SPACEOVERLOAD

Choosing a particular period between 1800 to the present, in what ways has fashion responded to and represented the changing social and cultural forces of that period? 

This essay will focus on the period of the 1960s and how social and cultural forces were represented through the many fashion movements of this particular era and how fashion responded to the forces at the time. The movements that will be concentrated on will be the Youth culture, The mods, Pop culture (swinging sixties) and lastly the Hippie movement. These four fashion movements were the most effective in the 60s at representing the social and cultural conflicts and changes. “Clothing, as one of the most visible forms of consumption, performs a major role in the social construction of identity” says Crane (1933, pg 1) which is a statement confirmed looking back at the 1960’s, fashion played a major role in showing the identity of social groups and responding to social and cultural happenings at the time, Crane agrees with this theory as she goes on to say “In the nineteenth century industrialising societies, social class affiliation was one of the most salient aspects of a person identity” (1933, pg 4). This essay will investigate the social and cultural forces in the 1960’s including “the election of John F Kennedy as president of the United States of America, the newly won civil rights for African-Americans, the construction of the Berlin Wall, the wave of international protest against the Vietnam War” quoted from Sixties Fashion (2010, pg 11) which names a few of the events that happened during the decade. 

The 1960s saw the ‘Youth Culture’ which was the term used to describe the decade which was dominated by the younger generation. “The influence of teenagers and students made itself felt in all fields of life, in politics, the economy and culture” is quoted in ‘Sixties Fashion (2010, pg 9) stating that the ‘youngsters’ at the time were effecting all aspects of day to day life, and this was shown through the clothes they wore. “In Germany alone there were 7 million individuals between the ages of 14 and 24 who on average spent 80% of their money on fashion” describes Sixties Fashion (2010, pg 24) which indicates for young people, clothing was essential, they needed fashion to show their identity and to wear what their role models were wearing in films, bands and the models. Healy (1996, pg 21) describes “the youth population needed clothing that suited a more informal style than their parents had ever known” which supports the theory that teenagers were following the icons of the time, with the rock and punk movement being so informal, they wanted to follow. Another writer who shows the same thoughts is Cawthorne (1998, pg 58) who says “Teenagers were eager to spend money on music, on going out and above all on clothes” because their wages had risen twice as fast as those of adults and teenagers had the freedom to spend their money on anything they wanted unlike adults who had to support families. The younger generation can be seen as an easy target in a way, because they had the money to spend on whatever they wanted it was easy for designers and others selling clothes to sell the youngsters clothes, and in reverse, the younger generation weren’t afraid to rebel, and with clothing being an easy way to send out a message, they could communicate their thoughts and ideas through what they wore, the relationship between the two thrived. Stern magazine describes in the book Sixties Fashion (2010, pg 11) “The fashion markets turned their attention to young consumers…everybody is courting the young favour, because parents are only willing to buy what they actually want” backing up this idea that the youngsters were domineering in the 60’s. Around the middle of the sixties “fashion took a turn away from ladylike elegance towards an ideal dominated by youthfulness” describes Sixties Fashion (2010, pg 16) which follows on by Stern Magazine who publish “Being elegant is no longer fashionable. Elegance is as dead as a doornail…the independent woman is alive and kicking- slim and awake, free in her job, in her attitudes, in her love: she is young. With some luck and discipline, she’ll be young to fifty years” which relates back to the idea that the younger generation rebelled against looking like their parents, the 1960’s woman wanted “to be free, to look young and have fun…she demanded equal rights and equal pay. She rejected the shackles of voluminous, hampering skirts and the restrictions of corseted waists and high stiletto heels” states Peacock(1998, pg 10) who firmly agrees. Although Stern Magazine describe that women can still look young until their ‘fifty’ as quoted, many older women did not agree and there were outrage. Women of the older generation were disgusted with this new young feel to fashion which isn’t surprising, there were used to elegance and class, the older generation don’t take too kindly to change like the young do but “public outrage was just what the young wanted” says Metzger (2012, pg 197) as they were rebelling, the older generations reaction just added fuel to the fire. “Britain’s youth were made scapegoats for all that was wrong in society and for all that society was most afraid of: change, innovation, rebellion” (Metzger, 2012, page 197) this didn’t stop the younger generation, it just made them rebel more. “In the 1960s, a group of designers, who were called créaturs, began selling low cost, original, ready to wear clothing…créaturs were able to start businesses with small investments from personal funds, during this period, costs of entering the business were relatively low” says Crane (1933, pg 144) which confirms the same idea other writes have mentioned that the young were targeted, young, modern, innovative styles were easily created by these new creative designers therefore fashion businesses were doing well.

Popular Culture also known as the Swinging Sixties or Swinging London had a good and bad influence on society. Popular Culture included things such as radio, films, TV shows, music, advertisements, fashion and towards the end of the 1960’s, hippies and drugs. A negative towards Pop Culture was that society deemed icons that were in these films and bands were bad influences on the younger generation. Vanessa Redgrave and Davis Hemmings in a scene in the film Blow-up (1966), (Metzger, 2012, pg13) which presents sexyness and partial nudity, with Vanessa Redgrave appearing to wear mens trousers. With films showing this sort of content it can be seen why not everyone was happy with how things were going in society. (Sixties Fashion, 2010, pg 11) “The contraceptive pill heralded a new openness in sexual relationships with far-reaching consequences on family structure”, this development gave more ammunition to the teenagers, icons of the 60s were doing it, so the younger generation followed just like they did with everything else their peers were doing, along with the contraceptive pill, abortion, homosexuality and suicide were no longer criminal offences. This new form of contraception was followed with the ‘Mini Skirt’ which was designed by Mary Quant, Cawthorne (1998, pg58) comments on the mini-skirt, “The mini-skirt did it all”. “Such openly sexual playfulness in fashion was bitterly opposed in traditional circles, but was equally celebrated as a symbol of new freedom” (Sixties Fashion, 2010, pg13), this quote explains that not everyone, as guessed, were not pleased, this 1950s traditional women were horrified by this new fashionable statement, this can be seen in a photograph taken on Carnaby Street of Model Lisa King, January 1967 which shows an older women ‘looking down’ on King as she walks the streets in her mini skirt and the very fashionable go-go boots at the time. On the other hand, another photograph of again, Lisa King jumping of a platform in front of the Big Ben in Parliament Square which is a very well known spot in London, this can be seen as an act of rebellion celebrating the mini-skirt. Music became something young people used to express themselves, this bought the rise of pop music, “pop music itself is based on making money out of young people by selling them records” says Metzger (2012, pg 44) which suggests musical artists only produced pop music to make money, although it was easy for artists to make money as teenagers loved to spend money on music, this does not necessarily mean musicians did not enjoy making the music. A band which can be seen as a bad influence was ‘The Who’, as their live shows were full of aggression. Pete Townshend who plays as a guitarist in the band and is the songwriter states, “We stand for pop-art clothes, pop-art music and pop-art behaviour”, (Metzger, 2012, pg 197) as a band with this attitude and opinions, it can be seen why parents and others were against this as the younger generation followed, they started wearing pop-art clothes, bought the music and behaved in a rebellious way to support this pop-art behaviour and parents just did not understand, as Bob Dylan epitomises the moral and social protest of the time with his lyrics “don’t critise what you can’t understand. Your sons and daughters are beyond your command…for the times, they are a-changing” (Healy, 1996, pg 21) which describes exactly that, that parents simply didn’t understand the Pop Culture and fought against it and the younger generation just rebelled. Another famous band in the 60s called ‘The Rolling Stones’ “infused pop music with a new creativity and rebellious festered by their art school sensibilities, presenting a more ‘dangerous’ and aggressive image on and off stage, epitomised by Jaggers strutting sexuality” says Hill (2010, pg 120) who describes this band as rebellious and aggressive so is there any wonder teenagers followed? With such icons behaving in this way, young people were bound to follow suit. Popular Culture was full of innovative, creative, contemporary artists, the four biggest bands of the 60s all had their roots in art schools so it was no surprise the 60s was dominated by the younger generation. “The successful development of new, elastic chemical fibres…enabled fashion designers to combine figure-hugging cuts with great freedom of movement. Such textiles could be dyed in vibrant colours, be pattern-printed with relative ease, treated so their surfaces shimmered, were easy to wash and in addition were less expensive than silk or wool”, (Sixties Fashion, 2010, pg 13) this statement explains why businesses became so easy to start up, fabrics were cheaper and new processes and developments in technology meant it was quicker and easier to make clothes and with the younger generation spending most of their wages on fashion the economy was booming. Pop Culture also brought the rise of pop art and new advertising, Metzger comments, “everyday items were given new graphics and new lettering” (2012, pg 136) which again backs the idea that everything was becoming modern and new. 

‘Mods’ is a term used to describe groups of people from a time in the 60s, originating from ‘Modernity’. Modernity was everywhere in the 1960s, The Sunday Times claimed “Londons new buildings were constantly in the news”, (Victoi and Albert Museum, 2006, pg 42) the architectural landscapes were not liked by everyone but London was symbolised as the ‘brave new London’. The new landscape provided a backdrop for films and fashion photographs, and London finally seemed to be emerging from the effects of World War || at last. This new brave London fitted well with the mods at the time. In terms of fashion, the Mods wore tailored suits and the shapes of garments became more box like. “Military-style double-breasted jackets were very popular” says Hill (2010, pg 167/178) which shows how the economic strutter was effecting fashion. Vandalism and violence was still accuring, and this happened between the ‘Mods’ and the ‘Rockers’, the Mods were slick and smart, and the Rockers wore black leather and jeans and had powerful motorbikes. Both of these movements used fashion to differentiate what social group they formed into with their distinctive dress sense and style. Uni-sex clothing was very popular with modernist women, their clothes became very manly as some have described and trousers became a must have, as Constanze magazine describe as they ran a heading in 1969 which read “Trousers in the morning, trousers in the evening. Trousers for travelling, casual trousers and trousers for sport. Trousers for town. Trousers at events- major events and small get togethers” which describes women were wearing trousers for all types of different events, which got criticised.. Some said women were being manculinised, and these sorts of comments were counteracted by the ‘feline details’ that appeared on the trousers.  

Throughout the 1960’s young people rebelled against the idea of being traditional and old fashioned, and a lot of the time in an aggressive way. Towards the end of the 60s saw the rise of the ‘Hippies’ who were peaceful protesters, they wanted to spread love and happiness, and with this brought drugs. At the same time, The Vietnam War hit and also a serious escalation of the Northern Ireland conflict grew, this social problems gave people good reason to turn away from politics and concentrate on culture. “The hippie girl of the Sixties dressed in romantic floral dresses, folklore fur jackets or widely flared trousers”, (Sixties Fashion, 2010, pg 24) this quote describes what a typical hippie girl of the sixties may have worn, from this it could be said that the clothes they wore represents their thoughts, baggy clothes may represent air, freedom, space and the floral may have been used to represent fun, happy, girly, nice? Hippies often protested against social problems that were happening around the world, from the book ‘Sixties Fashion’ (2010, pg 54) one of the protests are mentioned; “San francisco saw the development of an ‘anti-fashion’ sported but the ‘flower children’, who defined themselves through their protest against social conventions, capitalism and the Vietnam War”. Hippies also often travelled abroad and bought a lot of clothes back with them, “south  african ponchos, indian shirts, afghan coats, exotic kaftans and wrap dresses”, they got involved in other cultures by wearing their clothes, the hippies that didn’t travel dyed their garments by hand or embroidered their jeans, which was known as the ‘DIY Movement’”. The 1967 ‘Summer of love’ hippie fashion was taken up by the fashion industry and commercialised throughout the world, their idea of peace and love was being spread around the world through fashion due to social/cultural climate forces. Another example of how fashion represented social forces through hippies was a movement describes by Robbins (1997, pg 31) as “The Ubiquitous Daisy” which was a symbol of the anti-war movement and the ‘flower children’ who demonstrated for peace, prints of daises were seen on art, advertising and clothes worn by hippies to support the fight against the Vietnam War. Hippies used fashion to represent their rebellion, they learnt how to farm organic cotton, “one fraction was a movement of rebellion against the sterility of modern life, against war and for a return to the organic” (Robbins, 1997, pg 68) and their wore their hair loose and free, threw away their lipstick and wore organic fabrics to support their cultural beliefs. The print hippies wore became very distinctive, it was printed on clothing and other accessories which would of contributed to representing their beliefs and opinions. The Beatles and other features in the prints often which supported the hippies ands the bands that participated were very famous so the hippies messages were sent out and shared easily and young people followed bands. American hippies felt “sympathetic” (Robbins, 1997, pg 72) for the Vietnamese in the period of the war. The British and American flags started appearing as a form of political protest over the war, but flags were not allowed to be used, “at first, young men and women were actually arrested for wearing clothes made from or appearing to be made from, these national flags” says Robbins (1997,pg 72) so they may have worn them to rebel. Fashion Designers picked up the idea and incorporated stars and stripes into their designs so that hippies would buy them as the prints were made to look slightly like “patriotic superhero’s” (Robbins, 1997, pg 72) to get the message across without people being arrested!

To conclude, the 1960s saw varies movements in fashion all representing a time in this decade of social and cultural decline, having both positive and negative affects on society. Fashion will always respond to whats going on in the world, and the 60s is a good example of that. The hippie movement seemed to have the biggest positive effect, they stood for whats right and not just rebelled because they can, using fashion as a forefront to display there ideas. Fashion responded well and helped hippies rebel against the Vietnam War and other events happening at the time. Crane makes a valuable statement by saying, “it is sometimes assumed that fashion in a mysterious way epitomises the essence of cultural trends at a particular time” (1933, pg 15) which is true, fashion does represent someones identity, their beliefs or culture, and this essay justifies that well.

Total; 2847 words

This essay will compare two texts, the first will be by Michael Boodro Art and Fashion and how he considers how fashion has been represented in art in his own opinion and through others. The opposing text is by Lars Svendsen Fashion and Art who explores how fashion is an art form in own right. This essay will explore which text is more convincing and find evidence of this.

The title Art and Fashion by Boodro signifies what comes first in the sense between the two words in his opinion by what he’s names the text. “Art is art and fashion is an industry” is Boodros first few words signifying this same divide that is sensed in the title which set out the whole text. Through the text Michael Boodro perceives this idea of Fashion being nothing without Art, and having no importance to anything. “Fashion has been no less abashed at using art for its own purposes” is a quote by Boodro who supports this by giving an example of when Chanel recreated the tight empire bust line following Grecian folds which can be seen in Jacques-Louis Davids famous portrait, this is one of the first links between Art and Fashion and what Boodro really thinks about this link, he adds… “Fashion is mere thievery”. This is a shocking statement to make about something that is so well appreciated in todays society. Lars Svendsen touches on these accusations but is not quick to make excuses for this, although as it seems he appreciates that art has been very helpful for fashion he does not see this as “thievery”. “Art was used to increase the cultural capital of the designer” is one of the statements Lars Svendsen makes on this subject, and he gives an example of this, not that it entirely shows his side, but more Boodros it can be perceived. This example is one involving Giorgio Armani who made out he’d ‘won’ a place at the famous ‘Guggenheim’ museum in New York when in actual fact he had donated money which contributed to him gaining a place to show his collections in the museum, Lars Svendsen adds “though he had omitted to mention the generous sum he had donated” and goes on to say, “it mainly emphasised his most recent collections, so that many people felt he had bought himself a commercial spot at the Guggenheim”. He also comments on why Giorgio Armani had good reason to do what he did saying, “if one wishes to add symbolic value to an object, one of the simplest ways of doing so is to place the objects alongside other objects that have such a large symbolic value, because such value is ‘contagious’”. Although this example appears to be best suited to maybe Boodro’s opinion as he thinks that designers “are turning to artists and to the art scene to provide cadet for their enterprises” which expresses exactly what Giorgio Armani did but Lars Svendsen does not appear to think this is such a bad thing and in actual fact maybe something quite clever in which Giorgio Armani did. 

Boodro suggests “Fashion designers don’t usually speak of themselves as artists” which is quite judgemental and very one sided. This is only his opinion and does not show evidence of any designer saying this, in contrast Lars Svendsen mentions Paul Poiret who is a fashion designer who expresses, “I am an artist, not a dress maker”. This statement by Poiret totally disregards what Michael Boodro says. Although Boodro states that he does not believe fashion designers think they are artists he mentions Gustaur Klimt an artist who “designed” dresses that were more prominent than his subject’s faces. This almost states that fashion was Klimt’s art which suggests Klimt was more interested in fashion and what his subjects were wearing rather than the art and who he was painting underestimating Boodro’s comment as many people would see Klimt as an artist who enjoyed looking into fashion. Does that make his paintings worthless and “unimportant”? Lars Svendsen comments on the fact artists were interest in fashion, “it was not unusual for visual artists to design clothes”, this is one of the area’s that Svendsen and Boodro agree on as they both point out that artists were becoming more interested in fashion.

Boodro appears to have this idea that fashion was always being reproduced because of something else, but not just ‘something’, Boodro stated that art in particular was always the starting point for a new era in fashion. He uses a statement era in fashion involving Paco Rabanne as an example to support his theory saying, “…metal elise dresses of Paco Rabanne”. Boodro also generalises the era by saying “futuristic miniskirts sheaths and white vinyl go-go boots of Courréges and Pierre Cardin” and he compares this to what was going on socially at the time “…all came to the fore at the same time that kinetic art, pop art op art, and hard edge geometric abstract painting were the rage, when the Apollo space craft were orbiting the globe and technology seemed to promise exciting new advances for art as well as for society.” This quote from Boodro does support his idea but at the same time fashion will always change because of social/cultural changes in the world, does this necessarily mean that it is a bad thing?

“Perhaps the most intimate connection between art and fashion occurred during the heyday of surrealism” is a statement by Boodro who notices a period of time where fashion and art really came together but he turns this into a negative by adding “the effect of this ongoing collaboration has not, of course, always been wholly salutary”. Many people especially journalists criticised surrealists for having such a link with fashion and a good example of this mentioned by Boodro involved a famous artist called Keith Haring who graffitied figures that decorated New York’s subways. His work did not get criticised until Haring “opened his pop shop in soho, which sold not only posters and prints, but t-shirts, bags, jackets and hats” mentions Boodro. Critics complained Haring had gone “too far” and he’d become “too populist”. Lars Svendsen touches on a point that agrees with Boodro by quoting Walter Benjamin, “the ‘aura’ of the work of art is threatened by reproducibility, because its uniqueness is replaces by it’s appearance”. Walter Benjamin says this who appears to agree with Boodro with the fact that art is unique and that it should not be commercialised in this way. Lars Svendsen though, disagrees, he says “the essence of art had been radically transformed by the technical possibilities of reproduction” appearing to this as a positive thing and also adding, “rather than mourn the loss of ‘aura’…this opens up new progressive potential.”

To conclude this essay, Lars Svendsen questions Boodro about his comment that fashion is “not art” by mentioning Alexander Mcqueen in his text. Svendsen mentions the titles of Mcqueen collections such as ‘Highland Rape’ and ‘The golden shower’ and says the collections have embraced avant-garde aesthetic, also commenting “these collections almost cry out that they are art and not something as trivial as ‘normal’ clothes”. “Mcqueen has claimed that he is first and foremost interested ingesting a reaction from the audience” says Svendsen which explains the reasoning for his choice of words for his titles and the ideas behind his past collections. In contrast with this, Svendsen mentions that “shock affects was a repetition of older trend in modernist art” which contradicts Boodro’s idea that “fashion is not art” as Mcqueen wants to “shock” his audience just like modernist art did so does this not make Mqueens collections ‘art’? Lars Svendsen has made an extremely good point and found substantial evidence to support it, referring back to my introduction about how Lars Svendsen wanted to prove “fashion is an art form in its own right” and he has done this very well. Arguably Svendsen throughout gives both sides of the link between fashion and art and although he may sound contradicting in some parts, he also finds something to turn it into a positive towards fashion whereas Boodro seems to just mock fashion the whole way through and just appears to think his opinion is correct but does not consider the opposing side to his argument. 

Total; 1,390 words

This essay will compare two texts, one by Davis ‘Do Clothes Speak? What makes them fashion?’ which is a piece of text in which Davis goes about answering questions such as ‘What do our clothes say about who we are or who we think we are?’ and ‘How does the way we dress communicate messages about our identity?’ and the other by Barnard ‘Fashion Statements: Communication and Culture’ covers themes including individual, social and gender identity, the erotic, consumption and communication.

Davis’s title ‘Do clothes Speak? What makes them Fashion?’ is a clear indication that the text will be about trying to find evidence to answer these questions. Davis jumps straight into the text by introducing a writer called Alison Lurie, who claims “is clothing not virtually a visual language” implying that she has the idea that clothes can be visually seen and commented on but not necessarily have a ‘meaning’ and questions does fashion “make clear reference to who we are and wish to be taken as”. Throughout this text Davis finds supporting evidence that compliments this idea Alison Lurie has along with statements that do not agree like the one Sapir speaks, of how elements of fashion do evoke “meanings” suggesting that there is more to clothing and that meanings and ideas are communicated through fashion. “In the case of the sociological interest in clothing and fashion… people communicate some things about their persons” this idea is that people communicate things from their lives and their “life style attachments” through what they wear.

Barnard’s text ‘Fashion Statements: Communication and Culture’ is dominantly based on how clothing is communicated, not just in fashion but in all areas of the world. Barnard makes a vivid point that fashion is not communicated in the ‘typical’ style in the sending of messages and this will be shown through this essay. In the text Barnard makes a statement about fashion saying, “fashion has been established as being meaningful and as communicative” suggesting that this is a fact, some people may disagree with this as some of the public may not be find themselves in this whole idea that everything we wear has a meaning. 

This text goes on to talk about culture in different societies and how people form cultural ‘groups’ and become members. Joanne Entwistle comments on the cultural aspect of communication as a whole by saying, “culture is about shared meanings… it is therefore about communication” and she then incorporates this idea into fashion by saying, “differently cultured bodies wear different fashions” and this may be very true in todays society. Joanne talks about the body and the culture a body (person) is brought into or accustomed to and says “differently cultured bodies communicate different things (meanings) by the different clothes (fashion) that they wear”. Barnard introduces his idea of ‘members’ by adding, “i want to argue that fashion is one of the ways in which people are constructed as members (or non-members) of cultural groups”, creating this idea that he thinks everyone should be in a group by what they wear or what culture they are from. 

Both Barnard and Davis have a cartoon drawing in their texts by Roz Chast (The New Yorker Collection 1988) which is interesting because they have the same opinion on this particular subject on communication in fashion. Both writers use these similar cartoons to mock this idea that many have about communication through clothes being something that can be spoken/written which both writers do not seem to support. Schier lights on the same idea in Davis’ text by criticising Roland Barthe’s ‘The Fashioning System’ commenting, “There is certainly something to the idea that we say things with what we choose to wear, though we must not press too hard to find a set of rules encoded in every choice” which is a light hearted approach at the fact some would think of a meaning for every detail in which is worn. Barnard gives a different view on what people may wear the clothes they do by adding Eicher et al’s opinion who says, “individuals often select items of dress because of the personal or public meaning that it conveys” which suggests that they think people buy clothes because of the ‘meanings’ the garments already portray to the public because of either who made them or what ‘group’ you may put into as Barnard describes. A similar idea to Eicher et al’s statements is mentioned also in Barnards text quoting, “one knows the meaning of an item of clothing has for, or within, a culture; it is therefore already to have interacted with that cultures values and beliefs” this describes a similar idea as both writers are saying that what people may buy to wear has already been given a meaning, they are saying clothing is bought knowing that people will think a certain way of them by the messages the garments already have. Barnard mentions an opinion from someone who believes “fashion communication as expression is the idea that something going on inside someones head, individual intention, is somehow externalised and made present in a garment” but Barnard disagrees with this statement by expressing “this paper is committed to arguing that communication through fashion is not a simple sending and receiving of messages… communication cannot be the sending or receiving of a pre-existing message” describing that he does not agree with the previous statement as he suggests a message has to be thought of and sent it cannot be thought of and just appear, there has to be communication. 

“It is hard to get people in general to interpret the same clothing symbols in the same way” is Davis’s opinion on the meanings behind clothes in contrast to Barnard who says “meaning is a product of the interaction between culture” by using a television show as an example and commenting “we are likely to agree in our interpretation of the show” meaning two people from the same culture/background/sex will agree on the same things. Although Barnard uses a television show as an example, he does apply this theory to fashion and clothing whereas Davis thinks completely different. 

To finish, both texts touch on the society status in fashion and how it is communicated through messages in what people wear. In Barnard, fashion as communication is describes as a ‘reflection’ of ideas, using victorian women as an example, “…reflecting their culture ideas of women as weak and helpless” this is describing how what they wore in victorian times may have been perceived as ‘weak’ and ‘helpless’ because of their social class, with the rich wearing more expensive garments. Barnard almost makes this sound like a good thing, that people are categorised from their social status wheres Davis briefly mentions the military fashion craze saying, “the rather masculine, almost military styles that were fashionable among some women in the mid 1980’s… responded to quite differently” going on to say, “many professional and career women, however, took favourably to the style because it seemed to distance them from the unwelcome stereotypical inferences”. Davis almost congratulates these women for standing up and being a little bit different and not following the ‘groups’ or the social status women had as the time. Another example from Barnard who touches on an important aspect in todays society and its status is the ‘hoodie’. “The meaning communicated by these garments is now so powerful in the UK that hoodie wearers are being denied access to shopping malls” says Barnard who makes a very striking statement that is very much true some would agree. He mentions that the ‘hoodie’ in a past life time was not considered to be something a ‘thug’ would wear. Davis mentions, “the very same apparel ensemble that ‘said’ something last year will ‘say’ something quite different today and yet another thing next year” which complies with Barnards idea of change within the meaning behind the ‘hoodie’. 

This example shows that meanings that are ‘attached’ to certain garments aren’t always correct, a ‘hoodie’ is worn for all sorts of things, schools and teams mainly, does this make them thugs? The fact that shopping malls can refuse people for wearing a hoodie is quite a strong statement, does everyone that wears a ‘hoodie’ commit crimes? Many would say that this is too big of a message to send out for a piece of clothing as the meaning behind it is not always correct although some may argue with this statement.

To conclude, Barnard has collected statements from different sources to write this piece of text based on fashion statements within communication and culture. What was interesting was the brief part about the ‘hoodie’ as it got the reader thinking about what he was trying to get across. Messages in any case that are passed on about a certain thing, in this case a garment, can become well known and have implications for the innocent wearer of a ‘hoodie’, in this case. Davis also provides a believable response to a similar subject. Davis, being the most convincing writer explained and had a more detailed view of the subject matter and seemed to have thought about it in more depth as he shown by describing ‘the clothing code’.

Total: 1,516 words.

In the introduction of Quinn is Techno Fashion, it describes ‘Techno Fashion’ as something that is very much involved heavily with science and what other people can contribute to Technology to then be integrated with Fashion. This text tells us that professionals describe their clothing as being ‘engineered, constructed, processed and installed rather then sewn and manufactured’. According to ‘Techno Fashion’ garments will have an ‘intelligence of their own’, and they will no longer be a strong statement in their own right without some sort of technology integrated finishing the garment making it more of a practical piece rather than having the ‘wow’ factor, as Tristan Webber explains, “Im not designing for a glamour goddess…I design for women regardless of their physical scale, women who are proud of their intellect and their potential”. Relating to this idea of techno fashion being more practical for every day people, the text mentions businesses such as health care being “one of the biggest markets for techno fashion” as development with technology will be able to provide uniforms fit for that environment.

In the text Fashioning the future: Tomorrow’s Wardrobe, it shows how Technology is closely related with fashion and how technology has helped develop fashion for the better showing positive affects such as the sewing machine “revolutionising clothing production in the nineteenth century”. This book describes technology as being a turning point for fashion adding “this book anticipates a future shaped by new materials and technologies that present exciting creative possibilities for fashion” but following on the text does not portray this as such a good thing adding, “the implications are phenomenal for designers, producers, global brands and consumers alike” as some professionals may not want to be involved heavily in technology which could cause them problems as we live in a world where technology domineers, “today, high end designer fashion is struggling to find its identity in a competitive global market.” Although technology has proved worthy of helping fashion through the years there is a threat that basic creativity may be lost through the fascination of technology developments and although this may be “fashion, in order to thrive long term, needs to adapt and evolve” suggesting that designers need to be producing the ‘next big thing’ and technology seems to be the way forward for this. This text has the same theory as the other text although this text portrays more of a positive view for fashion itself with the help of technology and not having a main focus on technology and how fashion designers can create a “wearable body network” as the other text describes. 

‘Fashioning the Future’ has the same theory as ‘Techno Fashion’ that technology will help fashion and not hinder it but some people may be confused by how much technology is being pushed forward as fashion as we know it today as especially avant-garde fashion is all about producing beautiful garments that have a wow factor because of how they look and what there made from and ‘fashioning the future’ does suggest that the “future examines how new technologies might be creative tools for design” but in comparison ‘Techno Fashion’ suggests otherwise, again the idea that the beauty and creative aspect in a garment is less important, evidence of this is Paco Rabanne’s ‘chain-mail’ dresses that are constructed with wire and pliers that are as he quoted “very cheap, and the woman will only wear it once or twice. For me, its the future of fashion”. This is surprising as it is questionable that the future generations will only wear a piece of clothing no more then twice with the evidence of todays society keeping clothes and wearing them over and over for years.

In conclusion, both texts have simliar theories throughout describing that eventually Technology, Design, Science and Fashion will all come together to produce a new world of fashion, “with the possibilities technology offers, fashion may never look back again” as ‘Techno Fashion’ describes. As for progressing into the future in general, will everyone want to become techno robots?

Total: 779 words.

I will experiment using recycled materials such as cardboard, plastics and anything I find that can be recycled from me using it. I like idea of creating a head piece to represent a space helmet but considering time and money the most realistic idea will be to make a shoulder piece and maybe some jewellery…