The Crutches of Fashion

[Ochre]

Just to clarify: The Guggenheim was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, not Frank Gehry.

But obsolete, you're correct. Johnson is concerned with the designer's personal influence on the work and not external influences.

When Johnson addresses Structure he is really introducing the antithesis to Utility. It is based around viewing architecture as a purely sculptural form, devoid of function. Just because your building is formally beautiful, does not make it successful. A building must operate and must function to a certain standard.

In this sense, I believe fashion often has more liberal leeway. Clearly, some of the designers we respect here either consider function as secondary or the lack of function as a means of furthering their concept — which is not necessarily a bad thing.

I've been thinking more about this. What about the crutch of Process? Sometimes when I see a finished work there is an elaborate process behind it whether that is object dying, handmade features, etc.. And regardless, the end result is pretty unattractive. Sometimes I find that designers will rely on a proven, self-imposed system to create a good work in the end — and yet it doesn't always happen that way.

Last year I saw a lecture by a woman Anne Lindberg. She is a visual artist who relies often on systems she has created for herself. She develops a process and creates a large body of work following that process. Here is an example piece:


This was created using a customized architect's drafting board. The board was a wall length both wide and tall and the straight edge going across it is enormous. Moving only a centimeter or two at a time across a piece of paper sometimes 15-20' long, she drew lines with varying weight. Clearly, the result is quite beautiful. But after the lecture, I asked her if she accepted every piece she created with this method. And she didn't. She said she discarded about half of her drawings because even though she followed the process each and every time, there was a quality to the piece that was still sub-par.

I think this is an interesting example of how some proven methods could still result in a flawed final product. Does anyone know of instances where a designer has created a garment under a specific premise that has been successful before but not another time?

[syed]

I dont see marketing and PR on that list, while I think that they are important, I think they are, if any, the two biggest crutches that it would have...

This makes me think of an analogy Angela McRobbie uses in her book 'British Fashion Design: Rag Trade or Image Industry?'. She thinks of British fashion in terms of a dress held up precariously between two pillars. The first pillar is the art school system - the schools that teach young designers to be creative and produce something beautiful. The second pillar is the fashion media - they promote the work of the designers and give them exposure. Both these pillars hold up the dress, and without one of them, it falls down so that nobody can really appreciate it.

Whilst I take into account the point obsolete made, that these are actually outside factors, I think it is impossible to consider fashion without them. There are no fashion designers I can think of who have the luxury to produce entirely autonomously from these outside factors (artists are perhaps different in that they aren't necessarily creating to sell or display - it could be a personal project). I am not saying that the commercial side necessarily makes a major impact on their creativity, but it is certainly an unavoidable consideration.

Oh, and Ochre thanks for posting that piece and explaining her process. I've saved the image - so beautiful.

[diorowen]

^
indeed, very beautiful picture.

Just to clarify: The Guggenheim was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, not Frank Gehry.

really? I thought it was Frank Gehry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guggenheim_Museum_Bilbao

and zamb, quality is not subjective, its objective.
sorry if any of my word mislead you.
what I am trying to say is the personal feeling toward the quality of the pieces which is subjective. relating back to kuugaia post about cheapness, people tend to think that High quality pieces must be really comfortable, where quality doesn't determine how comfortable it is.
therefore its subjective. for example one may say that the high heels hurt her heel. but for other people, they may say its not. its very comfortable (this could happen due to the different body weight, etc).
source from my friend :p..the fatter one always say it hurts, the skinnier one tend to say its comfy, and they are wearing a different size heels of course..
and yeah, have a good day zamb :p

I will read through the post again later tonight, :). need to go now.

[Ochre]

really? I thought it was Frank Gehry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guggenheim_Museum_Bilbao

Haha! Pardon my American-centric viewpoint. I was thinking about the Guggenheim in New York which is also criticized for its form which is not necessarily conducive for viewing art.

[Dandyzoku]

it seems that most of the pillars are in fact external as previously mentioned. You obviously have to account for the fact that unlike other art forms, fashion is primarily made for consumption purposes, which inevitably makes certain parts of the industry become diluted to suit the taste or lack thereof of the majority of consumers.

[Magic1]

Hello,

This is my first post, but I have been reading the forum for a while. It's a wealth of information, very impressive.

I don't know if the posts in response to the original question are missing the mark, or if I am...but given that the rest of you have more experience in this, I will assume the latter.

Here are my thoughts though.

The crutches (if they exist) of fashion are those pillars that allow an otherwise unsuccessful piece to be viewed and accepted as successful; the crutch holds up a piece that does not have any foundation of its own.
All of fashion is interpreted as either referencing or contradicting past fashions. If it references the past, it gains success because the past has legitimacy. If it contradicts past designs, it can gain success simply by being different, even when that difference isn't necessarily successful. In short, it gains success by its relationship to the past, regardless of the legitimacy of the design itself.
Then there's the model. I think so many unsuccessful designs pass because the model is gorgeous or has the exact requirements of the garment. Also, the model can be photographed from a specific angle or whatever. So the model/photographer can be seen as a crutch for an otherwise less than successful design.
The collection or general style of the designer can be used as a crutch when the individual garment itself isn't that great. For example, some designers have sophisticated concepts and when they design, certain rather average designs are considered great in the company of the other designs. In this sense, the collection can be a crutch to the individual garments.

I am not saying that these crutches can be avoided or that any of them are actually detrimental.

[Ochre]

Nice points, Magic1.

I think your idea of the model as a crutch is interesting. You can extrapolate that to the more general crutch of presentation. One look at Lagerfeld's bombastic runway shows and you have to wonder what he's trying to hide.


This crutch of presentation could also be seen as an external influence as well. Think about how quickly a garment becomes popular once adopted by certain celebrities. They "present" themselves in these clothes and many people fall instep with their idols, whether or not the garment actually has any quality. This isn't necessarily the designer's fault but it is certainly something to be aware of.

[Faust]

He's definitely not trying to hide his ego, I'll tell you that!

But, you are right, an iceberg on a runway is kinda epic. Although it was for Chanel Haute Couture, so I doubt that the clothes were crap.

[copacetic]

The Seven Crutches:
- History
- Pretty Drawing
- Utility
- Comfort
- Cheapness
- Serving the Client
- Structure

Want to bring this discussion back...I think this list is an excellent shorthand for most of the discussions that take place on this forum.

The crutches are all essentially ideologies. Ideologies do "exist," in every sense of the world. We enact them in very measurable ways.

Why do we purchase clothes in the way that we do? I'd say history, utility, and structure.

As Goethe put it, "He who cannot draw on 3,000 years [of human history] is living hand to mouth." What else do we have other than history? You'd have to be a real sadist to think that divorcing any aesthetic work from history would be a valuable endeavor. History is no crutch. It's the only pedestal humanity possesses.

Utility: less noble, but compromises comfort, wearability, the day-to-day need for functional clothing that no human can escape. In the matter of clothing, but also architecture, calling utility a crutch is rather sick. Our material relation to the object is again, all we humans have.

Structure: It matters how something functions, but also how it looks while functioning. It's tied to all sorts of inherent values like beauty, humanity, social bonds, and joy. We as a society should care about aesthetic pleasure.

To reiterate: calling history, utility, and structure "crutches" seems self-destructive and sadistic. We should be on pretty firm ground here...I'm talking about the collective wisdom of thousands of years of writing and philosophy.

I think this list in its entirety makes much more sense in the context of the cynical world of professional architecture, which is quite harshly divided into the have's and have not's. It's easy to knock someone for designing from history, as if the designer were just being derivative--copying someone else's work--but this desire for novelty is a 20th and 21st century sickness, a disease acquired only recently.

[michael_kard]

Magic1's post got me thinking about presentation: A garment may look excellent on a model, a model's photos, a hanger, a friend... But it's only really successful when worn (and usually when an intimate knowledge about it has been developed after a few wears)... So that's one of my major problems as an internet buyer, it's almost like taking a bet.

Another thing is some designers' reaction to beauty (as in CCP's work to an extent). Usually, a garment is considered successful if it's beautiful, as it fulfills its purpose of making the wearer attractive. Some designers oppose themselves to this and create clothes, shoes and accessories that are not meant to accommodate this principle and are essentially reacting to this by being ugly - of course this is always subjective - and that makes me wondering, does that make their work unsuccessful or successful? Is beauty really a variable included in the equation of success?