The new sobriety: Covering up the body

[Ruby_slippers]

I think Muiccia's thoughts seem to be the most true... fashion changes over time. Fashion is modified by designers, but mostly by the women (and men) who purchase the clothing, thereby driving the market. Modesty in America today (from what I see) stems from not wanting to look like a celebrity or wh*re. This article implies that the new "sobriety" stems from religion. The US is getting more conservative, but I don't think this is necessarily true for the rest of the world. I'm also a little bothered by some of the designer's comments on covering women up... It can be sexy, but to say it is the future neglects the needs of women. Long, trailing robes are just as challenging to walk in as miniskirts.
The backlash against showing too much skin began a few years ago... so this article seems very outdated. There are always modest clothes in the F/W collections - who would want to walk around in shorts in the middle of winter?

 

[Bidwell]

I don't believe the article was stating western women in burkas is the future.
Of course fashion changes but the wind generally comes from a socio point of view.
I see no dignity or mystery in celebrity Hollywood fashion and those sexed up Dior hoochies or Paris Hilton. But enough of that.
I think it more a thread of thought with the more intellectual approach designers some of whom (like Prada) were purveyors of prim and ladylike.
Even Marc Jacobs stated being slightly interested in Eastern women's garb, if only for the layering aspect superficial as it may seem. Point being, the inspiration had to come from somewhere.

 

[nqth]

I remember Chanel covered supermodels' eyes once and it was said that Linda and co. had to count steps not to fall out of the runway:-)

The covering faces could as well come from the mens' hoodies, don't you think?

I think that when designers want to do wraping, layering, oversizing that not follow the body shape ... they might take influences from Arabic cultures indeed. But one could as well see it in buddism, India, Tibetian... Also Yamamoto, Rei Kawakubo.... all did it before.

 

[fashionista-ta]

style.com

what is really dumb about the article is that it is not as though versace and dolce are suddenly doing volume...

the designers mentioned are just doing what they have always done...
so it really isn't anything new...
is it?....

maybe just a different focus...
cause the cavalli and dior hoochie's are still out there...
no?...

Well, not really ... I found nothing hoochie about Cavalli's [or whoever's designing it] current collection. It's quite nice, sexy but dignified ...

As far as MJ, his collection seemed clearly to be about winter, and then he said it was ... I'm sure there's some Arabic/Islamic influence in fashion, but it's certainly nothing new, and I think an argument could be made that it's waning.

OTOH, it's hard to look at Undercover, esp the "bound" looks, w/o thinking of Abu Graib. As much as I believe in not turning away from that gruesome reality and responsibility for it, I promise you it is not what I want to see when I open my closet door, or look in the mirror (of course, if I'd just put that thing over my head, I would be bothered by none of these awful sights )

 

[arlekindearrabal]

i think the article is a bit hypocritical in regards of trying to relate the "new" fashion "sobriety" with muslim culture... as many have said already, i think it's more about covering up and feeling a little more safe and secure, about protection (for us "westeners", i mean)

i wear sunglasses to try and ward off unwanted looks, rather than for that clichéd cool the bring

 

[Multitudes]

^^^ Fashionista-ta you would look stunning with that over your head..
First of all... is the showing of skin suddenly become vulgar perse?
... and is the dignified approach the only way of escaping vulgarity?...
I think this article also raises some question about why do we dress up and how do the fashion industry place itself in context to the global change...
We might say as fashionista-ta puts it, "it's not what I want to see when I open my closet door" or as Susie-Bubble puts its on the Vivienne Westwood thread more or less that alot of people would not be able to wear this... but is fashion only about wearing?... a functional thing?... i think most of you would say no(hopefully... )... because isn't when fashion becomes an aesthetic which raises question in a socio context as Bidwell puts it, or when it speaks to the violence of sensation.. or when it creates new forms of aesthetics... etc.. that fashion becomes interesting... becomes "art"... an expression...?
I was asked this question if I was dressing up to impress, and answered no, I dress up to seduce... you might all think, that this implies something sexual, but the act of seduction is far from sexual... seduction is a "game"... an exchange.. a connectedness to other parts... that speaks in multiple voices.. and I think it is in this space that fashion becomes interesting as a form of expression... and not just a functional or consumer thing... but an exchange of ideas and aesthetics... either we want to wear it or not is not important here, but what is important is that it speaks...moves us...

 

[nqth]

The masks are always scary don't you think:-P, except for the ones from Venice (I can't help imaging you, ta-ta seeing youself in the mirror:-P)

Maybe bc I think the mask is for fighting the bad spirits, not for covering oneself and "sail away in pleasures", hehe.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ Glad I could provide some amusing visuals

Meant to mention, my negative view of the V&R masks was def reinforced by reading (after I posted above) the style.com review with info about what else was going on ... let me grab that ...

The armored propriety was emphasized, rather disturbingly, by the face coverings, which started out as fishnet veils and progressed into basket-weave fencing masks. Meanwhile, a sound piece by Bruce Nauman featured a woman's voice speaking words that expressed a state of emotional sterility. "Don't touch," she intoned, while romantic music played in the background. "No communication of any kind. I can suck you dry." As a statement of antisexual isolation, it was pretty chilling.

This is pretty unpleasant, wouldn't you say?

As far as what fashion/fashion shows should be ... I agree fashion is art, but it's supposed to be wearable art in my view ... so what I'm looking for on the runway is (apart from a few dramatic flourishes), the designer's vision of what his/her customer will be wearing during a given season. Bourgeois, I know

Multitudes, I like your idea of seduction ... I am a bit more focused on what I want to express ... perhaps this is just the difference between an extrovert and an introvert I think all clothes speak volumes though ...

 

[Multitudes]

^^^ yes fashionista-ta... that is a pretty unpleasant reading, but either it's unpleasant or not or what ever it do to us, it speaks and it makes us react... and I think that is important in fashion... and I think to hierarchyzise purely out from what we like.. what is pleasant or not ... is quit limiting.... not to say that you do that.. just my point of view...
Which am I.. the extrovert or the introvert? ... for me "seduction" shatters this dualism... and the problem lies in the "I" want to express.. instead of thinking "I" connected to another "I" and another and another.. and so on... .. to create possibilities for new forms of "I's".. a new form of subjectivity not based on language and other defining mechanisms... because then we have the "clothes speaks volumes" as you put it beautifully..

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ Well ... My view of the V&R show is that it's neither fish, nor flesh, nor good red herring ... IOW, I can appreciate the occasional show that's almost a pure artistic statement, like Margiela's spring show. And I can appreciate a show that has even one piece I'd like to wear. But when it's neither ...

Now perhaps this just shows my ignorance, but what comes to mind when I see the V&R show is that it's an expression of the designers' own dysfunction, and presents nothing I'd like to wear, so I don't have much use for it

My view is we have a zillion and one art forms that aren't meant to be worn. Why do people need to wreak havoc with the one art form that is?

I would think you would be the extrovert, thinking about how you relate to the rest of the world. And I have to admit that the way I dress is kind of like a designer who takes no thought of what any real person wants to wear, but just expresses what he wants to express I do, of course, consider whether my clothes will be appropriate for where I'm going, but I try not to consider too much the reaction I will get. I don't really want others' attitudes to influence my wardrobe very much, and that's what I'm afraid I would get if I started considering other "I's." But I would also never attempt to impose this approach on anyone else. The only thing I wish was that others were as bothered by boring clothes and sameness as much as I am

I will also admit ... I don't really like unpleasant, whether it's fashion or books or movies or paintings or anything else. I feel that there is enough unpleasantness in real life ... and I also find that it can really bring me down, because I really connect to what's going on. However, if the art is good enough, I will tolerate the unpleasant. It's when the art is both mediocre *and* unpleasant that I get upset ...

 

[PrinceOfCats]

This article seems to assume that fashion designers watch the news... I didn't have so high an estimation of most of them. Even if Donatella does own a copy of Modern Political Theory, the pages are probably stuck together with all the coke in the spine by now...

 

[Multitudes]

This article seems to assume that fashion designers watch the news... I didn't have so high an estimation of most of them. Even if Donatella does own a copy of Modern Political Theory, the pages are probably stuck together with all the coke in the spine by now...

It's good that it isn't Proust Donattela is reading... because that would be alot of coke...

fahionista-ta... nothing to do with ignorance, that just shows that there are something we connect with others we don't ... and for the relating to the rest of the world, it's not so much thinking about how it relates, it's more with creating connections... creating events if you like... and imposing is far from my mind, because all parts have to accept the "rules" of the "game" to be able to play it with eachother...
... and as Picasso puts it "I have always painted for my own time. I have never complicated it with searching for motives. I paint what I see, soon in one form, soon in an other form. I neither think or experiments. when I have something to say, I say it in the way, in my opinion, it should be said. There are no easy ways. There are only good or less good artists"
... how about that..

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ I would think the powder would help keep the pages separated ... but then I am only an experienced reader, have no experience as a cokehead, I am far from Donatella's league