In this postmodern era we live in, is it possible to objectively define beauty in terms of fashion? Clothing has been historically thought of as a means to functionally prepare ourselves for daily life, bakers wore aprons and soldiers wore armor. Fashion was reserved for the aristocratic class who enjoyed pampering themselves with strange powder, exotic perfumes and ridiculous, pompous, frilly, clothing. As culture consolidates further and further as we move closer to modernity, we see more and more clothing worn by the average person, with the same intention as the aristocrat. Fashion became increasingly accessible, and more and more people have adopted niche ways of arraying their peacock feathers. Today a garment could be worn for any number of reasons by anyone. The “rules” have been eroded over time. So where does that leave us?
The postmodern condition has taken hold of fashion. The clothing worn by the new aristocracy is, perhaps just as ridiculous to the untrained eye as that of the old. People wear increasingly absurd garments which play with proportion, style and even technology in experimental ways. As the fashion cycle works and fashion trickles down to the average person we see these bizarre designs reach the average person (think fake “Yeezy” shoes on old ladies who just want a cheap comfortable shoe).
The question I pose in light of all these changes is: what is “beautiful” in fashion anymore? We exist in the age where jeans are purchased already distressed, essentially fundamentally broken, reducing function in pursuit of form. This would, if we attempt to use function as an objective qualitative metric of value, seem ridiculous. Yet, plenty of people wear clothes ranging from just ripped jeans to entirely shredded t-shirts. It seems that perhaps with the “average” job becoming zoom conference excel spreadsheet creator, we have some more room to play with functionality.
So if value is not derived necessarily from the function or quality of a garment what then is the aesthetic value in fashion that is pursued by many of us. This aesthetic value however, appears incredibly subjective. I will use as an example: the simple “Supreme box logo”. Essentially stolen by Supreme from Barbara Kruger’s art, the supreme box logo is not necessarily that aesthetically interesting, especially abstracted from the original context it was made in. Yet it became so sought after that the brand became an egregious parody of some its “anti consumerist” sentiments.
Where was the value derived? I believe it was essentially derived from an acceleration of the same impulse which drove the 18th century french aristocrat to drench his clothes in perfume, the acceleration of “fashion” drive. This process is accelerated for better or for worse by fashion reaching the common people. .Trends can last barely a month and become kitsch next month and then return to fashion for its kitsch the next month. The cogs which turn the fashion cycle have been ramped up into overdrive. Some trends, like the box logo, have dug so deep into our culture that they flow with this cycle rather than get forgotten by it. One month all you need is a simple white and red box logo tee, the next month you need a jacket which screams supreme at the observer 1,000s of times, the next month you can't be seen with an all-over print and it's back to the simple red and white.
The box logo’s aesthetic qualities essentially amount to not the appearance of the box logo but the fact alone that it is a box logo from Supreme. I’d like to introduce an especially interesting case which speaks to this fact, when Supreme switched manufacturers, K-mart received bulk shipments of authentic supreme t shirts, with tags and everything, but no printed logos or designs. Opportunist resellers saw this as the perfect opportunity to make some quick money. The idea was that you’d go to your local K-mart, stock up on blanks, and print the box logo on, and make a huge profit on your t shirt. This case is interesting because the fakes come closer to being the real thing. In fact they basically are. But if you told the average Supreme consumer he was wearing a screen printed K-mart t-shirt he’d scoff at you, it’d become worthless. So it seems then that some amount of value can be derived from the brand name, but it must authentically come from the brand.
As a final study in the aesthetics of fashion, and a final attempt to derive some sort of sense in the postmodern aesthetics of fashion, I’d like to explore the work of Demna Gvaslia. His work at Vetements and Balenciaga has absolutely exploded onto the fashion scene in the last 4-5 years. His work reflects a lot of the themes present in postmodern art. He applies the deconstructionist attitude of postmodern art to fashion in a way that really speaks to people. And justifiably so, I believe. He makes some very interesting, reflexive, critiques of what is beautiful in fashion. His spring summer 2020 collection at Vetement really speaks to this idea. Prominent fashion journalists and notable celebrities were crowded into a Mcdonald’s restaurant to watch unconventional models wearing such outfits as: a suspiciously red hat paired with what looks like Dilbert’s outfit, dress pants and sockless feet in flip flops. How did we reach this point? This collection shines a mirror on fashion and forces us to ask ourselves, why do we value what we wear? How do we know what we’re wearing is beautiful? Perhaps, the answer is simple that, in postmodernity there is no answer. Everything is both beautiful and not beautiful, it just takes the right influencer taking the right picture at the right time to garner the right amount of likes and anything could be fashionable.
No comments:
Post a Comment