'sometimes it's easy to see why outsiders believe fashion insiders are pretentious. for, while all jargon seems malapropos to those not part of the clique, club or profession, fashion jargon can appear particularly inappropriate. take the chatter among fashion folk about the prevailing mood of "intellectualism" in the collections for this Spring.
it is not the first time this label has been bandied about, and it will not be the last, so if we insiders are to be spared some of the ridicule coming our way, it needs to be explained.
intellectualism in fashion is regarded, even within parts of the industry, with grave suspicion. fashion designers whose approach is cerebral rather than instinctive, analytical rather than intuitive, subversive rather than conventional, tend to make people nervous. intellect in a fashion designer is generally perceived as unnecessary. intellect is an attribute of philosophers, writers, artists, not of fashion designers.
historically, fashion designers - or dressmakers, tailors and couturiers as we called them until very recently - are craftsmen. their business, beyond the basic demands of warmth and decency, has always been flattery.
at the heart of their particular skill, more important than colour, texture or decoration, is construction. which is all complicated enough. but then you have to factor in fashion. the human imagination is tortuous, tangled and restless. its ideals are constantly changing, nudged by new ideas, new aesthetics, new philosophies, new politics, new discoveries and new sciences.
this perpetual shifting is expressed in everything mankind does, believes and makes. and everything it wears. that urge towards change may be called progress, historical imperative, evolution, revolution or even decline and decay.
the serious semioticians claim to be able to read it all in the clothing of an age.
relatively new, however, are a historical perspective and a system of analysis. only in this century have disciplined intellects been applied to the history and meaning of dress. unlike their predecessors who worked in a craft tradition, learning by apprenticeship and by copying current masters, fashion designers today have not only seen the work of their distant forerunners, they have also read the works of James Laver, Quentin Bell, Lawrence Langner, Pearl Binder, C. Willet Cunnington, Roland Barthes..and all the rest of the semioticians of dress.
with the history of the craft as a resource and a new understanding of its significance, it is arguably a dull fashion designer who does not take an intellectual approach.
the designers who choose an intellectual approach work in a fundamentally different way from the so-called creative ones. they have read and absorbed the theories of the semioticians, who have studied the rules of dress, and they self-consciously use them as intellectual tools.
the designers who choose to exercise their intellects do know they are on dangerous ground. it is at their peril that they rattle the chains of conventional beliefs about what clothes should look like. for although mankind is addicted to change, there is another level on which it terrifies us.
creative designers, of whom John Galliano is perhaps the supreme modern exponent, work more instinctively. they, too, have studied the history of dress, but they use this knowledge in a less analytical, more intuitive way. these two very divergent approaches can be seen in most art forms, whether painting, sculpture, architecture, music or dance.'
- Brenda Polan, Intellect Meets Inspiration: Clothes for a Modern Age.
it is not the first time this label has been bandied about, and it will not be the last, so if we insiders are to be spared some of the ridicule coming our way, it needs to be explained.
intellectualism in fashion is regarded, even within parts of the industry, with grave suspicion. fashion designers whose approach is cerebral rather than instinctive, analytical rather than intuitive, subversive rather than conventional, tend to make people nervous. intellect in a fashion designer is generally perceived as unnecessary. intellect is an attribute of philosophers, writers, artists, not of fashion designers.
historically, fashion designers - or dressmakers, tailors and couturiers as we called them until very recently - are craftsmen. their business, beyond the basic demands of warmth and decency, has always been flattery.
at the heart of their particular skill, more important than colour, texture or decoration, is construction. which is all complicated enough. but then you have to factor in fashion. the human imagination is tortuous, tangled and restless. its ideals are constantly changing, nudged by new ideas, new aesthetics, new philosophies, new politics, new discoveries and new sciences.
this perpetual shifting is expressed in everything mankind does, believes and makes. and everything it wears. that urge towards change may be called progress, historical imperative, evolution, revolution or even decline and decay.
the serious semioticians claim to be able to read it all in the clothing of an age.
relatively new, however, are a historical perspective and a system of analysis. only in this century have disciplined intellects been applied to the history and meaning of dress. unlike their predecessors who worked in a craft tradition, learning by apprenticeship and by copying current masters, fashion designers today have not only seen the work of their distant forerunners, they have also read the works of James Laver, Quentin Bell, Lawrence Langner, Pearl Binder, C. Willet Cunnington, Roland Barthes..and all the rest of the semioticians of dress.
with the history of the craft as a resource and a new understanding of its significance, it is arguably a dull fashion designer who does not take an intellectual approach.
the designers who choose an intellectual approach work in a fundamentally different way from the so-called creative ones. they have read and absorbed the theories of the semioticians, who have studied the rules of dress, and they self-consciously use them as intellectual tools.
the designers who choose to exercise their intellects do know they are on dangerous ground. it is at their peril that they rattle the chains of conventional beliefs about what clothes should look like. for although mankind is addicted to change, there is another level on which it terrifies us.
creative designers, of whom John Galliano is perhaps the supreme modern exponent, work more instinctively. they, too, have studied the history of dress, but they use this knowledge in a less analytical, more intuitive way. these two very divergent approaches can be seen in most art forms, whether painting, sculpture, architecture, music or dance.'
- Brenda Polan, Intellect Meets Inspiration: Clothes for a Modern Age.
No comments:
Post a Comment
your thoughts will be read and appreciated, thanks for taking the time x