READINGS
Joanne Finkelstein (1993) 'The Fashioned Self' in e-Reserve.
Comments: After Simmel (1950/1971), fashion is based largely on an unresolved tension between the desire for personal distinction and the opposite desire for union with others through conformity.
Simmel can find no aesthetic or functional explanation of fashion. ‘There is not a trace of expediency in the method by which fashion dictates, for example, whether wide or narrow trousers, colored or black scarfs shall be worn’ (1971:297). At times fashion dictates that we wear ‘ugly and repugnant’ styles, and the only justification for this is as an exercise in power. Fashion represents the power to make us social: by drawing individuals away from a base nature, it inducts us all into the logics of sociality.
I think this is a point where celebrity stars make an impact on society. In fact they do have power over their audience, the fashion aficionados. As a result we can talk of fashion dictators. People who tell us what we have to wear to receive a sense of belonging. I experience myself reacting cautious on people who dress awkward. I expect these people to be mentally deranged or struck badly by fait. This kind of bias just happens, although I don’t even know the individual.
Indeed, fashion can obscure people’s ranks. Fidel Castro in Cuba as well as Mao Tse Dong in China provided their community with a uniform that did not only reflect on nationality, but also on everybody being equalin their society, including themselves, wearing the same uniform.
One of the pleasures of these everyday gestures is that they are ‘erotically charged’. In addition, at a symbolic level, they ritualise a mastery of biology, that is, they make the body seem tractable. By changing the unclothed, unmade-up body into ‘a self-produced coherent subject’, it becomes apparent that ‘the pleasures of fashion include the symbolic replay of this profoundly productive moment when subjectivity emerges’ (1994:64).
Indeed, as it seems, sex is the most important driver in modern society. If something is sexy, if it stimulates, then it will certainly become popular. Some of it may be accepted as erotically charged by females, some by males and some by both genders.
On fashion magazines, I think they try to fulfill dreams. I would also go to such an extent to say that fashion magazines are attraction barometers for the fashion industry, trying to stir reactions (identifying trends, doing market research on the acceptance of their content etc.).
Silverman (1986): ‘Men’s wear, in particular, has solidified into a uniform sobriety and rectitude, whereas by contrast women’s styles have fluctuated rapidly, thus creating the impression of female flightiness. The few attempts at bridging these differences, such as women wearing neckties and business suits, do not challenge Silverman’s argument, but merely demonstrate again both the instability and eclecticism of the feminine in matters of dress.’
Looking back at Marlene Dietrich wearing men’s suits, hats and ties, I don’t think that we can talk about the instability and eclectisism of the feminine in matters of dress. I think that she made a bold statement in times of suppression and despotism. From a perspective of taste I still think her masculine dress style was ground breaking and would still turn heads today. It would be interesting to find out if she had the idea herself or if there was a fashion designer behind this.
Joanne Finkelstein (1993) 'The Fashioned Self' in e-Reserve.
Comments: After Simmel (1950/1971), fashion is based largely on an unresolved tension between the desire for personal distinction and the opposite desire for union with others through conformity.
Simmel can find no aesthetic or functional explanation of fashion. ‘There is not a trace of expediency in the method by which fashion dictates, for example, whether wide or narrow trousers, colored or black scarfs shall be worn’ (1971:297). At times fashion dictates that we wear ‘ugly and repugnant’ styles, and the only justification for this is as an exercise in power. Fashion represents the power to make us social: by drawing individuals away from a base nature, it inducts us all into the logics of sociality.
I think this is a point where celebrity stars make an impact on society. In fact they do have power over their audience, the fashion aficionados. As a result we can talk of fashion dictators. People who tell us what we have to wear to receive a sense of belonging. I experience myself reacting cautious on people who dress awkward. I expect these people to be mentally deranged or struck badly by fait. This kind of bias just happens, although I don’t even know the individual.
Indeed, fashion can obscure people’s ranks. Fidel Castro in Cuba as well as Mao Tse Dong in China provided their community with a uniform that did not only reflect on nationality, but also on everybody being equalin their society, including themselves, wearing the same uniform.
One of the pleasures of these everyday gestures is that they are ‘erotically charged’. In addition, at a symbolic level, they ritualise a mastery of biology, that is, they make the body seem tractable. By changing the unclothed, unmade-up body into ‘a self-produced coherent subject’, it becomes apparent that ‘the pleasures of fashion include the symbolic replay of this profoundly productive moment when subjectivity emerges’ (1994:64).
Indeed, as it seems, sex is the most important driver in modern society. If something is sexy, if it stimulates, then it will certainly become popular. Some of it may be accepted as erotically charged by females, some by males and some by both genders.
On fashion magazines, I think they try to fulfill dreams. I would also go to such an extent to say that fashion magazines are attraction barometers for the fashion industry, trying to stir reactions (identifying trends, doing market research on the acceptance of their content etc.).
Silverman (1986): ‘Men’s wear, in particular, has solidified into a uniform sobriety and rectitude, whereas by contrast women’s styles have fluctuated rapidly, thus creating the impression of female flightiness. The few attempts at bridging these differences, such as women wearing neckties and business suits, do not challenge Silverman’s argument, but merely demonstrate again both the instability and eclecticism of the feminine in matters of dress.’
Looking back at Marlene Dietrich wearing men’s suits, hats and ties, I don’t think that we can talk about the instability and eclectisism of the feminine in matters of dress. I think that she made a bold statement in times of suppression and despotism. From a perspective of taste I still think her masculine dress style was ground breaking and would still turn heads today. It would be interesting to find out if she had the idea herself or if there was a fashion designer behind this.
No comments:
Post a Comment