Fashion Theories from an Undeveloped Mind

Context. (cont.)

Or, in simpler terms, I like hermeneutics. 

Context.

This evening I’ve started reading Jennifer Craik’s Fashion: The Key Concepts and something she said in her introduction (barely a page in) got me thinking.

She said that “students of fashion should consider these reflections in relation to their own fashion context.”, and I realised that THAT has been my problem. 

I hadn’t figured out exactly what it is about Fashion Theory that actually interests me. Why I chose this path as opposed to any other. So I did a mind map (I love mind maps. Arrows and circles and incoherent sentences, oh my!)

I think what it all boils down to is that I am mostly interested in the meaning of fashion to the individual. In the sense that we have taken what is essentially a functional thing (clothing as protection) and given it meaning (clothing as self expression).

I think this is a big leap forward, because it means that I can now take all my previous ideas, and work them towards an angle that I have come up with in my head as opposed to one I’ve re-appropriated. 

It also means I need to get a basic to intermediate knowledge of psychology that pertains to the individual. More books, yay.

I think I’ve cracked it.

I’ve been vaguely reading through lots of theory books to prepare for my interview next week, and I think I’ve managed to pin down the subject I want to have as my main bit.

I’m interested in a variety of areas within ‘fashion theory’ but most of them boil down to the visual interpretation of one’s clothing by others - i.e. what someone else thinks when they look at you and what you wear, and why they think that. 

I mean obviously there are all the other areas that I am interested in, possibly with more scope to further them, but this is the one area that I’d feel most comfortable talking about, and would do ok when questioned on it. I have a name of a poet/theorist to look into, books that I have I can interpret so that I can draw more into it.

I’m also interested in the role that clothing plays in classical literature (basically anything before the end of the second world war), but there is so much already out there on this subject that it would be foolish to go in a presume I can talk about it when the only things I have thought on the subject are my own ideas. Although maybe that’s a good thing? Go in with the subject and say that I have honestly not researched it, but from reading literature in my free time I have noticed a few things about the relationship clothing plays with the characters, the plot, and the general feel of the book that I think is very interesting. 

Regardless, everything seems to have slotted into place in my head. It all seems much more achievable, and I’ve finally managed to make the cross links with things I have been reading, instead of trying to absorb everything in a panic. 

All I need to do now is come up with a plan B for if I don’t get a place then I’ll feel a great deal calmer. 

Here it begins.

Good evening. 

Today I have been reading The Power of Fashion (About Design and Meaning). It’s a collection of essays by a variety of authors, and well worth having as a reference book.

Currently I’m on the Tigersprung essay by Ulrich Lehman, and I’m only a few pages in but it has sparked a few ideas, and there are several passages that harmonise brilliantly with what I had already thought but had been unable to articulate. For example, a few months ago I was trying to remember something I had learnt in a lecture several years ago about ‘looking’ (here’s a link to my old blog with a post about this particular struggle.), and Lehman has summed up the general thought process behind this as;“when we look upon an artefact we immediately assess its proximity to our own experience”. Basically, we project our own knowledge of the artefact and relate its significance to ourselves in order to interpret the meaning from it.

For example, when looking at an item of Burberry check from the 1990’s a majority of people (that is to say, most people aged 20-50) will associate it with Daniella Westbrook, ‘chav’ culture, and knock offs. For most of these people this will be seen as a negative connotation with the Burberry check, and they wont know much about the impressive and important history of the company, founded by Thomas Burberry in 1856 as an outfitters that helped send parties to Antarctica, and invented the trench coat (now an icon) for the First World War officers.

I wrote an essay whilst at university comparing the perception shift for the Burberry check and the Dr. Martens boot, and noted that the perception only changed when they were favoured by different groups of people. It’s an obvious point to make- the perception of Dr. Martens boot moved from industrial work boots to punk ‘head stompers’ because the punks wore them - but it’s a point that is taken for granted. 

Thoughts?