ASA 141
Franchesca Flores
Photo from H&M's New LTD Collection
In the article, “Afterword: Re-Orienting Fashion Theory,” by Sandra Niessen, she discusses a topic that the fashion industry usually turns a blind eye to when regarding what is fashion. “…linking Asian dress with fashion, should, therefore, give pause, inspire a little discomfort.” The chic, high-end look that the fashion industry has is without a doubt, a little intimidating and makes the business seem cut throat where it has little room for consideration of anything other than “the look.” Niessen uses Asian clothing for an example where it can be seen as simplistic, modern and binary, but is transformed and interpreted into Western fashion and ideas. This can be seen in H&M where simplistic, long cardigans, shirts and sweaters can sell to any sex because it does necessarily have a set gender preference.
Niessen also points out that fashion already has its set idea on, “who does and who does not have fashion.” In the West, it is common to see designers and brands take pieces of what they consider “anti-fashion” which would be a culture or race's traditional, folk wear, and incorporate elements from it such as the construction of the garment or pattern into a “fashionable” design. I think that this is where the “discomfort” comes in that Niessen is talking about, where the fashion industry needs to realize where they obtain their ideas and resources. The discussion of what is and what isn’t fashion is important because every piece of clothing has been revolutionized by garments and pieces from the past, of course, there can be an original, but that original does come from prior inspiration and it needs to be recognized and stop being marginalized. With that, the question I want to pose is, if one chooses to wear a part of a traditional garment, but not the entire outfit is this consider “fashion” or honoring a culture/race with today's fashion?
No comments:
Post a Comment