Fashion

Hello Class, I've decided to make another post, this time on fashion, since we've not had one on this discipline yet, and it is actually my field of design research after all. A good place to begin would be Pierre Bourdieu, who in his thoughts in Distinction (1984), talks about the differences in approaches towards fashion by three social classes – the working class, the petit-bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie.

This is a photo of a small business (fabric and dressmaking) in Chicago, probably around 1910. Look carefully at the dresses of the woman on the left. Do you think she is wearing an expensive outfit? Does the outfit fit her well? Is she wearing jewellery and other adornments or is this a simple dress? Is it possible to tell from her dress that she is only a small business owner and not a wealthy merchant?

The working class, according to Bourdieu, does not consume with a desire beyond a “taste for necessity” shaped by the “principle of conformity”. The consumption of dress in this case relies on different sets of judgments than that of the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie, one that is dominated by preference on functionality and value. Yet the working class does not refrain from appropriating dress as spectacles. “What is the ‘gaudy’ and ‘tawdry,’” asked Bourdieu, “if not that which creates a big effect for a small price?” By their rejection of extravagant and wasteful spending, these same people would nevertheless indulge in frivolity marked as “bargains” – “the unfashionable settee which, if you can forget the colour and just think of the price, is exactly the one you had wanted… or the unwearable nylon dress you ended up buying because it was reduced in the sale, though you had ‘sworn you would never again wear nylon’”. 

This is a portrait of a working-class boy. Look closely at his outfit. What are some features that gives his background away?

Furthermore, Bourdieu believed such characteristics of the working class to be evidently manifested in the social groups’ undervaluing of self. Unlike bourgeois women, working class women do not “grant themselves a care and attention which always imply a certain indulgence and to devote to their bodies the incessant care, concern and attention that are needed to achieve and maintain health, slimness and beauty.” The “principle of conformity” further differentiates working class consumption from that of the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie, whereby individuals pursue a “need for class solidarity” by “warning against the ambition to distinguish oneself by identifying with other groups”. Working class men, dictated by the norms of their social group, refrain from acts of pretention or distinction of the upper classes, as even amongst the working class, “aesthetic refinement, particularly as regards clothing or cosmetics” is reserved for the appropriation by women only. Bourdieu believed the reason behind such occurrences to be grounded in a strict “sexual division of labour and sexual morality” unmatched by the upper classes, but also that “dispositions and manners seen as characteristic of the bourgeoisie… or of those who are willing to submit to bourgeois demands so as to win acceptance” are met with disdain and social reprimand.

What about these guys? Do they look like they work in an office? Or do you think they are employed in manual labour? Why?

It is important to keep in mind that Bourdieu's thoughts were formulated on mid-20th century Paris. Having said this, do you agree with what he has written? Can you see the same things happening in 2011, in Sydney? Are there clear differences between 'working' and 'middle' class people here, and do you think they dress differently? Write down your thoughts on whether you think dress is important as a sign of who we are and what kinds of activity we are engaged in. For instance, when was the last time you dressed up in finer clothes than you usually do? For what reasons did you do this, how did this make you different than your usual self? Who has ever been to a place and felt like they were 'under-dressed' or 'over-dressed'? Why is it that we feel like this sometimes? Talk about some of the social understandings of fashion in these situations. Find some examples of classic 'working-class' outfits and perhaps some 'middle-class' business outfits. Talk about why they are different and what messages they convey and your general feelings on them.

The quotations come from Pierre Bourdieu (1996, orig. 1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge.

Mad Square

Thanks to all those who attended the exhibition. You were given a worksheet with some questions on it. Use that to form your blog entry for the Critical Diary. We're almost at the end of semester, so well done everyone, there are just two submissions left - we will talk more about the Critical Diary as well as the Design Article in class.

Worksheet

The exhibition manages to showcase a whole moment in German 20th Century art spanning three decades. Keep in mind as you make your way through the exhibition the relevance it may have for the history of design as well as for, specifically, graphic design.

1. From where does the title of the exhibition come?

2. The period covered in the exhibition is from 1910 to 1937. Create a simple timeline of a number of political events that happened over this period. What is significant about the period of the Weimar Republic?

3. The exhibition also covers a diverse range of art and design media from print, painting, and posters to industrial design, photography and cinema. Please list 3 examples of works of different media. Note down the title, date and artist of the work and list some points about how the chosen media of each work fits into the narrative of the exhibition and how it evokes meaning and feeling.

4. The ambivalent experience of city life is one of the main themes of the exhibition. Make a note of at least 3 works which deal with these themes in different ways. Identify them, write a few sentences about how these themes are represented or explored. Also provide a rich description of the feeling that the work evokes in you, also considering the context of its surroundings. What are some the other themes of the exhibition? Note at least two.

5. Choose one major work in the exhibition, for example, Max Beckmann’s ‘The Trapeze’ or George Grosz’s ‘Suicide’, or a work by Hannah Hoch or the movie, ‘Metropolis’. Why did you choose it? What effect did it have on you as a viewer? Pay attention to formal qualities as well as theme and content.

Bauhaus, De Stijl, lines, etc.

As future designers you will be expected to draw inspiration from your own knowledge, experience, and background. In the last couple of weeks, we have looked at designs from Bauhaus and De Stijl. It is very useful to revise your understanding of these styles by identifying unique characteristics of each style, and also their similarities.


You should, for instance, be able to tell which is which:

Notice the use of straight lines in the first design. This was a characteristic used prominently in De Stijl. But, obviously, straight lines can be found in all sorts of designs So, if the first design was indeed from De Stijl, what are some of the other features that would indicate this?

Here we have something you would all have seen from De Stijl:

Again, you will have noticed the strong emphasis on straight lines. However, here are a couple of things from Bauhaus that also feature prominent straight lines:

A good exercise, then, would be to reflect in your own words why you think these designs are indeed examples of different styles. Write about the subtleties that make them so, based on what you know about the history and philosophies of these two styles, and consider things like materials and use of colour.

Ultimately, it is important to recognise that ideas behind designs are often fluid, and as future designers you will most likely be influenced by a myriad of styles everytime you are in charge of designing something. Take this building, for example:

It may have occured to you that it seems disproportionate to the timber planks below it. That's because it's a doghouse:

If you were hired by someone to design a house for a dog, would you draw inspiration from Bauhaus? Considering the needs of the dog, is this a good idea? What are some other considerations you would need to take into account of? Nevertheless, the designer behind this doghouse was able to formulate their design based on their knowledge of a style that isn't normally associated with doghouses - something that makes the final creation more remarkable and noticeable.

Ornamentation and Negative Space

In class we discussed both Art Deco and Bauhaus designs, and the concept of "negative space". Here are a couple of photos from inside two different buildings:

As you can see, both of these spaces are mostly free of objects and furnishings. Imagine, for a minute, that these two spaces were rooms inside your current house. How would you use these spaces? Would they be suitable for your bedroom, dining room, or study, perhaps? How do they make you feel in terms of their senses of space? Justify the way in which you would use these spaces.  For instance, would you fill these spaces with lots of decoratives, or useful furniture, or would you leave them empty, as is?

The mass-production of handcrafted things

In class we discussed how mass-production techniques allowed for the efficient and uniform output of everyday goods. One of the main innovations to come out of this period was the concept of a "division of labour" and the system of the assembly line. It is interesting to observe, in this case, the ways designers began to incoporate considerations for mass-production into their ideas.

A good example of this, like we discussed, can be found in the 1940s and 1950s, when electric guitars were mass-manufactured for the first time. Two companies, Fender and Gibson, have come to define through their different designs two alternative ways of approaching the concept of mass-production.

Fender's most famous design was known as the "Stratocaster". Production of this model started in 1954, in Fullerton, California. The guitar shown below is an actual 1954 model:

The Stratocaster is a good example of a design that allows for the implementation of efficient mass-production techniques. Here we can see that the neck of the guitar is bolted onto the body by four screws and a plate:

And here we see (from the underside) that the electronics essential to the guitar are mounted onto a plate:

And this plate is then screwed onto the body of the guitar by eight screws:

Gibson, of Kalamazoo, Michigan, was a much older company that had specialised in making acoustic instruments since the end of the 19th century. Their first electric guitar was known as the Les Paul. In the same year as the first Stratocaster, the Les Paul looked like this, in 1954:

We can see from the picture below that the Les Paul neck joint required gluing onto the body:

 

You might have also noticed that there are two covers on the back of the guitar. Underneath the larger of the two covers, it looks like this:

The electronics of the Les Paul, as shown here, would've been assembled inside the guitar, and its cables wired through internal canals onto the front of the guitar.

Having seen these photos and brief descriptions of their design features, discuss the implications for the mass-production of these two guitars. Both models are still in production as of today, so they have obviously both worked as successful designs. Discuss why you think this is.

Welcome!

Welcome to our class blog. Make sure to read each post and record your thoughts and comments in the comments section. Your input will form your accumulated mark for your Critical Diary assessment. Enjoy!