Influences in Fashion – Art

One instantly thinks of art and fashion and probably recalls Yves Saint Laurent’s homage collections to different contemporary artists. He exquisitely reproduced painting as walking canvases of clothing inspired by Matisse. He found inspiration in art and reproduced that in many collections. A younger fashionista may instantly recall Galliano’s collections of couture inspired by Baroque painters Van Dyk and Vermeer from the 2007 Dior Collection. This is really just scratching the surface. It also opens up a Pandora’s Box.

Many designers from the very early 20^th century have been struggling with this question of how art applies to fashion.

• Some choose to replicate the art like YSL, others view it as a leaping off point in how the fabric applies to the body.
• Some then look at the body, what is it and how much do we cover it as the body is art?
• Other designers view the body as limiting and grapple with the idea of changing the body shape or what is the essence of clothing. These designers view fashion as their media, or body as their media or the body as the canvas on which to place “A” media and make art from the wearer and the object they are wearing.

Ya see why this opens up a Pandora’s Box? There is no right or wrong as fashion, like art is subjective. AND one person’s fashion is another person’s art?

And some painters looked at fashion and made it art which inspired other artists to create as well. So let’s start here as it is the most convoluted place to start.

Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte – Seurat’s wonder. It plays with light and color. Breaking it down into components of basic color. A huge canvas viewed from a distance, it is a painting. When viewed from up close it is nothing more than dots of color and light. They play with the eye. He took the shape of women at the time and placed them as fundimental shapes. It is basic yet detailed at the same time. This was Impressionism changing how light reflected and refracted and looked to the eye. The question of light and the challenge of how the viewer sees light inspired many.

Jean Dunard was inspired by how light reflects and experimented with lacquer. She had seen Japanese lacquered objects and pondered the refractability of the light. She came up with Lamé — a cloth with a lacquered texture that reflects light. It glitters and sparkles. It inspired Vionnet to drape. She used it in garments where Cubism (where objects are broken up, analyzed, and re-assembled in an abstracted form) was applied to the body. She broke the fabric in to geometric forms or cut the fabric into cubes and based her design theories on a treatice of geometry and cubism.

Cubism was intensely popular. It was modern and new. It presented the viewer with a new visual construct of how to view things. Sonia Delaunay a painter, also designed textiles and adapted her abstract paintings into textiles and then into simple, easy garments. So this question of “art and clothing” really starts to dance and take hold. Other designers like Schiaparelli liked to dapple with this question as well. She enlisted Dadaists and Surrealists perspectives to help expand the vocabulary of fashion/art. Sometimes it was embracing the work of artists like Christian Bernard to creative a design. Other times, she converted conventional objects into new ways of wearing clothing like a shoe as a hat. (Dadaism was at it’s root an artistic expression of a rejection of an ideology that appeared to reject logic and embrace chaos and irrationality.) Thus a shoe as a hat, gloves as sleeves or accentuating the ribcage instead of hiding it supported the “theory” of dadasm. It was a new way to express art and clothing.

An extension of this could be seen through the work of designer Rei Kawadubo. She looked at the body from a new viewpoint: that is to free the body of it’s shape. She was inspired to recreate what people view as “the body” and rearrange the standard idea of what the body looks like in clothing. She tried to “deform” the body in a new way.

Other artists like Martin Margeila take a different approach in molding the body into a ‘standard’ shape that is obviously not real for the wearer, thus the body of the wearer is secondary in the garment… No matter what shape the body is in.

Take this a step further… Hussein Chalayan made a nifty little top made of wood and bolts. This challenged the concept not only the body, but what is the fabric that the body is wearing. One could look at early armor as a similar answer to this question but answered many years prior… but in this case, the garment requirement answered the question as the requirement of the garment was to be used in warfare. Chalayan later expanded this wearer requirement to include the question warmth in answering “what is the purpose of the garment to be worn?” He proposed a coat made of blankets.

With this in mind, the question of what is the purpose of the clothing can be taken and spun around. The new question is “what is the message the wearer or designer is wanting to give?” Opening up an artistic response almost similar to abstract expressionism where the action of the creation is the expression of art and fashion, not necessarily the garment itself. I put Yoshi Yamamoto’s more controversial work in line with abstract expressionism. It is not fabric, is is not really wearable. It is less an expression of clothing as it is more art.

One could say also say the expression of graffiti in cloth is perhaps also an solution to this question of expressionism. Vivienne Westwood has taken this expressionism and moved it into the realm of topical subjects with slogans of environmental protection and anti-consumerism printed on her clothing.

It is here that I must stop to pause. First to reflect on all of this as art really does inspire clothing on many levels. And secondly, I pause to this last entry of fashion and clothing as a sounding board or billboard for a message. I have never been a major fan of consumerism with trends of miscellaneously inspired/concocted clothing styles demanding purchase. I do have to take note with Westwood and her placing anti-consumerism slogans on clothing. Is this somehow supposed to provoke consumers to be inspired to buy? It is kind of a little bit oxymoronic or at least hypocritical.

Madeleine Vionnet Chronicle Books, San Francisco, CA 1998

Valerie Mendes, Amy De La Haye. 20^th Century Fashion. Thames & Hudson London/New York 2005

Kay Durland Spilker, Sharon Sadako Takeda. Breaking the Mode Skira Editore S.p.A. 2007

Akiko Fukai, Tamami Suoh, Miki Iwagami, Reiko Koga, Rii Nie. Fashion. A History from the 18^th to the 20^th Century. The Collection of the Kyoto Costume Institute. Taschen London, LA, Madrid, Paris, Tokyo 2006

Influences in fashion: Film

Fashion and film have had on ongoing dialogue since it’s early inception. Both reflect society’s culture, economic climate and views on society. Both rely on each others contributions to society to provide the creative energy to move the dialogue forward.

Clothes are never a frivolity: they always mean something. James Laver

“Filmmakers aspire to seduce.” They want to tell a story. Clothing helps convey the story (Slipper & the Rose). It helps with the development of the film’s character (Charlie Chaplin’s Tramp). It can provide motivation and inspiration for story, plot and momentum in movie narrative forward (Devil Wears Prada). The audience is there to be receptive to that story with hopes of being enmeshed in the visual experience as well as entertained or informed. They want to escape their present environment to learn, laugh, feel an emotion or find a new understanding in the dark, quiet, and safe walls of the theater.

Film making dialogue with costume and fashion had it’s origins in New York. Adolph Zukor (founder of Paramount) bought the rights to La Reine Elizabeth (1912). This early film starred Sarah Bernhardt – a stage legend. To convey the story, Zukor hired couture designer Paul Poirot to convey the story of the English Queen. Poirot, designer that he was, presented the audience with an ultra lavish, exotic Italian Renaissance costume epic. Americans made the discovery that films were no longer a cheap nickelodeon pastime. They were and could be considered, in fact, an art.

Clothes, clothes, clothes — everybody knows, you can’t get on in the pictures game — without clothes, clothes, clothes. Nance Mode, 1918, Motion Picture Magazine

The US at this time was primarily agricultural and rural. Besides entertain, film was a means to really enlighten and inform in illiterate population. The stars of these films became America’s royalty. The film industry embraced this as a method to promote the film. The star’s wardrobe was a means to market the film, elevate the star’s status & and promote this whole experience thus ensuring a good return on the investment and provide a momentum for the next film. Besides promoting the grandness, films used costumes and clothing to legitimize the film experience. One can’t forget that prior to the GI Bill after WWII most of America was illiterate, rural, and somewhat back ward. When this changed, so did movies (more on this later). This was a new media and viewed with much skepicism regarding it’s relevance. It was, and by some still is, corrupting society.

Designers such Lucile (Lady Duff Gordon) helped legitimized this media as she herself was a multi-pronged media machine. Lucile, as she was known, was a frequent contributor to Hearst Publications, and regular columns in Good Housekeeping and Harper’s Bazaar. She helped make movie fashion and styles acceptable dialogue as she herself was a household personality much like Oprah. Other costume designers included artists like Erte. Many early costume designers like Howard Greer (who worked for Lucile) and Travis Banton came from the couture industry. Adrian would later come from the movie industry and build a successful couture business because of his film involvement.

While costumes could elevate the movie, censorship caused by the condemnation of a costume deemed too revealing virtually guananteed the movie to be a success. An early example of this was Theda Bara filing a lawsuit for $100,000 against the Chicago censorship committee Better Films Committee of the Women’s Club of Omaha for refusing to give the movie (Cleopatra - 1917) a permit. The film, of course, booked solidly and grossed over a million dollars.

Film makers knew costumes helped to promote a sexual dialog between the stars and their adoring fans. This continued for years and still does. Women drooled at a bare chested Rudolph Valentino in The Sheik (1921) or Clark Gable in In Happened One Night.(1934) and at Brad Pitt in Troy (2004) The Gable film caused a drop of 30% in the men’s underwear market when he undressed and was not wearing an undershirt.

“We clearly found the formula for success in these romantic comidies of marrage and entrigue laced with a series of handsome leading men and a never-ending parade of fabulous gowns.” Gloria Swanson

“I want clothes that will make people gasp when they see them. Don’t design anyting that anyone could buy in a store.” Cecil B. DeMille.

As society has changed (particularly after WWII), movies have changed. With each decade, society has found itself examined in film and as fodder for stories in film. As stories in society have changed and evolved, characters are more dynamic and three-dimensional. Beside the need to be entertaining, films have needed to be more real whether the story is biographical or fictitious. Plot and plot structure has become more complex and strategic. The requirements placed for the costume, physical or emotional, are more demanding than in early films. As film viewser, there is a need to see the upside of a character as well as the dark, complex human frailties that make up the character. There are levels of sub-text that need to be conveyed in a costume that give depth and meaning to the characters as well as propel the storyline. A costume, and at times lack of one, gives a film an tension that heightens the anxiety of the watcher. The audience too can also be part of the film… in the sense that the character becomes easily identified with. The viewer feels that they know instinctively the motivation of character just by viewing what he/she is wearing. They become to identify with the character and at times, the viewer is one with the character. Traveling the film journey together.

“I really prefer not to play glamorous women in movies because my heroes in film, for the most part, are usually people that you wouldn’t know unless someone like me brought them to the screen, like everyday people… It’s about the reality of people’s lives and getting inside them, and letting you see what’s going on and how much the character is like the person’s that watching.” Cher

As our movies have changed, fashion and how we act as consumers have changed. The film viewer sees him/herself in the movie’s characters attempt to try to. So in turn, they act out by taking the lead or suggestion of the costume designer by following a style presented on a character in a film. That may include running to the shoe store to buy a pair of Manolos (Sex in the City) or cutting the neck ribbing off a sweatshirt like Jennifer Beal’s character in Flashdance.

The audience looks at the fashion in movies and the character arc and development and decides to take a risk. Many times the risk is successful as the fashion is what society is waiting… primed for a new fashion experience. The trend of men wear band collars after the movie The Sting or the rush of white suits after Saturday Night Fever are just a couple examples. Whatever the case may be, film shapes our society. The costumer applies his/her skill and craft can either reflect or challenge society’s views of fashion in their critique of it on the screen.

Deborah Nadoolman Ladis. Dressed. A Century of Hollywood Costume Design. 2007. Collins Design. Harper Collins Publishers NY

W. Robert LaVine. In a Glamorous Fashion. 1980. Charles Scribneer’s Sons. NY.

Maureen Reilly Hollywood Costume Design by Travilla Schiffer Publishing Co. Atglen, PA

Dale McConathy Diana Freeland. Hollywood Costume. Glamour! Glitter! Romance! Harry N Abram, Inc. Publishers Art NY

God and the Christian movie industry.http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=7765255&page=1

One final thought: Growing up in rural Michigan. Movies and fashion were really a wonderful escape. One of my fondest memories was watching movies and also that of my dad taking me to the city library (the library was an hour away.) They had the most splendid book called Hollywood Costume. Glamour! Glitter! Romance! It had a gold brocade cover and lots of beautiful color photos. Everytime I went to the library I checked out that book. I had the book out so many times, the librarian would just laugh as my dad would roll his eyes. I think I was about 8 or 10 at the time. About 30 years later, I was in the library and looked the book up. It turned out there were only two people who ever had a chance to check out this book for four years … me and someone else.

History as inspiration

Movies are a wonderful escape from the everyday work life. A really good film transports a viewer away from the theater and into a world that can be charming or scary, plain or beautiful. The plot crafts a sense of wonder and anticipation with a conclusion that leave one satisfied. I prefer films with panoramic vistas and intense visual beauty. Moulin Rouge and Phantom of the Opera caught my attention. I was captivated and saw each of them multiple times just for the visual stimulation factor alone. One scene in Phantom had the main character singing in a most captivating gown with stars in her hair.

Years later, I happened upon the source for the costume designer’s inspiration. It was a painting of Empress Elisabeth of Austria, (a.k.a., Elisabeth of Bavaria, Queen of Hungary, or simply, Princess Sissi) as depicted by Franz Xaver Winterhalter in 1865. The costume designer had taken liberties with some aspect of the costume (as did the painter I am sure). Both painter and costumer were able to capture the essence of a feeling/mood that they wanted to convey visually through the clothing. Fashion designers work to do that as well.

Many designers scour the libraries, art galleries and museums to find sources for inspiration for their next collections. Historical dress is one area of that is an unending fountain of rich inspiration. This is particularly true in high end ready to wear and couture. These area of garment sales offer the opportunity to use custom beading, embroidery and unique and special fibers. Many of these supplies are too expensive for mass-market garments. The luxury market offers more opportunity to use these supplies but also they demand more creativity and artistic liscense so one does not seem to be wearing a costume. Here are some recent collections and how they leveraged a source garment to make it usable for today’s wearer.

The Maharaja’s of India come immediately to mind in the collection by Alexander McQueen. His Ready-to-wear collection for Fall 2008 was a mix of embroidey and beading fit for royalty. I was actually quite surprised at the price point on some of these garments. The dress red dress on the right was only $3500 at Saks. OK – while not exactly a bargain, it did not require the princely sums that one would think.

His pre-fall 2009 collection was no less over the top, but took inspiration from the Dickens area of the industrial revolution. It has fiercely tailored suits and jackets but also some fun vest paired with leggings.

The collection was not so much a collection inspired by Oliver Twist’s orphan boys but more inspired by the wealthier citizens of London. Broken apart, the pieces could be also mixed with jeans or other business wear to make a practical addition to a wardrobe.

Also part of his Fall 2009 collection was a homage to the everyday blacksmith. The garments used in blacksmithing go back hundreds of years. These garments could of easlity been around in the 1760’s all the way to the 1950… perhaps even today. Leather vests and aprons were a practical way to prevent getting burned, Today’s foundries utilize modern day flame and heat resistant textile discoveries.

Jean Paul Gaulter Fall 07 Couture and Haider Ackerman Fall 2009 must have gone to the same source library. Both seems to have discovered the collection of Coachmen uniforms at the V&A This one in particular is Russian and from the 1850’s. Both seemed to pick the garment apart either utilizing its incredible fringe detail or the chest/cuff embroidery.

Both collections seem to have a historical reference but fall way short of making the appear as part of costume. Any of these pieces would be a happy addition to a wardrobe but also because it is undated, be worn for years,

1725 opera singer costumers were a source of inspiration for Alexander McQueen in this RTW 2008 garment. The source garment was originally worn by a man but this reincarnation was more suitable for a woman. 300 years later, the garment still works minus the arias.

Haider Ackerman presented a fall 2009 collection that was punctuated by embroidery and draped leather. Originally from the workrooms of John Galliano, Ackerman has a unique design flair that comes from being a Frenchmen living in Columbia and other parts of the world. He takes a very draped approach to fashion but has been exposed to many sources of ethnic and historical dress. This collection takes inspiration from vintage and contemporary matador outfits.

One sad note about doing the research on this collection: it has always been on my bucket list to actually try my hand at bullfighting. I’ve been to Rondo, I like the suit and am actually on a wait-list for matador school… yes there really is such a thing. There actually happened to be a very good school in Salamanca – the pretty town just northwest of Madrid.

But after finding a rather large collection of images including a videos of matadors being trampled/pummeled or pierced by bulls during a match, I have decided to nix the idea of going to bullfighting school. One site in particular noted how one (ahem… 50 year old) amateur bullfighter was punctured and tossed around by a bull… It was so not pretty.

Sketching vs draping

This is a hot button for me. Designers that sketch an idea verses those that take fabric and apply it to the stand (dress/body form) and drape. In my mind, this boils down to skill. Can a designer who ‘sketches’ actually make the garment they design? In many instances, the answer to that question is no. Many, many designers come to fashion with the idea they want to “design” and then hand off the ‘work’ for execution to someone else. Then again, there are those who know the “process” and can do both. Balenciaga is an excellent example of someone that could do everything… and did. He had vision and he had “skill” from years of sweat and ‘work’.

There is a remarkable difference in the final outcome of a garment's design whether the designer knows how to drape vs sketch. To be blunt, I think it requires a different part of the brain. The part of the brain that is used for sight is not the same part that executes algebra or balances a checkbook. So which part of the brain is used to “sketch” vs “to drape”?

In draping, a designer takes into account the tactile feel and hang of the fabric. They must contemplate the three dimensional form of the body and the interplay of the fabric. Expertise is needed to take the design off the stand and translate the molded fabric into a flat pattern Granted, this part of the process may be handed off to someone, but draping fabric requires more physical energy than sitting and pushing a pencil. To be blunt again, the designer has to get off their #$%^& and pay attention to the body and the fabric on it. This simple (and not so simple step) gives totally different results because the designer is more involved in the “process”. OMG. There is that word again.

So maybe I sound just a tad catty here. I do not mean to down play the labors and vision of designers like Valentino, YSL, Pauline Tregere, etc. To be fair, these people were trailblazers. They invented the manufacturing process for the mass market AND at the same time created a line or silhouette that was novel. They also had to create it in a world without cell phones. They looked at the cultural context of society and how clothing was worn and developed new shapes. They had to deal directly with labor issues without the crutch of sending it to the far off sweat shop. With today’s fashion, much the clothing industry seems to be taken over by stylists, pop stars and marketing agents… but not designers.

There is a “process” in the sketching arenas of design. Sadly, it is one that has evolved over time, my guess, by having to work with clients/supervisors/vendors that lacked vision. A sketch translates the design instantly. What you see is what you get. Revisions are faxed or emailed back and forth to the supplier. Some poor grunt has to execute the garment for a buck. Currently 95% of everything we (Americans) "design" in clothing is really made in China. The designer celeb takes a mark up. But can you always put a drape and twist of fabric into a sketch to send to someone? Will they "get it"? Can the new off-shore factory translate the sketch?

Take a look at sketches from many well-known designers. A sketch from YSL, as primitive as it may be, gets the concept across. I can see how the garment is going to look. Valentino is another. I get the concept. Oleg Cassini, no contest. I get it. It is the same with others. These designers had the staff on hand to pull of whatever they drew. Do these garments really react and relate to the body? Are they gimmicky? Perhaps. But I get the concept.


A Quick fashion history lesson.
Vionnet is the known as the originator of bias cut. Gres is known for taking the draped garments to a new level inspired by the Greeks. Both are shown here and both influenced many other designers. Both women draped their own designs. In the case of Vionnet, she did her designs in half scale on a doll and scaled them up when she was satisfied with the idea. Gres executed her work alone in a room with no one else but a real life model. She worked like a sculptress molding her clay. Dior, Balenciaga and Fath were contemporaries of Gres. Later designers like Versace and Halston held these two women in high esteem and tried to emulate their footsteps while adding to the conversation themselves.

Their clothing designs work in tandem with the body. There is an interplay with the body and the fabric. Is it always practical to wear? No. Just like it is not always practical to wear blue jeans and t-shirts. But the range and scope of the creativity is worlds apart from those that just
“sketch”. I may not always know where they are going with their dialogue on the evolution of their designs, but I get the concept...they are executing their craft. I get it. I am thrilled to take the creative journey with them.

So, ask yourself this, who will do a better job in designing a collection of clothing? A fine artist/painter/designer like for instance, Ralph Rucci of Chado or perhaps.... Victoria Beckham aka Fuzzy Spice or whatever her name was. Rucci is a painter and can sketch, but he also drapes and has been refining his craft for over 20 years. He is known for unusual seaming and a refined technique. Freaky Spice is known for.???? Oh yeah, she married the hottie soccer player and does underwear ads with him. Yeah. That it. Got it.











































Steven Bluttal, Patricia Mears. Halston. Phaidon Press. NY 2001

Harold Koda. Goddess: The Classical Mode. Metropolitan Museum of Art . NY 2003

Valerie Steele, Patricia Mears, Clare Sauro. Ralph Rucci. The Art of Weightlessness. Fashion Institute of Technology. NY 2007

Caroline Rennolds Milbank. Couture. The Great Designers. Steward, Tabori & Change, Inc. NY 1985

Pamela Golbin. Valentino, Themes and Variations. Rizzoli USA. NY 2008

Florence Muller, Hamish Bowles. Yves Saint Laurent Style. Abrams. NY 2008

Richard Martin Giuanni Versace. Metropolitan Museum of Art & Abrams. NY 1998

Pamela Golbin Madeleine Vionnet Rizzoli USA. NY 2009