Related News
Lament for pure Fashion
January 23, 2011, Sunday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
FASHION has never been more popular but appreciation for pure, elitist Fashion is dying in our times of celebrity obsession and fast fashion for the proletariat. Bridget Foley laments.
Fashion with a capital F. The kind produced by the masters of the genre, and that used to be celebrated for its artistry, its provocation, its trickle-down influence, the dreams it inspired - has that kind of Fashion joined the ranks of the bighorn sheep and the West Indian manatee? Which is to say, is it endangered?
On one level, fashion has never been of greater interest than it is today. The general population is more aware than ever of fashion as a factor in everyday life, in terms of entertainment if not always in the personal sartorial sense. The web provides instant access to all: live-streamed collections, the minutia of magazine staff moves, endless photos of any starlet in a cocktail dress. And all this while blogs and Twitter provide platforms for a culture of self-proclaimed critical experts.
It's hard to argue against such mass participation. But in fashion as in politics, populism isn't perfect, and it can make icons of people or trends that, based on merit, may not deserve hallowed status. Not only has current fashion enslaved itself to celebrity, but in the rush to court favor, anyone who swings slightly more elegant than Snooki from "The Jersey Shore" is deemed worthy of celebration. When was the last time a fashion-centric publication or website was tough on a celebrity? Implicit in the cover wrangling is a pleasant, upbeat story to justify the pictures.
Designers are complicit, a notion that will gain credence through the upcoming awards season. Almost surely the actresses garnering the greatest praise in the morning-after critiques will be those whose gowns were least challenging and most generic, as designers will again prove willing to do what it takes to land their stars, whether or not a specific dress genuinely reflects the brand. True, even the most gorgeous celebrities are real women who want to look beautiful for big nights out. It is not their responsibility to push experimental fashion on the global television audience. But if the threat of mean-spirited criticism loomed a little less large, some of them might opt for frocks a little less boring.
Another element to fashion's increasingly democratic persuasion is the ever-swelling obsession with high-low. Some designers render accessible fashion beautifully. Marc by Marc Jacobs may be the smartest secondary brand ever launched, given its great clothes and a cool factor that can be had - in the form of all kinds of trinkets - for less than US$5. Recently, the blockbuster collaboration between Lanvin's Alber Elbaz and H&M had ample shades of, well, Lanvin. So much so that in a December cover line, Vogue heralded, "The Perfect Party Dress (for under US$250!)."
This is fabulous for the girl who wants an inexpensive pretty party dress that looks like a much more expensive pretty party dress, and hats off to Elbaz and others for delivering genuine chic on the cheap. Certainly each case taken on its own feels like a meaningful stylistic victory for the nonrich. Yet what is the aggregate good for (uppercase) Fashion? In the zeal to court and clad the proletariat, is it no longer of interest to celebrate the levels of research, design, intricacy, detail and materials that go into high-end fashion? Last time we checked, Fashion was not a social services agency, but a for-profit, multibillion-dollar global industry that preys on insecurities about physical appearance. Elitism is an essential part of that.
It should fall to the fashion press, both consumer and trade, to fully report on and dissect high-end fashion, both experimental and otherwise. But too often, even the toniest fashion is presented in either a clinical manner or one which is mere foil for its celebrity subject.
Though lip service is given to the importance of the great designers, in reality, serious focus on their work, their craft, has been diminishing for years.
This is not to suggest that the millions of people who shop at non-designer price points don't want and deserve excellent design; that designers in those markets are not often extremely talented; that design innovation only happens at the high end, or that acknowledging or enjoying celebrity fashion escapades is a black mark on one's sartorial soul.
But in the fray, appreciation for pure, elitist Fashion is getting lost. On pre-fall alone, why did the usually single-focused Nicolas Ghesquiere do so eclectic a collection? Do the gorgeously high-glam lineups at Louis Vuitton and Lanvin presage dressed-up days for fall? Do Phoebe Philo's patchwork pants for Celine indicate a move away from her signature minimalism? Looking ahead to the end of the month, what wonders might the couturier set have in store?
If, like the proverbial tree falling in the forest, Karl Lagerfeld or John Galliano were to show a seminal couture collection - but most people were too wrapped up in the front-row celebrities to care - would it make a sound that lingers?
Fashion with a capital F. The kind produced by the masters of the genre, and that used to be celebrated for its artistry, its provocation, its trickle-down influence, the dreams it inspired - has that kind of Fashion joined the ranks of the bighorn sheep and the West Indian manatee? Which is to say, is it endangered?
On one level, fashion has never been of greater interest than it is today. The general population is more aware than ever of fashion as a factor in everyday life, in terms of entertainment if not always in the personal sartorial sense. The web provides instant access to all: live-streamed collections, the minutia of magazine staff moves, endless photos of any starlet in a cocktail dress. And all this while blogs and Twitter provide platforms for a culture of self-proclaimed critical experts.
It's hard to argue against such mass participation. But in fashion as in politics, populism isn't perfect, and it can make icons of people or trends that, based on merit, may not deserve hallowed status. Not only has current fashion enslaved itself to celebrity, but in the rush to court favor, anyone who swings slightly more elegant than Snooki from "The Jersey Shore" is deemed worthy of celebration. When was the last time a fashion-centric publication or website was tough on a celebrity? Implicit in the cover wrangling is a pleasant, upbeat story to justify the pictures.
Designers are complicit, a notion that will gain credence through the upcoming awards season. Almost surely the actresses garnering the greatest praise in the morning-after critiques will be those whose gowns were least challenging and most generic, as designers will again prove willing to do what it takes to land their stars, whether or not a specific dress genuinely reflects the brand. True, even the most gorgeous celebrities are real women who want to look beautiful for big nights out. It is not their responsibility to push experimental fashion on the global television audience. But if the threat of mean-spirited criticism loomed a little less large, some of them might opt for frocks a little less boring.
Another element to fashion's increasingly democratic persuasion is the ever-swelling obsession with high-low. Some designers render accessible fashion beautifully. Marc by Marc Jacobs may be the smartest secondary brand ever launched, given its great clothes and a cool factor that can be had - in the form of all kinds of trinkets - for less than US$5. Recently, the blockbuster collaboration between Lanvin's Alber Elbaz and H&M had ample shades of, well, Lanvin. So much so that in a December cover line, Vogue heralded, "The Perfect Party Dress (for under US$250!)."
This is fabulous for the girl who wants an inexpensive pretty party dress that looks like a much more expensive pretty party dress, and hats off to Elbaz and others for delivering genuine chic on the cheap. Certainly each case taken on its own feels like a meaningful stylistic victory for the nonrich. Yet what is the aggregate good for (uppercase) Fashion? In the zeal to court and clad the proletariat, is it no longer of interest to celebrate the levels of research, design, intricacy, detail and materials that go into high-end fashion? Last time we checked, Fashion was not a social services agency, but a for-profit, multibillion-dollar global industry that preys on insecurities about physical appearance. Elitism is an essential part of that.
It should fall to the fashion press, both consumer and trade, to fully report on and dissect high-end fashion, both experimental and otherwise. But too often, even the toniest fashion is presented in either a clinical manner or one which is mere foil for its celebrity subject.
Though lip service is given to the importance of the great designers, in reality, serious focus on their work, their craft, has been diminishing for years.
This is not to suggest that the millions of people who shop at non-designer price points don't want and deserve excellent design; that designers in those markets are not often extremely talented; that design innovation only happens at the high end, or that acknowledging or enjoying celebrity fashion escapades is a black mark on one's sartorial soul.
But in the fray, appreciation for pure, elitist Fashion is getting lost. On pre-fall alone, why did the usually single-focused Nicolas Ghesquiere do so eclectic a collection? Do the gorgeously high-glam lineups at Louis Vuitton and Lanvin presage dressed-up days for fall? Do Phoebe Philo's patchwork pants for Celine indicate a move away from her signature minimalism? Looking ahead to the end of the month, what wonders might the couturier set have in store?
If, like the proverbial tree falling in the forest, Karl Lagerfeld or John Galliano were to show a seminal couture collection - but most people were too wrapped up in the front-row celebrities to care - would it make a sound that lingers?
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
