BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Art, Fashion & Design >

Clothes make the (wo)man

  
 
Tryphena Absent
08:47 / 01.09.03
As most of you must know by now I'm a great follower of 'clothes make the (wo)man'. I truly believe that the way we dress effects, and controls, the reactions of those around us. It certainly lays the terms for our own behaviour with regards to the world around us. Recently I seem to be bringing this point up more and more, not only in this forum but all over the board and so I thought I'd give it a thread all of its very own.

In response to Sleaze, Chris, pixilated and oh, so many more of the 'lithers I find myself arguing that fashion is incredibly important. Not simply clothes but the fashion industry. While the designs and styles constantly change they continue to define human status, preference and often human subcultures. There seems to exist a constant attempt to divorce fashion from subcultures yet many express themselves through fashion and through their reaction to the consumerism that the fashion world has created. That consumerism is the whole base of Western society- our government and power structure works on its rules. So we have a problem and a major one when people fail to recognise that clothes are not a fundamental and dictatorial part of our world.

Fashion works on two levels, the first is industrial, High Street Confection. The second, handmade and expensive Couture. The clothing industry thus works from a power base that is hierachical. I think this is an important point to make because fashion must be viewed as part of the larger capitalist system and not as a simple art form. It is fundamental to the entire structure of Western society, has major historical expression- you can read the entire industrial revolution and its ties to female emancipation through fashion. Perhaps now its most important role concerns gender and recreating the way that we perceive each other wrt gender and sexuality.

Mostly it's important to accept that clothes make you and break you. They're your window in to the world, people will treat you accordingly and without exception based on their reaction to the garments you wear. It's not a case of dressing right rather a case of tailoring your clothes to general perception.
 
 
Axolotl
10:06 / 01.09.03
In one of my sociology courses on the sociological construction of the body and body image we looked at fashion and its purpose. If I remember correctly (and I'm dragging this up from the depths of my brain) fashion is a distinctly modern phenomena and its power is based directly on its impermanence. Fashion is determined by those at the top of the heirarchy, thus giving them a way of identifying and marking themselves off from those lower down in society. However as a trend grows those people it was meant to exclude start to adopt it and it trickles down forcing those at the top to change and adopt a new fashion to seperate themselves. Thus the whole cycle begins again. Others look at clothing in a more semiotic way with clothes being imbued with meaning, thus by wearing them you transmit information about yourself to others. However clothes themselves don't have meaning it is their cultural context that gives them this meaning. There is a whole load of other stuff that I can't remember and I'm sure I've not really given these theories justice but there you go.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
10:47 / 01.09.03
fashion is a distinctly modern phenomena and its power is based directly on its impermanence

That depends entirely on how you regard fashion. Those sociological texts will be referring to the current industry rather than fashion in its pure form. Clothing trends go way back, think of the styles of dress that we know have emerged between the 11th century and the 21st century, yet the fashion world that we know only started to come about in the 19th century. Industrialisation had a lot to do with that, it made fashion available to the lower classes because machines made production so much easier. I disagree with the sociological view, I don't deny its accuracy wrt the fashion industry but I believe that in the majority of cases (some sociologists refute the general claim) it refuses to see that fashion predates that industry.

as a trend grows those people it was meant to exclude start to adopt it and it trickles down forcing those at the top to change and adopt a new fashion to seperate themselves

Well that's quite simplistic but basically true. The problem is that 1)it refuses to see the creation of sub cultures and other forms of reaction to the trend in question. Many people purposefully go the other way thus making the whole thing a lot more complex and 2)often fashion that is adopted by the High Street or Confection continues to be recognised by Couture. The reasons behind dumping a trend is often not related to the High Street or the inclusion of undesirable people in the slightest.
 
 
Lurid Archive
12:22 / 01.09.03
I dunno, Anna de L. I think you are overstating your case. (Unless I've got you all wrong and this is a joke thread. Confusion.)

I truly believe that the way we dress effects, and controls, the reactions of those around us.

Affects *first* impressions? Sure. "Controls" the reactions of those around us? If by "controls" you mean, "has a varying impact both in terms of effect and degree", then maybe. Except that "control" doesn't mean that.

It certainly lays the terms for our own behaviour with regards to the world around us.

OK. This really is a joke thread, isn't it?

It is fundamental to the entire structure of Western society...
Mostly it's important to accept that clothes make you and break you.

You really had me going.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:33 / 01.09.03
Hahaha. No Lurid I'm totally serious.

Controls as in fundamentally arranges people's reaction towards us. Perhaps not 'control' in its true sense but rather as in having a distinct, manipulative effect to the degree that it constantly disturbs the way that people react.

Lurid, if I changed your hair, dressed you in a wardrobe to the exact opposite of the clothes you choose to wear, put you in Italian dress shoes and generally overhauled your image to the extent that when you looked in a mirror you didn't recognise yourself it would do more than make you look different. You would become another person, you would feel different, your body language would change and you would adopt a new walk. Your actions and reactions in response to the world around you would change within reason. Our image goes hand in hand with self image and that lays our behaviour down. I'm not talking about putting you in a suit for one day, I mean everything.
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:32 / 01.09.03
*smirk*

I agree with you to an extent, of course. I've even worn Italian dress shoes and some of what you are saying holds. If I were subject to your hellish makeover, my body language would change and people's impressions of me would be different. Part of my reaction however, and this undermines your point I think, would stem from my unwillingness to dress differently. In the end, I don't believe I would be that different from the way I am now.

And while I accept that the different reactions that can be evoked through dress can become incorporated into one's outlook, one's way of dealing with the world perhaps, I think there is a sharp limit to this. Now the distinction between "surface" and "substance" is tricky since, at the very least, you can argue that one is an expression of the other. However, I think the connection between image and reality is not a symmetrical one and while determining the boundaries between them may be tricky, that does not mean they are indistinguishable.

I'm trying to justify why I think this without appealing to circularity, but I'm not sure I have much to offer beyond the anecdotal. Experience in situations where people play with dress has left me with the feeling that while an immediate reaction can be as strong as you suggest, this tends to fall off with time and exposure. People tend to reveal a consistency that is not dependent of image, despite the fact that image can be sometimes be an expression of that consistency.

On a personal level, I am aware of reactions to appearance both in myself and others. But it feels transitory. For instance, on meeting Barbepeople for the first time, some have commented on a mismatch between appearance and expectation. But that feeling quickly fades.

One last thing. Without wanting to patronise anyone, I think that what you are saying about image and fashion becomes less true as you get older.
 
 
telyn
13:48 / 01.09.03
I agree that clothes do have an effect on the wearer, but only because the wearer feels more or less comfortable in them. I don't believe that by dressing someone in a preppy fashion they are suddenly going to do more school work. An individual's reaction to the clothes they are wearing tells you more about that individual than the clothes by themselves.

Clothing does give some clues as to the identity or perhaps status of a person. To be honest though, if I see someone who is ridiculously fashionable, I tend to observe that they spend a lot of time and money on something very temporary and I don't get the point of all that effort. I think I would argue that individual fashions signify much less effect than how well the clothes have been manufactured.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
14:08 / 01.09.03
but presumably your notion of what constitutes individual fashion is affected by what the current 'trendy' look is?

Anyway, I think alot of this is beside the point, I blogged this in response to Anna's original blogpiece so i'll chuck it up here:

Over at Barbelith, there's a small band of us who will argue for the prime importance of clothing, costume, fashion and the fashion industry as socio-economic indicators, class dividers, gender construction tools, vehicles for fabulous creative expression/societal homogenisation*, flags of allegiance (whether subcultural, national, faith-based etc).

Futher, as A points out, it's a major part of the changing shape of the human form and gives huge indicators as to which forms are encouraged/suppressed at which times... It's a major part of our first point of contact with every human being, a major part of our first impressions.

It's far more complex and important than 'urgh, I don't do fashion, that's for crap superficial (female?) people'. Which frustrates me on two levels.

a) that otherwise highly clued-in people somehow don't see that 'opting out' is still a reaction. Unless you're a naturist, there is no way of opting out. You work within a system. Geddit? Why do people who understand this on other levels not see it just because it relates to their choice of t-shirt?

b)I do think there's a good chunk of misogyny in this view. Not consciously, but in the association of clothes/fashion with women/frippery/the superficial. There's still for example, a lack of validation for fashion as an artform as compared to pop music, film, or to take a closer artform, graphic design. Historically, the only times fashion gets onto 'serious' agendas is when men are the main actors within it.

Why else does London have a design museum that never shows fashion? But shows 'proper' stuff like furniture, graphics? And how many of us have designed our own font, or made a table? How many of us got dressed, selected clothes this morning?



*Notice for example how totalitarian regimes/cults often institute uniforms. *They* understand the importance/power of this stuff. So should you.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:24 / 01.09.03
Part of my reaction however, and this undermines your point I think, would stem from my unwillingness to dress differently

Yet a woman in heels often acts differently to the same woman in flat shoes. The change in posture causes her characteristics to change and she might wear those heels through choice, not for a specific reason or in a specific social setting.

I think the connection between image and reality is not a symmetrical one

I certainly disagree with this. I think image and reality act on an equal basis to one another. Our reality stems from the images we see, from this I cannot gauge how you could clearly separate them out. Though I perhaps understand how you could begin to distinguish between the two I'm not sure it's accurate to believe that people can do so.

while an immediate reaction can be as strong as you suggest, this tends to fall off with time and exposure

But my response to this is to suggest that people incorporate that image in to themselves to the extent that the two cannot be separated from one another. In putting on a coat it becomes part of you, if it doesn't you don't wear it frequently. That immediate reaction doesn't dull, the shine becomes part and parcel of your overall image.

, I think that what you are saying about image and fashion becomes less true as you get older

Hmmm... I think that's probably subjective. People approach dress on a very individual basis but I think most people just decide on a permanent image- you, after all, regard my makeover as hellish!

. I don't believe that by dressing someone in a preppy fashion they are suddenly going to do more school work.

Yes but people will react differently to them and quite apart from that they might act in an increasingly formal manner. Clothes do change your mental discipline, that's why uniforms are so very important and not to a practical end, I mean the rather more startling vein of SS uniforms. Not only do people fear such things but they allow the person sporting such clothing to become the aggressor.

An individual's reaction to the clothes they are wearing tells you more about that individual than the clothes by themselves.

Ooh, I really don't think so. You see I don't believe you can separate it out in such a way. Those clothes are a two way experience, the majority of people do not only wear clothes, they become their clothes. Garments are your skin, armour and social protection. The clothes that a person wears in the light of social context, fashion and situation, allow you to read all about their personalities. All the reaction to their clothes tells you is 1)whether they bought them and 2)whether they're comfortable in them.
 
 
Lurid Archive
16:55 / 01.09.03
I think that theres an idea some people have which is about the fact that we are something ethereal beings living inside a flesh suit. That if Anna de L and me sat down and had a long chat in the pub, we communicate at a spiritual level where race, gender and all those fashion indicators are irrelevant. OK. Hopelessly idealistic and naive and I guess thats what you are arguing against, anna. But you are still overstating.

Yet a woman in heels often acts differently to the same woman in flat shoes.

But is that woman going to be less conservative, more appreciative of art, more environmentally aware or less philosophically astute by wearing heels? I don't think so. There is going to be a great deal about the person that won't be changed by outward appearance. Style is not substance. At least not here. Again, there are too many consistencies in what a person feels, says and thinks to fail to notice the difference.

People approach dress on a very individual basis but I think most people just decide on a permanent image- you, after all, regard my makeover as hellish!

Sure, I'm set in my ways. Its more that I meant that dress can involve a search for identity and that can sometimes go along with a whiff of desperation that eases off as time goes by. Of course, conservatism also sets in, but its still valid, I think.

The clothes that a person wears in the light of social context, fashion and situation, allow you to read all about their personalities.

I was going to say something humble about how you obviously possess skills that I do not but, on reflection, I'm just going to say that I don't believe it. Clothes tell you *something*, of course. They can tell you lots of things, but the idea that there is some deep and penetrating analysis that one can perform on someone's wardrobe to discern the greater part about them is...incredible. Personally, I am attracted to certain aesthetics, but I've met enough people to know that fishnets and a rubber outfit are no guarantee that I will get on with someone.

I myself am often told that I don't look like a mathematician - by students, frequently - which you might say is revealing in itself but it does demonstrate the idea that the information gleened from appearance is both limited and fallible. I think that any sensible person knows this.

bip: I'm interested in the misogyny angle. Certainly, there is a palpable sense that clothes are for women and it is difficult to separate cause and effect here. A man interested in clothes doesn't have much choice and there is a sense of greater uniformity in male dress than in female dress. Is that a pointed disdain for female superficiality? Women like dresses, men like cars?
 
 
pixilated
18:17 / 01.09.03
as i've posted before, i'm certainly a believer that clothing is of prime political importance, and of great importance for sociological and anthropological purposes. and i do believe that the fashion industry, and the way it trickles down to the choices everyday people wear in everyday life, is also of great sociological and anthropological value.

the problem i have with assessing the political impact of "fashion" in and of itself, without regard to the larger whole of dress and clothing in general, is precisely the reasons cited here: that fashion is wholly western-based and rooted in consumerism, i.e. 1800s onward.

just one example: dress as "gender-construction tools" has been happening across the world, centuries before the rise of the fashion industry. call it just semantics on my part -- and i hate to belabor the point -- but i see this as indicative of the power/ importance of clothing -- not so much of "fashion."

which is why i find the discussion of totalitarian regime and SS uniforms within the context of just fashion disconcerting. the institution of uniforms has to do with the recognition of the power of clothing, not fashion. fashion as part of the great vehicle of consumerism entails consumer rights and choices (the fact that these so-called rights and choices are rather disingenuous is a whole other discussion). on the other hand, totalitarian uniforms are precisely about eliminating that choice. a reaction against consumerism, you say? well, again -- uniforms have been implemented in societies long before the rise of mass production.

all this to say, i think a major part of the problem why so many people are quick to dismiss the importance of "fashion," is because we don't all have the same definition. on the one hand, anna, i see you say that you disagree with the sociological view, and that you believe fashion predates the industry; yet in your first post, you mention that the importance of fashion is that it "must be viewed as part of the larger capitalist system and not as a simple art form. It is fundamental to the entire structure of Western society, has major historical expression- you can read the entire industrial revolution and its ties to female emancipation through fashion." well, which it is? does the importance of fashion stem only from its connection with capitalism/ western society, or does it go beyond that? if so, how is fashion defined then?

i guess i'm confused as to what others here actually mean by "fashion," because i think a distinction can -- and should -- be drawn between the conception, production, availability and donning of SS uniforms, as opposed to me deciding between a selection of pointy versus round-toed shoes.
 
 
Perfect Tommy
04:57 / 02.09.03
(These might be dreadfully close to one-liners, but...)

First, a personal comment on the importance of clothing: I'd done some heavy restructuring of how I felt about myself, and what path my life was taking; but, I had a strong feeling like I was wearing "the old Tom's" clothing. Once I revamped my look to go along with the personality rewrite, I think there were subtle but very real effects on my confidence level and method of social interaction. To an extent, it was putting on a costume and becoming the character in everyday life. Yet another instance of "fake it till you make it," which had just been driven home to me by taking public speaking and debate and learning how to fake confidence so as to have confidence--but, in this case, moving from behind the podium to the world at large.

Second, what about cultural revolutions and the fashion changes that accompany them? I'm told that early on, anti-war protesters in the '60s were wearing suits; but when it went beyond merely being about the war to being about, well, everything, there was a fashion change that went along with it. (I want to say something similar about the fashions associated with hip-hop culture, but I'm not sure if it qualifies as there is no big political issue associated with the culture--unless there is one and I'm just tragically unhip, which is very possible.)
 
 
Tryphena Absent
08:00 / 02.09.03
Is that a pointed disdain for female superficiality? Women like dresses, men like cars?

Just to answer this briefly from a simple, practical point of view, it is important to note here that fashion has a winding and practical history. You can pretty much put the current male attitude towards dress down to the Industrial Revolution. Before that time clothes, being very strong status symbols, were equally as important to men and women. Male dress became utilitarian because men were working in industry and the middle classes were created. Women weren't going out to work so they didn't dress as simply as men, male clothes became less flamboyant, female clothes stuck at the same level as they had always been. Even now we still have a hang up about the whole thing but I suspect it is 1)memory of the discrepancy in the importance of dress and 2)something to do with the lack of uniformity in female evening dress.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
08:11 / 02.09.03
i find the discussion of totalitarian regime and SS uniforms within the context of just fashion disconcerting

You do realise that those uniforms were designed by Chanel.

I think that you're making a mistake in believing that fashion is only about consumerism. People have difficulty in grasping the complexities of fashion and I think that's because it's a visual thing. There's an unwillingness to proscribe so much to something we see, rather than something we deal with in our heads. Those SS uniforms were designed by a fashion icon in order to intimidate people.

does the importance of fashion stem only from its connection with capitalism/ western society, or does it go beyond that? if so, how is fashion defined then?

The importance of fashion now is related not only to what we see immediately in shops but also to its history. You can read history through clothes, the Industrial Revolution happens to be the easiest part because it's so recent. Here, on this board, where we are all remarkably Westernised, fashion holds importance as recognition of our culture. Elsewehere it would be remarkable in a different frame but within a context quite different from our own because here it works within a Western consumerist frame. Fashion is important wrt the clothes that are popular and common within a society.
 
 
Sax
14:31 / 02.09.03
I thought the SS uniforms were designed by Hugo Boss...
 
 
Jack Vincennes
16:01 / 02.09.03
But is that woman going to be less conservative, more appreciative of art, more environmentally aware or less philosophically astute by wearing heels?

If the woman in question assumes that wearing heels makes her appear to be any of the above, I would imagine that she would make an effort (whether conscious or otherwise) to convey this in the way she acted as well as in the way she dressed. This is based on the assumption that wearing heels was a considered decision; that they were chosen because she wanted to highlight an aspect of her personality.

If the decision to wear them was less obviously considered than this, there is still the issue of how other people react to clothes. If someone else assumes that a woman in heels will display any of the above characteristics, they will treat her as such - and they way she responds to them will be conditioned by that again.

There is obviously no single meaning which people attatch to clothes, but I would argue that most people do attatch some form of meaning to clothes.

As far as the issue of SS uniforms goes, I would say that this returns to Anna's original point - that The clothing industry thus works from a power base that is hierachical. These set those in the SS apart from the rest of the population (obviously) - they were an immediate marker that the wearer was, largely, in a position of far more power than the observer.
 
 
pixilated
18:01 / 02.09.03
ummm, i still don't see how on earth you can call SS uniforms "fashion." and i still most certainly don't think they should be put in the same category as fashion.

you also do realize that hugo boss was not yet a "fashion icon" when the company manufactured the uniforms, right? yeah, his company manufactured the uniforms -- there had to be some garment company to make the clothes, no? but "hugo boss" as we know it didn't become the fashion-house that it is today until the early 1970s, when the company specifically shifted its focus to make pricey menswear and explicitly bill its wares to consumers as fashion, not just manufactured clothing.

another point. the whole camouflage/ combat look was popular for over the past two years -- then the war against afghanistan hit and everyone over in the states started wondering if it was still tactful to be prancing around in army gear when now real u.s. soldiers were being killed, not to mention civilians. people were sensing there was a disconnect between real military uniforms and the very distinct fashion trend co-opting these looks. again, all this to say there's a difference between fashion and clothes, and that difference must be taken into account in any cohesive discussion on the subject.

i'll admit i have yet to formulate a fool-proof, workable definition of fashion for myself, which is why i’m interested in what others here think. but i firmly believe that the purveyors of fashion must be distinguished from the purveyors of totalitarian uniforms, etc. this is not to say that all of fashion is good and dandy and non-controversial -– i’m just not at all convinced that SS uniforms = fashion, much the same that i don’t think school uniforms, fast-food chain uniforms, yarmulkes, etc. are simply “fashion.” can they be co-opted and turned into fashion? most certainly. but there is a huge difference between the original and the clothing co-opted by fashion, hence there is a huge difference in the degree of power the original versus the co-opted version possesses. they are not one and the same.
 
 
pomegranate
18:40 / 02.09.03
i think that uniforms can be considered fashion because, for example, mcdonald's uniforms of today are certainly different from the ones of the 70's (or what have you). whomever picks/designs them is influenced by whatever modern looks that are around.
 
 
pixilated
19:21 / 02.09.03
yes, i agree that a uniform can be influenced by fashion -- but i don't think it becomes "fashion" until it's consciously worn as such, taken out of its normal element and turned on its head. like kids wearing gas station uniforms or trucker hats.
 
 
Grand Panjandrum of the Pointless
23:41 / 02.09.03
I think institutions use clothes to control people in quite subtle ways, viz:

My school insisted on uniforms (or dress code) for everyone, right up to the age of eighteen. Towards the end of our time a few of my contemporaries got really irked by this, in one case to the point of dressing entirely in his own clothes, but holding out a blazer at arm’s length. Other people dyed their hair, wore boots, didn’t tuck shirts in et.c. et.c. They made a lot of effort.
A couple of weeks before the end of the last term, our economics teacher pointed out that the only reason they bothered with uniform in the upper part of the school was to divert the natural rebellious energies of youth onto sthg essentially trivial, to deflect meaningful criticism of how the school was run. The dress rebels had the grace to look sheepish (most of them, at least)

Another thing that fascinates me is the way in which people get annoyed with people who dress unconventionally. The idea that clothes are a semiotic system is not exactly
new. But the similarities between grammatical and sartorial errors really are striking. Rules of dress, like rules of grammar, have most kudos when irrational, snobbish, and imported from exotic places (Milan, Latin). Artifice rules.
And when people get annoyed about them, they couch their disapproval in terms very similar to those used against non-conventional language (don’t understand, pretentious, what’s it meant to say). They claim not to understand what the clothes are saying when they obviously do. Cf. the bloody ridiculous claim that double negation in natural language is illogical. The value of any language/fashion is its potential to communicate. Therefore, if you want to lower the social value of a language or fashion, you pretend not to understand it &/or that it is illogical (or impractical in the case of fashion)
It’d be interesting to do a study to see how far dress sense and a preoccupation with grammar correlate. (but obviously difficult ‘cos you’d have to find some way of taking into account the effects of class and gender)

Anna- I agree with most of the arguments you’ve made in this thread- I think that the importance of fashion is greatly understated in our society, and could do with a lot more serious theoretical attention.
But I think you are crashingly wrong to suggest that male clothing became more practical in the nineteenth century for utilitarian reasons. You say:
Male dress became utilitarian because men were working in industry

Are you really suggesting that early nineteenth century style gurus took their fashion tips up t’mill in Burnley? Surely factory workers wore whatever they could get, and whatever they could get was (as ever) a cheap and nasty version of what their ‘betters’ were wearing for entirely non-industrial reasons. I suspect the reasons male dress got simpler have more to do with changes in military uniforms, and the increasing popularity/fashionability of sport and exercise. Also the influence of the ‘Empire Style’ over in Napoleonic France, which did away with breeches in favour of trousers.

Women weren't going out to work so they didn't dress as simply as men,
This is simply untrue
Victorian working women

Furthermore, they didn’t alter their dress habits much when at work- in fact they often dressed much like their more ornamental and less diligent sisters in the higher echelons of society. Here is the repulsively saccharine and patronising Charles Dickens to prove it. Note the mention of impractical things (trinkets, shawls).
 
 
Tryphena Absent
08:54 / 03.09.03
It's not widely known but Chanel designed the SS uniforms that were then manufactured by Boss' companies. I forget my source of information but I'll try to find it in amongst the ridiculous amounts of texts I've read over the past year. Of course the writer could simply have got it wrong.

Right onwards I go-

Are you really suggesting that early nineteenth century style gurus took their fashion tips up t’mill in Burnley?

That isn't what I'm suggesting. This is where the class divide comes in. It's widely recognised in fashion theory that with industry came utilitarian dress because the classes started to move closer together. Men who previously didn't wear suits began to don them, clothes became less pronounced in their detail among the upper classes. Basically everything started to look more like everything else. Of course the lower classes wore nastier clothes than the upper classes, that's still the case but I never suggested they didn't, simply that men's garments became increasingly utilitarian right across the board.

changes in military uniforms, and the increasing popularity/ fashionability of sport and exercise

Well changes in military uniform are constant and always have been. They go hand in hand with advances in weaponry but the most recent change in uniform has been linked to the industrial revolution. Likewise how exactly do you think this increase in sport and exercise happened? Through the advent of trains and the consistency in time keeping across Britain as a result of... yup, the industrial revolution.

The Victorian working women's working environments didn't change quite as quickly as the men's. They were certainly involved in industry but not quite as much as the men were. They were also the suppressed half of humanity- they were hardly going to start wearing trousers when women's suffrage was getting increasingly violent and threatening! I shall consult Lipovetsky later and throw some information on this particular subject towards you. Alas I don't have it with me atm.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
11:35 / 03.09.03
in a rush, hope this makes sense...

alright, i think there *is* a point to be made about terminology, and i'll have a think about this.

Which i also think feeds into whoever it was said something about wanting to separate fashion from uniform. As I don't think there's any intention to trivialize a discussion of how cut, colour, detailing, presentation, design as body-shaping/modification are used as homogenising devices, often in horrific ways.

My intention with the totalitarian regime example was rather the opposite, to suggest that something that often passes under the radar, (perhaps as Anna says, as it's a primarily visual/tactile form of 'text', and as a culture we're terrible at reading those. *especially * the tactile. We're a *literal* text-based culture.) is in fact incredibly powerful, and that we don't take it seriously because these technologies aren't given *much* serious critical attention.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that, to use the example others have given, a critical examination of the effect of SS uniforms is *the same* as a critical examination of what McQueen's producing this season.


But to dismiss any link demonstrates a very specific and narrow understanding of what fashion is. Cut, colour, use of/playing on current cultural norms/ongoing mythical associations.... all these things are the stuff of fashion *design*.

*And* have a huge power that, to use another perhaps less emotive example, work cultures harness to great effect.

I think the *d* word needs a lot more emphasis. Eg people in day to day life *and* academia/media have very little difficulty with the idea that architecture is a massively nuanced and powerful cultural/pyschological force, as well as/intertwined with being a material design discipline (eg Bentham/Foucault/The Panopticon. There's *alot* of spatial theory exploring this. The 9/11 project to give an eg of how people can accept architecture on these terms, the furore over rachel whitread's auschwitz memorial.)

So why's it different with fashion design? Its the same thing, played out on the body, around it at close quarters instead of at a distance.

That's one of the things missing by from alot of this, and from general perceptions of 'fashion'.

Perhaps Anna and I are both coming from a point of view where the design discipline/process is an integral part of our definition, *as well as* trends, catwalks, clothes, models etc...
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
11:37 / 03.09.03
And why does it get under the radar?

LA, that's where I think the misogyny comes in.

Its not only that, as Anna's pointed out, as a culture we're not very visually literate, and certainly not tactile-ishly (i can't even find a word for this) literate at all. Visual=surface very often, the notion that something that many people think of primarily a visual form having emotional/metaphorical/spiritual/symbolic/political etc depth is a very alien one.

(I'm thinking for comparison of cultural structures that seem to go on within pre-columbian civilizations, where we *think* they spoke/communicated/experienced the world much more visually than we do. Where an image was *never* a representation but was an action.)

Buuuut, I do also think that with our specific time period, alot of why we don't give this stuff serious attention is that it falls under the 'women's things' category, and is therefore silly, superficial...

Why else time and time again this century, especially in the latter half, do we see 'subversive' subcultures involving male dressiness/consciousness of costume? It's not manly, is it, and therefore is certainly a shortcut to marking onself out, and possibly one to expressing dissatisfaction with the traditional options of masculinity.

So, it does compare to your car example to an extent, but as you well know, LA, background and power relations are massively important in this kind of discussion. Something being 'typically male' is not the same as to something being 'typically female' in terms of validation/influence within a patriarchal society.

And, I’d argue, fashion design is a much more important/influential human field than automotive design. In historical span/global terms if nothing else.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
11:48 / 03.09.03
another answer to my why? question is, I think, that Western cultures are incredibly disembodied. By this I mean that we're incredibly strong descendants as a culture of the mind/body dualism. Which is not just a split, but a prioritisation of mind *over* body.

This feeds into bodily technologies being discredited/devalued. And of course is intertwined with patriarchy/traditional conceptions and approaches to what is to be considered male or female.

ie there's an incredibly strong push to disembody ourselves. Anything that embodies us is traditionally classified female, and lumped in with birth, menstruation, fertility, vaginas and all those horrific traumatic manifestations of the body. *g*
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:10 / 03.09.03
we're incredibly strong descendants as a culture of the mind/body dualism. Which is not just a split, but a prioritisation of mind *over* body.

This feeds into bodily technologies being discredited/devalued

And of course it means that we refuse to see the link between mind and body, texture and interpretation. British people are so hung up on there being something else, a soul so to speak, that they forget that we're a big old mass of chemicals half the time. The prioritisation of the mind means that we refuse to see the effect the actual has on our minds.

people in day to day life *and* academia/media have very little difficulty with the idea that architecture is a massively nuanced and powerful cultural/pyschological force... So why's it different with fashion design?

I can't help but wonder if it's the responsibility of it all. The fact that in dressing yourself you are partly creating yourself is particularly difficult to cope with. Architecture is seen as this permanent force and it's separate from the individual, the cdesigner is forgotten but when you choose clothes you become, to an extent, the designer and if you feel disconnected from that kind of thing it's a particularly difficult notion to come to terms with. I suppose that I'm partly following on from Grand Panjandrum here?

Dress of course has been fundamental to the women's movement in the last forty years. Women have adopted it as their voice- miniskirts, dungarees. It started with a go at emancipation through dressing as the ideal yet ambiguous sex object, moved on to women dressing like men as a comment on that ideal and it's carried on. We can wear trousers now because of these things. Men in comparison have to be gay, transvestites or pre-op transexuals to have any chance of wearing a skirt... I'm not including kilts or sarongs here. It's incredibly, incredibly important.
 
 
Quantum
10:29 / 04.09.03
Fashion is more important to some people than others though, right?

I'm not denying fashion is important, but I do notice that some people take more care over their appearance than others, and it seems to me those people are more inclined to give a heavier weighting to their judgement of others by their apparel. For example, a fashion designer wearing an Italian suit is likely to think me a tasteless scruffy bastard, because I don't particularly care what I wear and give it very little thought (and thus look scruffy and tasteless). I might notice they look smart but it would be a matter of mild and waning interest to me, certainly not as important as their behaviour.
I often notice that other people pay more attention to what I wear than I do. When people see me in my work costume they often remark how smart I look, which I am oblivious to. I am fashion blind, if you will.

Are clothes and fashion crucially important to everybody? I don't think so, although their importance is often underestimated.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
13:56 / 04.09.03
But, it's not all about whether *you* personally place alot of importance in fashion. Anymore than it matters whether gender construction/ the current political situation are things i'm conscious of/interested in when going about my business.

They're huge, massively subtle and invasive structures that influence alot of what constitutes my life.

This is part of the problem/misunderstanding, I think. Thers *is* an element of fashion's importance that's about our personal relationship to it, but there's alot more to its influence than that.

oh and this

"want to say something similar about the fashions associated with hip-hop culture, but I'm not sure if it qualifies as there is no big political issue associated with the culture--unless there is one and I'm just tragically unhip, which is very possible"

I don't know if you're tragically unhip dear(!)but it stikes me that hip-hip culture is a great culture to look at in this thread. There's plenty of subcultural 'marking out' but the form it takes stems from a deeply political (in the widest sense) position... namely that black americans having been fucked over by slavery/colonialsim/profiteering, one way for black americans to hit back at that process is to beat whitey at his own game, ie make shitloads of money.

Hip-hop fashion has often been about showing off, validating (certain sorts) of blackness in the face of a repressive majority culture.

(interestingly, it's very popular with alot of second-gen asian lads here...bhangramuffins are a common sight in UK towns with big asian communities).

The exaggerated gender styling is also connected to this, reacting against a context in which 'black man'='animal', not as much of a 'real man' as white man.

You've also got a semi-military styling tradition in hip-hop, growing from people like Public Enemy, who used their visual image to great effect as part of a strategy of presenting a warlike agenda/black pride-based commentary....
 
 
Tryphena Absent
14:13 / 04.09.03
Anymore than it matters whether gender construction/ the current political situation are things i'm conscious of/interested in when going about my business.

They're huge, massively subtle and invasive structures that influence alot of what constitutes my life.

And you have to stick them all together. There's no point saying 'oh but these are just clothes that I wear everyday'. They're not just clothes, everything that you can buy is related to 1)your gender and 2)the politics of the country in which you live. I could use an extreme example like the hijab here but I'm not going to. Look in your own wardrobe and notice what you do not own. Skirt wise, suit wise and accessory wise those things you do not own will tell you about those invasive structures.

Clothes aren't only about individual choices, they're about our culture.
 
 
Olulabelle
11:46 / 22.09.03
This is a very interesting thread and when I read it I keep switching points of view. Anna’s initial statement holds a lot of truth in it, I can see how what we wear has to be considered a crucial part of defining who we are in so far as the opinions we attract from others, but I remain unconvinced that it is ‘actually’ who we are, and how we (do) define ourselves; simply for the reason that there are very few people who are constantly conscious of what they wear.

In the ‘what is in your wardrobe’ thread Anna (not Anna De L) describes the clothes she is wearing and then states Am wearing these because I have just had to clean up a bathroom with a flooded toilet and I'm waiting to get all my clothes out of the drier so that I can have a shower. The clothes she is wearing serve a purpose which, at that point in time isn’t anything to do with a/what she wishes to say about herself, or b/how she wishes anyone to perceive her. What she’s wearing isn’t a fashion statement, for her. However, she has found it necessary to tell us that she is wearing those clothes for a purpose, lest we should judge her unfashionable, and (in a thread about clothes) unworthy of further conversation. She is aware that she may be judged – even just in describing her clothes textually.

(Anna, I am sorry for blithely presuming your thinking process, please correct me if I’m wrong!)

Personally, I agree with Lurid; these things matter less as you get older, and without meaning to sound patronising, I think they matter less outside of cities and fashionable places. When I worked in London, I cared far more what I looked like than I do now (down in the horribly backward West Country!) but I cared in relation to the people I saw around me. I worked in Soho, and everywhere you looked there were extremely fashionable, extremely cool people which did nothing except serve to make me feel self conscious, unfashionable and not up to scratch. Now I am not confronted with those people regularly, I care less about holding myself up against them. I still care very much what I look like, but not all the time.

Where I live now I have things to do which define what I wear – It would be impossibly uncomfy to walk my dog over Salisbury Plain in my ‘fuck me’ stilettos so I wear walking boots instead.

It's a flippant example I know, but it does show that a lot of people choose clothes for purely practical reasons, and certainly without any thought to how they will be considered by others who see them. I mean, you can’t ‘get’ a fashionable pair of walking boots even if you wanted to, because they’re made for walking up and down hills in and do not need to be in the latest style. And I certainly have not bought them in relation to the politics of my country, or even in relation to my gender because they are unisex children’s ones (I have small feet and they’re cheaper) I’ve plain and simply bought them for walking in!
 
 
Tryphena Absent
10:22 / 23.09.03
there are very few people who are constantly conscious of what they wear.

There are few people who are aware that they might sound like their mother when they pronounce certain words, that they have a nervous cough, that they swing their arms in a certain way when they walk. That doesn't mean that they don't do these things- you don't have to be conscious of something for it to effect you. The people around you are going to notice these things.

What she’s wearing isn’t a fashion statement, for her

Here we get down to the issue that's run through this entire thread. What precisely do people think fashion is? It's far more complex than you seem to assume. There is no permanent fashion, there is no one walking down Holborn wearing the latest clothes. Almost everyone is a season behind if not 3 or 4. There are at least five styles that have run through 4 seasons now and that's ignoring the fact that fashion is often not what's on the catwalks but the more subversive looks that people have taken from absolutely nowhere. Fashion isn't an object and there is no such thing as a fashion statement. Clothes aren't limited in that way and the industry certainly isn't- fashion is fluid and broad thus everyone makes a statement through their dress regardless of whether they intend to or not.

I worked in Soho, and everywhere you looked there were extremely fashionable, extremely cool people

Anyone can look like that. All you need is an eye to put things on to your body in the right way and a new haircut but why bother?
 
 
Olulabelle
08:34 / 29.09.03
The people around you are going to notice these things. Yes, but don't you think that people often notice these things for the wrong reasons? Or perhaps attribute those things to an attitude or a way of behaving that wasn't originally intended by the wearer/cougher/arm swinger? I am thinking specifically in terms of clothing for practicality, and mean that occasionally people simply dress in a particular way in order to fulfil a task that demands a certain type of clothing. Therefore the people who 'notice' in these instances would possibly do better to consider what the task in hand might be, before judging.

On the issue of the description of 'fashion' as a word or a state of mind, and the complexity of it, I think all too often people (me included) use the words 'fashion' or 'fashionable' wrongly, referring to them instead of a more suitable word such as 'style.' When I say fashion I don't mean high fashion catwalk collections seasons ahead of the shops, or indeed unusual or subversive choices of clothing. I just mean 'what everyday folks imagine is the cool thing to be seen wearing right now.' It's a distinction you are right to point out Anna, and I guess it's just my bad useage of the word.
 
  
Add Your Reply