One thing that I hear over and over again about the fashion industry (and perhaps this can also be generalized to society as a whole) is that it is constantly changing. But recently I've been contemplating things that seem not to die out. Whether that is the constant popularity of brands like Chanel, the overexposure of models like Kate Moss, the continuity of the military trend every season... It seems to me that perhaps fashion doesn't change as much as we give it credit for. Or maybe that is the wrong way of putting it: fashion DOES change, it is just a slow mover in comparison to other things (technology, perhaps). A better word for the differences we see biannually in the fashion world might be 'evolution'. Change certainly happens, but over a long period of time.
I know this is probably going to piss off a lot of people, but before you sentence me to burn at the stake, realize that they are simply casual observances.
We often regard industries of the fine arts as 'liberal'. You can make a film about whatever you want, and if Hollywood doesn't like it, you find someone who does, or just post it on the Internet. A book about a boy wizard might be considered a promotion of anti-Christianity, but there's likely somebody out there that thinks it's worth something, and there will always be an opportunity to capitalize on that. Your music video might infuriate the parents of kids watching MTV, but it's on there, so no doubt it's something people want to see.
The arts are an opportunity for the expression of all. There are no restrictions. If one country censors you, you can move to a different one where they doesn't and continue on your merry way. But this is a very basic level of analysis. It is sort of like Communism, if you will: great in theory, but once you set it out in the real world, you run into obstacles. As a matter of fact, the obstacle in both of these appears to be the human need for power.
In music, there are a few record companies that decide who they offer contracts and who they don't. The decide the styles of music they support, the artist images they want to promote, and the message that 'good' music should get across. For example, I often hear people complain about rap and hip hop music being ridiculously focused on violence and the objectification of women. They more often than not blame the artist (50 Cent, Lil Wayne, whatever) for this. With the rap and hip hop industries saturated with young black men, this fuels the absurd stereotype that "black guys are violent women haters", which is extremely unfortunate, unfair, and also completely unfounded. Who DOES deserve the blame? The (predominantly white) guys in the suits that say "Okay, so we can't have any of this 'looking for freedom' crap, that is sooooo 20 years ago..." and refuse to sign anybody who doesn't fit the stereotype they've promoted. Still with me?
In fashion, we have numerous situations. What is considered 'in style' is whatever is decided to be 'in style' by teams at major fashion publications, like Vogue magazine. If they don't promote a brand, it fails to gain exposure beyond the runway (if it even makes it that far), and let's be honest, the group that follows fashion weeks in March and September is significantly smaller than the group that does not.
One of the problems with this is that style is dictated by the same people, year after year. Anna Wintour has been chief at American Vogue for over twenty years, as has Franca Sozzani at Vogue's Italian counterpart. Beatrix Miller held court at British Vogue from 1965 to 1984, eventually recinding command to Wintour in 1985.
With designers, we see many of the same names putting out collections each season. Karl Lagerfeld has been in the industry since the age of 22. Calvin Klein has headed a fashion label since 1968. Georgio Armani opened his label in 1975, and it continues to be one of the world's biggest brands 35 years on.
This is not to say that there are not also younger talents that are emerging in fashion. Alexander Wang is only 26, Alexander McQueen was 40 when he tragically committed suicide earlier this year, and Stella McCartney turns 39 next week. But the thing with the fashion industry (and with many industries) is that once you make it big, you are apparently there to stay. Even though he is 76, people who are 16 still look to him for fashion advice. Anna Wintour is 60, and she continues to be the final verdict on wardrobes three times younger than her own.
There are many reasons why this is the way things work. One, you never get to start at the top. In order to gain skill and notoriety in any business, you need to work your way up. For some designers, that means going to fashion school; for others, it means taking an apprenticeship. Some get lucky breaks with reality television shows, or gain significant exposure when a celebrity wears their designs somewhere (Lady Gaga, for example, goes out of her way to showcase new and emerging talents, as well as more established names). Two, once you get success, you try to consolidate it by taking on apprentices of your own, trying to make your brand as well known as possible. If you're lucky, when you die the public will see fit to replace you with someone who is willing to continue the traditions of your brand, a la Chanel et Christian Dior.
But the fact still remains that much of the fashion-wearing public is wearing what is deemed appropriate by older generations. Twenty somethings trek through London and New York, Milan and Paris, wearing clothing approved by people in their 60s, designed by people in their 70s, and inspired by the vision of people who (if they were still alive) would be pushing 120.
I'm not saying that this is wrong. I'm not saying that it is right, either. It's just a fact is all. Certainly, fashion changes. It has evolved over time as designers die and new ones take their places, and high profile magazines change due to similar rotations. But the change is much slower than we make it out to be because there is a sense that if something is working, we shouldn't change it. That is a very smart move for people who want to stay in business. Yay for successful ad campaigns and high sales! But in the interest of progress for the sake of progress, the fashion industry could do with less conservatism and more of the liberalism that we tend to associate it with. Give more opportunities to younger designers and reporters and stylists and whatnot. They might not be as successful as the veterans, but it would definitely bring a new excitement to the fashion world, as well as making it much more accessible to the public.
Anyway, that's what I've been contemplating for the last couple days. The fresh contents of Gill Ford's critcal mind, not from concentrate. I hope I don't invalidate everything I've just said by indicating my enduring support for Karl Lagerfeld. How's that for hypocrisy?
Peace, love, and floating,
Gill Ford
I know this is probably going to piss off a lot of people, but before you sentence me to burn at the stake, realize that they are simply casual observances.
We often regard industries of the fine arts as 'liberal'. You can make a film about whatever you want, and if Hollywood doesn't like it, you find someone who does, or just post it on the Internet. A book about a boy wizard might be considered a promotion of anti-Christianity, but there's likely somebody out there that thinks it's worth something, and there will always be an opportunity to capitalize on that. Your music video might infuriate the parents of kids watching MTV, but it's on there, so no doubt it's something people want to see.
The arts are an opportunity for the expression of all. There are no restrictions. If one country censors you, you can move to a different one where they doesn't and continue on your merry way. But this is a very basic level of analysis. It is sort of like Communism, if you will: great in theory, but once you set it out in the real world, you run into obstacles. As a matter of fact, the obstacle in both of these appears to be the human need for power.
In music, there are a few record companies that decide who they offer contracts and who they don't. The decide the styles of music they support, the artist images they want to promote, and the message that 'good' music should get across. For example, I often hear people complain about rap and hip hop music being ridiculously focused on violence and the objectification of women. They more often than not blame the artist (50 Cent, Lil Wayne, whatever) for this. With the rap and hip hop industries saturated with young black men, this fuels the absurd stereotype that "black guys are violent women haters", which is extremely unfortunate, unfair, and also completely unfounded. Who DOES deserve the blame? The (predominantly white) guys in the suits that say "Okay, so we can't have any of this 'looking for freedom' crap, that is sooooo 20 years ago..." and refuse to sign anybody who doesn't fit the stereotype they've promoted. Still with me?
In fashion, we have numerous situations. What is considered 'in style' is whatever is decided to be 'in style' by teams at major fashion publications, like Vogue magazine. If they don't promote a brand, it fails to gain exposure beyond the runway (if it even makes it that far), and let's be honest, the group that follows fashion weeks in March and September is significantly smaller than the group that does not.
One of the problems with this is that style is dictated by the same people, year after year. Anna Wintour has been chief at American Vogue for over twenty years, as has Franca Sozzani at Vogue's Italian counterpart. Beatrix Miller held court at British Vogue from 1965 to 1984, eventually recinding command to Wintour in 1985.
With designers, we see many of the same names putting out collections each season. Karl Lagerfeld has been in the industry since the age of 22. Calvin Klein has headed a fashion label since 1968. Georgio Armani opened his label in 1975, and it continues to be one of the world's biggest brands 35 years on.
This is not to say that there are not also younger talents that are emerging in fashion. Alexander Wang is only 26, Alexander McQueen was 40 when he tragically committed suicide earlier this year, and Stella McCartney turns 39 next week. But the thing with the fashion industry (and with many industries) is that once you make it big, you are apparently there to stay. Even though he is 76, people who are 16 still look to him for fashion advice. Anna Wintour is 60, and she continues to be the final verdict on wardrobes three times younger than her own.
There are many reasons why this is the way things work. One, you never get to start at the top. In order to gain skill and notoriety in any business, you need to work your way up. For some designers, that means going to fashion school; for others, it means taking an apprenticeship. Some get lucky breaks with reality television shows, or gain significant exposure when a celebrity wears their designs somewhere (Lady Gaga, for example, goes out of her way to showcase new and emerging talents, as well as more established names). Two, once you get success, you try to consolidate it by taking on apprentices of your own, trying to make your brand as well known as possible. If you're lucky, when you die the public will see fit to replace you with someone who is willing to continue the traditions of your brand, a la Chanel et Christian Dior.
But the fact still remains that much of the fashion-wearing public is wearing what is deemed appropriate by older generations. Twenty somethings trek through London and New York, Milan and Paris, wearing clothing approved by people in their 60s, designed by people in their 70s, and inspired by the vision of people who (if they were still alive) would be pushing 120.
I'm not saying that this is wrong. I'm not saying that it is right, either. It's just a fact is all. Certainly, fashion changes. It has evolved over time as designers die and new ones take their places, and high profile magazines change due to similar rotations. But the change is much slower than we make it out to be because there is a sense that if something is working, we shouldn't change it. That is a very smart move for people who want to stay in business. Yay for successful ad campaigns and high sales! But in the interest of progress for the sake of progress, the fashion industry could do with less conservatism and more of the liberalism that we tend to associate it with. Give more opportunities to younger designers and reporters and stylists and whatnot. They might not be as successful as the veterans, but it would definitely bring a new excitement to the fashion world, as well as making it much more accessible to the public.
Anyway, that's what I've been contemplating for the last couple days. The fresh contents of Gill Ford's critcal mind, not from concentrate. I hope I don't invalidate everything I've just said by indicating my enduring support for Karl Lagerfeld. How's that for hypocrisy?
Peace, love, and floating,
Gill Ford
No comments:
Post a Comment