"Architecture's mission, then, was a divine one: to announce the presence of the more holy, devout, or noble both to themselves and to the common. The excess expenditure that architecture produced in comparison to building vividly demonstrated class difference. Clothing played a similar role: the noble or the priest would don clothes that made visible their difference from the commoner. Certainly more expensive, the clothes of the nobles were frequently deliberately impractical, so as to underscore the impossibility of manual labor for the gentle classes."
When you think about it, both fashion and architecture (more simply, clothes and buildings) serve very simple functions - clothes to keep us warm and buildings to provide us shelter. But when seen from the viewpoint of "high fashion" .. haute couture.. and modernistic architecture, or old-fashioned very stylish architecure, gothic towers with gargoyles sticking out of the roofs, etc... any emphasis we put on the way our clothes look, and how much they cost, or the materials a structure is made out of and how expensive it is, are purely human devices - not really necessary to the functions they provide, all superficial for our own enjoyment, our own creation.
That's why I like that line that says "the clothes of nobles were frequently deliberately impractical, so as to underscore the impossibility of manual labor for the gentle classes." High fashion often is very impractical. It tends to look uncomfortable, or not the kind of thing you would wear in everyday life. But it's expensive and exciting and beautiful to look at. Highly stylized architecture also strives ahead of its simple purpose, to shelter, and becomes something much more elaborate and expensive than necessary, but is also beautiful to look at. Both fashion and architecture, necessities to everyday life (for we all must dress and we all must live somewhere), have similarily skyrocketed into something more: Art. Both fashion and architecture, due to the artistic auras they have taken on, and the association with money they involve, certainly function as dividers between the classes.
But the division of class that fashion creates has changed in a way that architecture has not, specifically because people, especially since the rebellious 1960s, have taken on their own looks and made them important, despite the fact that the clothes they wear are not as expensive, not as "couture."
"In London, the fashion boutique was developed, providing limited run clothing for a small group of urban youth that used this clothing to mark off their difference – not as a class but as a group with a shared, generational identity... Would a young British youthquaker of the early 60s trade her Mary Quant miniskirt for a Chanel dress? Probably not. From then on haute couture was doomed."
We can relate to this today, as I'm sure we all shop at places like these, because the bargains are so tasty!:
"[Couture] is positively undone by the middle-blow stores like Banana Republic or Target. These stores make clothes that look good, frequently setting trends or at least copying both boutique and couture in real-time, often in a more sensible manner. As these mass-produced clothes are significantly cheaper while generally well made, buying couture now seems to be purely indulgent. Even the rich can understand Target's appeal when its ads read "It's fashionable to pay less."
And Varnelis defines the link between this change from couture to affordable style and architecture as such:
"If architecture is still heavy, slow and expensive, it will have to become faster, cheaper, and more responsive. If architecture, still dominated by a couture culture of avant-gardist elitism, is to survive, it must realize that haute couture is doomed... Instead, architecture will have to find out how to take advantage of a society in which difference is no longer something only for the very rich, but is now for everyone."
This really doesn't seem like a bad thing, though, if architecture is a little behind the loop, because it means that style is now more equal among people, which only means that all of us have the opportunity to live more fabulous, stylish lives regardless of our place in society. I can definitely see a link between the art of architecture and fashion and today's reality tv. Particularly the Bravo network has made fashion and design a more popular obsession among the common masses, with shows regarding fashion design like Project Runway and Tim Gunn's Guide to Style, and Top Design, which focused on interior decorating and ties into the architecture aspect. Project Runway specifically has brought the idea of couture fashion into everyday life, and makes average people who shop at Target excited about runway shows and high fashion. Being able to be connected to the worlds of fashion and design in your own living room is wonderful, and breaks down style barriers between the classes even more.
High fashion meets funkiness thanks to the best reality show ever!
6 comments:
I agree with you. I have to say that this article really made me realize how fashion and architecture do go hand-in-hand. Just like how Varnelis said that "fashion has more to offer architecture than theory." Fashion and architecture are markers for class difference, and he related his information to Pierre Bourdieu and taste. I do agree with you that nowadays people are more on the same level when it comes to fashion, just because of these discounted stores, but do you really think everyone thinks that way? If you walk into Manhattan people with Gucci bags, tend to look at you funny when you're wearing a Coach hand bag. All I'm trying to say is that fashion has built up such an expectation that it's hard for the lower class to compete with upper class.
Even before reading this article, I thought that architecture and fashion are connected in the way that when you go to a high-end store like Prada, not only the clothes are beautiful, but the store itself is created like that too. I also like what you said that high fashion is most of the time impractical. Things that are shown during runway shows are completely ridiculous sometimes and you could never imagine wearing it..or is it that no one but higher class individuals can see it.
I also agree in the essence that fashion and architecture are alike in which the article states how it is used throughout society from priests in their delibertly impractical clothing to our women and men today that dress fashionably for the sake of fashion. I love all of the reality TV shows on fashion and it has absolutely become recgnized as an art. I am not sure where my belief quite stems from whether it is from watching these shows, magazines or just my sheer love of girly things that are "beautiful" to me. This idea of fashion being so enticing to the public eye may be seen as superficial to some and an expression of art and creativity to others, but to each is own. This very well does serve as another way for the class barrier to be washed away and bring us closer to the worlds in which we do not come across in our daily lives.
Good show. I can add only to point out that there is certainly a movement in architecture that is attempting to quicken the pace of construction, make buildings less expensive to own and maintain, and retain a decidedly modern feel and aesthetic. For the last decade or so prefab housing has crept into the marketplace attempting to cut out the fat of traditional housing. With some innovative designs and a green agenda, prefab has taken hold in some of the more progressive corners of the US. Will prefab come into vogue? I think it already is, although the Target version may still be on the way.
As you noted, high fashion often is impractical and there's a certain self awareness in that in Project Runway. Part (most?) of what makes Project Runway entertaining is watching the designers try to create outfits to meet the specifications of completely impractical challenges. I remember watching an episode where the challenge was to make an outfit out of flowers/plants. I think that certainly "underscores the impossibility of manual labor for the gentle classes."
Fashion and architecture go together like peanutbutter and jelly, simply because it all goes back to the fact that money is power. The more expensive your clothes the more power you're precieved to have. Also when you think of the places people go to get there clothes, depending on the brand of clothing the store is either shabby or classy looking. take the Prada store for instance, it's located in Soho, but when you walk inside it's like your in some high class manhattan superstore.
Post a Comment