The documentary on legendary Bill Cunningham was mesmerizing. But, underneath the wonderful glimpse into the enigmatic life of this original “street style” photographer, was the question of fashion’s relevance in the 21st century.
Fashion constantly reinvents, looks to other decades or eras for inspiration but, often, engenders a new look. Looking back at fashion in the 20th century, each decade was identifiable: the Roaring 20s had the flapper dress, the 30s, in spite of the Great Depression, had superstars like Madame Vionnet and Mademoiselle Chanel, the bias cut, and innovative fabrics like nylon. The 40s saw pantsuits and strong shoulders, perhaps in response to WWII. The 50s – the Dior Look, period. The 60s – the mini and hippie chic; the 70s – disco fever: maxis, platforms, and non-Western wear (like caftans a la Talitha Getty) become the norm. The 80s ushered in acid washed and ripped jeans, fingerless gloves (thanks Madonna!), harem pants, and bandage dresses. The 90s – grunge and minimalism. Each look seemed to blend creativity with wearability. If art reflects the zeitgest of an era, fashion is its tangible manifestation.
So what did the 21st century have to show for itself so far? Hmm..bling. Yes, there were stars – Tom Ford brought sexy back to the once stodgy House of Gucci and set the bar for sultry, not raunchy, fashion. Marc Jacobs redefined quirkiness and American style. But, apart from individual stars, if you remove brilliant marketing and styling, where is the art in fashion? Isn’t art, which can simultaneously enthrall and push boundaries, necessary in fashion to take it to the next level? Has it become so tamed by commerciality that it has lost its ability to inspire? The one notable exception: the late Alexander McQueen, who created controversial, but wearable, art. The New York Times recently profiled Jeremy Scott as Fashion’s Last Rebel – it’s sad that the article implied that, because he stays true to his vision, he is a rebel.
We are always bullish about fashion being wearable. But where is our decade’s defining look? With the post 2008 meltdown, does it mean that the first decade of this century’s fashion reflected a society of image without substance? Or perhaps, not having a defined look means we are more individualistic.
Here’s a fun take on the history of fashion – since this video was created in the 80s, it stops there.












Author: admin
No Comments »