Architecture and Fashion: Where Does One Draw the Line - Term Paper Example

ARCHITECTURE AND FASHION: WHERE DOES ONE DRAW THE LINE? NAME TUTOR SUBJECT UNIVERSITY ABSTRACT It is usually posited that there is a conceptual link between the world of fashion designers as well as architectural engineers in how they come up with architectural structures. Ronald Barthes (1967) uses the Eiffel Tower to show the way architecture does symbolize identity, and that popularity of something can end at any particular time. Fashion generally is influenced by change as well as what the society dictates on what is good at particular time and architecture seems inclined in following the change and trend in fashion. Adapting to changes in the ideologies and ideas (Eva 1995) of people in each time of season is at the central focus on architecture is trying to create a link between fashion and the architectural word. Can it be therefore said positively that the art of fashion and architecture are closely linked and cannot be separated based on the fact that they all art. Introduction Architecture has overtime changed an attribute linked to the changes in society where one lives as well as the location, the functional needs and the change in technology, ideological and theoretical imperatives. Fashion and architecture one can say come from the same thing, based on the fact that to come up with an architectural landmark such as the Eiffel tower or a design collection such as “Chanel” then it means one has to plan, assemble all the material, come up with its artistic aspects, develop a plan and cut out the plans and see whether it is acceptable (Neil 1997). The next important thing would be showing the design in fashion a fashion show is ideal while in Architecture a presentation of the model of the building would be sufficient. This show s to some extent that fashion does interconnect with architecture, it does exploit similar ideas as well as being connected. One would say that drawing a line is just way to impossible but would really involve their historical developments. Ways in Which Fashion and Culture Intersect Ronald Barthes (1967) in The Fashion System, sought to say that the symbols and sign systems are based on what entirely represents the ideas and ideologies that are transmitted through clothing and in his consideration what is transmitted through magazines , fashion editorials or the tabloids. For instance when a celebrity wears a new dress, people would shift to that particular mode of dressing as it is linked to them being celebrities, similar and the same as the one won. However, can this be said to mirror what architecture seeks to symbolize. For instance, architecture on its own is usually introduced in a way that is unique and cannot be emulated. For instance the Eiffel Tower or the Great Wall of China have not been created in other cities based on the fact that it is only unique and considered a national symbol (Dinnie 2007). What most people seek to do is to create different structures that are only unique to them and would be considered as a national symbol or identity. Fashion and architecture, does intersect on the basis that they are unique, but it is only to the extent of how they are truly unique to a particular people that they can be considered as art. A signifier as understood by Barthes (1967) is the concept or thing that is attached to a particular thing and without it having an intrinsic or essential meaning attached to the signifier then it does loose meaning. Eluding to the Eiffel tower for instance its intrinsic meaning is that it is a wonder work of art, and it is linked to national identity, on the other hand the name attached to a fashion design or dress gives it the symbol of identity as well as meaning. Fashion and architecture are thus interconnected based on the fact that the artist behind them seeks to give different identities and meanings to their designs in a way that makes them important. The nature of fashion in itself symbolizes our identity of who we are and what one intends to revealing aspects of identity and personality (Breward 1995). The way a person dresses speaks a lot and it does at a particular extent give the signals of status, prestige, gender and even to some extent class. Roland Barthes has argued that the fashion that is exhibited in dress is not merely a question of function but it can be seen and considered as a language with its own semiotics where cultural meaning is constructed (Barthes 1967). Figure 1 Fashion and architectural building sharing the same platform. The final finishing of both architecture and fashion is that the quality of the creation must be fine and appreciative. Contrasted to fashion where the material is already refined, the details of architecture are that the finishing touch must be well created. This is usually at the last stage contrasted to fashion where the material is already refined. Architectural buildings are used for showcasing designs from fashion either as a venue or as being printed on the material or fabric. Barthes (1967) considered this on the basis of symbolism that is embedding architecture in fashion to pass a particular message or information. Architecture on the other hand as attributed by Barthes (1967), he uses the example of the Eiffel tower and likens it to a structure that does not go away. He says that its existence can be likened to a natural phenomenon such as a rock or the river, it is to be there for infinity but it cannot be contested (Barthes 1967). In this view any fashion designer or architecture must have the appropriate vision which is clear to ensure that their works make it to the gallery and into a runway. Paucity is not something that can be easily put aside because it leads to a poor work, vacant, soulless and generally bare in a way that does not appeal to the masses. Fashion and architecture all consider the aspects of the basic life necessities mainly clothing and shelter. The way they interact is based on the basis that it has some emotional being because they both do have an effect in how comfortable people are within their environment. The fact that both are dependent on various factors such as style and combination is what really makes it be distinct in the way one applies it. How Architecture exploits the idea of Fashion System Symbolism is used by Barthes (1967) to refer to an organization of meaning and it essentially involves putting meaning into any architectural work or fashion. A city in itself can be likened to a work of architecture, where the building is placed, its functions are all meant to symbolize something by their own correlative position and not their content (Umberto 1986). An architectural landmark such as the Eiffel Tower is considered to be a present for the entire world to see, it is considered as a Universal symbol of the City of Paris and it goes to mention that no one can say Paris without mentioning the tower. Compared and contrasted to Fashion, fashion is dependent on the acceptability of the design collection and not just one, the fashion designed must be connected to a well-known person. Architecture in itself only seeks to represent a landmark that is there for a lifetime, while fashion is considered to evolve every day. It is not static like a stone or anything but it is dependent with what style is appealable to the masses each year or in each season. In light of what fashion represents, Anthony Giddens states that fashion and dress can be considered to be a regime: “In all Cultures, dress is vastly more than simply a means of bodily protection: it is manifestly, a means of symbolic display, a way of giving external form of narratives or identity” (Giddens 1991 pp.62) Fashion provides a strong signal to an on-looker, contrasted to Architecture, in particular circumstances does not provide any link to any person’s identity. It is considered that aspects of dress and fashion can be considered to be a material product and a feature of imagination and cultural trends (Kawamura 2005). It can be contended that the modern trends in fashion is aimed at visualizing the images that speak about the wearer, his identity and personality. In this instance one can say that architectural structure does have a reflection of the designers artistically thinking but it cannot be said to portray the general identity or opinion of a group of people. This difference can be drawn from the view of having a national dress. A national dressing code can entirely speak to any person about the culture of the people who are wearing them based on the different colours that are embodied on them as well as their identity. However in an architectural work such as a sculpture can represent only one meaning or one event in history and at times, it is mainly dependent on the structure, and what the individual perceives. It therefore brings one to the conclusion that both architecture and culture do represent or symbolize something depending on the designer’s views and perspectives. Architecture can at particular times be stated to be subject and exploit the idea of a fashion system. Fashion as stated by Mark Wigley (1995) mentioning the writings of Walter Gropius states that: “Modern man, who no longer dresses in historical garments but wears modern clothes, also needs a modern home appropriate to him and his time, equipped with all the modern devices” (1926 pp. 102-103) It can be therefore stated that architecture in itself adapts to the fashion system because no one would really imagine living in a cave with their well fashioned clothes. Architecture is timeless, based on the fact that fashion in itself means changeability and therefore architecture should also adopt the concept of change (Broadbent et al. 1980). Fashion in itself has a soul, as most people are influenced with what they see. Architecture seeks to exploit this idea on the basis that people are awed by great works of art such as the Egyptian Pyramid, the Eiffel Towers all seeking to endure for a long time. Architecture seeks just like fashion system to capture the soul of people who are engaged in it. Figure 2 Work of art represented in fashion In the recent past, fashion has grown significantly through the use of fashion magazines especially in the dissemination of new designs. On the other hand similar attempts by architects to put ideas in magazines have not attracted similar attention. Architects should however seek to venture more on the ideas of glamour and lifestyle to attract interests in architecture. A proper factor to be considered is that the fashion of architecture is the most comprehensive study and should be more important. Dealing with Excesses The core of architecture in this sense must be determined by the structure “bones” central at its core because unlike fashion which is determined by what is shown on the surface. In this aspect architecture in itself must be a little bit stronger, masculine contrasted to fashion which is linked to femininity (Valarie 2003). Accessing architecture is quite difficult contrasted to fashion which is accessible through various media. The rich are influenced by the fact that they need beautiful homes and need to look good; however most people only desire to have the basic necessities and architecture would be considered a luxury. The modern trends in architecture one can attribute it and categorize it into two, the postmodern architecture and the modernist architecture. The modern trends in the architectural world are influenced and being defined by interest in what the surface shows or means, ornament and fashion. This therefore means that the symbolization in architecture is closely linked to the trends in fashion, on the basis that it ought to be beautiful to be acceptable compared to the previous era where architecture acted as a symbol of identity or even a master of art. The trends in fashion influences architecture on the basis that for it to be accepted it has to be fashionable (Entwistle, 2000). Mark Wigley (1995) says that what has really that architecture has sought to exploit the ideas of the fashion system on the basis that it is defined by the obsession of people with the surface, ornament and style to the exclusion of interests in the structure and technology, functional planning as well as dynamism. It can be said that architecture tries to fit in with fashion in the way that it does adopt the concepts of change as well as their relationship. The idea therefore of simplicity in architecture or in fashion is no longer a concept that is embraced. As identified by Toy (1999: 7) that: “The traditional line of thought has been linked to the agendas of eradicating “the bourgeoisie’s penchant for excess, extravagance and conspicuous displays of material wealth” Historically the bourgeoisie are considered to be electric, busy and ornate in terms of how they choose their architecture as well as it is closely related to how the same class of people treats fashion. The desire for complexity and uniqueness has driven out the aspects of simplicity in both architecture and fashion leading to expensive labour input in architecture designs, and the final details that are considered to display any element of class within any class of people. Culturally advanced tastes of classes of people also an excess in that they seek to separate what is good or what is not. For instance it has been quoted that: “The Straight line belongs to man, the curve belongs to god. “ – Glancey, 2003: 70). The value placed on design is quite enormous based on the ability of people being able to link up and associate with those of their curve. Fashion and architectural masterpieces are not meant for everyone, they are meant for those who can access and get the pieces and those who cannot afford are left out. Art is not for everyone, but it is meant for those who appreciate and know the value of the art itself. Roland Barthes (1967) was considered to be a semiotic an, interested in the significance of signs and symbols mainly reflecting on those in existence at a particular time and place, or the system of possible and impossible meanings. Architecture and fashion are in some way evolving to an entirely different level where there is no meaning attached to them, but how they are really accepted and linked by society. Fashion uses words, body movements that show the attitudes or emotions that a wearer or a designer has. Architecture has also sought to adopt this notion on the basis that it seeks to attach a particular value and not signification and symbols in the artistic works. It is more on whether it can be acceptable by the masses or persons who are to be considered its wearers. Conclusion In conclusion, the Barthes classical notion of fashion is in itself focusing on signification and the art of symbols in what an artist or a designer seeks to perpetrate through their artwork. An Architect is an artist in his own way just like a fashion designer, using structures, buildings or a sculpture to portray their own views and aspects. Common to fashion, architecture seeks to adapt to the fashion system through their changes in design, the significance it has on community or society as well as fashion is a major contributing factor in the architectural change. The way fashion is linked to class, trend and the status in society is a factor that drives the modern percepts of thinking in designing any building. Central to this technology and departure from historical designs is what has continued to drive fashion and architecture to a point of link because modernity is the current status in life (Wilson 2003). Architecture exploits the idea of the fashion system mainly on the significance that attaches as a result of having something new as well as the link it is attributed to. Architecture is designs for and deal in ‘execs’ mainly on the basis that it is appreciated by those who are able to cognize what is art and what is not. References Anthony Giddens, Modernity and Self –Identity in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge : Polity Press, 1991. Barthes, Roland. The Fashion System. Berkeley: University of California Press 1893(1967). Breward, Christopher. The Culture of Fashion . A new History of Fashionable Dress. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995. Broadbent, Geoffrey, Bunt, Richard and Jencks, Charles (eds), Signs, Symbols and Architecture, Chichester: Wiley, 1980. Dinnie, Keith. Nation Branding: Concepts, Issues, Practice. Oxford: Butterworth- Heinemann, 2007. Entwistle, Joanne. The Fashioned Body. Fashion, Dress and Modern Social Theory. London: Polity Press, 2000. Eva, Forgacs. The Bauhaus Idea and Bauhaus Politics. Central European Press, 1995. Evans, Caroline. Fashion at the Edge. Spectacle, Modernity and Deathliness. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Glancey, J. C 20th Architecture: the Structures that Shaped the Twentienth Century. London, Carlton Books. Kawamura, Yuniya. The Japanese Revolution in Paris Fashion. Oxford: Berg, 2004. Neil, Leach. Rethinking Architecture. A Reader in Cultural Theory. Routledge: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1997. Quinn, Bradley. The Fashion of Architecture. Oxford: Berg 2003. Toy, M. Aspects of Minimal Architecture II. London: Academy Editions, 1999. Umberto, Eco. Functionalism and Sign: The Semiotics of Architecture. The City and the Sign, M. Gottdiener and A. Lagopoulos (eds), New York: Columbia University Press, 1986. Valerie Steele. Fashion Italian Style. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Wigley, Mark. The Architecture of Deconstruction: Derrida’s Haunt, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1993. Wigley, Mark. White Walls, Designer Dresses: The Fashioning of Modern Architecture. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press, 1995). Wilson, Elizabeth. Adorned in Dreams. Fashion and Modernity. London: L.B.Tauris, 2003 (1985). Read More