Approaches to fashion

[laika]

^1) It is not analogous. To call "fashion" "art" is merely to switch the category of the object. What we are talking about here are possible frameworks for describing, analyzing, and interpreting the object. The "logic" you have employed here implies that fashion isn't worthy of intellectual treatment because it isn't art. Which is exactly the kind of archaic academic conservatism that Valerie Steele (to take someone you supposedly respect) founded her career in opposition to.

2) I don't understand what you are saying here at all. Philosophy, Anthropology, Semiology, Psychology, Sociology, etc. can take almost anything as their object....they are first and foremost types of perspectives (or approaches), not disciplinary boxes filled pre-determined "topics" to be studied. Why should fashion be exempt? And why on earth is "cultural studies," the magic box that fashion fits into?

[Faust]

1) I don't think it's mere switching of categories, it's elevation from one category (with less substance) to another (with more substance). (Without getting into discussion of definitions and how much shitty contemporary art is out there :-)).

2) Maybe I've read all the wrong books but I simply don't see that fashion has enough substance to offer to those disciplines. I think that's the crux of what I am trying to say. How many Valerie Steeles are out there?

[BSR]

2) Maybe I've read all the wrong books but I simply don't see that fashion has enough substance to offer to those disciplines. I think that's the crux of what I am trying to say. How many Valerie Steeles are out there?

It's not that fashion and clothes aren't interesting objects for philosophers and other social scientists. Indeed, what is a piece of clothing? is it a sign? a sign of what? of the self? of social conventions? of utility? is it a form? what is the meaning of the shapes? what are the connections between the body and clothing? constriction? embellishment? why? etc etc are obviously very relevant issues for these disciplines.

So... it's more that these people (academics) don't have any interest in garments. They find it shallow and despicable. And they generally dress very poorly! Why? This is a good question, not so much about fashion and clothing, but about these people and their way of life. The contempt for the body, and the underlying stupid dualism is the explanation i would favor as of now.

[Fuuma]

Because fashion* is not a serious** subject and the attempts by some academics to make it serious by applying the same highfalutin, dead academic style of writing as in other disciplines makes the whole thing even more fake than it already is. I don't understand why fashion needs to go from intelligent to intellectual.

*Fashion as in its aesthetic essence and cultural impact.

**Serious, as in important for answering questions about the nature of the individual, society, and nature.

So topics like consumption are not serious areas of inquiry? It's true that in a society where we first define ourselves as consumers instead of humans, citizens or workers, consumption is irrelevant.

[Faust]

I clearly defined fashion for the purposes of this discussion, I think, as centered around aesthetics and the cultural impact of such. Consumption patterns are an entirely different matter.

I just want to make clear that I am by no means denigrating academy. I am simply questioning whether fashion has enough fodder to offer to it. For example, I've perused a number of issues of Fashion Theory and I find there little of interest - most articles tend to be about very marginal topics such as second-had clothes markets in Nigeria or Soviet fashion in the 70s.

I can see how fashion could be a rich subject for semiology though!

[Faust]

here are some of my problems with your approach, Faust:

1. how would fashion not be serious, that is, relevant for answering questions about the nature of an individual and the society in which that individual habituates (as 52 already mentioned)? just think of the function of fashion in the expression of one's cultural, social and political values, or the needs that appear for an individual, in a given society, with regards to fashion.
2. i have no idea what you mean by a "dead academic style".
3. i have no idea what you mean by making a study of fashion "fake". one thing is fake as in not given an adequate explanation of what is going on, for example, if the author just stipulates some things without any evidence for what he/she is saying; but a different thing would be "fake" as in "too much of a tech-talk", which would be an argument from a lack of understanding and expertise in the given field. if you mean the former, that's an argument against bad academic approaches to fashion, but not at all against academic studies of fashion in general. if you mean the latter, then that would be like complaining about any other academic discipline that investigates some issue that is not necessarily academic in character.
4. as for the step from "intelligent" to "intellectual", i am here with Laika in what she said above. it really all depends on the level and the aim of the analysis. what do you expect from a study of fashion? what kind of links, explanations, conceptual analysis, etc.? and i don't see why a whole variety of aims is not a legitimate option.

1. I would like to see one successful example of fashion making a political statement of any consequence. (BTW, I think this is one of the major differences between fashion and art - art can be political). It's not that fashion cannot take cues from political actions (as a matter of fact I devoted a significant portion of my essay on Boris Bidjan Saberi's aesthetics of protest in a book published by University of Bologna - OMG, I'M ONE OF THEM NOW!), it's just fashion as political commentary is weak, if not impotent.

I'll give you semiology though.

2. I mean a style of writing long sentences with 10 abstract nouns in each that is conducive to curing insomnia but not to critical discourse.

3. Referring to my earlier comment about substance - if you are trying to artificially inflate substance of a subject, it makes it more fake.

4. I expect broad analyses of fashion as an aesthetic expression that is relevant co contemporary global culture, and not a) costume studies b) marginalia.

[Fuuma]

It's not that fashion and clothes aren't interesting objects for philosophers and other social scientists. Indeed, what is a piece of clothing? is it a sign? a sign of what? of the self? of social conventions? of utility? is it a form? what is the meaning of the shapes? what are the connections between the body and clothing? constriction? embellishment? why? etc etc are obviously very relevant issues for these disciplines.

So... it's more that these people (academics) don't have any interest in garments. They find it shallow and despicable. And they generally dress very poorly! Why? This is a good question, not so much about fashion and clothing, but about these people and their way of life. The contempt for the body, and the underlying stupid dualism is the explanation i would favor as of now.

-Continental philosophy fucked us all over (in this case).
-Note that sociology of the body, of cultural practices and anthropology turned toward our own societies is def concerned with the clothing.

There is a distinction to be made between how worthy of respect a field is and how worthy of academic study it is. I.e. reality tv or television in general may be crap but it is a major and important field of academic study and IT SHOULD BE. The fact that fashion people are mostly braindead and are almost entirely releasing uninteresting work doesn't, in any way, make it a less worthy area of study.

[Faust]

Interestingly enough, even the museums' acceptance of fashion is viewed by the academia SOLELY as pandering to the masses.

[Fuuma]

yeah, but that only says how fruitful and open this whole area still is. or at least it seems to me so since i also haven't encountered many interesting articles (and once we also talked about that topic in the thread on fashion related books). the reason why it has remained divorced from academic topics for such a long time is maybe because of what BSR said above - that it is treated as something secondary, irrelevant, interesting only for the consuming masses. but i guess the situation must be already changing. there have been a couple of people already on sz who are doing phd's that are related to fashion, and there's even one phd student working on some philosophical and sociological aspects of fashion at my department as well! :)

I think Faust is also misunderstanding the importance of microsociology and other micro studies. To have a well functioning field you need bold theorists and careful researchers of minutia, one without the other makes for very weak academia as a whole. On a personal level I also want to read articles regarding prison clothing and personal adaptation to incarceration, not just sweeping theory of FASHUNZ.

[safeword123]

this may be off topic, but faust and laika, i am curious to know, why do you think cultural study is a 'questionable' academic discipline?

[525252]

I'll give you semiology though.

The obvious go-to book on this subject is Barthes' Fashion System, right? The one conclusive idea I find the book offers is that the un-analytical approach to fashion is the direct cause of fashion.

So if fashion as a phenomenon is to perpetuate itself, it does not want to be an intellectual discourse. I find that very interesting but I'm not sure you can convince someone else to care.

[Faust]

Fashion System is exactly the kind of belabored masturbation that bears no relevance on the outside world.

I don't even know what you mean by "un-analytical approach to fashion is the direct cause of fashion."

[Fuuma]

Fashion System is exactly the kind of belabored masturbation that bears no relevance on the outside world.

I don't even know what you mean by "un-analytical approach to fashion is the direct cause of fashion."

Outside of what? Who gets to say what is inside or outside this "world" of yours?

Fashion system= a demonstration of Barthes' method of analysis using a concrete example. It is only masturbation if you don't like his early, very structured method.

[525252]

yeah, I don't exactly find the fashion system a fun read either.

I don't even know what you mean by "un-analytical approach to fashion is the direct cause of fashion."

I happen to have this book right next to me on my desk and flipping through it now, its a dense load right there. Point is, he argues "written fashion" says nothing about fashion directly, it only creates fashions.

Examples are statements found in magazines like :
"Pearls bring elegance to any outfit"
"Black is a slimming colour"

and to add my own examples:
"Margiela is conceptual"
"Roland Barthes is a wanker"

All of these are pithy statements which only start, if not contribute to trends rather than study them.

[Faust]

Oh, that, yes. Here is the thing though, had he written something more digestible (there is The Language of Fashion but it's neither here nor there), maybe his point that the signifiers assigned to words by fashion editors are absolutely arbitrary and exist for the sole purpose of spurring fashion consumption, maybe it'd have more impact. People remember Mythologies, not that many care about The Fashion System.