After completing the Zeitgeist worksheet and sharing our ideas in class, I have realized the meaning behind who could be considered an influencer/made influences that kept society to believe that what they are doing is “approved”. Before this assignment, I have never thought deep about who could be an influencer, innovator, and/or who could or wouldn’t be considered a fashion leader but after having a thorough discussion and sharing ideas with my group, we all agreed that many “trending” celebrities nowadays fall under a majority of the categories on the Zeitgeist worksheet, like Kim Kardashian.
Anybody see this coming?
All the ways fashion designers have paid tribute to the late icon during the Fall 2016 season.
Source: David Bowie Tributes at Fashion Week Fall 2016 – Vogue
A resistant market? Well, there’s something to think about. “No one left to dress,” said Balenciaga, when he left the business. “No one to play with” said Yves…
Miuccia Prada wove more of her eerily dissociative magic, but will it cast its spell on a market that seems increasingly resistant to such blandishments?
Source: A Spacey Flight of Fancy at Prada | Fashion Show Review, Spring 2016 | BoF
Here is side of the “fashion world” that is rather different from the one in my last post. How is it that these two worlds can be the same place? (Can they?)
On the Italian Riviera, Dolce & Gabbana’s wealthiest clients dance, drink, and compete to buy couture.
Source: Alta Moda’s Luxurious Fashion Show – The New Yorker
Hey! It’s our neighborhood! (Our “here” our “now”!!)
Providence, Rhode Island is home to an amazing style scene that culminates in StyleWeek Northeast—and these five rising fashion brands.
Source: An Inside Look At StyleWeek Northeast – Forbes
New York fashion week: notes from the frow
Annie’s Miss Hannigan, model groupies and catwalk tumbles … what’s catching everyone’s eye at the shows?
Source: New York fashion week: notes from the frow | Fashion | The Guardian
And there we have it. Fashion as we knew it, becomes Fashion as we now know it: “…a near-constant stream of newness.” From Fashion Cycle to Fashion Feed – The Business of Fashion.
Link to Article:
“It’s the end of fashion as we know it” says Li Edelkoort.
This has to be required reading! One of the leading forecasters in the world is now proclaiming the “Death of Fashion” (Oh my!!!) Didn’t see that coming, did we? (Or have we perhaps been following the history for the past 40 years or so…?)
(Sorry, I can’t help it. I´m grinning ear to ear…)
The best part is that Edelkoort brings this to some kind of full post-modern circle. The “end of fashion” now means the return of couture. (As if there’s nowhere else to go…. I love it.)
This is the end of fashion as we know it. Fashion with a big F is no longer there. And maybe it’s not a problem; maybe it’s actually a good moment to rethink. Actually the comeback of couture, which I’m predicting, could bring us a host of new ideas of how to handle the idea of clothes
And then the lament
Then the designers themselves are all proclaiming that they are no longer doing fashion but are doing clothes, clothes, clothes. So everybody for several reasons is concentrating on clothes.
And then marketing of course killed the whole thing. It’s governed by greed and not by vision. There’s no innovation any more because of that.
Fashion shows are becoming ridiculous; 12 minutes long. 45 minutes driving, 25 minutes waiting. Nobody watches them any more. The editors are just on their phones; nobody gets carried away by it.
Where to begin…
OK… How about with our recent reading of Walter Benjamin and the Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (1936), where he points out the “commonplace” ancient lament that arises from the experts at times like this:
The mass is a matrix from which all traditional behavior toward works of art issues today in a new form. Quantity has been transmuted into quality. The greatly increased mass of participants has produced a change in the mode of participation. The fact that the new mode of participation first appeared in a disreputable form must not confuse the spectator. Yet some people have launched spirited attacks against precisely this superficial aspect. Among these, Duhamel has expressed himself in the most radical manner. What he objects to most is the kind of participation which the movie elicits from the masses. Duhamel calls the movie
“a pastime for helots, a diversion for uneducated, wretched, worn-out creatures who are consumed by their worries a spectacle which requires no concentration and presupposes no intelligence which kindles no light in the heart and awakens no hope other than the ridiculous one of someday becoming a ‘star’ in Los Angeles.”
Clearly, this is at bottom the same ancient lament that the masses seek distraction whereas art demands concentration from the spectator. That is a commonplace.
“The fact that the new mode of participation first appeared in a disreputable form must not confuse the spectator.”
This is why one should read Walter Benjamin, yes?
Link to article: Spring 2015 Trend, Retrospective Fashion – Future of Design.
Here’s an interesting take on the fashion world:
“Fashion and art (and music, for that matter) have become do-over cultures, with designers and painters alike recycling the past (near, distant, and points in between) at such speeds it’s hard to keep up.”