Thursday, February 25, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
European designers Bless, deconstruct sunglasses
Comme de Garcons, 2006, the design combines two opposing aesthetics giving both a presence but denying either totality. Both garments are deconstructed from their original forms and are in play with one another.
Karl Lagerfeld, Dries Van Noten, and Hussein Chalayan, F 2009Le Destroy: Gill states that “deconstruction fashion” is an attempt to associate fashion with deconstruction in four different interpretations of “le destroy”: Anti fashion, recession, zeitgeist, eco-fashion and theoretical dress. Gill looks at these different ideas through the designs of Margiela.
Anti Fashion: Influences taken from the “street” by designers like Westwood, Gaultier, Versace, Galliano and Hamnet. Inspired by counter culture’s ability to uncover taboo sexual and political ideas, fudge gender roles and explicit nudity. Anti fashion goes against the basic purpose of clothing: functionality. It renders clothes unusable, distasteful and aged. However, it might not be “deconstructive” because of it’s direct, playful dialogue with fashion, it refuses a negative critique.
Zeitgeist: (spirit of the times). This interpretation associates decaying clothing as a response to the decaying economic, political, aesthetic and environmental crises as a mirror image of the social stress and degradation around us. Patching is said to allude to the ensuing disaster where all resources will be depleted. Could be seen as an aesthetic crisis in response to formalism. However, this interpretation seems to depend too much on history without including other influences. It images an undisputed bond between cause and effect.
Eco-Fashion: Presents the image of recyclability- literally making recycling fashionable. Could also represent the fallibility of mass/machine-produced clothing by leaving gaping holes and shreds. However, since the production of these items is not based in preservation or recycling, this argument holds little weight.
Theoretical Dress: stems from writings of Derrida who defined deconstructional analysis as “a literary backlash arguing that no work can have a fixed meaning, based on the complexity of language and usage. Liberating application of theory” Argues that by undoing the garment, it is liberated of functionality and thrown totally into the realm of aesthetics. However, this theory is debunked because clothes are not liberated from functionality because they still serve the purpose to hide nudity, also disregarded because it mixes a heavy philosophy with a light subject.
Philosopher Jaques Derrida had troubles reconciling the word “deconstructionism” with a set definition. He said that the definition of anything claims a universal truth that cannot be validated. This questioned the formation of western society by claiming that reason is uncertain.
Tries to undefine deconstructionism saying that it is not a explainable thing, but rather an event that “goes on”
Gill concludes that deconstructed fashion is not physical representation of philosophy , but the dialogue between the two gives us a new way to interpret fashion. She argues that Margiela’s intent with his line is to return focus to the object. Margiela has created the idealized form of fashion by the production of a garment that illuminates the forms of construction
Read more on this article and deconstruction and fashion here.
The concept of deconstruction, as a philosophy, emerged primarily with the publication of Jacques Derrida’s Of Grammatology in 1967. In this work he poses the question, “must not structure have a genesis, and must not the origin, the point of genesis, be already structured, in order to be the genesis of something?”. Thus, Derrida was active in “deconstructing” the world around him, through studying systems structures and finding their origins. Focusing upon language, the structure of philosophy, he believes that words and underlying connotations are constraining to describing things as they really are. These constraints are developed through historical developments of regions and cannot easily be disassociated with the things we wish to describe.
Derrida is often misunderstood for destroying meaning but deconstruction instead exposes the instability of meaning and the play of form which is why it was important for fashion and the visual arts. Therefore deconstruction does not leave you with nothing but rather you expose the basis of value and continue with the process.
A philosopher named Gadamer compared language to the game of tennis but in deconstruction meaning is released from structures and hegemonies. In this sense deconstruction seeks language to be more like playing with a beach ball, free without guidelines.
McQuillan explains, that “deconstruction, if it teaches anything, reminds us that we should not assume that the way we perceive the world is the same as the way the world actually is” (McQuillan, pg.11). Derrida considers the foundations of philosophy, mainly the works of Plato and Aristotle, to be “logocentric” where our thoughts are bound by the words that society choses to use. These words were then outlined to possess different weight within our minds, developing an inequality amongst words and thus within our comprehension of things.
Derrida believes a system of “binary opposites” arises from this, such as “rational and irrational”, and only through deconstruction can these opposites be realized and then exposed as their true nature. He emphasizes that different binary opposites arise in different regions of the world and thus they are not accurately describing things. The conflict to deconstruction is that by dissecting terms, other binary opposites are bound to arise.
There are some basic expressions which appear to be part of the human experience such as "yes" and "no" and "mother" and "father" which even un-literate infants communicate in all cultures. Language however becomes increasingly structured and layered and what we take for opposites are normally constructed such as the idea of "formal" versus "casual" clothing. But many of the conventions and rules of fashion are in the process of being transformed and driven by postmodern subjectivity.
Some examples of fashion & deconstruction can be seen here:
Martin Margiela Upcycling
Monday, February 22, 2010
In Cathy Horyn’s online article, “Galliano Plays His Hand Smartly” Horyn approaches Galliano in an esteemed commendable tone. From commenting his personal fashion outfits to his brilliant talent exhibited in his collections, Horyn bounces off each compliment off another waterfall of accolades. “He is one of the few designers working today who actually knows how to cut cloth (Horyn).” Horyn here puts Galliano on a pedestal as compared to the rest of the fashion world, personally giving him credit for his original techniques, which were blasted to an “industrial scale."
Dior S 2008
Galliano Spring 2008
The photo above shows a YSL design for Dior, taken by Avedon
Yves Saint Laurent was not just an advocate for women, but a visionary and an achiever to say the least. “Saint Laurent ‘wanted a woman to reconcile the two fundamental requirements that always guided his personal life: freedom and elegance,' Bernard Arnault, chairman of Christian Dior SA, said today in a statement (Forden).“ Saint Laurent was probably best known for inventing the woman tuxedo, known as “Le Smoking,” which he first introduced in 1966.
``His humility was the mark of his genius.'' While, Yves Saint Laurent created class pieces of clothing, he was not afraid to step out of the box. Forden pinpoints how every time Saint Laurent was impeded by a hindrance, he still bounced back and made a comeback in the fashion community. No designer, company, or critic hindered him from delivering his outlooks on fashion. Not only did Yves Saint Laurent create a new concept of fashion, but he expanded his business with perfume licenses, and even opening men’s wear. Yves Saint Laurent elevated haute couture and the fashion world to the next altitude.