What is Fashion?

After a full semester of studying the multitudinous layers that make up “fashion,” my understanding has evolved far past its conventional definitions. Fashion is the interplay between trends, style, dress, subject positions; that is dictated by conspicuous and inconspicuous articulation of who the person in the clothing/accessories is. Fashion is defined by constant contradiction, thus can never be understood via binary assumptions like “straight versus gay”— just one of twelve “either-or thinking” examples Susan B. Kaiser states in her text Fashion and Cultural Studies. Similar to how many people define themselves as bisexual, fashion personifies these spectrums on which we lie. Fashion is a reflection of this chaotic world, that is perceived, materialized, embodied, and analyzed by an observer. In the final weeks of the Intro. To Fashion course, we discussed whether fashion can be considered an art form and if it belongs alongside other displayed artworks in a museum. Suzy Menkes poses the following questions in her New York Times article Gone Global: Fashion as Art: “Is fashion really so exhibition worthy? And, more importantly, are there explicit standards by which the various shows should be judged?”1 In the context of the article, it is difficult to pin fashion down as a fine art, as it is intrinsically linked to subjective concepts and personal feelings of designers, curators, and viewers. Consequently, it is a collaboration and discussion that must continuously occur and serves to extract the most objective understanding of its place in art. To conclude, fashion is everything and anything imposed with the limitations of the body, society, materiality, time, space, and perception. 

1 Suzy Menkes. “Is Fashion Really Museum Art?” The New York Times. July 04, 2011. Accessed April 24, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/fashion/is-fashion-really-museum-art.html.

Representation of Fashion: Curation and Museum Displays

Poor presentation of fashion has always been a pressing matter that has received a great deal of backlash for its ignorance to cultural, social, and individual subjectivity. In fact, failure to understand subjective culture by solely focusing on objective culture warrants appropriation, misinterpretation, and power struggles. This is why well-equipped curators are needed more than ever in order to account for the shifts in cultural awareness and importance of context. An example from the FIT 50 Years of Exhibitionism that I believe lacked proper representation was the traditional Chinese dragon-embroidered robe. It was hanged in the shadows of a Vivienne Tam mesh knit dress featuring the infamous Chinese communist revolutionary Mao Zedong. Though Tam did not represent former Chairman Zedong in favorable light- styled with mocking pigtails and cassock dress- it begs the question: Why? People all across the world know of Mao’s reputation. From the fifty years of fashion exhibitionism, the curator chose the one dress that quite farcically undermines the richness of Chinese culture. Suzy Menkes, New York Times author of “Gone Global: Fashion as Art,” includes a quote from Claire Wilcox, a senior fashion curator at the V&A Museum, that states “For me, objectivity is the key.” Nevertheless, fashion is not at all objective. What may appear objective (like the Mao Zedong dress chosen for its conspicuous representation of a major ruler in Chinese history) is inherently highly subjective. Fashion in itself is a media for communication, and it up to museum curators to preserve what was originally communicated. As public relations specialists are expected to be unbiased, curators should be meticulous analyzers and disseminators of objective and subject perspectives of fashion.