Is the fashion world inherently shallow?

[darylkronenberg]

Fashion has not given me much insight that can be compared to this, but I think that is because fashion is not trying to make people think all the time... There are exceptions. Like, a lot of designers make clothes for men that have traditionally "feminine" traits, like bare shoulders ("decolletage") etc. And I have seen these designs mocked by the mainstream (and me at times...). This has made me more aware of the still rigid gender roles we still have in our society, which prides itself of "freedom" and "equality".

You know, you are right, I didn't think of gender bending and what fashion can bring to it. Maybe because it's visual and has all the freedom of generating ideas without the worry of the seriousness (as you point out later), it can contribute to blurring the gender lines. I think of Pejic (before he changed into Andrea), and of the designers and photographers who worked with him, I think they brought something new or different, and they made you react (without bordering on the vulgar, imo), and this is deep enough (for me at least) to pause and ask myself a quesiton or two.

I think in general, arts such as litterature, paintinges, sculpture etc. are considered more "arty" than fashion, because it is appreciated by an elite. There is this idea that you need to be educated and "deep" to understand art, and that if everyone can appreciate it, then it is not "good art". Example, everyone (evern poor, uneducated people) can appreciate "pretty" stuff. "Pretty" is not considered very "arty". "Anyone" can appreciate something pretty, which makes it "common"... Fashion is therefore not very "deep".

(Maybe this is why Karl makes such ugly stuff for chanel. He wants it to be "art")

rofl at Karl... It's so sad what he's doing recently...

You make a point of course. Fashion is too easy to be considered arty.

But I also think that fashion once its out of the runways becomes easily metamorphosed in the hands of normal people who can mix and match, and repackage it and I suppose those art purists outright reject that! But then, if you ask all the great writers, they tell you that they lose control over their own books once they are published; it's up to the minds (and senses) of normal readers who will make of the writers' works whatever they want (even if it goes against the intention of the writer)...
To me these are all things which allow fashion to be equated with the great, classical arts (even if not on the same level, but her presence is there)

 

[eizhowa]

You make a point of course. Fashion is too easy to be considered arty.

Hehe, well, I actually dislike this "snobbish" attitude to art, personally. I feel like it alienates people from appreciating the arts. Nobody likes feeling stupid for not getting "the point" of Damien Hirsts chopped up cows.

I just realized that Damien Hursts use of skulls in his art can be compared to Alexander Mcqueens skull printed scarves... It can in my head at least.

So I guess the answer to whether fashion is shallow or not is: "It depends on the fashion in question"

 

[fashionista-ta]

I would just like to point out 'fashion world' in the title of this thread

 

[eizhowa]

^ ...The answer to whether the fashion world is shallow is "it depends on the part of the fashion world in question". How about that?

The fashion world is a big place.

 

[darylkronenberg]

I would just like to point out 'fashion world' in the title of this thread

Right.

Suppose you woke up today feeling too girly, you look at your tools: your wardrobe, your accessories, you decide to wear a pink jacket over a white chemise, pink skirt, shoes of some kind and you hit the streets. You don't go unnoticed; people look at you, many are indifferent, some like your style, some don't, one person compliments you. But there's an implicit interaction in all of this which your fashion choice started.

Another day, you're not at your top, you put on some grey long, shapeless robe and you hit the same streets, but you go unnoticed, you fit in perfectly among the crowd, no interaction occurred.

Yet, you invented yourself, and on a third day, when you're feeling more confident and satisfied, you put a sexy outfit and you go out again, and again you reinvent yourself.

You used your fashion accessories and clothes to project another image of yourself (granted you're the same person) but the impression people have of you is different. According to the Nouveaux Romanciers and the Nouveaux Cinematographes, what you did right there reinventing yourself at every occasion through objects is the definition of contemporary art, where nothing is fixed, and the world is re-created, by our conscious actions and wills.

Is this shallow? No, it's not shallow. You employed items of the fashion world to create a different impression of yourself. That's not shallow.

Whether it's real-life fashion or conceptual fashion creation, I cannot imagine that fashion is shallow.

 

[cultofcloth]

Hadley Freeman once wrote an excellent article where she said that an interest in fashion is often looked down on due to sexism. Fashion is often associated with the feminine, and therefore it is seen as more frivolous to drop big money on a coat than a football season ticket (article: http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/...e-football-prada-premier-league-season-ticket).

The fashion industry is strongly commercial and relies on peddling materialism as a desirable quality. That is undoubtedly quite shallow, as is mindless consumerism.

However, the clothes and ideas and concepts that the fashion industry support go further. I feel it is is ignorant for people to dismiss fashion as inherently frivolous, because it has such enormous cultural and social value. We have used clothing to communicate status, politics and everything else besides for time immaterial. Mods vs rockers, punks, flappers... they all stood for something and they are all given context by the clothes they wore.

A more everyday example is my 'boss shoes'. I spent a decent amount of money on a pair of masculine black brogues to wear to work. They look well made and authoritative. At one point in my career I found myself having to attend high level meetings in a field I was under-qualified in. I was always the youngest in the room and usually the only female, but I felt that wearing these shoes sent a subtle signal. They made me feel that I looked the part, which helped me to act the part in turn.

The clothes we wear are important. Sometimes they can have transformative qualities that are near magical (a prom or wedding dress, your first designer handbag). The fashion industry is the biggest producer of the clothes we wear. It's complicated.

 

[eizhowa]

Hadley Freeman once wrote an excellent article where she said that an interest in fashion is often looked down on due to sexism. Fashion is often associated with the feminine, and therefore it is seen as more frivolous to drop big money on a coat than a football season ticket (article: http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/...e-football-prada-premier-league-season-ticket).

Interesting article. Somebody mentioned this to me before, but I have not read the article itself.

A more everyday example is my 'boss shoes'. I spent a decent amount of money on a pair of masculine black brogues to wear to work. They look well made and authoritative. At one point in my career I found myself having to attend high level meetings in a field I was under-qualified in. I was always the youngest in the room and usually the only female, but I felt that wearing these shoes sent a subtle signal. They made me feel that I looked the part, which helped me to act the part in turn.

I feel that certain people who value hard work highly might find this "deceitful". You are not your shoes, and your shoes should not be your "qualification". However, I do think this is how it works in many cases. Cue anger and prejudice...

(I also think it is interesting that your "boss shoes" are "masculine")

 

[cultofcloth]

I should probably clarify that I ended up attending these meetings through circumstance. My manager left, the company took their time replacing her and because it was small company with few employees there was a big jump in skills between myself and my former manager. The head of the company asked me to attend the meetings until a suitable replacement was found.

You're correct though, the 'fake it 'til you make it' mentality may be considered deceitful, although I don't think that has to be a bad thing. We all like to believe that we won't be judged harshly on the way we look, but people form impressions without even directly thinking about it. I've certainly used clothing and accessories to fit in with my surroundings when I've thought it might be beneficial.

Good catch on the 'masculinity' of my boss shoes - I'm going to have to think about that!

 

[eizhowa]

Oh don't get me wrong, it was not a personal attack in any way! I probably should have mentioned that in my previous post

 

[fashionista-ta]

I should probably clarify that I ended up attending these meetings through circumstance. My manager left, the company took their time replacing her and because it was small company with few employees there was a big jump in skills between myself and my former manager. The head of the company asked me to attend the meetings until a suitable replacement was found.

You're correct though, the 'fake it 'til you make it' mentality may be considered deceitful, although I don't think that has to be a bad thing. We all like to believe that we won't be judged harshly on the way we look, but people form impressions without even directly thinking about it. I've certainly used clothing and accessories to fit in with my surroundings when I've thought it might be beneficial.

Good catch on the 'masculinity' of my boss shoes - I'm going to have to think about that!

I feel more powerful in heels ... they make me taller (they would do that ...), and strangely, they have a yang vibe to them (assuming you can walk properly). But I do like to wear trousers to work. When I was younger, I bought what I wanted and wore it to work, whatever it was. But as I get older, that has changed. I make an effort to wear higher necklines as well. I want to be taken seriously, and that has become the most important thing. There are other places I can wear the other things.

The world has changed dramatically in my lifetime, but my view is that I might as well accept the reality of how things are right now. I feel that dressing as I do has the end result of making my life easier.

As far as the topic of this thread ... it was meant to be about the fashion world itself, meaning the industry and the people who professionally deliver fashion to the rest of us--designers, muses, models, editors, professional bloggers, etc.

 

[eizhowa]

Okay, trying to get back to the original question... I am not sure I understand it though. (It is a recurring theme in my life that I don't know how to answer questions because I don't understand what the person asking means by it I am really bad at questionaires, and end up just scribbeling a bunch of stuff in the margins because I don't think there is ONE correct answer)

Are you asking if the people who work in fashion are shallow? If their work is shallow? Something else? Obviously, in order to determine whether a person in fashion is shallow, you would evaluate that specific person, so there are no definite answers to this question. If I were to answer whether their work is shallow, I would need to evaluate each persons work. This would become a question about whether or not their work can be called "art".

The quote from Lucie de la Falaises book - If the dress was just a dress, not "art", caring more about it than the bleading person would make you "shallow", but I think people are more acception of people valuing "art" above all else...

I think people use fur, sigarettes and Terry Richardson because they are selling a image. The image makes them money(...money, money!). I don't think there is any "depth" to this.

 

[darylkronenberg]

As far as the topic of this thread ... it was meant to be about the fashion world itself, meaning the industry and the people who professionally deliver fashion to the rest of us--designers, muses, models, editors, professional bloggers, etc.

I think there is too much thinking and creation in this industry for it to be called shallow. If you single out one element and consider it in and of itself, it might reflect some shallowness, just like if you isolate a sound recorder (or sound recording) from the movie-making process, you might wonder about its intrinsic value.

But fashion, like movies, is a collective form of creation, and so, it should be taken as a whole, and therefore it is not shallow.

Now how you see yourself in relation to fashion is another matter.

If those heels make you feel powerful at work, and so you "put on" a certain role that comforts you. Is this shallow? On the surface of it, yes it is, but if you think about it, then what would you call bringing forth your smooth talking to moderate a meeting and get results? It's a skill that you use effectively at work. Fashion styling that you use to set a certain tone/image and that, as a result, allows you to get results at work is a similar skill.
Skills are not shallow.

 

[fashionista-ta]

Okay, trying to get back to the original question... I am not sure I understand it though. (It is a recurring theme in my life that I don't know how to answer questions because I don't understand what the person asking means by it I am really bad at questionaires, and end up just scribbeling a bunch of stuff in the margins because I don't think there is ONE correct answer)

Are you asking if the people who work in fashion are shallow? If their work is shallow? Something else? Obviously, in order to determine whether a person in fashion is shallow, you would evaluate that specific person, so there are no definite answers to this question. If I were to answer whether their work is shallow, I would need to evaluate each persons work. This would become a question about whether or not their work can be called "art".

The quote from Lucie de la Falaises book - If the dress was just a dress, not "art", caring more about it than the bleading person would make you "shallow", but I think people are more acception of people valuing "art" above all else...

I think people use fur, sigarettes and Terry Richardson because they are selling a image. The image makes them money(...money, money!). I don't think there is any "depth" to this.

I think you're right that it's a matter of valuing the 'art'--or creativity or genius or whatever--above everything else.

Another way to put this would be, Does the fashion world have twisted values?

To make the example of what's more important a little clearer, let's say a fashion museum with really important archives was burning ... with a bunch of people inside. And let's say they're not fashion people ... on the face of it anyway, no creative geniuses present. Based on what I've seen and heard, I suspect there are a significant number of 'fashion people' who would rather the archives be saved first, then the schlumpadinkas.

As far as cigarettes, the example I cited wasn't selling anything. It seemed to be simply great admiration for the supposed glamour of smoking. So, glamour is more important than your own life, and it's more important than poisoning others too (second- and third-hand smoke).

You'll see it argued (plenty of examples both here and elsewhere) that anything should be forgiven a creative genius (and this isn't limited to fashion, you see it in film, music, and sports as well). Really, they say, nothing else matters but that this person be allowed to exercise his (and honestly, I can't think of an example right now where this argument wasn't being made for a man) genius.

Not long ago my brother mentioned that he'd watched a documentary about Alfred Hitchcock, and after learning how he treated his female stars, found himself no longer able to enjoy the movies. That's what I'm talking about.

 

[eizhowa]

That question makes much more sense to me

I think fashion promotes a lot of twisted values (and not all of them can be discussed here).

What I meant about the smoking is that (part of) the fashion world still promotes (indirectly) that smoking is cool and glamorous. (Fortunately for the fashion world, you can't "smell" photographs.) I think a lot of people think that wearing fur, smoking and loving Terry Richardsons "artistic expression" makes you part of the cool group in fashion somehow.

Regarding the burning building example: Do you think that your favourite designers/fashion figures would save the achive before the people? I am guessing no

I think most sane people would prioritize people above stuff (even if it is "art"). I also think some people use fashion as an excuse and think that being an "individual" and "eccentric" to some extent mean that you should have values that differ from the norm... or use it as an excuse to cultivate twisted values...

I do think there is a limit to how much will be accepted, but it is possible nobody has crossed it yet. From what I remember, Terry Richardson has not acctualy been prosecuted for anything. Until that happens, nobody can really know if what we read and hear is just gossip or not... Gossip is easy to ignore

 

[Serenity Soul]

In my view, the shallowness in fashion lies in the close-mindedness in there only being one body type (tall, slender, small-boned) that is considered desirable and aesthetically preferable. I guess in my own little rose-colored world fashion models would be various heights and shapes. I have always struggled to understand why that has never been the case since women who are actually buying the clothes have many different types of bodies. Why can't the industry reflect that? I realize there have been exceptions to that rule but they are rare.

I get the idea of the fashion industry creating a “fantasy”, but why can’t you do that with women of all shapes, sizes and colors?

 

[fashionista-ta]

That question makes much more sense to me

I think fashion promotes a lot of twisted values (and not all of them can be discussed here).

What I meant about the smoking is that (part of) the fashion world still promotes (indirectly) that smoking is cool and glamorous. (Fortunately for the fashion world, you can't "smell" photographs.) I think a lot of people think that wearing fur, smoking and loving Terry Richardsons "artistic expression" makes you part of the cool group in fashion somehow.

Regarding the burning building example: Do you think that your favourite designers/fashion figures would save the achive before the people? I am guessing no

I think most sane people would prioritize people above stuff (even if it is "art"). I also think some people use fashion as an excuse and think that being an "individual" and "eccentric" to some extent mean that you should have values that differ from the norm... or use it as an excuse to cultivate twisted values...

I do think there is a limit to how much will be accepted, but it is possible nobody has crossed it yet. From what I remember, Terry Richardson has not acctualy been prosecuted for anything. Until that happens, nobody can really know if what we read and hear is just gossip or not... Gossip is easy to ignore

Yes, you are correct


Terry Richardson seems to take measures to ensure that what he does isn't prosecutable. Unfortunately the fashion industry almost uniquely creates a situation where young girls are vulnerable and unprotected. It continues to amaze me that the many powerful women in the fashion world allow this. (It does appear that Terry Richardson's formerly voluminous work for US Bazaar is tapering off ... at least that is my observation of what's going on in the magazine.) I have no doubt that karma will bite him back, but it sometimes moves a little slowly for my taste.


And I agree, Serenity ... a more diverse fantasy seems like a more interesting fantasy, no?

 

[squilliam]

I get the idea of the fashion industry creating a “fantasy”, but why can’t you do that with women of all shapes, sizes and colors?

Because then it wouldn't be much of a fantasy. The less realistic it is the more of a fantasy it is. The idea behind ads is that it's a fantasy that you want, and if you buy that product you can supposedly achieve that fantasy. How well this works I'm not so sure though

 

[fashionista-ta]

I don't believe for a second that fantasy is incompatible with a variety of shapes, sizes, and colors--you can see it happening at any art museum.

 

[squilliam]

I don't believe for a second that fantasy is incompatible with a variety of shapes, sizes, and colors--you can see it happening at any art museum.

designers and advertisers don't seem to see that, or they're too afraid to try something different. Fashion now is more of a business than ever, few are willing to experiment for fear it would hurt profits.

 

[squilliam]

I like art, and to me fashion i s art I can wear and make myself a piece of art. Humans like to decorate themselves, some more than others. I would love to be in some wild Galliano gown and have Victoria's Secret wings and crazy Pat McGrath make up. I would feel magical and like a piece of art. Especially since these things would all be created by a skilled human hand, it's celebrating the abilities of the human mind and human skill, no animal or robot can do something like this (not with as much passion). Not all fashion is like that though, McQueen and Galliano and Westwood can be considered artists. some make statements (didn't McQueen make a collection targeting subjugation of women in countries like Saudi Arabia once?). But some designers just make nice clothes for people to wear. It's the business aspect and this focus on outer beauty and youth and prestige and materialism that makes fashion shallow. I think it started in the 70s and kept getting worse. Before that it didn't seem as shallow because there were more inovators and free thinkers who pushed boundaries to make statements, not to be cool. Now everyone is doing stuff just to be cool and make money and be liked. The designers copy each other and have no new ideas, and everyone just praises whomever is popular at the moment because that's the cool thing to do.