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

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

More Draping vs Tailored garments.

How does one begin to make a garment? The body is a three dimensional form. If a designer were to break it into shapes, one has two cylinders rising out of the ground. It is topped with a small box. On top of this small lower box (or pelvic girdle) sits a larger, trapezoidal box. Sprouting out of each side of this box are two cylinders and a post sticks out of the top for a head. This crud analogy does not do justice to the beauty of the human form… much like some clothing.

To cover the body, the designer must approach the body in two ways. He or she can decide to drape large pieces of fabric directly to the body. This fabric is then cut to fit and many times stitched or tied in place.

A second option would involve taking measurements, drafting a pattern block, then cutting and sewing fabric to fit each piece of the body. Both methods of making clothing have been around for quite some time. Each approach has reoccurring design themes that have inspired designer to reformulate some into some new and original thought or creative point of view. Here are just a few reoccurring themes of fashion.

Tailored Examples in Fashion History.

The roman chest piece could arguably be one of the first tailored pieces of clothing. Originally made of leather or fur, then metal than fabric, it seems to be reinvented periodically. But one may wonder “why?” Because it looks pretty damn hot! It gives an anatomy enhancement where the real wearing may be underdeveloped. It provides a symbol for masculinity or femininity in a modest (or at times, not so modest) way. It can look both powerfully fierce and sexually alluring/enticing at the same time. But also, it is custom made-to-measure. It therefore is also a symbol of affluence. One can not “just” purchase a breast plate “off the peg”.

Designers such as Alexander McQueen, Yves Saint Laurent, Hussein Chalayan have taken this roman influence to heart. One can hardly forget Grace Jones wearing her Issey Miyake chest piece to the Oscars.

The t-shirt. OK – so one does not think “tailored clothing” and “t-shirt” in the same sentence, but it falls in the category of measured and knit/cut to fit. It was not originally draped on the body. In early fashion history, it was part of the “union suit” — a garment with long underwear and top knitted connected together. It had buttons/ closures and was worn for years. It evolved into a two-piece set in WWI and in the Spanish American War. It is also here that American soldiers noticed the European soldiers were wearing undergarments made of cotton not wool. While cotton had been around forever, this was a new use for it. By the 1920, the “t-shirt” was listed as an official word in the dictionary and by 1955, it was acceptable to wear the t-shirt as an outer garment. So one must also realize that the t-shirt as we know it is really very new in the complete fashion history. T-shirts with contrasting neck and arm elastic are only 50 years old. In the sixties, plastisol (a stretchable ink) was perfected. Screen-printing and tie-dyeing became the rage. Today, it is (alas) a staple for many people’s wardrobe.

And what goes better with the t-shirt? Jeans. Like other clothing trends, jeans did not start out being a fashion garment with a ridiculous price tag. The word “jeans” comes from the French word “bleu de Gênes” which translates into “blue of Genoa” or the color of the uniform cloth for the sailor pants of Genoa, Italy in the 16^th Century. The fabric has always been cotton. The fabric structure evolved over time as did the color. The California gold rush increased the demand for clothing and pants that did not tear. The fabric needed to be quite strong.

In 1853, Leob Strauss (he later changed his name to Levi) founded a company to supply just such garments. Jacob Davis came up with the idea to use rivets to attach pockets on jeans. Together they made a fortune. Because the company was in close proximity to Hollywood, jeans appeared in Westerns and were a staple on many movie lots and dude ranches. Each generation since has taken a hold of jeans to symbolize a plethora of meanings. From anti-establishment hippies to nouveau riche silicon valley corporate giants, jeans reinvent themselves. Even in this recession, the US jean market for women’s wear alone grew to a staggering 8.03 billion in sales.

Draped influences in fashion.

When I mention draped garments, most instantly think of the latest Versace gown worn by some starlet who graces the pages of Vogue. But lets take it a step back… WAY BACK. Draped garments also included such things as loincloths, skirts, saris, ponchos, cloaks, shawls and scarves. In essence, it is fabric draped on the body. And as history tells us, the first fabric was fur pelts. So when I mention scarfs, I am not thinking silk, I am really meaning Draped fur scarves... I swoon at the thought of it. A favorite fabric of mine, fur is a fabric media that evokes glamour and sophistication. It is practical in cold winter climates and wonderful to wear. Many people’s connotation of fur is that of a coat… usually a pastel mink from the 50’s worn by their mother or grandmother. And usually that coat would be made to measure… however fur, like any fabric, can and is draped.

It makes beautiful scarves, shawls and throws. It is a fabric that wears well and holds up for years. It was the reason we even have cities like Chicago, Minneapolis and the US went forward with the purchase of the Northwest Territory. I am posting some of the most beautiful draped fur creations I have found.

Think of the crinoline as not just a garment but as a shape. It accentuates the woman’s waist, many times utilizing some kind of corset/waist-cincher, and exaggerates her hips. The garment falls into a bell shaped cone making the wearer appear as if she is floating across the room when she walks in. It is immeasurably elegant and over-the-top romantic.

Is it practical? I should think not. Is it a fire hazard? Most definitely depending on the media used in the construction. What is remarkable is that it is not totally a European or Western phenomena. It had been found in Tahiti as far back as 1784. Yes, it used to be de rigueur for court fashion. The width of the crinoline was an indicator of one’s status/social position and wealth. As with then, as it is now. It is a design shape that does not seem to disappear but more/less, reinvents itself.

Finally, what conversation about tailored vs draped clothing (especially with how it applies to dress) would be complete with a discussion about the loincloth. All this discussion about under garments, t-shirts and crinolines and we have not one mention about the lowly loincloth? Oh contrare! Say it isn’t so! Sacrilege. Our conversation would not be complete without it.

The prosthetic extension, expression and ornamentation of the penis has occurred in many ways. Of course, there was the cod piece in the early mid-evil and renaissance periods. Suits of armor had “protection” as well as the clansmen and folks for New Guinea tribes but one must think of these as “tailored” as they were measured and cut to fit. The loincloth on the other hand was draped. These sexy LITTLE numbers are most certainly part of early fashion history.

They are, of course, still worn for native dress in many countries. They are still required for covers of many romance novels. They are the costume of choice for all Tarzan movies. That this garment has never crossed over into the mainstream just boggles my mind. Of course, with the explosion of obesity and out of shape couch potatoes, one does have something to give thanks for in this up coming holiday season. And, it goes without saying but I must mention it, we can all give thanks for Fabio.

PelliceMode. BE-MA Editrice, Milano, Italy May/June 2009

Extreme Beauty, The Body Transformed. The metropolitan Museim of Art, NY, NY 2001

Breaking the Mode. Contemporary Fashion from the Permanent Collection, Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Kay Durland Spilker & Sharon Sadako Takeda. Skira Editore 2007

www.style.com CondeNast Publications, NY, NY 2009

Jeans: A Cultural History of an American Icon. Sullivan, James. London: Gotham Books.

Jeans, Wikipedia 2009, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

Abercrombie & Fitch.com 2009

Loincloth.com 2009

The blue jeans story, New Internationalist, June 1998.