Several months ago, I talked at length about how I meandered through the industry with nothing but the experiences incurred to guide and teach me, and my feelings of going at a career blindly. I never went to school to learn how to look at, let alone evaluate, clothes, on how to discuss relatable theory, or to have ownership of a historical foundation that everyone else seemed to possess. And of course, there was no class on how to wedge yourself in any open sliver within the industry offered. As a side bar, if you ask me, I believe universities are meant to teach the theoretical (excluding STEM subjects), as opposed to the practical, but that is a conversation for another day.

But wandering my way through the industry and learning on the goal wasn’t the real challenge for me, though. Re-establishment in both New York and Paris were the défis – they did plenty to level me and hone some of my soft skills.

The whole thought of starting over again comes back to me every now and again, especially when the industry unveils new collections. But it was in my recent trip to Hong Kong when I chatted with recent transplant and food blogger Barbra Austin that those feelings of re-establishment and renewal were brought up. Like the budding relationship with a newfound city, it is the relationships with new PR firms, writers and the like that I find myself having to cultivate anew.

In some ways, starting over in a new city for work is like dating; we meet either through email correspondence or at the showroom, dancing around the conversation of interests (for editorial pieces), and getting to know one another (through showcasing clients). After finding some common ground, we see one another more often, share details and accommodate one another. But sometimes these relationships end when clients move to different firms or when associates move on. This shuffling of clients presents a game of observance, and sometimes, you look for the loner – the next up and coming designer amidst this large pool.

And when you leave the city, you bid your adieus, promising to keep some ties and memories. Then you wade into the waters all over again, recognizing the new hip locales (i.e. show venues and showrooms).

A view of the FIT Ivy Style exhibit

Examining what began as and remains as the “truly American look,” The Museum at FIT presents “Ivy Style,” which runs until January 5th, 2013. Looking at the longevity of the style, the exhibit breaks itself down thematically, as opposed to chronologically, although it highlights three particular time frames – World War I, post-World War II, and the revival period from the 80s to present. The thematic settings create an ambience that brings one back to school, with sections that include a grassy quad, classrooms, dorm rooms, and fraternities.

This focus on environment is what delivers and communicates the exhibition’s message of the Ivy League as an icon in sartorial imagery. Though the room is small, the many divisions and openness of the space, along with complementary soundtrack, presents the multi-faceted dimensions in which this particular style pervades in at least one phase of life. But it is the incorporation of modern designers, in addition to sponsoring partner Brooks Brothers, such as Ralph Lauren, Tripler, J. Press, Tommy Hilfiger, Michael Bastian and Thom Browne, that demonstrates the longevity and style’s ability to transcend age, time, and spatial boundaries.

For a virtual tour, take a look at the YouTube video below:

Image via WWD

Visitors looking at the Schiaparelli and Prada exhibit at The Met

I may be a late to the game in terms of weighing in on what perhaps “went wrong” with the Met’s “Schiaparelli and Prada: Impossible Conversations” feature exhibit, which ended this past August; suffice to say, I haven’t had a moment to sit down to gather my thoughts (although this sounds a bit like a broken record, since I’ve mentioned this several times now). That said, I’ve decided to make time, as opposed to wait, to write on fashion exhibitions and theories.

When the numbers came in, attendance was noted at a lacklustre 339 838 visitors (which pales in comparison to the record-breaking McQueen exhibit, which had 661 509 visitors), the curators were in expectance of the turnout on account of their desire for something that was more intellectual as opposed to an emotional experience. Cowles postulated that such led to an exhibit that made guests simply say “well, that was interesting,” as opposed to “OH MY GOD — THAT IS A MUST SEE!” This assertion offered could be enough to explain away the number of visitors and slow churn at the exhibit’s closing, however, upon viewing the exhibition, there is more that stands behind the flat reaction.

Firstly, in order to enjoy the exhibit, one has to suspend belief so as to permit the hypothesized conversations between these two designers. But even in doing so, the dialogue seems contrived, grasping at connections between the two icons’ ideologies. While it is pleasant to see the Vanity Fair series come to life, the extension of conversation to over seven vignettes seems a bit farfetched.

Secondly, despite the fact that the cinematics are pleasing to the eye, they are disruptive to the flow of the exhibit. Each dialogue lasts anywhere from a minute to several, along with a delay in between every start and finish. There is no way to perfectly time the visit, and to take away as much as possible, a decent amount of time is spent simply standing in front of the projection screen, watching a vignette midway and hoping for it to quickly begin again. Not to mention, the acoustics (and mind you, it was towards the closing days, yet not particularly crowded, when I went) were at times difficult to hear, thus losing some of the ambience that the curator sought to create.

Lastly, creating an intellectual work requires the necessary background to be given; however, there was little if any provided at the exhibit, apart from the website and pamphlet. In effect, the notion that this exhibit was menat to be intellectual was lost, and could be viewed more so as entertainment, thus accounting for the mild, as opposed to feverish, reaction to it all.

By no means was the exhibit a failure, but it certainly was one that didn’t clearly assert itself to be either emotional/entertaining or intellectual. Had it done so and worked out the logistics, the turnout may have fared better or attracted the correct demographic.

Image via NY Mag

Angelo Galasso SS13

There’s been good reasoning (or at least according to me) behind my lack of posting. Part of it being that the summer has been a busy one for me in terms of new experiences and things of the like. The more important facet to my apparent aversion to writing on this blog has been my inability to communicate what it is that I’ve wanted to say – I’m a fraud.

Of course, I use the term a lot more loosely than it was perhaps intended. In fact, I had originally titled this entry as “Working in Fashion Intimidates Me (But Not How You Might Think”). The working title read more to me as a book title for one of the top-selling light reads that I’d come across at the local bookstore. At which point, I should probably jot that title down in the event that I pen a book on the subject matter.

It’s been almost five years since I made my “start” in “working” in fashion. The numerous quotations that will probably ornament this entry chiefly serve to take away from the seriousness that may be interpreted from my words. Plus, the pairing of these words together makes me feel a little more pretentious than I actually am.

Coming back to the discussion on-hand, I’ve come to realize that I could only understand “this” now. The real difference between the age that I started working in the industry and the tender age of twenty wasn’t the years of work/internship experience, but rather, the fact that I was aware of how little I knew (i.e. nothing) when I was seventeen, whereas when I was twenty, I believed myself to know more than I did (i.e. something versus “just a tad more than nothing”). Now, dear reader, you probably have as much bearing as to what it is I’m alluding to as I did in terms of working knowledge of what it is that I am actually talking about. Confused? Good. Because that’s how I felt.

I navigated my way around fashion PR and marketing with ease, mostly because those two facets relied heavily on what was intuitive to me and where considered more so to be concepts than actual foundation. It wasn’t until I hit runways writing coverage that it all hit me really hard – the stark realization that I had no foundation in the understanding of the study and portrayal of fashion in its entirety.

When I watched the models walk down the runway, I had no clue as to what it was that I was looking for. Was it the hem? Was it the hair? Or was it how well the model could walk in the clothes? Everyone around me, with stoic expressions or sometimes gleeful chatter, seemed to know what they were doing. Their eyes looked at the assembled outfits from top to bottom and bottom to top, and once over again – everything for them seemed to be systematic. With write-ups, I looked to what other people were saying to get a grasp of what it is that I should be discussing, or what it was that I had actually seen.

Textiles? Let’s just leave it at this: I couldn’t tell the difference between organza or chiffon. It took a couple reads of a run of show and several games of “match-up” to finally get some idea.

Not sure what to call it? Just dub it “avant-garde” or “modern chic” when in doubt.

“Puffed out like an old fashioned dress?” I’m pretty sure that I meant to describe a “crinoline” in a circumlocutory manner because I didn’t know better.

If there were references to art history or Antiquity, I can say that I rocked that with confidence. Apart from those few moments, I found myself feeling as if I was a fake – running with a crowd that I had no business walking alongside.

So I suppose that’s why when I talk about the democratization of fashion bloggers and some of the problems that come with it, I am quick to point out the lack of understanding of the technical and theoretical aspects, diving past that aesthetic dictating of what “looks good – the reason being that I understand it all too well. Chalking up assessments based on the education of mainstream glossies and personal aesthetics becomes problematic. But what poses more of an issue isn’t the aforementioned, but rather, the lack of realization of the need to learn about fashion from a multi-faceted approach – beyond the present.

And for a long time, I hadn’t been aware of the blinders that I wore. It took a quite a bit of exposure, humbling experiences, and meeting folks who really knew what they were talking about to really admit that I needed to learn more and to take responsibility for what it is that I’ve missed out on by acquainting myself with textiles the best I can, getting familiar with history and theory, and carrying a sense of humility.

Cheers to faking it until you make it. I guess I’m the poster child for that, among other things.

Fashion: Now and Then

It may be a bit far off into the distance, but I suppose that I will announce (which will thus motivate me to compile the necessary research) that I will be presenting at LIM College’s 2nd annual symposium titled “Fashion: Now & Then” in mid-October. The overarching theme is that of information, which includes my field, fashion photography. My brief proposal can be read below, but in essence, I will be presenting on the representation of race in the fashion editorials of Vogue Italia’s special editions (i.e. September issue, 2008 Black Issue, 2009 Black Barbie Issue). For me, the excitement is not only in the sharing of ideas, but also, that this will be my first time presenting academic material beyond my peers.

Representation of Race in Special Issues of Vogue Italia

This paper will examine the differences in representation of women through the lens of race in fashion photography in the context of Vogue Italia’s “special editions.” These issues include the 2010 and 2011 September issues, the 2008 “Black Issue,” and the 2009 “Black Barbie Issue.” To date, there have not been any academic journals touching on the matter of race in fashion photography, and more specifically, touching on whole issues “celebrating race.”

In order to get at this issue, the following questions will be answered: In what ways – both similarly and differently – are female figures represented in the cover, beauty, and feature stories of these issues? How is the “Other” defined and depicted differently between these two “categories” of special edition magazines? In what ways do the photographs’ accompanying captions and titles frame the photographic narrative? How do they direct the viewing of the denotative and restructure the connotative? In what ways can the “black-themed” Vogue Italia issues be viewed as honorific or repressive archives in opposition to its “normative” counterparts? Under closer inspection, is it a “celebration of race,” or merely an echoing of the “celebration of fashion?”

With regards to methodology, the magazines will be analyzed in both qualitative and quantitative terms, so as to include the consideration of differences and similarities of particular styles shown with the model, ways in which the model is posed, numbers of time in which a different ethnicity is “utilized” and in what ways, and themes. In addition the paper will incorporate visual culture and photographic theory, along with the archival theories of Sekula and Ricoeur. Also important to note is the categorization of “special edition,” which encompasses publications of cultural (i.e. September) and thematic subjects.

Image via LIM College

Critics of 12 Magazine’s controversial spread, titled ‘Victim of Beauty,’ say the graphic photographs glamorize domestic abuse

Critics of Bulgarian fashion magazine, 12 Magazine, say that graphic photographs depicting women to be “victims of beauty” glamourize and condone domestic abuse. In response, editor-in-chief Huben Hubenov contests that the spread did anything but promote domestic violence on account of the fact that “this shoot was left without an introductory text, thus allowing everybody to translate it the way they want” in an email sent to NY Daily News. Hubenov continues in his email and urges audiences to take a closer look at the photographs as opposed to “leaping to conclusions,” and by doing so, “they would’ve seen girls who look at us strongly, who look confident, who are above the wounds, above everything. They are independent.” My apologies, but in taking a closer look at this editorial, I cannot agree with the argument of a reclamation of status and power.

I would like to to proffer a more theoretical lens, and consider the ideas of objectification vs humanizing, and fashion photography vs documentary photography. The first reaction that I had when seeing the photographs wasn’t one that leapt and connected such with domestic violence, but rather, one that labeled the spread as “distasteful.” Granted, I can see the connection that can be made; however, I find that the editorial has a much deeper reading given its presentation in a fashion magazine and its particular use of women.

The immediate that question that strikes me is why does this particular editorial hit such a nerve when there are many others that showcase women as the “lesser sex,” objects, and overall hyper-sexualized (granted, there have been discussions on these particular themes)? What I theorize to be part of the answer is the consideration that the women in these images are not being objectified, but rather, humanized. For instance, the relation of the word “victim” adds a nuance of human quality that should be associated with the models in these photographs, as opposed to relating them to simple advocates of clothing and accessories. In forging this connection, the editorial brings the subjects closer to us, and begs us to relate it to what we so often connote these messages to mean from various media – domestic abuse. In part, the strong reaction towards this set of images stems from the fact that they lack duality. The argument that women are reclaiming their body by posing in hyper-sexualized stances is one that is often used and can be bought (to some degree), but here, there is little to convince the audience that there is anything more than an exhibitionary order of women.

Perhaps what is even more problematic is the study of fashion photography itself. Semiologist Roland Barthes contended in the appendix of The Fashion System that all fashion images could be simply divided into three categories: the literal representation of fashion (i.e. the showing of the garment), romanticization (i.e. fantasy), and mockery. To test the theory, one could easily pull a variety of editorials and find that they all, to some capacity, lean one way or another, with some crossovers, towards these labels. That in itself presents the issue of what we call this editorial. By no menas does it represent fashion in the most literal of sense, which leaves us sitting uncomfortably between the creation of a fantasy and the mockery of violence perpetrated towards women. This inability to categorize what should be so systematically simple creates a conflict within the viewer’s frame of mind upon first glance.

With that said, the larger problem on-hand, however, is the fact that all of fashion photography is a construct. Documentary photography captures, in theory, what is reality and what the eye has seen, whereas fashion photography creates its own narrative from beginning to end. Therefore, the abstraction of randomness or flukes do not exist here – everything is deliberate. At which point, we must also note that the involvement of memory is mutually exclusive. There is no particular overlap or remembrance of “what has been,” which we find to be common with our own images; instead, we rely on societal context to dictate our perceptions of what is put before us. In which case, it may very well be clear why critics leap to “domestic violence;” the only societal reference that we have to relate such images to are the stories of abuse that we discuss and hear of, thus finding basis in cultural sensitivities.

Photography by Vasil Germanov for 12 Magazine

Photography by Vasil Germanov for 12 Magazine

Photography by Vasil Germanov for 12 Magazine

Photography by Vasil Germanov for 12 Magazine

Photography by Vasil Germanov for 12 Magazine

Images via NY Daily News

Little Black Jacket exhibit

To celebrate and promote Karl Lagerfeld’s latest book, The Little Black Jacket, Chanel is hosting an eight day exhibition in New York’s trendy SoHo district. The photographs feature the likes of various American and global icons, such as Sarah Jessica Parker, Joan Smalls, Yoko Ono, Daphne Guinness, and Alexander Wang, all of whom wearing jackets specifically designed for the shoot. Lagerfeld’s explanation for the exhibition to Gotham Magazine is as follows: “Every designer dreams of inventing the Chanel jacket. It’s up there with jeans or the T-shirt; it is gender-neutral—that is to say, it can be womenswear or menswear.”

For me, the exhibition is worth a quick glance but not much more. Much like the Andy Warhol exhibit at the Grand Palais, the exhibit is rich imagery but lacking in substance. Understandably the connection of the jacket’s androgyny and added spin from each of these personalities should provide some sort of illumination or expression, but it doesn’t. It feels more like a marketing gimmick for the book than anything else. Perhaps had the layout of the photographs been more dispersed and varied, a sense of appreciation for art could be felt.

The downstairs portion where images of Yoko Ono are featured, along with a short film projected on the wall of Ono dancing feels disconnected. This particular room most certainly delivered a greater sense of fashion and art intersecting, but it is tucked away from the rest of the exhibit, leaving it almost as an afterthought.

That aside, the takeaway posters for guests was a brilliant idea. Stacked in a corner, visitors are encouraged to take home their “favourite” photograph, which is neatly bound with a rubber band and encased in a vinyl bag at the front. From a marketing perspective, the exhibit is a success in terms of brand delivery, awareness, and tangibility; however from the “fashion as art” point of view, it seems as though that when New York makes attempts to move towards this particular direction, it finds itself quickly pulled back by the heavy hand of “fashion as commercialism.”

For those of you wanting to pay a visit, the exhibit is located at 18 Wooster St, New York, NY, and will be open noon to 8 PM until June 18th.

Downstairs where the Little Black Jacket exhibit highlights Yoko Ono

Little Black Jacket exhibit

Given that I have become more academic and theoretical in my approach to fashion in the last year, I am fairly excited by this conference that Exhibiting Fashion has mentioned on her blog. Details are below.

Call for Presentations

Proposal Due Date: May 15, 2012
FASHION: Now & Then
LIM College, New York, NY
Friday, October 19th 2012 to Sunday, October 21st 2012 www.limcollege.edu/fashionnowandthen

LIM College invites participation in the second annual symposium Fashion: Now & Then, a three day symposium at LIM College in which participants will discuss the past, present, and future uses of fashion information. The symposium consists of lectures and panel discussions, and participants will be drawn from the fashion industry, libraries, archives, academic institutions, publishers, and museums to represent a full range of expertise.

The 2012 Fashion: Now & Then symposium will include several themes about fashion and information including, but not limited to, discussion of the current models for dissemination of fashion information and the collection and preservation of fashion and related contextual information (a continuation of the 2011 Fashion: Now & Then theme). Additional areas of interest related to the subject of fashion and information include archives, blogs, books, collectors, collection development, designer archives, digital archives, digitization projects, rare books, fashion forecasting, fashion history, fashion studies, film, magazines, libraries, mapping & data visualization, merchandising, marketing, material culture, museums, new media, oral history, photography, preservation, print & non-print media, social media, retail, special collections, textiles, and trend reporting.

The event will take place in the LIM College Townhouse at 12 East 53rd Street between Fifth and Madison Avenues.

Presentation Proposals and Notification

Proposals for presentations should include: the title, name, affiliation, and email address of the author and an abstract of the 15 minute paper/presentation (<500 words). E-mail the proposal to proposals@limcollege.edu . Please submit the text of the proposal in the body of the e-mail and as a PDF or Word attachment. The proposal due date is May 15, 2012.

Notification of proposal acceptance will occur prior to July 1, 2012. Proceedings of the symposium will be published.

Dressing the models with the origami designs

In considering the theories that have been proposed with regards to the concept of the media event, there have been contentions, revisions, and additions made to the idea since its initial proposal by social scientist Daniel Dayan and sociologist Elihu Katz. What remains at the core is the bedazzling and captivating of an audience by some means of a disturbance in everyday life. The questions that one is quick to raise are one that asks what and how has the notion of the “media event” been transformed, and what complications have arisen since its inception?

Through investigating the initial postulation of what constitutes as the media event, followed by the considerations of the media spectacle, pseudo-events, and the “myth,” one becomes wary of the media event and the multiplicity that has trailed the term in subsequent years. Where does one manage to draw parallels with the present day is, perhaps, through the lens of fashion. Although tension can be found when lending the status of art to this particular discipline, one must recognize that the act of creation is nevertheless involved. The act of creating and “artistic exploration” varies from designer to designer, and brand to brand, which is the reason as to why this paper will not make sweeping generalizations about the industry itself, but rather, focus on one designer in particular – Dai Fujiwara[1], former creative director of Issey Miyake. Granted, some of the discussion will draw upon other designers and brands, as well as developments within the industry so as to illustrate the changing landscape of media event and spectacle as a whole.

Before broaching on the intertwined relationship of Fujiwara and the media event, one must define the term “media event.” And to do so, one can turn to Katz and Dayan who, in their 1985 article titled “Media Events: On The Experience of Not Being There,” consider the media event to be an interruption of the daily routine of life and broadcast schedule (308). To add a semantic layer to the term, the media event is also considered a means of telling a story of voluntarism and/or celebrating the heroic deed (308). The ways in which these “celebrations” take place are made discernable by the distinction of three specific forms: contest[2], conquest[3], and coronation[4]. Each of these forms carry a set of values; however, despite fixed characteristics, such as periodicity, odds, and roles of audience and presenter (307), one finds that the distinctions are not as clear, and are in fact much more flexible than the definition suggests. To draw upon common examples of media events, one could say that the Oscars demonstrates features that are both contest- and coronation-worthy. The label of contest is evident, as actors and movies “compete” with one another for the coveted golden statue, but the label of coronation is a little more nuances and micro. When an actor receives an Oscar, he or she is almost catapulted, in a sense, to an honorary status, which becomes evident in future productions and promotion with headlines such as “Award-winning actor/actress.”

With that said, there are certainly characteristics that are common to all three categories, and thus, are also common to media events in general. According to Katz and Dayan, they are as follows: live broadcasting, high drama/ritual, pre-planned/scheduled, are framed in time and space, and incorporation of personality. Thus, the media event is a live and constructed happening that holds to exaggeration as its means of signalling for attention to the audience. But by stating that the event must be framed in time and space, it is made clear that the media event is by no means “spontaneous” or “outside of the vernacular.”

Critical theorist Douglas Kellner, however, goes beyond Katz and Dayan’s “media event,” and instead elaborates on his own term, “media spectacle.” He considers this idea to refer to technologically mediated events, whether it is in the form of broadcasting, print media, or the Internet. Important to consider is that the media spectacle can also include media events that are often found in culture, as well as include that of “terror.” (78) In effect, one finds him or her reconciling the argument of the possibility of current events becoming a part of the “vernacular” and possibility of it being transitioned into a spectacle for the masses. That aside, the key element to the distinction between media spectacle and event is the consideration of scale and quality. Media spectacles, as Kellner asserts, are far more unpredictable, variable, and contestable to its media event counterpart. It would be fair to say that the media event is far more controlled and regulated, whereas the media spectacle, perhaps with intention of being controlled, has the potential to alter itself depending on its reception. In addition, the spectacle finds itself on a global scale, whereas the event finds itself entertaining the national scale, at best (80).

If the grouping of terms has led us thus far to cast “media event” under the umbrella of “media spectacle,” under what branch does the entity of spectacle fall? Rather, is there a specific category or word to describe what the spectacle truly is or is not?

It can be contested that to some degree, there most certainly is one. The pseudo-event, defined by Daniel J. Boorstein in his 1952 book The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-events in America, is an event or activity that exists for the sole purpose of media publicity. Such an event is only considered “real” after being viewed through a technological medium, such as a broadcast, advertising, and television. The instances of pseudo-events that immediately come to mind include press conferences and entertainment news shows. Because the pseudo-event is otherwise noted as being hyper-sensualized, pre-planned, repeatable, and dramatic, it almost seems appropriate to ask if the pseudo-event is the desirable term to explain both the media event and spectacle. The contention that can be made against it being an umbrella term is the third stipulation [5]that Boorstein makes, which states it has the characteristic of ambiguity in relation to the underlying reality and thus asks, “whether it really happened.” (11) In the case of the Olympics, for example, the individual competitions most certainly did happen, and the subsequent question is the appropriate “what does it mean for x country?” The affirmation that the event has happened and the lack of questioning behind its falsity lies in the fact of the present audience that can be seen in the bleachers, as well as the live broadcasted coverage. Therefore, although the pseudo-event may come close to bridging itself as an umbrella term, it misses the act of being “real” by means of being “live.” However, it is not to say that the pseudo-event serves no purpose, as we will see in continuing the discussion on Fujiwara.

In considering the media event and spectacle, and pseudo-event, one can discuss the ways in which they situate themselves with the artistic work of Dai Fujiwara. Working from the most micro of scales in this perspective, one examines the interaction of the creative designer’s work and the media event. The premise for the media event in this regard is the bi-annual presentation of collections during Paris Fashion Week (i.e. fashion shows).  To categorize the event, one realizes Dayan and Katz’s firm distinctions to be problematic as the event falls into a mélange of the contest and conquest categories. In order to explicate the reasoning behind this mixed categorization, one looks to the terms of periodicity, participants, and odds, which seem to pose the most problems.

The contest regards the “frequency” of the media event to be fixed, which is most appropriate for this fashion show, given that “tradition[6]” dictates that the Issey Miyake brand presents on the last Friday of Paris Fashion Week at 11AM each season. However, the “participants” are more vague in this scenario, since the question is asked to whom exactly is the presentation shown. From an industry standpoint (and it remains so for Fujiwara’s work, which has never been broadcast live), the participants are “designer versus critics[7]” (man versus society), which reveals an attempt to win or woo the critics over. Of course, the contention can also be made that the media event is a contest, man versus man, in which designers throughout this entire week of collection showcases are trying to win over the critics for “best of show.” This particular viewpoint of man versus man, however, seems to be more so a compilation of media events, pitted against one another. In which case, it can be said that the sole media event may interact with others, so as to create a larger “event” in and of itself. At which point, one may be pose the question as to whether or not one can consider this “conglomeration” to be a spectacle, on account of its mass (if one were to consider the other “fashion weeks,” including those of New York, Milan, and London) and increased volatility due to the amount of variables (i.e. increased number of critics and designers) that have now been included. The consideration of the transition of media event to spectacle in this particular frame is one that is worth contemplating, but cannot be answered at this point in time without investigation of the participants and networks at play.

Apart from the “slotting into” categories, Fujiwara’s fashion shows are characteristic of the elements of media events presented by Katz and Dayan. The high energy and drama of the event is evoked with bright lighting, long rows of bleachers, and anxious anticipation from the audience, who often find themselves waiting more than a half hour before show begins, only to find that it quickly ends fifteen minutes after. And while the event does not create disturbance in everyone’s ritual, it most certainly does create a ripple in those within the industry, what with editors putting their schedules on pause to capture this one particular moment in time. Although the aforementioned seems to run clichés for most shows, the following is most certainly unique to Fujiwara. The consideration of the media event being subservient to the act of voluntarism and “heroic deeds,” Fujiwara constructs a story that is told. In essence, the story puts the collection’s/designs’ inspiration in the placeholder of “hero,” and carries the audience through the transitions by means of a rotation of models and creations. What becomes apparent is that there is not only the hero of the brand (i.e. the creative director), but also the hero of the show (i.e. inspiration), which renews itself time and time again each season. This multiplicity goes beyond the initial thoughts of Katz and Dayan, but most certainly is appropriate in considering the application of media event characteristics.

Considering that the Fujiwara’s work on display has been established as a media event, can one entertain the notion that it, too, is a spectacle? The elements of variability and unpredictability simply do not exist, on account of the purported myths behind the brand and designer.

With such a particularly visual work (as is the case for fashion), the encoding and decoding of symbols are especially present. French theorist Roland Barthes’ work on myths in “Myth Today” (from the book Mythologies) examines the use of myth as speech and its influence in politics. Barthes applies the notions of the “signifier” and “signified” to the simplest means of communication – linguistics. The more important takeaway from this text, however, is the highlighting of understanding that mythologies are formed and disseminated as a means to perpetuate the ideas of the ruling class and its media.

Reconciling this idea of Barthes’, one considers the meaning behind the collections designed by Fujiwara. Although it can be said the designs are his own, they are still representative of a brand at large; in other words, the clothing presented is simply a perpetuation of the myth of both the man [8]and the brand Issey Miyake.  That said, there is the possibility to present some extension oneself, however, one must realize that the constraints of the myth are in place and do not permit for great exploration.

Coming back to the question of Fujiwara’s work being a spectacle, one can say that with the given constraints of defending the perpetuated myth of what Issey Miyake represents, the work cannot be considered a spectacle by any means. However, the work may very well be considered to be a pseudo-event. Recalling that Boorstein’s pseudo-event makes use of similar elements as that of Katz’s and Dayan’s media event, such as the high level of drama, pre-planned event, and publicity generator, one notes that the showcasing of the collection also generates an air of the ambiguity, which Boorstein mandates for the pseudo-event. Considering that Fujiwara is perpetuating the myth of the brand, a person that is not in the complete context very well believe that the brand and designer are still heavily intertwined. It is to say that to the common audience, the question of “was it really Issey Miyake” is quite literal, as opposed to representative, which critics may ask in relation to work presented and identity sought to be maintained. Nevertheless, the pseudo-event can be seen in relation to the Barthes’ myth as the preservation of an ideology leads to questions of ambiguity.

The discussion thus far on media event and spectacle has led us to question the definition and the capacity to which the words envelope; however, we have to also interrogate the physical space that the event embodies in its viewing and experience before broaching the involvement of artists and culture, and their involvement with the media event.

In a 2007 article, New Yorker writer David Denby questions the loss of value in the spectacle what with the shift in media, and subsequently context. In spite of the fact that he speaks more so to the changed experience of movie viewing, such can be re-appropriated to fit the discussion of artists and their interaction with the media event.

The example that Denby highlights is that of “Brokeback Mountain” in which he notes the great differences between cinematic and home viewing. Watching the movie on a laptop, he explains, creates a skewed perception of what is “important” and “authentic.” To explicate, Denby discusses the example of the mountains in the movie, which when viewed in the theater are the foreground with their immensity in comparison to the characters; however, when viewed at home, the mountains’ presence is far diminished and the focus shifts solely to the characters. It is to say that the interpretation and experience have changed, in Denby’s opinion, due to the re-appropriation of media to fit the home context. Denby notes that this constant “modified” viewing of what “has been” proves to be problematic for future generations who are not aware of what was supposed to be and instead accept this “altered” version as the norm. Although he relegates the conversation back to cinema, one can see how behavioural change, such as this, can pose a problem for the media event.

It is at this point that one examines the recent surge of Internet platforms and technologies and reflects on how it has generated a sense of democratization of the runway. One has to deviate away from Fujiawara’s work and consider the more “commercial” designers, such as Christopher Baily of Burberry and Jill Stuart of her eponymous line, who stream their runway shows live for all to watch. The show itself is stripped of context, when viewed on a laptop or on a mobile device, in the sense of its meaning to the industry, as well as the reduction and alteration in focus, since the view is now dependent on the camera’s gaze, as opposed to a present audience member’s free gaze. To answer the question as to how people find themselves entertained with a media event that offers such “constraints,” one refers back to Katz and Dayan who recognize that the media event’s broadcasting renders everyone equal – present and distant audience. It is to say that the average person may find empowerment in being able to “see” what those in “prestigious” roles observe in an otherwise secretive and closed-door industry. Coming back to the issue on-hand, the effect of a stripped context in new technologies, one has to acknowledge that while the streaming brand receives publicity, the show becomes more of a spectacle than an event; in which case, there becomes a lack of control over the identity myth. The transition in to spectacle stems from the more global reach, afforded by the technological medium, as well as the unpredictability of reception and reaction by the now mass audience. In turn, the fashion show – in general – becomes a cyclical hybrid of spectacle and event; in spite of having discussed the transition to the spectacle, the show still remains an event on some fronts, including the periodicity and aspects of control in the physical sense. What one can perhaps offer as middle ground is that the digital space offers the opportunity for media spectacle, while the physical space clings onto what once was with the media event.

While the terms of media event, media spectacle, and pseudo-event seem so interchangeable, the subtle nuances give each term their own distinction, while still permitting for overlap. The examination of the interaction of media events and Fujiwara offer a complexity that is not usually apparent. The consideration that a designer hides behind a brand that is not his or her own gives way to the theoretical notion that the fashion show is a pseudo-event, on account of purporting myth and ambiguity. Fujiwara aside, the media event finds itself at odds with new media. In spite of the fact that the media event has been subjected to broadcasting and the Internet in the past, the surge in the use of online platforms, such as YouTube and Hulu, has created a culture that believes in shared general experiences, as opposed to specific and contextualized moments. Such change in behaviour may prove to be problematic as the new generation grows up to think that they are entitled to see, access, and absorb everything, despite having no expertise or context as to what is actually happening.

Footnotes

[1] Dai Fujiwara served as creative director at Issey Miyake from 2006 to 2011.

[2]  Contests are defined as live broadcasts of a ceremonial competition between matched individuals or teams with a set of predetermined rules, often with a referee and a live audience. Such can include the Olympics, presidential elections, and the Super Bowl (Katz and Dayan 306).

[3] Conquests are live broadcasts of “great steps for mankind” where the hero is considered to have crossed a forbidden frontier. Examples include the presidential inauguration and the Oscars (Katz and Dayan 306).

[4] Coronations are the rites of passage that honour the hero from one status to the next, thus confirming authority. For example, the funeral is considered a coronation (Katz and Dayan 306).

[5] Boorstein notes that the three characteristics of the pseudo-event are: 1) it is pre-planned; 2) it is planted for the purpose of being reported or reproduced; 3) its relation to the underlying reality of the situation is ambiguous. (11)

[6] Some designers are known to have shows that may be more flexible with regards to scheduling, but this specificity makes the brand more recognizable as a ritual.

[7] The use of the term “critic” refers to those in positions of press, whether they are editors, columnists, or bloggers.

[8] As of 1999, Issey Miayke officially turned over both men’s and women’s collection design so that he could return to research full-time.

Image courtesy of Girl à la Mode

LG Fashion Week Spring 2012; photograph by Jason Hargrove

It’s over. At least, for the most part. Another season has come and gone, and the trend reports of what is “in” for fall are now pouring out into style columns when we have only just begun to appreciate the spring weather. But that’s not what I find to be problematic these days within the industry. What I contend to be the greater issue on-hand finds itself in tandem with Toronto Star reporter David Graham’s recent article on the lost art of fashion criticism.

In his article, Graham outlines how fashion criticism has become an “endangered species” of sorts in recent years. He provides reason as to why reviews have been less than critical as of late. First, he notes that design houses have taken it upon themselves to bar journalists on account of negative reviews. Second, Graham raises the point that reduced print-media budgets have resulted in fewer fashion critics covering the shows, which has instead given way to contracted bloggers. The magazines are most certainly accounted for; the negative reviews are never noted on account of the complexities of business (i.e. advertising), and are instead replaced by omissions. So where does that lead us? Right to the bloggers, Graham says. He contends that bloggers neither have the training nor the expertise to lend, and therefore simply offer opinion. Graham also makes note of the bloggers that have bought into celebrity culture, being dressed by the designer, in exchange for gushing and enthusiastic coverage.

What immediately comes to mind after reading the article is the similarities that New Yorker writer David Denby spoke of with regards to the “Atlantis” effect of the cinema; to be more precise, he spoke of what may be considered the “past experience” of the movie viewing, but that is something that I will like to tackle in another post.

Coming back to the article, I can say, from the personal standpoint that I find myself having fallen into some degree of the “blogger” premise in my earlier years in the industry. Perhaps, in part, I was first indeed dazzled by the celebrity culture, but it immediately became clear to me that I had very little, if any, understanding what was going on. It is to say that I had no framework to reference, in terms of textiles, shapes, styles, and past collections from other designers. At best, I had an art history background, which meant that I could tease out the occasional reference and discuss how it was re-worked and interpreted. Apart from those moments, I had some inkling as to what was “good” and what was “bad,” but there was no firm ground upon which I stood during my first time at New York Fashion Week several years ago. And this is the problem with bloggers – the sole education for most of these “journalists” has been television, the Internet, and style magazines that make reference to certain aesthetics. At the end of the day, the same reactions that are applied toward those mediums are again applied in the actual industry’s context, and that is what Graham rightly calls “opinion.”

To like or dislike the items portrayed in magazines is a matter of taste; however, to approve or disapprove a collection requires so much more. The question of “why” must be asked and answered objectively,not with a snarky “because I said so.” But none of that seems to matter at the end of the day. Bloggers have become Yes (Wo)Men. I scroll through my Twitter feed for some of the recent shows that I attended and found to be dreadful, and was surprised to see the constant appraisal. The designers had either failed to push beyond after several looks or to present a collection that had pushed the boundaries of technical design and innovation; however, few expressed anything negative, and when they did, there was no elaboration on what was the reason. It is almost as though the industry, specifically in New York, has become the dichotomous “yes/no” situation.

Permit me to digress for a moment. For the most part, I’ve avoided putting up any reviews of any sort from the collections that I’ve seen in New York this past season. Part of the reason is that I haven’t bothered to retrieve the photographs from my camera; but the much more underscored reason is that very few, if any, of the shows that I managed to capture with my camera excited me. Especially after having seen a variety of collections and how they have been in shown in other cities, more specifically Berlin and Paris, I realize that there is much more than just the garments on the model.

There needs to be a story told, and New York, quite frankly, has lost a lot of that on account of not only its fast-paced culture, but also its constant desire to appeal to the masses. This notion of fashion as art is ruined in this city, and it simply seems to reiterate itself to me every season with both the collections and attendees.

Over the years, I’ve certainly become much more theoretical and critical in my approach. And although I still have a lot to learn with regards to the technical aspects of fashion, I have come a long way, having had grasped a better understanding of the cultural theories and history.

Is the issue a lack of education? Not really.

I have also been into the blog “culture” since the blossoming of fashion blogs, and have not seen many others develop in such a manner. So the question arises whether or not these peer bloggers will want to become educated on all fronts – textiles, critical thinking, history – or will the allure of minor celebrity culture always suffice. It pains me to be skeptical at this point, but I doubt that many will have the desire to want to be educated. In effect, there will be no revival of the fashion critic, but rather, it will remain the marginalized character that it has become, only to find itself handing the baton to the next in line every now and then. This is where I hope to be wrong.

Image courtesy of Flickr (user: Jason Hargrove)