Friday, 30 September 2011

Power











Photographer: Tom Allen
Models: Sam Buchdahi & Solomon

I have no wish to deprive fashion of the added allure and charm of colour, but I could perfectly well design a whole collection simply in black or white and express all my ideas to my complete satisfaction.  Colour cannot transform a failure of a dress into a success: it merely plays a supporting role in the cast where the cut is the star performer.
- Christian Dior, Dior by Dior, 1957

Black. White.
Purity not severity.
A beguiling simplicity.
There is no hiding - line is everything.
I'm back to the starting blocks.
Explore, understand, refine.
Learning.

300911


Shuttered


xxxx

Wednesday, 28 September 2011

Finding The Calm













Spring/Summer 2012
Polaroids by Robert Geller
(via NYTimes)

 Show season seems to have pretty much passed me by so far.
For the most parts - too much noise, but hardly anything said.
You just have to look harder to find something worthwhile, but that is the fun of it.

I'm not as cynical as some, even though I agree in part...
"It reached its peak when all those designers became orators and philosophers, when they began to believe that they could design their customers' lives as well as their clothes. Everybody waited for them to say something significant, but they never did." - Malcolm McLaren

As far as New York goes, I liked Geller's collection
(...and Y-3 and Preen for that matter).
I want a wide brim hat - Ann, N(N), PH, Dior, Lanvin, Geller - one or all.

Back And Forth - UNKLE

xxxx

280911


Cracked


xxxx

Tuesday, 20 September 2011

Airborne

Fall/Winter 2011








Estragon: We are happy. (Silence.) What do we do now, now that we are happy?
-Samuel Beckett, Waiting For Godot

Barthes argued that with fashion we yearn for the represented image, but all we end up with is the used garment.  It is the image that sells.  If we are indeed what Susan Sontag labels us as, 'image junkies', than this is hardly a surprising state of affairs.  The postmodern consumer was taught to believe that they should use commodities, or rather the symbolic meanings of those commodities, to construct their identity.  Fashion was there to mark individualism, and yet the paradox of fashion is that it means that one at once belongs to a wider network, and yet is simultaneously believed to be individual.  Individuality is allowed provided it conforms at some level - there is such a thing as too much individuality, especially where fashion is concerned. 

The idea of constructing identity through symbolic consumption is something we are all sold.  And yet what you end up with in many cases is a constantly shifting visual exterior, an expressed identity that changes every season, or indeed every week, with nothing substantial behind that façade.  In and of itself it risks becoming entirely vacuous.  Identity can be deconstructed and constructed again continually with (fast) fashion, it becomes a fully fluid notion, without any sense of permanence or, more importantly, coherence.  You can not only severe yourself from your own past, you are even encouraged to do so.  It is symptomatic of the (post)modern age that identity is no longer fixed, and although Foucault would argue that it is about inventing yourself rather than finding something already there, I find it a bit of an uneasy notion.

The consumer continually looks for their dream object - the perfect pair of jeans, the perfect black sweater - but it most often ends up being a disappointment.  It is an incredibly common feeling, to buy a garment you think will be everything, only to find out that it isn't.  You thought you were done, but you end up yearning for something else.  You yearn for something infinite, but will usually end up disappointed.  It is the perfect consumer for our contemporary market.  The German Romantic Friedrich Schlegel argued that one who desires the infinite does not really know what they desire.  And I believe this rings true for many consumers - not actually knowing what we desire.  Indeed it was one of the major motivations for purging my wardrobe and starting from scratch.    

It is perhaps unsurprising then that the idea of uniform is something that interests me greatly.  Not necessarily in its most literal incarnation, but rather the concept of uniformity of style.  Something understated, something subtle, something clean.  If it draws too much attention, it is perhaps not appropriate to the situation, and perhaps not natural to you.  I would rather wear something plain but well considered, something simple but luxurious, something subtle but beautiful.  A uniform, in the sense of style rather than a rigid dress code, is something I actually find quite liberating as a concept.  It allows one to create a coherent and personal visual identity that breaks away from the all too common cycle of dramatic and frenzied change that I find so needless.

That is not to say that one can not follow fashion, or dress according to the zeitgeist.  Indeed dressing consciously outdated or decidedly unfashionably still requires an awareness of and engagement with fashion, and often seems more costume than dress.  Rather having some sense of uniform, however broad, enables one to filter through the new and find what is relevant to express some sense of their own personal identity.  Of course it can be argued that human nature means that we will always yearn for more, but I think that being more aware of what you want (I hesitate to use the word need) in terms of clothing will always make you the better for it.  I suppose you need to have a good idea of what it is that you desire in order to seek it otherwise you will inevitably end up disappointed.

The reason I decided to post images from the Fall/Winter 2011 Patrik Ervell collection (I was not particularly impressed by Spring/Summer 2012), was because of Ervell's exploration of uniform.  His formula is admittedly strict, but I think it is a good example of a designer who has developed an aesthetic quite organically to produce something subtle but alluring.  There are many designers who have a coherent design model, that is to say not trend-based, however I thought Ervell was a good example for its ease of wear.  His work does often remind me quite strongly of Branquinho or Schneider, but strict originality (or to put it another way, uniqueness) is not particularly of concern here.  Rather I am fascinated by the quiet sophistication of these looks.

Simplicity is always interesting because it makes up the building blocks of any look.  In this sense I think a simple garment will always have a greater dexterity of meaning than a visually complicated garment.  By choosing a context of your own choosing you may ascribe your own meaning.  You choose how to wear it and where to wear it.  By comparison, a visually complicated piece will often dominate any look and provide quite a similar meaning regardless of context (I would argue that this is also the case with 'iconic' pieces, such as a particularly popular and recognizable handbag).  I would not avoid them, but I would approach them with caution, for even though there can never be a singular fixed meaning for any garment, there is still a popular, if transient, meaning for many.  I would much rather wear something seemingly understated than overstated, because it is easier to add to a look than to pull things back.

In terms of meaning and symbolic value, I say ignore the marketed image if it does not apply to your purpose.  A garment or look can only ever have some deep meaning because of you and what you bring to it (whether it be you aligning with the meaning that the designer tried to express, or something wholly individual).  It is the reason people can so easily point out a 'fashion victim' - they are people who wear something without regard or thought.  I'm not looking for something infinite, I'm looking for clothes that best suit my desires and, why not, my needs.  It is a constant journey, and should be, because to come to the end of that journey would simply beg the question - what next? 


xxxx

200911


silent


xxxx

Tuesday, 13 September 2011

Friday, 9 September 2011

A Good Hand

Furever
Fall/Winter 2010








Everything starts with the fabric.  Fabric determines hand, drape, silhouette, shape.  Dress as an experience is as much about fabric as it is about cut and construction, the latter factors are often actually determined by the prior.  Whilst many seem to give importance to cut over fabric when choosing and buying clothing, I think selecting a garment ought to follow a similar path to designing a garment, in that it should begin with the fabric.  When thinking of what I would like to wear on any given day, although I make think of colours, patterns, silhouettes, and so on, the first, almost subconscious, decision is made with regards to feel.  Not purely in terms of emotions and desire, but rather the actual physical sensations of the dress experience - I think we all begin with that.

Dress performs the role of our social skin, and in such a sense is perhaps a public consideration, but the intimacy of its role also makes it a fully personal one.  I am choosing how I want to feel, that physicality actually being integral to how I look, for it informs our mannerisms and bodily codes.  I move differently in a suit than I do in a sweater and jeans, but I also move differently in a suit cut with higher armholes and a double pleat to the trousers to one cut with lower armholes and a tapered trouser, and I move differently still in a suit made of tweed than a suit made in fine wool.  Cut and construction are perhaps the most dramatic determinants from a purely visual perspective, in terms of how I observe someone moving and holding themselves, but fabric is a more important, if far more subtle, determinant.

The hand of the fabric, the stretch of the fabric, the drape of the fabric, the weight of the fabric, the insulation of the fabric, the breathability of the fabric, etc. - all these factors determine the garment and how it looks with the body, even though one may be able to manipulate the nature of the fabric.  Thus fabric becomes one of the most important considerations when selecting a garment.  If the choice is between two seemingly identical sweaters, in terms of cut and colour, but one is a cashmere and silk blend, whilst the other is a lambswool, polyamide, mohair and angora blend, the decision is one of feel and function.  A garment can never be thought of in abstract terms when it is a consideration for one's own wardrobe - I need to consider fully how it feels and how it will feel over the course of the day.  Function is considered in terms of whether the inherent characteristics of the fabric fulfil a wider scope of need.  The garment does not simply have to answer a practical need, and look right, it has to feel right.     

I thought I would include images from Stephan Schneider's Fall/Winter 2010 collection, Furever, with this post because Schneider is a designer for whom fabric informs everything.  Indeed the majority of fabrics employed in his collections are actually designed by him, thus giving him full control over one of the most important aspects in the process of designing a garment.  His work does tend to fall into the unfortunate realm of that which does not fully lend itself to photography or film - you really need to see it in person and try it on.  Indeed I have been thoroughly impressed by the Schneider garments I have handled.  The fabrics feel luxurious without being overly precious, and they actually remind me of Yohji's desire to create using fabrics that have already been aged for a decade.  These are clothes to be worn, kept, cherished and worn again.  Just as it should be.


xxxx