Tags
Bourgeoisie, Céline, Chloé, Edmont Goblot, Minimalism, Penser la mode, Pheobe Philo, Raf Simons, Stella McCartney, Style, Thomas Maier, Trends
Here are a few words to explain why minimalism may hinder our ability to express ourselves through fashion. An extract from Edmond Goblot’s book, La Barrière et le Niveau, Etude sociologique sur la bourgeoisie française moderne, (1925) pushed me to compare the way the bourgeoisie behaved itself toward fashion and the way we do or may do in the future.
A few words about the excerpt: E.Goblot explains how fashion was, at the time, both a barrier and a level. A barrier, because women had to reach a certain complexity in style, and men had to tend to an absence of complexity, in the perfect control of their silhouette. For the two of them, it required time and attention to details, but men pretended to dress quickly, simply, in a very “correct” way. Being correct and elegant were two different things – being elegant was being “outside” the standart, showing off. Aesthetic and taste were out of question among the bourgeoisie, as was self expression. Goblot explains it clearly this way: “Quand la mode est purement affaire d’esthétique et de goût, elle est exactement au costume ce que le style est à l’art. Tandis que l’artiste accept librement et volontiers les principes d’un style tant qu’ils lui offrent des moyens de réalisations et d’expression, la mode bourgeoisie impose despotiquement son uniformité…” Fashion was also a level because it erased differences among people who had overcome the barrier. Note that it was a moving barrier because whenever too many people entered this groupe, the barrier moved to reshape what seemed to be a reassuring “community”. And this still applies, from my point of view, nowadays.
Reading this excerpt (from Penser la mode, IFM/regard), I thought of the way a minimal, graphic and somehow “pure” aesthetic had taken the power in fashion. It started little by little, with people like Thomas Maier at Bottega Venetta and the succes of high-end logo-less bags. It really exploded when Pheobe Philo arrived at Celine and put the brand in the limelight. Every since, other houses followed this path (I’m thinking here about Chloé, Stella McCartney, and recently Dior with R.Simons first collection soon in boutiques, and even houses like Cacharel with its more recent collections). I’m not saying that each of them doesn’t have a proper identity, but they all tend at least toward minimalism. They offer a look, usually beautiful, that seems/or is, it depends, very simple. On the other hand, houses such as Alexander McQueen, Kenzo, Comme des Garçons, Alaïa, Carven, Lanvin & more offer what Goblot called “means of realization and expression”.
It is not a question of judgement, neither toward what people wear nor toward artistic choices in Fashion Houses. But regarding the topic of this blog, I’m wondering if fashion will be polarized between the “minimalists” and the “expressionists”, or if, pretty soon, a barrier will have to move and some houses go back to their roots or reinvent themselves – because too many people will have reached this level. It seems that Céline has an advantage, a mystery and P.Philo collections which puts the brand ahead of other minimalists. Changes among artistic director make 2013 full of promises and excitement…