The Varnelis reading spoke of the art of architecture and how it is related to fashion. The author gives examples of how architecture and fashion were used as ways of showing a class status starting at around the time of the Enlightenment.
However, we were told moreso to focus on the aspects of power, protest, and pleasure. When looking through the article for these things, it has plenty to offer. Many of the examples in the article have all three of these intertwined. For example when speaking of Louis XIV, power and pleasure go hand in hand.
Even from the first paragraph when the author reminisces of a metting with an older grad student, it is pointed it that by the clothes the grad student was wearing he was apparently more knowledgeable. This is an example of how fashion can portray power. Because you look better, people assume you may be knowledgeable. A more easily accessible example may be looking at a construction worker and an office worker. People may assume that because the office worker is more likely in some sort of a suit and tie, he may be smarter. By now we should know this is not always the case.
However the grad student is wrong on their topic and the author ends up presenting the same article to his students. Some of the students end up taking pleasure in reading the article while some wonder why they are being told to read it.
As the article moves along, we see how the taste in fashion is very closely related to pleasure. Some of this is assumption, while some is a given. King Louis the XIV took pleasure in creating Versailles, making it known to the world that he had power. Upper class woman would take pleasure in their good clothes, even making "pilgrimages" to Paris to see the newest fashions.
However, architecture seems to protest against these ever changing shifts in "what's hot". And we see how fashion changes and even those who find themselves taking pleasure in fashion changes. One of the biggest examples of protest in this article is when he speaks of the London fashion botique which provided clothes for youth who wanted to mark off their difference and make it not a class thing, but a generation thing. "These were rebels who would not defer sensual satisfaction for the sake of savings. These were youth who were if antyhing different."
The paragraph after this shows a huge protest of one fashion designer against another, of course we also have to realize he may have been in a position ( having power) to protest.
After reading the entire article, one thing that stuck with me was the fact that Banana Republic and Target are put on the same level and "middle-blow stores". Never once have I considered Banana Republic to be anywhere near the level Target is.
Unfortunately the pictures on the website did not load when I looked at them, making it hard for me to understand exactly was MOA was. But I did see how people could take pleasure in having their home decorated like a life style they take pleasure from to begin with.
I never realized how those three topics would come up in even just one short article that much. I didn't realize it could be so relevant. I do think it is interesting that these concepts can come up anywhere and about almost anything.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
That's absolutely true, that people are often judged by the clothes they wear, which is why fashion holds such power. It's obviously not always the case - just because someone is all punked out with tons of piercings and blue hair or something doesn't mean they're angry or act with the rebellion their look implies. And someone with lots of designer things may not necessarily be rich, but just chooses to spend the money their have on their look. It doesn't always go hand in hand with status. But it's too bad that a book is often judged by its cover, since all those designer clothes really are ridiculously expensive and you can often find way cooler ones for cheap. Which, I totally agree with you - Target and Banana Republic are very different stores. I think Banana Republic designers would be insulted by being mentioned in this article :p
I like your comparison between a construction worker and an office worker to show peoples' preconcieved notions about someone's status based on the clothes they wear. Someone with a blue collar job may not dress as sharp as someone who works in an office with a dress code, but the clothes don't say anything about the person or their education. It kind of makes me think of that movie Office Space. The main character in the movie is a disgruntled office worker...at the end of the movie, he is shown working construction. His friends / former coworkers offer to get him a job in their office, but he declines because he's happier doing construction. Granted, he is a fictional character, but if someone saw him, they probably wouldnt think he was educated / worked in an office because construction is viewed as "below" that.
I think this can also be linked to Bourdeau. If taste is linked to class, can class be linked to power? I think so. I have to disagree with "rl", for taste, education, and power are all linked with class. The higher class you are, the better education you get. Taste -- directly linked with fashion here -- also changes. Like the Bourdeau article, it is not universal but there are trends. I think it's important to see the link between class, taste, and power.
Again, thank you Marx.
Post a Comment