DressSpace

The reflections of several great authors of the 19^th century on fashion through their observations of the early stages of this phenomenon and the opening of many interesting paths, although fragmentised, might incline us to believe that a rapid diffusion of Fashion Sociology had taken place.

Unfortunately, this was not the case.

Share

(Sarlat 1843 – Paris 1904)

He is the French founding father of fashion sociology and  considered to be the precursor of social psychology. Fashion is seen as something imitative and foreign. In his work “Lois de l’imitation” he affirms that imitation is the basis of all human behaviour, where individuals have a tendency to copy what they see from others. And even without imitating each other, individuals are similar as their common traits tend to reproduce the same patterns all over again.

More specifically, the superior is imitated by the inferior. Although the superior hardly ever imitates the inferior, in our present day society where individuals, unlike the past, do not tend to imitate each other in everything anymore, the individual that is most imitated seems to imitate his own “counterfeiters” in turn.

It is obvious that imitation applies very well to the fashion sector (think clothing), which more than any other sector depends on “ luxury needs” that prevail over “primitive needs”.

Share

How many times we felt something more than artisans.

How many times we felt like artists in the contest of our activity.

Twice in western word history we observe the phenomenon of the personal elevation of the visual arts enthusiast from simple artisans to inspired artists: in the 4^th century Greece and in Fourteen-hundred Italy.

There is no link between the two events, although the Renaissance writers and artists recalled the ancient glorious times when, according to their opinion, artists were the king favourites and enjoyed popular worship. Such archetype stimulated imitation: not a few among the Renaissance artists imagined themselves in Apelle’s shoes, while patrons sought to emulate Alexander the Great.

Imitation was in any case an effect and not the cause of the changed situation.

Maybe the sociologist will be able to determine the structural analogies between Ancient Greece and Italy at those two crucial periods: in any case it is a fact that in Greece the evolution took place on the background of a social organization founded on the antithesis of the free slaves, while in Italy it originated from a political structure of feudal integration.

Despite the different social and cultural roots, and the two millenniums gap, the emancipated artists saw themselves being pictured with very similar attributes, realistically based on an analogy of behaviour.

Here we will limit our observation to the recognition of such a peculiar fact, without trying to explain it.

We will mention only that the peculiar status of the artist in society cannot be dissociated from the fact that he, unlike ordinary people, always had the power to attract and fascinate an audience being this uncouth or a sophisticated one. The idol moulder infuses his artefacts with a sort of magical energy; the artist envelops the spectators in an enchanted aura.

Even if we accept the fact that in highly developped societies such as the Hellenistic and the Reinaissance one, some of the primitive peoples awe of the magic object moves to the artist-magician, it stands as a mystery the fact that the artists in these ages ,so distant one from the other, show to have so much in common.

Share

(Tarbes 1811 – Neuilly 1872)

In his essay “De la mode” published in 1858,  Gautier tries to define the need of the individual to distinguish himself from the others.

His reflection has an anthropological approach: clothing becomes a peculiarity that distinguishes human beings from one another; thus the aesthetics of the naked body is disrupted.

Gautier believes  the “visible form of man” can be found again in clothing”.

He ascribes a distinguishing function to fashion which takes after the dandy style of life, where gold embroideries, vivid colors and theatricality gives way to fine and elegant fabrics, perfect cut and completeness of design, but most of all, garments that hang perfectly plumb.

Share

(Tours 1729- Paris 1850)

Balzac in his” Traitè de la vie élégante” goes back to Brummel.
Brummel’s ideas on elegance had definitely taken hold. His arguments inspired magazines like “La moda” and Balzac recalls them insisting on the relation between clothing and architecture.
Balzac borrows from Brummel, besides the idea that an elegant life is closely connected to a perfect human society, two essential traits of the dandy:

- a necessary sobriety of style made possible by the black suite over white clothes,
- the importance of not attract attention.
According to Balzac the dandy’s elegance originates from the disintegration of the ancient regime which knew just about luxury.
The dismantlement of the old social structures caused by the revolution, with the sale of the national possessions, the abolishment of the right of primogeniture, the redistribution of the wealth, the abolition of the aristocracy, cause the concept of dressing to be questioned.
From then on the dress will serve to display the socio-cultural differences as – Balzac writes in one of his texts:

“The brute covers himself
The rich man and the fop adorn themselves
The elegant man dresses”

Consequently it is easy to understand how important fashion is, however at this stage it regards just the non productive class and the desire to appear different.
Balzac looks favourably at fashion because it creates needs, assures the circulation of money and creates a certain social dynamism. Its implications are therefore economical, psychological and humoral.

Share

(Valders 1857 – 1929)
American economist who in his famous “Theory of the leisure class” (1899) in his considerations dedicated to fashion and clothing stresses on one side that:
“The expenditure for self display is more obviously present and is perhaps more universally practised in the matter of dress than in any other line of consumption” (Veblen, 1899; cpt 7, Dress as an expression of the Pecuniary Culture)
On the other that:
“..the goods used for clothing in any modern community are made up to a much larger extent of the fashionableness, the reputability of the goods than of the mechanical service which they render in clothing the person of the wearer”.
For such a reason he defines the need of dress as:
“Eminently a higher”, a spiritual need.

Share

(London 1778-Caen 1840)
“ The book of fashion” written from 1821 and partially appeared in 1835, remains practically unknown to the public for over one hundred years.
It will be published in 1932 in New York by Eleanor Parker.
Insisting on colour harmony and the relation that links fashion and architecture, he defines two principles that make men’s wear look smart:
-draping – definitely to be preferred to tight-fitting clothes;
-the right proportions – between the upper and the lower part.
He supplies the dandy with all the tools that will allow them to dominate with elegance.

Share

Dandyism, by questioning the structure on which dressing up was based, is probably the first form of debate around the fashion phenomenon.
There are several texts about dandyism:
1835 “Book of Fashion” by George Brummel
1845 “Du Dandisme et de George Brummel” renown essay by Jules Barbay D’Aurevilly.
1848 “The Book of Snobs” by William Thackerary
1863 “Le peintre de la vie moderne” by Charles Baudelaire
All these writings already sketch, in their own way, an interpretation of the fashion phenomenon.

Share

D’Aurevilly focuses on Brummel, pointing out that he loved provoking astonishment rather than pleasure and that impertinence must ally itself with grace:

Without Impertinance,
Grace would resemble a silly blonde.
Without Grace, Impertinence
would be olive-skinned and too promiscuous.

Share