not a Fashion Ad?

juergen teller for marc jacobsMarc makes me think…

While Marc Jacobs’ ad campaign collaborations with Juergen Teller have inspired cult fans to look beyond the typical product-placements and see the Marc Jacobs world from the indie perspective he lives within, the Dolce & Gabbana ad campaigns create the very concept of provocation that the designers take inspiration from. Where it would be quite difficult to meet the sales figures necessary for a large luxury brand if each item alienated the mainstream through such provoking themes as date rape or warfare, the ad campaign can do just that.

dolce & gabbana ad campaigns

…But so does DG

Of course, I understand the opposing argument that these ads are no more than superficial charades imposed by the brands to maintain some street cred in the art world (and surely, to an extent they are), I also believe that it’s a very creative way for the designers to explore and explain their more provocative themes without hurting sales figures. The designer’s most die-hard fans typically “get it,” and those who don’t at least take on the aspirational values of someone who wants to get it. Even if the clothing isn’t particularly provocative or thought provoking, the ads can be, and that’s enough to ensure that a creative vision can be carried out while simultaneously creating the coveted word-of-mouth buzz around a brand.

Furthermore, isn’t this the perfect segue into using content to develop the online experience of a brand? I think so!

Required Reading: On Fashion, Photography & Art

Inside the Mania for Fashion as Art: How a Sedate Museum Ventured to Create a Home for a Sumptuous Costume Collection

TIME Magazine: Dialogue on art & fashion (“Art and fashion get along like the couples whom nobody expects to stay together.” Ha!)

It may be fashion, but is it art?

Striking Poses: Is fashion photography art?

‘Fashion is not art’ (Rei Kawakubo may say it, but she proves the opposite)

Dress Sense: Why fashion deserves its place in art museums (this is a good one!)

Is fashion a true art form? Acclaimed designer Zandra Rhodes and the director of the Design Museum, Alice Rawsthorn, go head to head

Is the future of art in their hands? (Designers take over our galleries and museums)

Fashion and Art Collide in Hong Kong

Fashion: A Presentation on Contemporary Concepts of Art and Expression (analysis of the 1967 Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin article: “Is Fashion an Art?”)

Advertisements




Fashion History: From the Belle Epoque through WW1

11 01 2009

Orientalism

An intense fascination for the Orient was the largest influence on stylistic change at the turn of the century. The Ballets Russes was first performed in Paris in 1909, and quickly became a blockbuster sensation across Europe. Dancers performed oriental tales, dressed in brightly colored costumes of unprecedented combination. The designs, like that to the left, were originally created by Leon Bakst. It was the first time that a theater event had any major impact on the way we dress.

Consider how great the impact of celebrities -actors, sports stars, musicians, etc.- is on fashion now!

While Charles Worth was catering to upper-class women, Jacques Doucet (1853-1929) was designing stage sets and dressing actresses. Young designer Paul Poiret (1879-1944) worked for Doucet in this regard, until he gave away a design model to a young actress, who had the pattern realized by another designer. (This is one of the first of MANY cases questioning the copyright of a fashion design.) He then went on to work at the House of Worth.

Worth’s legacy had been 19th century dress. After his death in 1895, his two sons were unsure of how to move his style forward (this is the first case of a fashion house having to carry on without their namesake). Poiret presented them with a new style, which was rejected as low-class by Worth’s heirs (if you think this sounds like Marc Jacobs’ 1992 grunge collection for Perry Ellis, which got him fired while rocketing him to superstar status, you are catching on… history does repeat itself). Poiret then went out on his own. He was a marketing genius and focused on window displays, adding shock value by giving them a theatrical stage quality to get attention.

The Poiret dress had no crinoline, no corset and was more tubular than S-shaped, with a higher waistline. However, the corset did not completely disappear; Poiret’s dresses still needed undergarment support, though not as tight. The fabrics were in brighter, happier colors than Worth’s sober patterns.

Aside from helping to free women from the corset and crinoline, Poiret’s greatest contribution to the fashion world was his attention to the means of communication and diffusion for his creations. As fashion magazines were often too sober for his colors, Poiret started a cooperation with young artists, Paul Iribe (right) and Geirges Lepape, to draw his dresses. Again, we are seeing here another first example: this time of an in-house marketing team.

Poiret went further to create a symbol (trademark) of his maison: the rose. This would not only serve as his logo, but the pattern would be incorporated into many of his designs, such as the famous Joséphine dress (1907), named for the Empress Joséphine.

He generally paid more attention to the overall effect than to the fine details of dress construction, and threw a huge party to sell something more than a dress, but rather, a dream. The Féte de la Mille et Deuxiéme Nuit was the name of Poiret’s 1910 traveling party, in which he toured his models throughout Europe. The traveling party was Persian-themed with authentic props, decoration, musicians and so on. Guests came in Persian costume, creating a buzz and word of mouth marketing for the house, which led to mass attention from the press and the world. This was followed by a US tour in 1913.

Poiret was also the first to extend his brand beyond fashion, into perfumes, cosmetics and furnishings (brand extension). As many ground-breaking brand strategies as Poiret introduced into the fashion industry, he could very well be considered the godfather of modern fashion branding.

For a great article on Poiret, check out this article at style.com: Fashioning the Century.





Fashion History: The 19th Century

10 01 2009

The “Democratization” of Fashion and the Birth of Haute Couture

The First Industrial Revolution (1760s-1830s) radically transformed production and consumption patterns. Transportation improvements allowed vast distances to be traveled, and new goods such as cotton could be traded with highly frequency and efficiency. Mechanized processed using coal allowed mass factory production. Previously, in-home production by the family unit was the norm. The textile industry was at the heart of this rapid development in raw materials (cotton), technology and factory proliferation.

Cotton grew in prominence so greatly in this time for a number of reasons. It is much more resilient than silk, linen and wool, so it was easier to work with on primitive manufacturing machines that would destroy other fibers. John Key’s flying shuttle loom, invented in 1733, was instrumental to this end. In addition, the slave labor available in cotton-producing regions made the labor-intensive business of harvesting cotton more practical.

The Industrial Revolution produced a great many advances in society, but it also created new socio-economic groups ranging from the profoundly poor to the Industrial Aristocracy. The fashion of the Industrial Aristocracy was drastically different from previous fashions of the traditional nobility. Nobility dressed in tightly fitted garments of bright colors. Precious fabrics, together with precious stones and braids, showed that the person who wore it belonged to the highest social class. Industrialists expressed their “Grand Denial” by wearing full trousers instead of knee-highs, black coats and hats, which were to emphasize their thrift and intelligence. Great importance was placed on the details (hat, shirt, shoes). The modern men’s suit is adapted from this.

Since men had become the modest symbol of the “Grand Denial”, women became the means through which their husbands or fathers could demonstrate their wealth and social status. Upper-class women adapted to the S-shaped silhouette with the help of the corset and the crinoline. The corset was used from childhood so that the bones of the ribcage could adapt as the child grew into adulthood. Corsets were also known to induce miscarriages. One fun fact in this not-so-fun topic: the term “straight-laced” comes from corset-slang, if you will. A respectable and virtuous Victorian woman always wore here corset tight. Ladies of ill-repute were “unlaced”.

Coronet_Corset_CoThe crinoline was composed of layers of caging, which attached to the corset to create an S-shape. Women in this costume needed a maid to assist in using the restroom. Movement was very limited, and therefore the only women who could afford to dress in this manner were women of great financial means. Further, the half-crinoline was made from 30m of fabric. It was extremely expensive and VERY HEAVY… for the least active of women.  Full underwirings were required for all activities except fencing and swimming. FYI, it was absolutely disgraceful for a woman to be seen in her nightgown, even by her husband.

Female fashion was strictly regulated by etiquette codes that required specific dresses for different daily activities. These codes served as a method to prevent the trickle-down effect in fashion. Only the very wealthy could perfectly live the coded life with up to six ensemble changes per day. Furthermore, women could not walk, but had to ride in a carriage due to the impediments caused by their dresses. Some examples of coded dressing include: dresses in the “tapestry style” for indoor visits during the day and outrageously low necklines in dresses for the evening (forbidden in the day), where shoes and ankles were never to be seen.

The Industrial Revolution fulfilled the two prerequisites necessary for the emergence of department stores: high supply through mass production, and high demand. Department stores, with their large displays, labeled prices and marketing techniques were one of the first steps in the ideal of the “democratization of fashion”. Their catalogs were mailed for free, and showed people how to measure themselves for sizing.

In the meanwhile, as mass production was gearing up in the States and England’s textile factories, a man named Charles Worth (also from England) was busy developing a new model for deployment in Europe. The democratization of fashion had given many the opportunity to partake in the fashion system they were once excluded from, but it also gave rise to a call for differentiation on the demand side. The demand of high fashion came as a reaction to the clothes being worn by the lower social classes.

Worth started making dresses that showed off the high quality of the fabrics he had learned about from working as a draper. However, people had become interested in the fashion of the dress instead of just the fabric. They wanted something exciting and exotic. Worth founded his own couture house with much fanfare in Paris in 1858 and was the first designer to gain star status simply by signing each of his creations as if they were works of art. Targeting the European aristocracy and the American market (the world’s richest markets, at that time), Worth personally determined what he would make for each client (as opposed to being ordered to make something), and labeled his creations with his own name instead of his clients’. He did not create a new style, but rather elaborated the existing style (reducing the crinoline and introducing trains as luxurious accouterments, and developed interchangeable patters with the use of a sewing machine. He flamboyantly presented a new collection each year using the first live models (his wife and friends), and this introduced the constant factor of change within the fashion industry. Worth lived a very public life as an acting artist, creating a sense of notoriety and developing himself as a brand. Haute couture was thus born.

However, aside from revolutionizing fashion marketing, Worth did little to revolutionize the heavily girdled, contoured and covered “ladylike” look of the femme omee of the Belle Epoch. The French system of haute couture made its debut in Paris with the Pavillon de l”Elegance at the World Fair of 1900. Here, a few select fashion houses including Worth and Doucet showed their spectacular creations to an amazed international audience.

According to Worth: “We live by and for luxury, therefore all the questions we ask ourselves are superfluous; we must assume our roles, and that is all.”