Up until the mid–20th century fashion could be explained by a handful of theories. These theories constituted a modern perspective on fashion. Chief among them was the Trickle Down theory, but historic resurrection, historic continuity, and shifting erogenous zones were also insightful and helped to explain why fashions changed. But, by the middle of the 20th century, the examination of fashion required new explanations. The new fashion process disrupted the expected course of fashion. No longer did designers have absolute sway over trends where a desire to change a hemline or advocate for a new color would mean everyone followed suit. No longer could Dior, Givenchy, Balenciaga, Balmain and others dictate silhouettes, patterns, colors, and hemlines based on their desires for the season. As we look back at fashion history, during the early part of the 20th century and before, there were only a few defining looks. However, to be fair, Valerie Steele (1998) has argued, “Couturiers like Worth, Chanel, and Dior were not so much dictators or radical innovators as they were astute barometers of fashion trends” (p. 5). By the end of the 20th century, there was a multiplicity of defining looks. Fashion had changed—but how and why?
Valerie Steele (2000) argued that, “As the haute couture was transformed from a system based on the atelier to one dominated by the global corporate conglomerate, Paris was the capital of fashion, but its mode of influence owed much to American-style licensing and mass-manufacturing” (p. 8). During World War II while Paris was under siege, London blitzed, and other European capitals of fashion struggling for survival, the American fashion system took precedence. American designers like Claire McCardell, Bonnie Cashin, and Anne Klein introduced new ideas like sportswear and coordinating separates. After World War II ended the Paris fashion scene bounced back with Dior’s magnificent and revolutionary New Look in 1947. But new concepts of designing, conducting business, and social groups were taking root. The Trickle Down theory began to lose predictive power with the advent of mass production, when it was observed the upper strata were no longer starting all fashion trends (Blumer 1969; Lowe & Lowe 1985).
New theories were emerging to explain the new face of fashion. The Trickle Up theory, Collective Behavior theory, and the concepts of branding and mass marketing offered new explanations for fashion change in the postmodern era. Fashion was becoming more democratic in the sense that it was not the privilege of the wealthy, but now fashion could be enjoyed by all classes. Perhaps the greatest example of democratic fashion is found in denim jeans; born from the working class, fostered by rebellion, it has become a near-universal mode of dress. To meet the new emerging markets, and differentiate one manufacturer from another, branding became vital to success. Branding focused on lifestyles and sought out niche-markets. Fashion was becoming even bigger business.
By the 21st century many of the dominating luxury houses were owned by conglomerates. LVMH amassed Louis Vuitton, Fendi, Thomas Pink, Marc Jacobs, Donna Karan, Kenzo, and Celine as well as perfume companies Parfums Christian Dior, Guerlain, and Acqua di Parma, jewelry companies like Tag Heuer, and retail companies like DFS, La Bon Marche, and Sephora. Meanwhile PPR bought Gucci, Bottega Venetta, Balenciaga, Brioni, Christopher Kane, and partially owns Alexander McQueen and Stella McCartney. A corporate strategy to the business of fashion had taken root.
As we move into the post-postmodern era, new theories will emerge to explain new looks and new fashions. Morgado’s (in press) work on post-postmodernism is perhaps the first analysis of this era on fashion. No doubt, some theories will fail to explain new trends, some will be modified, and some new theories will be developed. Even fashion theories can go in and out of fashion.
While reading this text you may have realized that a phenomenon (i.e., fashion trend) can be explained by more than one theory. You read that irezumi can be explained by subcultural style and spatial diffusion; it was an aesthetic of the Yakuza of Japan and therefore by default geographically located to specifics areas of Japan. The same came be said of Mods, whose 1960s modern style was both a feature of a youthful subculture as well as of London. The same can also be said of Hippies, whose organic style was a subculture at one time specific to San Francisco. The trend and popularity of the leisure suit is also explained by at least two theories. The invention of polyester created a new fiber for designers to use (Innovation theory), was different from prior versions of the man’s suit (uniqueness), originally was expensive but price decreased with availability (supply and demand), and reflected to the times of the era (Zeitgeist). Backless dresses, popular in the 1980s, can be explained by historic resurrection (they were popular in the 1930s) as well as shifting erogenous zones. Thus, a fashion trend can have more than one explanation based on the context or the “lens” through which the phenomenon is examined: psychological, social, cultural, or industrial. Using Hamilton’s continuum you can analyze events at different macro and micro levels in order to gain a full understanding of the situation.
Dorothy Behling (1985/1986) combined the trickle up and trickle down theories into one model and demonstrated how the median age of the population played a factor—fashion trickles up when the median age of the population is youthful, and fashion trickles down when the median age of the population is older. Hence, whichever age group is most populous during a given time, they serve as the fashion innovators and fashion inspiration. However, Behling does note that the economy and government regulations can disrupt the model.
Additionally the theories of the historic continuity and shifting erogenous zones can explain the same phenomenon. When a new erogenous zone is revealed it may coincide with a new trend that is also explained by historic continuity. By early 2013, the lengths of pants were starting to decrease, so that the hem hit just above the ankle. One explanation is that pants length had reached their maximum endpoint and needed to reverse direction. Another explanation is that the ankle was the new sexy. In the early 2010s, American retail brand Old Navy promoted “high-water” pants by encouraging customers to “show those sexy ankles.”
As you continue on with your education and begin your career in fashion, this is important to remember. Before you make any decision, you need to remember to analyze a situation from all perspectives. By linking two or more theories, you will have a better understanding of the trend and a better platform from which to make your choices.
Of course, not all attempts at creating new products and styles are successful, even if they were based on sound reasoning. Some companies that have tried to create a new fashion trend have failed and become lessons for others. In this book you have seen the example of Halston and Gucci. Halston’s and Gucci’s falls were due to overexposure as well as losing sight of the importance of the brand. Both labels were highly valued by consumers when they were considered exclusive, but when the name was found on products offered at lower prices, their loyal clientele found no more value in the brand. You also read about the Gap’s failed attempt to change its logo, which illustrated the company either did not understand the power of its logo or the loyalty of its clients. Following are other examples of fashion blunders.
The mini-skirt was made popular in London during the 1960s. Though the design has been credited to Mary Quant, André Courrèges, and Barbara Hulanicki, in fact the mini was worn on the streets before any branded designers trimmed their skirt lengths above the knee; however, they did help popularize it among different markets. It became a staple feature of the youthful London Mods and was a fashion staple through the remainder of the decade.
John Fairchild was the publisher/owner/editor of the popular and powerful trade publication Women’s Wear Daily. He wielded a lot of power in the press and apparently thought he wielded a lot of power in the fashion process too. In 1970 he declared the mini-skirt dead and that the calf-length midi-skirt would take its place in women’s wardrobes. He vigorously promoted the midi-skirt and given Fairchild’s prominence and influence in the fashion industry, buyers, designers, manufacturers, and retailers followed his advice. The result was a disaster. Consumers did not want a longer skirt and protested. Some wore “Stop the Midi” pins on their lapels. Time magazine even covered the travesty on September 14, 1970 with the cover story, “John Fairchild of Women’s Wear Daily: The Man Behind the Midi Mania.” The article reported protests and petitions to bring the mini-skirt back on the market. The article also reported the president of the Association for Buying Offices accused Women’s Wear Daily of killing the fall and spring season for manufacturers. Dress scholar Marcia Morgado (personal communication, 2013) recalled that many people lost their business as a result of following Fairchild’s advice.
While the Market Infrastructure theory surmises that only products sold in stores can become fashion, it overlooks two key concepts. First, John Fairchild lost sight that that fashion system had changed—fashion trend was no longer dictated by a few people; it was dictated by the masses and trends could not be pushed on them. Second, he also lost sight of the fact that fashion changes slowly; as noted by the theory of historic continuity, abrupt changes are not digestible.
Hilfiger was once a hugely popular brand and a true rival of Ralph Lauren’s Polo label in the 1980s and early 1990s; then in the late 1990s, Hilfiger lost its stance. According to Lou Taylor (2000) Hilfiger’s failure was that the brand went from middle class to high-end, when the opposite is what normally worked for businesses. Hilfiger began as a ready-to-wear brand that was marketed and promoted so successfully that it quickly became legendary. His marketing scheme was to create the illusion that his mass-market clothes were status (i.e., designer) clothes by co-opting the same techniques couture houses had used. He was extremely successful in the youth market and the emerging hip-hop scene where his clothes were seen as status symbols. Then he opted to open a truly high-end store and expand his brand to sell exclusive, designer products made of luxury textiles like cashmere. The venture failed. Taylor argued that, even if his designs were not on par with other high-end brands, the momentum from mass market to luxury was the contrary to the usual marketing strategy of luxury to mass market.
The once-influential fashion house of Ungaro wanted to revive its brand and hired actress Lindsay Lohan as artistic director. The unveiling of a 2009 Lohan-inspired Ungaro collection was met with ridicule and disastrous reviews by the media and customers. Lohan left the company a year later. In theory, hiring a celebrity is a good idea because of the influence and clout the celebrity wields. However, the choice of Lindsay Lohan was peculiar given her limited work in the fashion industry, recent string of bad publicity, and arrests for drug and alcohol abuse. There are two lessons to be learned from this situation: (1) if you are going to hire a celebrity designer be sure s/he understands the nature of fashion; a lot can be forgiven (bad press, arrests) but bad design is not one of them; and (2) be sure your celebrity has the talent to inspire others and create saleable products.
In 1991, Generra Sportswear Company marketed Hypercolor t-shirts. These shirts were made of fabric that changed color when exposed to heat. In theory this innovation sounds like a great inspiration for fashion—a shirt that changes color when you walk outside would be quite outstanding, eye-catching, and if marketed well would be quite popular. However, Hypercolor t-shirts had a short lifespan in the market. When worn, body areas that generated heat, such as the underarms, generated unwanted attention through the change of color. The result was the appearance of a sweaty mess. This error of judgment illustrates that not all innovations are adaptable to fashion products.
In 2011, British Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice attended the wedding of Kate Middleton to Prince William. Royalty typically have been fashion icons; Kate Middelton had established herself as a fashion communicator, as had the late Princess Diana. However, Eugenie and Beatrice’s peculiar hats garnered the wrong type of attention, when the media and wedding watchers criticized the chapeaux designed by Philip Treacy (see Figure 6.1). Some people argued it was in bad taste to wear something so unusual to a dignified ceremony. The hats may have been better received on the runway than at a royal wedding. The lesson to learn here is to understand the context in which a new design will be worn.
Figure 6.1 Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice of York were ridiculed by viewers and press for the peculiar hats they wore to the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton. Pascal Le Segretain/Getty Images.
BOXED CASE 6.1: ETHICS FOCUS: OFFENSIVE FASHION
While fashion can be fun and exciting, there are times when fashions can be offensive to people. They can offend the group of people that inspired the fashion trend or they can be offensive due to the use of historically reprehensible icons and motifs.
Many fashion trends can trace their roots to ethnic or religious groups. Rosaries come from the Catholic faith, kabala bracelets from the Jewish faith, moccasins from Native Americans, ponchos from Mexico, tattoos from Polynesia, and so forth. Yet, due to the disposable nature of fashion, borrowing or finding inspiration from ethnic and religious groups can be ethically problematic. In Polynesia, tattoos are given as a rite of passage to indicate status. In Southeast Asia the bindi (colored dot between the eyebrows) is a religious symbol of wisdom and protection. Among the Akan of Africa, kente is sacred cloth with symbolic colors and weavings. And the checkered keffiyeh scarf is a symbol of Palestinian nationalism (see Figure 6.2). However, when these items—and many others—are worn as
Figure 6.2 When the keffiyeh scarf, a traditional garment of Arab people and a symbol of Palestinian nationalism, was adopted by the broader public, it became a controversial fashion item. Vishstudio/Shutterstock.com.
fashion it loses its cultural significance, is viewed as costume, and offends the originating group.
Some designers find inspiration from controversial groups, such as the Hate Couture trend. Hate Couture incorporates elements of the Nazi regime or Ku Klux Klan into fashion, such as armbands with the Nazi swastika, Nazi uniforms, and shoes with the swastika on the sole (so that they leave the impression in the ground). The trend even reached celebrities and couture fashion; in 1995 the fashion house of Jean-Louis Scherrer (designed by Bernard Perris) showed couture pieces with Nazi insignia;1 in 2005 Prince Harry of England wore a Nazi armband to a costume party and in 2006 Rocky Mazzilli offered a couture ensemble with a prominent swastika on the skirt. Elsewhere, Nazi fashion has become popular among Harajuku trendsetters. Elements of the United States Deep South can also be seen as offensive to some people. The Confederate flag is a source of controversy (some view it as racist whereas others view it as heritage) and is featured on t-shirts, shoes, bathing suits, and so forth. Meanwhile, in 2012 the Ku Klux Klan distinctive robes inspired Ivaek Archer of Chiz’l Menswear to reveal a men’s robe with hoodie in the shape of the Ku Klux Klan’s pointed hood, while in 2012 Rei Kawakubo showed a wedding ensemble with pointed hood at Paris fashion week.2
BOXED CASE 6.2: CLASSICS CAN HAVE FASHIONABLE DETAILS TOO
At the beginning of this text you read that fashions were different from fads and classic, and while this is true, there is one caveat that you should understand. Classics can have fashionable components to them. The little black dress is considered a classic of fashion, with its lineage dating back to Coco Chanel in the 1920s, but details such as ruffles, neckline, hemline, and silhouette have changed depending on the Zeitgeist. Likewise, Converse shoes have a classic silhouette, but the choice of color, print (e.g., solid, stripe, camouflage), and fabrication (e.g., canvas, leather) can vary with a trend (see Figure 6.3). The trench coat is also considered a classic, with Thomas Burberry claiming invention in 1901. The style has remained relatively unchanged for over a century, but details such as colors, fabrications, hem lengths, sleeve style, and buttons have changed to align with fashionable movements. The example in Figure 6.4 illustrates and demonstrates fashionable elements. In addition to their fabrication (cotton twill, wax-coated nylon, and fine merino wool) the cuffs vary with a curved, pointed, or nonexistent sleeve band. Thus, although there are some items of dress that are deemed “unchangeable,” in reality there are little changes that belie the influence of fashion.
Figure 6.4 Details from three trench coats show the infl uence of fashion on a classic item of dress. Trench coats courtesy of author.
“The role of theory is to simplify what is known (codification of knowledge) and to identify what is not known (and thus, to establish logical directions for subsequent research)” (Laughlin, 1997, p. 162). Fashion theories and concepts are used by all positions in the fashion industries: apparel designers, jewelry designers, fabric designers, merchandisers, stylists, journalists, critics, forecasters, buyers, retailers, product developers, colorists, etc. Their understanding of the fashion process helps them to understand prior fashion successes (and failures) and plan for future lines and collections. They observe street cultures, track celebrities, measure hemlines, analyze the Zeitgeist, identify new technologies, understand the interaction between people and society, source rare materials, search for neighborhoods with distinctive styles, examine past fashions, and select what to design, promote, and sell at what price points.
If you choose not to use theoretical constructs in your line of work you may have some success but you will be ignoring fundamental principles of the nature of fashion. Some people may believe that fashion has no logic and that popularity of an item is purely happenstance. However, after reading this text you should realize this is not true. Theories, principles, and constructs help the professional to make wise and informed choices based on reason and logic.
1.Of the theories discussed in this text, which ones do you think are the most important? Justify your response with examples.
2.When does ethnic fashion become offensive?
3.Can a theory ever “die” or not be useful anymore?
1.Using a fashion curve with the respective adoption categories (fashion innovators, fashion leaders, early adopters, late adopters, and fashion laggards) identify where each of the theories discussed in this text would fit. Note: A theory may be used in more than one adoption category.
2.Create your own theory of fashion. Use examples to illustrate your theory. How would you test your theory?
3.Interview a professional in the field of fashion. Ask this person how s/he uses theory in their work and which theories they find most helpful.
4.Bring in an item of clothing from your wardrobe. Discuss with the class the theory behind its design and promotion.
5.Combine two or more theories to explain a phenomenon of fashion.
____________________ Notes ____________________
1. The collection was shown during the 50th anniversary of the liberating of Auschwitz (Finkelstein, 1998).
2. Rei Kawakubo is no stranger to controversy. In 1995, also during the 50th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, her Comme des Garçons collection featured fashion designs resembling concentration camp pajamas (Finkelstein, 1998).
__________________ Further reading __________________
Agins, T. (2000). The End of Fashion: How Marketing Changed the Clothing Business Forever. New York City: HarperCollins.
Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1992). A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy, 100 (5), 992, 10–26.
González, A. M. (2010). On fashion and fashion discourses. Critical Studies in Fashion and Beauty 1 (1), pp. 65–84.
Neville, E. (2013). Feather hair extensions: Fashion without compassion. In K. Miller-Spillman, A. Reilly, and P. Hunt-Hurst, The Meanings of Dress 3rd edition (pp. 588–589). New York City: Fairchild Books.
Vincent, S. J. (2010). The Anatomy of Fashion: Dressing the Body from the Renaissance to Today. Oxford: Berg.
Workman, J. E. (2004). Alcohol promotional clothing items and alcohol use by university students. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 4 (1), 69–89.