Fashion as Medium

Thursday, February 4, 2010

The Antwerp 6

The Antwerp 6 in 1988

The Antwerp Six refers to an important group of deconstructionist fashion designers graduating from Antwerp's Royal Academy of Fine Arts between 1980-1981. They shared a radical vision that established Antwerp as a notable location for fashion design. The breakthrough occurred in 1988 as the group rented a truck and set out for London fashion week with respective collections. Together they showed deconstruction as a making and unmaking of forms and codes including exposing the backstage and form of presenting. Below clockwise from top left Ann Demeulemeester,  Marina Yee, Walter Van Beirendonck,  Dries van Noten,  Dirk Van Saene, Dirk Bikkembergs.

Walter Van Beirendonck

Dirk Bikkembergs

above 1991 and below 2009

Ann Demeulemeester

1989 and below F 2009

F 2009

Dries van Noten

F 2009

Dirk Van Saene

Marina Yee

Monday, February 1, 2010

Deconstruction & Fashion

by PeiRong Zhou

According to Martin Mcquillan, deconstruction is the rethinking of the conceptual and non-conceptual foundations of the western tradition. It examines the way in which Western thought is structured. Jacques Derrida suggested that Western thought is structured in terms of binary oppositions, the separation of conceptual material such as Man/Woman; Black/White equally. However, these terms are not true opposites since one is always privileged over the other. An example he gives would be the concept of speech as more important than and as logically prior to writing. Another example from Helene Cixous exhibits the advantage of a masculine characteristic over feminine ones and how such binary oppositions are not the way things are but how is perceived by western though.

The privileging of terms is called logo centrism. It divides the world into a binary system of oppositions and proceeds to change the weight and importance of on both sides of the world and ends up with a way of thinking which makes thoughts impossible without an appreciation of the ‘inherent’ superiority of one term over the other.

Deconstruction suggests that opposite concepts are constructions. Yes and no are words that represent opposing feelings but the words themselves are not opposites. Black and white represent associations that change from culture to culture.

Deconstruction, Mcquillan thinks, reminds us of the different perceptions of each individual of the world. In an example, the term ‘Here and now’ is never identical to the actual moment in which one was referring to. He also mentioned that logo centrism is a form of metaphorisation. All words are metaphors in which a word could bring about images of things closely related to it and that the successful maintenance of this depends upon users of language to be ignorant about it.

For deconstruction to take place, the binary must be reversed, as showing that binary opposition at work is necessary. Deconstruction is a false opposition working, however, stopping it would restore the inequality and there would be no changes towards the unequal system in the first place. Therefore, it is necessary to remove the whole system of binary thinking and binary logic which is the only way the binary is said to be undone.

Comme de Garcons, 2006, the design combines two opposing aesthetics giving both a presence but denying either totality. Both aesthetics are in play with one another.

However, deconstruction shows that it is impossible to escape from logo centric thinking as escaping from it requires thinking in a way not yet though of and the only way to think in another way would be to think in our current logo centric mode of thought. Similar to the unconscious, it would be part of our conscious once we recognize it. To escape this logo centrism would lead us to back to logo centrism. Hence the beginning statement of deconstruction is an impossible method as while deconstructing, one is still constructing. See Alexander McQueen deconstructing here.

In Deconstruction:The making of unfinished, decomposing and re-assembled clothes, Allison Gill explores and dissects the meaning of ‘deconstruction’ in Fashion as well as philosophy, fueled by the writings of Jacques Derrida. She begins with the start of deconstructed fashion, enabled by experiments in architectural design following the Deconstructivist Architecture exhibition at MoMA in 1988. Both design forms share a range of similar concepts such as structure, form, fabrication and construction.

The transparency of forms in Comme des Garcons and Maison Martin Margiela, 2009

She states that deconstruction in fashion is somewhat like an auto-critique of the fashion system, revealing the draw and attraction of fashion such as the glamour, fantasy and exclusivity and technical aspects such as form, stitches and fabrication. Deconstruction, in a literal level, conotates the reversal of construction, thus the unfinished or destroyed look of garments. Deconstruction was first seen as a rebellion against fashion in the 80s and the acceptance and movement into the domain of fashion was deemed contradictory and deconstruction was seen as another superficial trend.

Karl Lagerfeld, Dries Van Noten, and Hussein Chalayan, F 2009

In the second part of the article, Gill wanted to suggest that there was more to the association of dress and deconstruction than a wish to destroy functionality. The deconstruction style in the recession zeitgeist was more of a reflection of issues related to a particular time period, hence decaying garments to economic recessions.

The general definition of deconstruction as a practice of undoing construction would mean the liberation of garments from its function, which is not applicable. Her point is that deconstruction is the dressed down version for it’s application to fashion and that fashion could possibly have a prescribed function.

Margiela, Spring 2009

Derrida refuses to define exactly what deconstruction is as that would repeat the tradition in philosophy, the mode of questioning where a name seeks to represent the essence of the subject which could be seen as the construction and basis on how something is defined in philosophy. The word ‘Deconstruction’, as the undoing of construction, is not only unable to capture the essence of deconstruction itself, but Derrida also felt that there is no definite answer for what deconstruction for this though process of deconstruction could never be fully comprehended.

Deconstructed fashion is neither purely about philosophy nor about fashion. It is a different thinking of fashion. Margiela however revisits and reconfigures fashion and that the form is always produced through fashion’s history and that the ideal form is made at the expense of history that creates the desire for that ideal and that these forms are reflections on it’s place in the history of fashion. Read more on this article here.

Jacques Derrida

by Mathilde Jansson

The French philosopher Jaques Derrida wrote the Dissemination in 1972, in Paris. He is known for introducing deconstruction. His project was to show that all metaphysical systems of great thinkers (such as Plato, Freud, etc) had fractions of totality and contradictions. He never rejected the idea of metaphysical systems but he thought of them as a project that could never be completed.

Deconstruction, as he is known for, is an ambiguous philosophical term that Derrida never wanted to give a strict definition of. It can be described as a kind of interpretation of texts with the aim to reveal hidden meanings, partly to give old texts new life and a new meaning through new interpretations and to put it in a new context and partly to show that all texts has a contradiction that is often hidden.

Derrida is often misunderstood for destroying meaning but Deconstruction instead exposes the instability of meaning and the play of form which is why it was important for fashion and the visual arts. Therefore deconstruction does not leave you with nothing but rather you expose the basis of value and continue with the process.

In opening to Dissemination, Derrida claims that everything we possibly could say is already said and in every possible way. We can’t explain more than we have already explained. He uses the example of Plato, who already said that writing can only repeat itself, which is true since we write about him and put new words and new explanations to his already existing ideas.

This is an important text for understanding the meaning of fashion and de-coding it. In order to read fashion we must ask questions of the construction of social values which do not mean anything outside the system. What is a Louis Vuitton bag to a primitive tribe of an isolated island? Just as bag. There is also the issue that meaning has already be done, meaning in fashion forms are known and then simply replayed. Designers challenge this concept by pushing the new especially with technology and new materials.

Fashion as Communication

by Mathilde Jansson

Fashion as Communication by Malcom Barnard investigates the connections between the concept of fashion, communication and culture. It aims to clarify that fashion and clothing are means of communication. The aim of this chapter is also to examine what statements clothes make and what kinds of communication are involved, also, if fashion and clothing are cultural phenomena and what type. Barnard says in the introduction; “And it will argue that clothing and fashion, as communication, are cultural phenomena in that culture may itself be understood as a signifying system, as the ways in which a society’s experiences, values and beliefs are communicated through practices, artefacts and institutions.”

Above the Satorialist in the Marais, street culture reveals everyday codes of communication

“Fashion, Clothing and Communication”

Here the key point is that fashion and clothing are forms of nonverbal communication where no spoken or written words are used, but they send silent messages. He argues that there are two main schools in the study of communication, both subscribe to a general definition of communication as ‘social interaction through messages’ but they each understand that definition slightly differently. The first school is called the ‘process’ school, where they believe that “communication is conceived of as a process in which someone says something to someone else in one or other medium or channel with some or other effect.” Where in this case, the garment would be the medium used by one person to send a message to another person, consequently it is the garment who carries the message the wearer wants to communicate. Although he argues that this school rises a problem as to who sends the message, if it is the wearer or if it is originally the designer. The second school, called the ‘semiotic’ or ‘structuralist’ school, says that communication as ‘social interactions through messages’ constitutes an individual as a member of a group. Rather that a member of a group communicating with other members of the group, as the first group applies. On the process model, the meaning pre-exists the process of communicating them. On the semiotic model, it is the process of communication that produces or generates messages.

He argues that the semiotic model is more plausible since it avoids the problem who creates the message since the message is created by the group as a whole. It is the social interacting, by means of the clothing, that produces the individual as a member of the group rather than vice-versa, that one is a member of the group and then interacts socially.

The American practice of wearing sports clothing communicates an alliance to a team's ideological territory. It also evidences the sign as free floating.

Fashion, Clothing and Culture

He argues that fashion, “clothing and dress are signifying practices, they are ways of generating meanings, which produce and reproduce those cultural groups along with their positions of relative power.” That means that clothes are used to separate groups in our society, which turns culture into a general signifying system. We communicate a society’s beliefs, values and experiences through practises, artefacts and institutions. Where, in this case, the practises, artefacts and institutions are fashion and clothing.

Above the system of personalization of values. At the "society" level people are largely anonymous but are united by sharing law. At the cultural level, people share language and a language of forms. At the subcultural level things begin to be more specific and separate from culture as a whole. The subculture asserts slang and visual codes of modification. Below the subculture of prep is defined by preparatory school but also the recreation of those forms outside of school.

Fashion, Clothing and Ideology

Here he discuses how fashion and clothing are used to separate and distinguish different cultural groups in society. According to Douglas and Isherwood (1979) fashion and clothing can be used as fences or bridges. This argues that individual garments may be innocent , but how they are used and the functions they fulfil are not. The uses and functions of garments are social and cultural therefore not innocent. To clarify fences and bridges; fences separates groups and keep people apart while bridges are there to join groups. Fences and Bridges also separate groups at the same time as they identify common values within a group.

Below, denim is a bridge across class and status. It was associated with the student of May 1968 as a clothing of rebellion to the establishment but now even Sarkozy wears jeans. It is also iconic as in the style of Jane Birkin.

Another way to see Douglas and Isherwood’s theory, he argues, is to see it as weapons and defences. Where you either challenge or try to sustain positions of dominance and supremacy. It is fashion and clothing, used as weapons or fences by different groups, that creates the social order. When fashion and clothes are used as weapons in a group, they express their ideologies against the ideologies of other groups in the social order. He says that fashion and clothing, as cultural phenomena, may now be understood as practises and institutions in which class relations and class differences are made meaningful.

Designers are working with the system of capitalism, advancing consumption and mediating the boundaries and values of clothing communication.

Fashion and clothing, in addition to being forms of cultural production and communication, are ideological phenomena used to maintain, establish and reproduce positions of power.

Wealth and status looks different in different cultures. Below, an image from 1945 with the caption "Upper class woman in India" indicates only the status of the clothing and not the other values.

Conclusion

In his conclusion he says that Fashion and clothing are cultural in the sense that they are some of the ways in which a group constructs and communicates its identity and also that they are communicative in that they are non-verbal ways I which meaning and values are produced and exchanged. Finally, he says that fashion and clothing, as cultural and communicative phenomena, are closely related to status and power.

Above this image for Gucci would normally be received as an image of luxury and wealth. Considering the image for its moral value of fur or skin exposure or considering it for function, as in demonstration of leisure, or for femininity are other ways to read fashion.