Approaches to fashion

[Faust]

And I suppose you will now share with us the numerous academic texts that shine the beacon of rigorous thought on this wonderful mystery? I, for one, would be happy to read them.

[BSR]

does this mean one cannot claim that, for example, chemistry is superior to alchemy because both may have contributors important in their respective, isolated fields ? i don't think i can buy that (if is what you're saying)

this is not at all what i am saying. chemistry and alchemy are or could be in competition to account for the same sort of phenomena (composition, behavior of matter, let's say). the 'fields' i mentioned are arts or are close to arts. nevertheless, you should read feyerabend if you think history of science is the story of a progress from darkness to light

[BSR]

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.

There has been a lot of comments about Barthes in this thread, but it's not always very clear what his contribution really is to the 'field' of fashion studies (and in the post i've quoted from 525252 the idea is very oddly expressed, even if not entirely wrongly). Here is my take on this:

-Barthes uses a central (and structural) analogy: fashion/clothing* = language/speech. ‘Fashion’ is the collective idiom, ‘clothing’ is the way people actually use it. First thing to notice here: of course the meaning of the clothes, as the meaning of the words we use, is determined by a collective convention, which is arbitrary in the sense that there is no natural or necessary cause that makes a group of humans link the concept of the table to the word « table ». Second thing: Barthes is not the first one to treat garments as signs, but he is the first one to try to systematize this view and to build a semiology or semiotics of clothing (of course laika is right, it is only Barthes’ starting point: his final intention is to demonstrate that the way the bourgeois society treats garments as a grounded and automatic code is a strategy of domination, but I’m not sure it is the best part of his work). This semiotics is twofold: it deals with the way meanings are attached to expressions (1), and it deals with the use of the expressions by the idiom’s speakers (2).

-let’s focus on (1): Barthes says that the meanings of the garments are “abstract ideas” like ‘spring’, ‘lightness’, “melancholia’… The specificity and oddity of the fashion ‘system’ is that it relies on both a language , which is the garments themselves: a black jacket is a sign, and a meta-language, namely the fashion literature or editors, who are today determining the meaning of the language’s expressions. Example: “black jacket is romantic”, it’s a meta-language for the language of fashion because it describes the way the language of fashion functions, and it contains the expressions of the language as objects, cf the difference between [dog] and [“dog”], the first expression refers to a dog, the second one refers to the name “dog”. This interplay between the language and its metalanguage is a property of the fashion moment, in contrast to other periods of time where the meaning of the garments was determined differently. Or to put it differently, there are “fashion clothes” and clothes. Regular clothing does not acquire its meaning from the fashion literature, or at least not entirely or essentially. Fashion clothes do.

-Barthes’s analysis is really interesting in the following respects imo: a) it makes us able to distinguish more clearly between the various meanings of the word ‘fashion’. ‘Fashion’ in general (in the sense of ‘Zeitgeist’ or set of trends) can refer to the set of meanings that a group of humans attach to their garments at a certain period of time. ‘Fashion’ can also mean an industry, where the codes are dictated by a special set of people (editors or others in fashion literature… now maybe this literature is more tumblresque or hommedeguerresque). b) it distinguishes between fashion and clothing but there is still some space for interaction: as Barthes says, a clothing fact can become a fashion fact (when an individual silhouette becomes viral for instance) and conversely (when after having watched a Rick Owens runaway, someone buys the whole look and wear it).

-What is lacking in Barthes is mainly the analysis of the designer’s role in the fashion system. Which is kind of weird, since Barthes is well-known to have put an emphasis on the distinction between grammar and style in his works in Literature Theory. For fashion he seems to be interested only in grammar. And obviously the designers’ territory is a very singular one where a play on the very nature of the signifiers (material entities that support the signs), which is the very definition of the style, makes it possible to reverse the fashion system completely and to demonstrate its arbitrary nature. This idea seems to me a very interesting program, one that would maybe convince Faust that designers can have a political impact.

-I also have some doubts regarding the semantic framework that Barthes is using: as all the structuralists he only knows Saussure semantics which is very poor (limited to the distinction signified/signifier). But this is another story…

*(or dressing i don't know how 'habillement' in this context is translated)

[Faust]

i'd like to stick with the point that Laika is making, and that also relates to the quote she brought up in another thread:



maybe we could start analyzing this topic by focusing on the relationship which merz brought up above.
on the one hand, there is the designer (the author). on the other hand, there is the wearer (the consumer, the reader, the interpreter).
now, if you think of an artist in fine arts or in literature, my stance is that the author in those fields is just the first reader, just the first interpreter of his/her own work, but not necessarily better in that. that's why biographical details from the poet's life don't (or shouldn't, in my view) play a role in interpreting their poems. (i'm aware that not everyone would agree with this, but i'm ready to defend this position if anyone finds it controversial and worth discussing).
now, in the context of pop culture, it seems that the author (say, a musician) isn't that detachable from their work. the way in which a song is performed, presented, the choice of the medium, of the label, of the interaction with the audience, the intention of the author play a role in the way how we perceive their work, and how we value it.

where does fashion designer stand here? how important is the intention of the designer in our interpretation of their work, or is the link between the clothes and their relevance for the (challenge directed at) zeitgeist rather in the relation between the wearer and the clothes, while the designer's intentions remain irrelevant for this?

There is a case to be made for both sides of that whole author matters/doesn't matter argument. As a matter of fact I taught texts from both sides of the argument in consecutive weeks at Parsons in order to totally confuse my students (in a good way, for the reason just stated).

I would go as far as to say the designer is the creator that obliterates all meaning and creates it anew. Take, for example, APC jeans on which Hedi Slimane modeled the Dior Homme jeans. They are no longer jeans, they are DH jeans - the meaning changes completely with many consequences (price being a big one ;-)). It's never a little black dress, it's an Alaia black dress, or not a tweed suit, it's a Chanel tweed suit. Garments can be of the same type, but the meaning is completely changed (the ethos, or, if you want to continue sticking with Barthes, as this thread has been, the mythology of the designer plays a major role in creating meaning).

It's the same story for the wearer. He can choose to care about the designer's narrative (as I do with Ann or Rick because we share some cultural references) or he can choose not to care about the designer's narrative (SZ says it's cool to wear Rick, so I buy Rick).

Further, I don't buy merz's claim that he is a wearer that does not care for the designer narrative in some form. If he did not, he wouldn't be doing research on them. I feel like the only people who don't buy designer's ethos in some shape or form are those who only care, in Poell's immortal words, about how their ass looks in the mirror.

[Faust]

-What is lacking in Barthes is mainly the analysis of the designer’s role in the fashion system. Which is kind of weird, since Barthes is well-known to have put an emphasis on the distinction between grammar and style in his works in Literature Theory. For fashion he seems to be interested only in grammar. And obviously the designers’ territory is a very singular one where a play on the very nature of the signifiers (material entities that support the signs), which is the very definition of the style, makes it possible to reverse the fashion system completely and to demonstrate its arbitrary nature. This idea seems to me a very interesting program, one that would maybe convince Faust that designers can have a political impact.

-I also have some doubts regarding the semantic framework that Barthes is using: as all the structuralists he only knows Saussure semantics which is very poor (limited to the distinction signified/signifier). But this is another story…

*(or dressing i don't know how 'habillement' in this context is translated)

I agree, which is why I don't buy laika's claim that Barthes was genuinely interested in fashion (as opposed to clothing). One could argue that maybe when he wrote the Fashion System designers were not superstars that they are today, but that's not an easy claim to make even in the 50s Paris with Dior, Balenciaga, Chanel, etc.

[shah]

this is not at all what i am saying. chemistry and alchemy are or could be in competition to account for the same sort of phenomena (composition, behavior of matter, let's say). the 'fields' i mentioned are arts or are close to arts. nevertheless, you should read feyerabend if you think history of science is the story of a progress from darkness to light

thanks for the rec, i will check this out. always great to find new things to read

[safeword123]

slightly off topic, but i recently read that back in the 50's, fashion press looked to Paris, i.e. Dior, to set the direction that fashion would take each season. so in a sense, Dior was dictating what the trend should be. now, it is sort of the other way around, where trend forecasting agencies are doing it.

[laika]

-Barthes’s analysis is really interesting in the following respects imo: a) it makes us able to distinguish more clearly between the various meanings of the word ‘fashion’. ‘Fashion’ in general (in the sense of ‘Zeitgeist’ or set of trends) can refer to the set of meanings that a group of humans attach to their garments at a certain period of time. ‘Fashion’ can also mean an industry, where the codes are dictated by a special set of people (editors or others in fashion literature… now maybe this literature is more tumblresque or hommedeguerresque). b) it distinguishes between fashion and clothing but there is still some space for interaction: as Barthes says, a clothing fact can become a fashion fact (when an individual silhouette becomes viral for instance) and conversely (when after having watched a Rick Owens runaway, someone buys the whole look and wear it).

-What is lacking in Barthes is mainly the analysis of the designer’s role in the fashion system. Which is kind of weird, since Barthes is well-known to have put an emphasis on the distinction between grammar and style in his works in Literature Theory. For fashion he seems to be interested only in grammar. And obviously the designers’ territory is a very singular one where a play on the very nature of the signifiers (material entities that support the signs), which is the very definition of the style, makes it possible to reverse the fashion system completely and to demonstrate its arbitrary nature. This idea seems to me a very interesting program, one that would maybe convince Faust that designers can have a political impact.

-I also have some doubts regarding the semantic framework that Barthes is using: as all the structuralists he only knows Saussure semantics which is very poor (limited to the distinction signified/signifier). But this is another story…

*(or dressing i don't know how 'habillement' in this context is translated)

I think the role of the designer simply falls outside Barthes' project. He finds himself unable to manage "actual" fashion (fashion as worn or photographed), so he confines himself to fashion as written. And I am not sure how you can fit "fashion as designed" into the "fashion as written" program. (Thinking about it now, wouldn't fashion-as-designed (conceived!), precede actual fashion? One would have to study sketches, patterns, samples, etc.) Also, as both I and Fuuma have said before, Barthes is pretty clear about the fact that the book privileges method over object. To consider the designer would doubtless require him to go beyond the binary/saussurian structuralism he is employing. Which, as you point out, he's unable to do at this time. (I can forgive him, since he gets over it later.)

That said, I absolutely agree that it would be a very interesting project...not only fashion as designed, but fashion as produced (which doesn't require a designer). And in this respect, the distinctions he makes between the various meanings of fashion are indeed very helpful, just as they are to this thread. (the lack of working definitions for fashion is making things a little hard to follow in here)

awesome post, incredibly useful. like cliff notes, but good.

rilu, i'll be back for you....

[BSR]

thanks laika!
thanks to Christian's expert knowledge on Barthes and saussurian semantics i've corrected a mistake as well.

[Faust]

that's an interesting point. but even when we say that the designer's name becomes inherent to the garment, the intentions of the designer may still be absent. she/he is present more as the creator as such, but the original context in which this piece appeared may be preserved or it may not, and that could depend on other, more social factors i suppose. so it seems the meaning is built somewhere in between these two poles: the designer and the wearer.

Can you give us an example?

I am also saying, of course, that it's not merely a designer's name that changes meaning. There is no discernible difference between Gucci jeans and Versace jeans, except for the label (we can grant that Dior Homme jeans in some instances had pronounced signature elements) - what changes is the status of the wearer, for example, or shifting of social norms (the acceptance of jeans in clubs, for example, was concurrent with creation of "premium" (Seven, Rag & Bone) and "designer" (Gucci, Versace, etc.) denim).

Come to think of it, elevation of streetwear like jeans and sneakers is a really rich subject for semiology.

[BSR]

do you think that there is any designer's intention behind Gucci jeans? or any designer at all? this is not an ironical question btw.

[Faust]

do you think that there is any designer's intention behind Gucci jeans? or any designer at all? this is not an ironical question btw.

I know you didn't, but it's

Rilu, I think in case of a Chanel jacket actually the designer's meaning (creating a status symbol) and that of his customer (consuming a status symbol) is perfectly aligned. There was a pretty decent academic essay on Chanel under Lagerfeld in a book called Fashion Zeitgeist by Barbara Vinken where she disparaged Lagerfeld by putting the Chanel logo on the outside, which Mme Chanel never would, thus giving more weight (meaning, for our purposes) to the name as status symbol.

[525252]

Thanks BSR for the write up on Barthes!

I think the role of the designer simply falls outside Barthes' project. He finds himself unable to manage "actual" fashion (fashion as worn or photographed), so he confines himself to fashion as written.

I do distinctly remember a chapter on photographed fashion and even for the fashion model. From memory, in the Fashion System he briefly covers "poetic clothing", its literally a paragraph long, and basically goes along the lines of "clothing has many qualities which allows its form to have expressive capacity however nobody makes use of it"

Even then, he's thinking of fashion as some kind of art, and the designer as a kind of artist, which evidently he doesn't really believe in. I assume this is because fashion is inherently interactive and the designer cannot control who wears what and how and where which somehow disqualifies their work as "art" or it is condemned to failure. Kind of like Rilu's example where Undercover's anti-capitalist slogans became co-opted by capitalists.

[Faust]

only they weren't co-opted. also, the artist doesn't control on whose wall his work hangs.

[525252]

only they weren't co-opted. also, the artist doesn't control on whose wall his work hangs.

The artist doesn't need to control it when the gallery environment is always a white wall. If the work is sold, it may sit in storage until resold for an inflated price and for all the artist knows, that is what he cannot control and that is the ultimate failure of art.