Research of Fashion: Future

An ideal vision: New social forms that will be the basis of being will not arise without many designs, models, studies, and experiments that begin to bridge the gap between what is necessary and what is possible. (Fromm, 1997, p.143)
Fashion, in the future tense, will move towards the notion of being. It will be a subject of eternity. Eternity will be in the space, not on the timeline, and will reveal the purpose of existence. A real existence proves a real identity. Identity will be lived in, rather than interpreted. Fashion will be an emblem of the psyche of human beings, rather than the appearance. Hence, it will eventually transcend the false scenarios of insatiable lust, as it used to. Each garment will speak of individuality, and each of us will be fashioning within self-consciousness. Obsession, as an event, will not be extinct, but it will be mingled in solidity, thoughtfulness and appropriation. The trend still happens continuously, but is no longer veiled in vanity. Fashion will be present between the attire, body and soul in the uninterrupted present tense. 


The new paradigm: The mutation is gradually obliterating the essence of fashion. Fashion has been described (Arnold, 2009) as the phenomenon of pluralism in the twenty-first century, and it is without cause. It merely represents the recycled trends, unlimited desires, more production and consumption, which does not progress but drums in the whirl. Lipovetsky writes that: we have to go beyond painstaking transcriptions of fashion’s novelties and try to construct the great avenues of its history, try to understand how it works, try to uncover the various forms of logic that organize it and the ties that bind it to the collective whole. (Lipovetsky, 1994, p.16) He advises the retrospection and suggests exploring the in-depth meaning history and philosophy to puzzle the implication of roots. History is particularly crucial, as it reveals origin and traces evolution. However, fashion inevitably changes. New materials and new techniques are constantly developed. Instead of the denial of further development, it is reliable in constructing a new paradigm to maintain or rebirth the essences of fashion. Kate Fletcher claims that:paradigm, or the accepted models of how ideas relate to one another, are the sources of systems. If we influence things at the level of a paradigm, them a system can be totally transformed. Paradigms affect ideas and thought and are information led. (Fletcher, 2008, p.73) The current fashion industry is the combination of a variety of departments. It is connected, but is more commercial than culturally oriented. The action of design is empowered to re-operate and shift the perception, action and mind-set (Hethorn, 2008). It is to be said that design is a function to shift the false behaviors of consumption, reset the unmerciful environment of production and, consequently, meet the needs and desires in equilibrium. Hence, the outcomes will gradually evolve through the different interventions. Kate Fletcher (2011) also mentioned at a Fashioning an Ethical Industry Conference that ‘it is not only about the big picture, but each step we take is crucial’. In other words, the completion of a new paradigm will be gradually built under the individual but on solid principles. In addition, consumers are the ones who play the crucial role and decide the terminal shift or not. Vivienne Westwood (2010, cited in Siegle, 2011) declared in London Fashion week in February, 2010 that ‘we all have a part to play, and if you engage with life, you will get a new set of values, get off the consumer treadmill and start to think, and it is these great thinkers who will rescue the planet’. Consumers in the twenty-first century already have too many choices; what is important is to learn to purchase the self. Lizzie Harrison (2010, cited in Siegle, 2011), from Centre of Sustainable Fashion, says that ‘we want customers to move from being a passive consumer to an active user of fashion’. Instead of taking what has been given by advertisements or magazines, it is necessary to acknowledge personal identification, and being the self. This refers to Erich Fromm and how he defines being: Being in its etymological root is thus more than a statement of identity between subject and attribute; it is more than a descriptive term for a phenomenon. It denotes the reality of existence of who or what is; it states his/her/its authenticity and truth. Stating somebody or something is refer to the person’s or the thing’s essence, not to his/her/its appearance. (Fromm, 1997, p.20) It is the real being; we will be able to select what belongs to us and towards the notion that ‘consumer-as-artist’ (Hinte, 1997). It is by being that we will stop buying the needless, and transit the product from object to emotion. John Ehrenfeld also writes that: Unless the actor understands the process and “chooses” it over the idea that the “free self” is at work, the resultant choice of action is inauthentic and lacks meaningfulness for the actor. The more choice is propelled by social forces, such as advertising and peer pressure, the less authentic the action will be, and the less satisfaction will show up at the root of Being. (Ehrenfeld, 2008, p.38) In the end, fashion is still about the appearance of materials, but appearance is not the only element of fashion. Fashion entails a variety of factors to conceptualize the subject of fashion. It will not be completed without each part in place. Designers are endowed with the responsibility to defend these essences and flourish the insights of meaning. Design and meaning are complementary. A good design will be embedded under the in-depth meaning; on the other hand, the profound meaning always responds to the design within the discipline. Sum up, we will learn to weed out what is not important by inspecting what it is, and we will lessen the true self through our senses, consciousness and empathy. Fashion, as a product, is the ideal of beauty; as a subject, it is the series of stories about our environment and society; and fashion, as a consequence, is represented by the thoughts and actions of human beings.  

  
                       

Research of Fashion: Past

The preceding fashion: Once, fashion was the synonym of elitism. It is recounted (Breward 1995; Laver 1937) that fashion commenced from the middle of the fourteenth century in Europe, which paralleled the cultural movement, Known as the Renaissance. Along with the birth of merchants, the development of international trade and the economy, with the prosperity of art and science, and the riches all those things brought to the high society, fashion (as a concept) was gradually formed. However, it only circulated around the noble classes and was based on Sumptuary law. Sumptuary law protected the hierarchy of the social classes and restrained the bourgeoisie from conspicuous consumption (Veblen, 1994); therefore, fashion was only a privilege of the aristocrats. In the eighteenth century, the advancement of technology had propelled the dissemination of fashion, as well as the development of new textiles. For the first time, people of all classes were permitted to wear fashionable clothes, followed by the renewal laws (Lipovetsky, 1994). Nevertheless, expensive fabrics still constrained the fashion to people who could afford it. Fashion was eventually elevated into a different range of styles and entered the era of mass production for the public by the time of the industrial revolution. Along with the growth of the bourgeoisie and industrialists, and the propaganda of the fashion media in the middle of the nineteenth century, it is claimed (Arnold, 2009, p.15) that ‘fashion became a major way to formulate identity and to make social, cultural and financial status visible’. Hence, fashion has evolved itself into the most effective tool to signify and identify social status and the further pursuit of material culture.

Into the 20^th century, the role of fashion designers became fully established, generated by the dressmakers, industrial designers, artists, couturiers and, finally, the fashion designers. Haute couture was created in 1850 by Charles Frederick Worth and most designers defined their individual style to distinguish their wearers from others. At the same time, designers were dressing the theatrical stars, aristocrats and the wealthy, such as Paul Poiret for Ballets Russes and Gabrielle Chanel for Emmanuelle Devos, to represent their identity and personality; thus, the innovation of design turned into an indispensable value in the fashion system.

The launch of ready-to-wear in 1930’s by couturiers was the beginning of homogenous fashion. Arnold (2009) points out that women were likely to wear clothes made by a fashionable name, and fashion houses had to target the wider audiences to maintain their business. During this period, fashion trends were still dominated by the couture houses and elitism. It was the rising of the youth culture in the 1960’s that injected a new breed into the fashion industry. Trend was no longer just trickling down from the upper social class; simultaneously, the subculture was bubbling up to influence the design at a different level. Fashion has ultimately democratized. Between Worth and the 60’s, fashion, in each decade, had its style and reflected the spirits of the age (zeitgeist). The significance is what the social and cultural status revealing along with the discovery of insight into fashion.


The origin of fashion: What is fashion? If we look into the fashion literature, most researchers divide fashion into different chapters. Each chapter has one theme about history, time, space, language, art, body, or consumption, for example. Its multiple facets conclude the subject; but in a broad definition, fashion is about change (Sapir, 1931; Simmel, 1971; Spencer, 1966). Jennifer Craik (1993) indicates that the never changing aspect of fashion is that it is constantly changing, and Svendsen (2006, p.22) also writes that ‘it only becomes a fashion when this change is sought for its own sake and takes place relatively frequently’. In other words, fashion is an inevitably transient subject and the existence of transition testifies its intention. It is neither negative nor positive, but only the inwardness of fashion.

What if fashion is changing and time is the task of change? It seizes the moment for only certain period and moves forward, as it always does. Barbara Vinken (2005, p.42) writes that ‘fashion is the moment that negates time as duree; it erases the trace of time, blots out history as difference by positioning itself as absolute, self-evidence and perfect as a moment becoming eternity, the promise of eternity’. Vinken indicates that fashion fades away within its own term but its moment is eventually solely left in eternity. However, fashion is not only about the moment; instead it is the connection of moments. It is a series of sequences composed of fashion and through the nature of its change (Walker, 2006). More precisely, fashion is about the process of change and its facets are manifested through the processes. 

Meanwhile, identity is the function of fashion and it emerges through the process of communication. Fashion is indicated (Lurie, 1981; Davis, 1992; Barthes, 2004) as a language. Alison Lurie (1981, p.3) writes that ‘fashion is a language of sign, a nonverbal system of communication’, and further mentions that clothing has its own vocabulary and grammar. Fred Davis (1992, p.16) also writes that ‘individuals can through symbolic means communicate with others, in the instance of dress through predominately nondiscursive visual, tactile, and olfactory symbols’. Fashion allows us to have dialogue with ourselves, between the inner soul and outer appearance, and it is the personal action and thoughts that reveal the existence of identity. That contradicts past philosophical and religious movements where identity was primarily about the soul, not the body. Identity, in terms of fashion, represents the individuality in a social circumstance, and the social phenomenon is deliberated through the studies of fashion. Henri Lefebvre talked (1996, cited in Barthes, 2005) that, ‘it (fashion) is a phenomenon. The study of fashion can be particularized by looking at clothing but it is the whole of society which is implicated’. It is to be said that fashion is about the attire, as a topic. However, it always inevitably reflects the social environment through the explanation of itself, since, it becomes a subject of the social science. Fashion, it stands for its own, but encompasses the whole.    

Last but not least, the unity of beauty is the character of fashion. Even if its beauty only thrives in the fleeting time, its serenity is in its permanence. The vanishing of beauty always rebirths itself, and what is uncertain is only the duration of time. Meanwhile, the vestige of beauty is always documented in the chronicle and, simultaneously, is integrated in the future with modernity (Lipovetsky, 1994; Welter and Lillethun, 2007). The constant change of fashion makes it continuously enchanting. Fashion, in the end, is an ambiguous subject but intrinsically intertwined. 

Research of Fashion: Present

Definition: Fashion is a trend, a style, and a dialogue between body and cloth (Svendsen, 2006). It is a journey of itself, to remind of the past, live the present and look forward to the future. Fashion is the chronicle that reflects the social phenomenon; meanwhile, it is like the lens which is able to identify personal expression. It exists temporality in the tangible object; as time goes by, it will turn into an intangible subject in eternity, and this is the contradictive facet of fashion. Fashion is sui generis, with its own narratives.

Mutation: Fashion, in the twenty-first century, has shifted from the centre of clothes and accessories to the edge of lifestyle. Oscar de la Renta (Svendsen, 2006, p38) once said that ‘in the old days fashion designers – seamstresses really - made and sold only dresses, today we sell a lifestyle to the whole world’. Modern culture has forged fashion into a new face, and it is undeniably attributed by the progression of human beings. Meanwhile, western civilization has shifted fashion into a way of living, which is more about experiences and obsessions. Gee Thomson (2008, p7) has indicated that ‘contemporary fashion environments might look effortless “cool” and stylish, but it’s a seductive mix of colours, sounds and smells that’s been finely tuned by an army of retail consultants and brand gurus’. Modern fashion has distorted through human behaviors, and the intention of fashion seems only for the sake of the endless cycle of production and consumption. Today, we are bombarded in a world full of images, advertising, and countless new products. Publicity and media take the responsibility to generate these images from the abstract imagination to the visual format, but only for their own benefits and monetary gain. It is a sign of the times that the majority of people accepts what is presented, rather than acknowledges this information by their thoughts. As modern consumers, we are passive. We identify and receive ourselves through the outward, and adapt to it without further deliberation. Svendsen (2006, p.119) writes that ‘we seek our identity in what surrounds us in the now, in the symbolic value (here Svendsen means through the advertisements) that are accessible to us’. In other words, consumers do not identify but select the identification, and their selections are based on the pressure of public peers. Today, identity is more framed by competitive attitudes, rather than an awareness of personality. Erich Fromm has indicated (1997, p.23) that ‘I am = what I have and what I consume’. It is about what we buy, not who we really are. Identity, in terms of fashion, is dissolution (Svendsen, 2006). Fashion, in the modern age, is undeniably a symbolic sign of freedom and the index of civilization; but it is also intrinsically changed. To be argumentative, is fashion, in the twenty-first century, the evolution for the innovative future? Or is it simply a mutation built on commercial drivers?

Acceleration of fast fashion ?

Intensive capitalization and rationalization of the apparel industry, consumer affluence along with democratization and a loosening of class boundaries and the greatly quickened flow of information via the electronic media are cited typically as factors accounting for the progressively shortened span of the fashion cycle. (Davis, 1992, p.107)

Trends constantly change but are propelled at ever faster speeds. It has shifted from one show, haute couture, with two catwalks, prêt-a-porter, to four, sometimes six shows (pre- and resorts) a year. In addition, the propagation of the media has generalized the catwalk shows into the macro environment, which is accessible for the majority. High street fashion retailers rapidly provide the latest fashion items, similar to catwalks, to increase the volume of sales. In this case, mainstream consumers will be able to wear designer products at an affordable price to fill up the realm of desire. Fashion retailers, furthermore, see it as an advantage and have developed intensively to survive in the competitive market. It is claimed that high street brands such as Zara (Black, 2008) have merchandised by the weekly turnover. However, ironically, it is killing the essence of fashion. The just-in-time system imposes unrealistic demands on the production system and longer working hours for laborers, and built-in obsolescence forges the disposable fashion and throwaway culture. The homogenous styles even strangle creation and innovation in the design process. Fast fashion, as a business strategy, is highly successful but it buries the significance of design in terms of meaningful fashion.  

The power of image?

On the top of the fashion pyramid it is about the vision (Riley, 2011). Fashion publicity creates a series of glamorous and irresistible images to shape the iconic framework within the pursuing of fashion. Caroline Evans writes:

The image frequently becomes the commodity itself, in the form of exclusive fashion shows, Internet, website, television programmes and a new kind of fashion magazine, such as Tank, Purple and Visionaire. New media and increased fashion coverage made previously elite fashion accessible to a mass audience, but only as image, never as object … For the public, it becomes possible to acquire a high degree of familiarity with such contemporary fashions, even a kind of “ownership” of them, through the power of image. (Evans, 2003, p.97)

First of all, Evans explains the existence of plagiarism and the unlimited development of the diffusion lines, as well as the success of fast fashion. Secondly, it expresses that the industry is selling the brand identity, rather than the major products. Worldwide, there are only a certain group of people who are able to afford a £5,000 dress. However, as one of the biggest productive and consumptive industries, business must go on. Bruzzi and Gibson (2000) point out the continuance of business, ‘the entire economy of the industry comes from anonymous consumers … It is the sale of prêt-a-porter, accessories, perfume and licensing that guarantees income’. In other words, fashion brands invent a dream of illusion to present the fascination; but they do not sell the dream, only the subsidiaries. A dream, after all, is to be pursued and cannot be realized. It refers to what John Berger (2008, p.140) writes in that ‘publicity speaks in the future tense and yet the achievement of this future is endlessly deferred’. In the instance of fashion, retailers utilize the strategy through human behavior to elongate their business by introducing limitless desires. The image of fashion is possibly an illusion, but no doubt, artificially spectacular.


Living within fashion? Fashioning the life?
The conspicuous theorists believe that commodities have become objects of fashion to sell, and vice versa. Pierre Cardin (Mesher, 2010), in the 1960s, was the pioneer who created a whole world to live in. He designed clothes, interiors and a chain of restaurants which allowed people wear fashion in a holistic experience. This idea was taken to the extreme in the last decade. Giorgio Armani has a line of casa, in homewear. Italian brands, Bvlgari and Missoni have both launched the hotel business. French heritage brands, such as Louis Vuitton and Hermes, are retailing in the in-store café in concession stores. Fashion designer, Karl Lagerfeld, has even composed an individual album. John Styles (1998, cited in Bruzzi & Gibson, 2000) mentions ‘fashion is a paradigm of a mutated commodity form in a society’. It seems that every product is transformable under the context of fashion. It is, also, annotated how the path of fashion has drastically diverted from the delicate skills of the seamstress to the innovative design of commodities.

It is commonly accepted that today we all have more than we need and retailers are selling the commodities, instead of the necessities. Especially, under the notion of freedom, the similarity of commodities is everywhere, and design is focused on the appearance, not the immanence. Guy Debord (1994, p.43) writes that ‘the commodity’s becoming worldly coincides with the world’s being transformed into commodities’, and further writes (p.121) that ‘the free space of commodities is subject at every moment to modification and reconstruction, this is so that it may become even more identical to itself, and achieve as nearly as possible a perfectly static monotony’. This is able to explain that contemporary products are commercialized for the extraordinary exterior, not the meaning of the substance. In this circumstance, fashion merely becomes the disguise form for sales orientation and artificial veneer. Then, it processes in a bewildering way of transition.


The virtual space
The made world is offering the convenient life with global information, which already seems too good to be true. However, we are actually able to purchase clothing for same day delivery. It is also possible to watch the latest fashion show through the live broadcast, with the fashion website style.com being a good example of how easy is to have instant access to trends and products. Caroline Evans (2007, p.96) writes that ‘similarly today’s fashion, the most spectacular sign, is at the vanguard of a new model of social and commercial organization, the network’. Facebook and Twitter are new platforms for branding and promotion, and the internet is new publicity to deliver the unlimited wants and the infinite possibilities. According to the research (Weil, 2006), there are over two million fashion blogs already and ‘most of the conversation is shopping advice, liberally laced with consumer recommendations’. It is to be asserted that technology has transformed fashion into the purely vision, rather than the arousing of self-awareness. Fashion is expanding and spreading in the global spectrum. The power of the internet is effective, but also dangerous. On the one hand, the question is whether a blog or website is easily generated into a platform to celebrate the materials and function as a tool to crave the desires and needs. On the other, the question is whether its overflow has also deluged the implication of fashion, and the cognition of the self-expression has collapsed alongside......  


To be continue....