Liveblogging Kalamazoo: Friday 3:30-5 pm
May. 8th, 2009 04:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hrjSession 320: From “Clothing” to “Fashion”: When Did Change Begin to Matter? (Roundtable Discussion -- Carole Collier Frick, Southern Illinois Univ.; Sarah-Grace Heller, Ohio State Univ.; Desiree Koslin, Fashion Institute of Technology; and Laurel Ann Wilson, Fordham Univ.)
Sarah-Grace Heller presents the background on what is meant by a “fashion system”. [me: her work on the topic was what got me ruminating on fashion and medieval culinary literature a while ago.] The basic principles are: a relative down-playing of the value of the past; a society-wide desire for constant, systematic change; a use of fashion for individual expression and social imitation; a medium of self-enhancement via consumption and appearance; change focus on superficial forms vs. major ones; a theme of excess and exaggeration; the establishment of what is and is not fashion is performative with privileged individuals able to define fashion; change is driven by criticism and disapproval; value is placed on pleasure; when a fashion system is established, it shifts society towards an equalization of appearances. She gives specific examples from a 12th c. French romance which focuses on a male fashion plate.
Desiree Koslin reviews the necessary preconditions for fashion: innovative social change, commodity markets, and a cycle of critical review and dis/approval of personal expressions. Presents examples from 1st millennium China. Note that some of the sartorial details (in their underlying structure, not the superficial details) are the same ones elaborated by other fashionable societies at other eras. More details and examples. Concludes with point that “fashion” also produces “anti-fashion”, as with ascetic orders (example being S. Clare’s ragged mantle).
Carole Collier Frick discusses ways of dodging sumptuary laws, e.g., if a law forbids a specific named garment or style, simply invent a new one with a new name. Discusses the ebb and flow of fashion, the inconsistency in whether men or women drive it. Reiterates similar prerequisites for “fashion” as previously mentioned.
Laurel Ann Wilson traces the male/female differential as an indicator of fashion, as well as pointing out that as men’s hemlines rose and fell, the conservative critics of fashionability derided both equally in their turn (often for similar reasons), making it clear that it was the fashion/change dynamic that they disapproved of rather than specific styles. Agrees that fashion is defined by rapid and unnecessary change, change that re-shapes the body, complexity, choice.
Overall, pretty solid agreement on what constitutes a “fashion system”, but then this isn’t surprising given that the panel was organized around that particular theoretical construct. (I think it makes a lot of sense, but that doesn’t mean I don’t recognize it as a theoretical construct rather than an eternal verity.)
Sarah-Grace Heller presents the background on what is meant by a “fashion system”. [me: her work on the topic was what got me ruminating on fashion and medieval culinary literature a while ago.] The basic principles are: a relative down-playing of the value of the past; a society-wide desire for constant, systematic change; a use of fashion for individual expression and social imitation; a medium of self-enhancement via consumption and appearance; change focus on superficial forms vs. major ones; a theme of excess and exaggeration; the establishment of what is and is not fashion is performative with privileged individuals able to define fashion; change is driven by criticism and disapproval; value is placed on pleasure; when a fashion system is established, it shifts society towards an equalization of appearances. She gives specific examples from a 12th c. French romance which focuses on a male fashion plate.
Desiree Koslin reviews the necessary preconditions for fashion: innovative social change, commodity markets, and a cycle of critical review and dis/approval of personal expressions. Presents examples from 1st millennium China. Note that some of the sartorial details (in their underlying structure, not the superficial details) are the same ones elaborated by other fashionable societies at other eras. More details and examples. Concludes with point that “fashion” also produces “anti-fashion”, as with ascetic orders (example being S. Clare’s ragged mantle).
Carole Collier Frick discusses ways of dodging sumptuary laws, e.g., if a law forbids a specific named garment or style, simply invent a new one with a new name. Discusses the ebb and flow of fashion, the inconsistency in whether men or women drive it. Reiterates similar prerequisites for “fashion” as previously mentioned.
Laurel Ann Wilson traces the male/female differential as an indicator of fashion, as well as pointing out that as men’s hemlines rose and fell, the conservative critics of fashionability derided both equally in their turn (often for similar reasons), making it clear that it was the fashion/change dynamic that they disapproved of rather than specific styles. Agrees that fashion is defined by rapid and unnecessary change, change that re-shapes the body, complexity, choice.
Overall, pretty solid agreement on what constitutes a “fashion system”, but then this isn’t surprising given that the panel was organized around that particular theoretical construct. (I think it makes a lot of sense, but that doesn’t mean I don’t recognize it as a theoretical construct rather than an eternal verity.)
