The fashion industry is changing at every level. These seismic shifts in most areas of the industry have needed to happen for a while but were accelerated considerably by events that took place in 2020.
One such change, which is especially visible, is the reformation of the fashion show. Global lockdown allowed many in the industry to reflect on the way in which collections were presented, but also, and to a higher degree, fashion houses were forced to reconsider how to produce shows when the majority couldn’t take place physically, as had been the tradition since the early couture shows of the 1940’s.
For decades fashion designer shows have been synonymous with big scale productions, beautiful theatrics, glamorous settings and in more recent times, a-list packed front rows. Starting from the 20’s many high-end fashion houses or designers used models to display their collections to the chosen elite. This eventually evolved into fixed date shows, as demand increased across Europe, especially in Italy and France, from foreign buyers, wanting a taste of European sophistication. Across the ocean, this started a movement for department stores in the United States to host their own fashion runway shows.
Following the Second World war, the Italian fashion industry, alongside the rise of ready to wear clothing production, was also boosted by post-war government policy and reforms to support the export economy. In 1949 fashion shows were held for the benefit of the international press, to showcase Italian art and culture. A pivotal fashion show in the summer of 1951 in Florence, drew in nearly 200 buyers and journalists from the U.S. making internationally publicized shows, now a seasonal affair.
The traditional fashion show format that we know today was firmly set by the 1960’s, often embracing youth culture and appealing more to the masses, via marketing techniques involving mixing fashion with popular music, location staging, and with models who were then becoming globally recognisable.
Now in 2021, it appears that we have reached a turning point; a before and after. Fashion houses are now faced with having to produce shows that will translate for digital audiences.’Digital couture’ was offered as a short term way to navigate the restrictions surrounding the global pandemic, but it could be argued that the 2020 pandemic simply accelerated this process, which would have had to happen inevitably anyway. Not only does it offer a more sustainable solution, but it makes high-end fashion brands and their once exclusive shows, more accessible to the masses.
Starting first with London Fashion Week in June 2020, the British Fashion Council, were the first to innovate and offer a fully online gender fluid event, which included not only virtual shows, but digital parties and video led discussion panels. The notion that fashion editors, buyers and influencers, were flying across the globe for short physical shows, and clocking up huge carbon footprints as a consequence, now seems rather outdated and excessive.
Brands are obviously still figuring out how to deliver on this successfully, and but nevertheless, with two seasons of digital fashion weeks that have taken place in 2020, we can now ask the question… Do they work?
Fashion was already on the cusp of transformative change, given that some brands were moving away from traditional seasonal calendars. Consumers were changing how they consume, so the need for change in the fashion week format, was also inevitable to some degree. There has also been a need in recent years for brands to invest more in virtual and more immersive experiences, in order to remain competitive in the market. 3-D fashion shows, and interactive digital live streams were becoming more commonplace, and the need to make shows more inclusive and relatable for consumers was becoming increasingly important.
Creating connections with the audience is key to the success of this new format, but going digital does offer opportunities to build stories around collections, generate deeper connections with the brand values, and potentially make the shows more impactful. The storytelling opportunities are vast, nevertheless it does present challenges for brands to build the same excitement around virtual shows. While it can be argued that the social aspect cannot be replicated online, digital shows offer opportunities which elevate brands beyond the boundaries of physical venues, seating and set construction.
New technologies present new narratives, with 3-D rendered clothing, CGI, video content and digitally crafted locations. With no clear path for where this experimentation might take us, it allows brands to fully explore the possibilities, and perhaps the future of fashion weeks around the world, might result in a perfect blend of digital and physical shows, created with the brand values and their particular audiences in mind. Perhaps physical shows will get smaller, with more focus on the audience watching at home. Or it will lead to fully green screen virtual multimedia shows, where the full experience is delivered via our devices.
Whatever the answer, the deciding factor will undoubtedly be the impact on the brands reach and their sales. In any format, the products and clothes themselves will need to remain at the centre. Will buyers stock their shelves and consumers spend their hard earned cash with items that they haven’t been able to see or touch in person? Time will tell. That being said, the traditional means of presenting physical collections once season ahead, was already dying, and had zero relevance to many modern consumers. It was time for a rethink, and experimentation will be essential for allowing new fashion events to emerge.
Whatever the future will look like, 2020 has brought us closer to this new reality, and only time will tell if the new experiences of this year, will become the new norm, or if fashion once again reverts back to its heritage, and tries to maintain the exclusivity and physical extravagance of its catwalk shows, for just a little longer.
Fashion and clothing: a comparison of two paradigms.
Abstract
The adoption of clothing was crucial to the evolution of human beings. It permitted the expansion of our species out of Africa and their adaptation to colder climates and harsher environments. The first function of clothing, therefore, was survival. However, human beings have “dressed” their bodies through painting, jewellery and other embellishments, well before they adopted clothes.
Dressing up has therefore always been more than merely utilitarian. Human clothing is both a basic fact of our personal and social lives and a complex reflection of our history. Where clothing and fashion intersect and overlap is the focus of this essay.
This report has three main aims. It sets out: 1. to analyse the paradigm of clothing as a product of historical, geographical, economic, technological and political forces; 2. to analyse the paradigm of clothing as fashion, reflecting the cultural, aesthetic and social values of the past and the present; and 3. to evaluate the intersections between these two paradigms to arrive at a broader understanding of the impact clothing and fashion have had, and continue to have, in shaping history, culture and societies.
The report will review theory and literature on the paradigms of clothing and fashion and the connections between them. The report will also include the findings of an online survey which tests two research questions 1: our attitudes towards clothing, the overall meaning of clothing and the differences between ones need to wear clothes, and the art of dressing for emotional needs, or due to other social factors and 2: our understanding of clothing and fashion as a means of communication and acceptance, to allow for an interpretation based on their need to be either similar, with a desire to appear identical, or dissimilar, with a desire to be different from our peers.
The report reflects the complex and multi-layered history of the clothing and fashion paradigms. The overall conclusion of the report, from the review of the literature and the interpretation of its research findings, are that people make clothing decisions based on a strong need for sense of belonging with the rest of society, and that garments play an important role in defining our identity. Clothing as communication, helps us to associate ourselves with other societal groups and in equal measure, clothing permits humans to form judgement or disassociations with others based on the assumption that they are dissimilar or not within the same societal groups due to their clothing.
1.Introduction
To draw definitive, meaningful distinctions between clothes as having a purely functional, practical value and clothes which we view as fashionable and make a statement about who we are, is very difficult. This essay, however, will attempt to analyse the complicated histories of clothing as utilitarian and clothing as fashion and to show that, while we may associate the paradigm of fashion throughout history as being the preserve of rich elites and the paradigm of functional clothing as being the preserve of the majority, it is undoubtedly true that the last 50 years of the 20th century and the 18 years of the 21st has witnessed the supremacy of the fashion paradigm.
2.Theoretical Context: The Function of Clothes
All human societies have “dressed” their bodies, whether by wearing clothing, tattooing, painting and scarring, or with jewellery and other embellishments. Clothing the body is a basic protection against the elements but for early humans this protection was limited by available materials, geography and technology. A 2011 Study on head and body lice projected that humans adopted clothing as early as 170,000 years ago, enabling migrations to colder climates. Animal hides provided the first essential cover against colder environments (Toups, et al. 2010). Further technological advances in cutting tools and needles enabled humans to cut and stitch hides and pelts together, providing greater protection from harsher climates. These advances led to the expansion of early humans from Africa into Europe and provided the first functional clothing against the elements.
Technological breakthroughs and the use of other raw materials have driven the evolution of clothing. Archaeological evidence from the Dzudzuana cave in Georgia around 30,000 years ago showed early humans using spun, coloured and knotted flax fibres, suggesting a step forward from clothing as functional towards clothing as decorative (Kvadadze, et al. 2009). Body decoration, of course, predates clothing and the shift to decorative clothing may have been the result of having to cover up in colder climates (Roebroeks, et al. 2012).
Weaving cloth is an ancient practice and reaches back to early civilizations. Egyptian weavers, for example, wove linen so fine as to appear transparent to keep the body cool in the baking summer temperatures. The sophistication of this craftsmanship combined with a raw material like flax and later wool, led to a major leap forward in the production of clothing. Its functionality also fitted the labour intensive lives of peasant farmers as human societies moved from hunter gatherers to settled communities. These peasants needed sturdy but flexible clothing to work outdoors for long periods in all weathers.
Of course, in time, this sophistication in craftsmanship and access to workable raw materials gave rise to rich elites seeking to differentiate themselves from the lower orders through the strict monopoly of certain kinds of materials and types of clothing. Chinese silk, for example, was initially the preserve of the emperor, his family and high ranking officials. It was only later when China began mass producing silk that it became available to other wealthy Chinese citizens. Silk making was a state secret and it was not until 200 BC that knowledge of its production processes moved outside China (Gelber, H.G, 2008, pp 36-38).
While the Roman toga was not restricted to Roman elites but to freeborn Romans, it nevertheless was used, through the use of colour and embellishments, to differentiate between groups in society and to demarcate these groups according to rank and position. The toga was expensive, cumbersome and ill-suited for work, yet it served as social demarcation and became the compulsory apparel for high ranking and ambitious Romans. Equally the stola became the emblematic clothing of married Roman women, communicating the traditional Roman female virtues of respectability, modesty and honour. Women of higher rank could also subtly declare their status and rank through purple edging, using the stola and palla (shawl) to make a public statement of their position in Roman society (Edmondson, JC and Keith, A, 2008). While the Republic, and later some Emperors, encouraged and promoted traditional Roman dress, there were attempts to rein in conspicuous displays of wealth by passing laws to restrict the use of colour in garments, make women wear less gold and prohibit them from travelling by carriage to parade their affluence, unless it was to religious ceremonies. The Lex Appia was the prototype for sumptuary laws that sought to curb the extravagance of the rich who did not come from the traditional noble families and who threatened their power, and to control specifically women´s behaviour and what they could wear (Zanda, E, 2011)
In the middle ages monarchies, the Catholic Church and the nobility would also take legal steps to preserve their rank and status by passing Sumptuary Laws to prohibit a rising mercantile and bourgeois class from wearing certain types of clothing and embellishments. The ostensible reason for passing these laws was to curb the ostentatious expenditure of these increasingly affluent groups, but the real reason was to preserve the hierarchy of status and rank that the aristocracy and church felt was under threat. The laws were dressed up as having a moral purpose to check the extravagance and opulence of the bourgeoisie but, in truth, they were to reassert control by using clothing as a political issue. By legally codifying clothing the laws also targeted minorities such as Jews, Muslims, the disabled, and prostitutes, so that they could be more easily identified. In Renaissance Italy sumptuary laws were applied to women´s dresses, banning the use of low necklines. England, France and Germany also had their variations of these laws but they shared a common theme which was to target clothing, along with some other luxuries, in order to repress the growing influence of the merchant class and to use clothing as a way to control women and minorities.
From the 16th century onwards, the opening up of new trade routes, the expansion of markets and abundance of new raw materials from the Americas, the exploitation of native populations and natural resources in Latin America, the widespread use of slavery in cotton production, all these factors saw an explosion in clothing and textile manufacturing, especially when combined with the technological advances of the Industrial Revolution that would come in the 19th century.
Clothing had long ceased being merely functional for elites since the emergence of civilizations and empires, but for the poor, the peasantry and now the working classes of the Industrial Revolution, clothes remained scarce, expensive and utilitarian. Work clothes were prioritized and working families became expert at repairing and extending the life cycle of the few clothes they possessed.
Elites, however, had recognized for many centuries the power and symbolism of clothing in projecting status, wealth, religious awe and political control. The sumptuary laws of Rome and Renaissance Europe were an attempt to take control of the symbolic power of clothing; ruling elites, whether they were emperors, monarchs or religious leaders, sought to monopolise this symbolic power for their own ends. One extraordinary example, the ceremony of the levee, brought to apotheosis by the Sun King, Louis XIV, demonstrates the way in which clothes, court etiquette, the symbolic dressing of the king´s sacred body, can be transmuted into absolute power. To this day the British monarchy employs the full symbolism of regal power through carefully choreographed ceremonies, such as the state opening of parliament, involving the rich and ostentatious display of royal garments, crown jewels, courtiers in ermine, all to consolidate the power of the throne over its subjects.
Clothing began as a functional resource to deal with the harsh climates of Northern Europe. It could still be argued that for a great number of 21st century global citizens in poor and developing countries clothing remains functional to some extent. For these people clothing´s main purpose is to be suitable and durable for work in the fields and in factories. For all of us clothes still provide that functional protection from extremes of heat and cold. Of course, as the report has illustrated clothing has taken on all kinds of political, status driven and symbolic values. It is now time to consider how clothing also has been fundamental to personal and cultural expression, to the creation of inspiring art and design, to aesthetic pleasure in craftsmanship, and to wider social change.
2.1 When Clothing becomes Fashion
It is axiomatic that clothes have played a major part in shaping our identities, our cultures and our norms. Most human interactions only happen between clothed bodies. While clothes have clearly a functional aspect they clearly act as signifiers of who we are, where we may come from, what we may do and what we may believe. Show a 21st century western primary school child, for example, pictures of a fireman, a soldier, a nurse, or a policeman and they will unfailingly tell you what they do. Even on this superficial level clothes give us an identity. Clothes communicate without words.
For human cultures clothes have also played a major role in our ceremonies, our rituals, our religious practices. Ruling classes, religious leaders, the military, the judiciary, all have used designated clothing to enhance their power and status and to assert their authority. Clothes also have a vital role in gender identification and gender politics. Girls and women have historically been subject to the control and preferences of men in deciding how they should dress: the length of their hemline; the focus on their bosoms or waists or legs determining their sexual attractiveness or modesty; their sexual and moral character judged by their choice of clothing and its colour. To this day we continue to see clothes used in the empowerment or disempowerment of girls and women where what women choose or are compelled to wear is the subject of much heated debate.
Clothes, therefore, have always been vital to our sense of self and identity. How we dress can psychologically and physically affect us, altering our mood, our behavior and our reception by others. The communicative qualities of clothing are obvious, both in what they say about ourselves and what they communicate to others. Our clothes are also deeply embedded in our memory, connecting us to past experiences in childhood, our schooling, our relationships, our work. They can mirror our anxieties, our desires, our hopes and dreams. This talismanic quality of clothing is based upon our emotional attachment to what we wear and it is this deep emotional attachment that was the inspiration for fashion. As we are complex beings we make complex choices and have complex needs. Fashion satisfies that emotional need for choice, colour, aesthetic and bodily pleasure and constant change. Charles Frederick Worth was the first to grasp this essential truth.
Charles Frederick Worth invented Haute Couture. He changed forever the perception of clothing within society and as an industry. Whereas dressmakers had previously been viewed as suppliers, Worth reinvented the trade setting the precedent for designers to create trends and dictate fashion movements. While clients had always made the decisions regarding the choice of the fabrics, colours and cut, Worth was a couturier of his own designs (Tungate, M. 2012).
Originally from England, he became established in Paris in 1858 and made a name for himself when he designed a gown for Princess Metternich, the wife of the Austrian Ambassador. Before long his designs were sought after the world over, due to their closer cut to the body, their bustles and exquisite trains. A marketing genius, he sent samples to potential clients, and was the first to give his clients a fashion ‘show’ displaying his designs on real women rather than on wooden busts. (Tungate, M. 2012)
The concept of fashion had, of course, existed before. Elites had always followed their leaders in both imitation and as a form of flattery. During the Renaissance period, for example, 16th century Florentine women adopted the Medici collar named after Catherine de Medici, while in Elizabethan England, Queen Elizabeth 1 was much imitated for her flamboyant clothing styles. Royalty has always been a fashion trendsetter and Royal households were often seen as arbiters of good taste, manners and elegance. In Europe the French court was universally acknowledged as the centre of taste, style and art de vivre, with its fashionistas such as Madame Pompadour and Marie-Antoinette, and its elegant nobility (Okonkwo, U. 2007). Given this heritage it is no accident that Worth should choose Paris as the centre of his fashion revolution.
At the beginning of the 20th century, fashion, which had taken a back seat to war and revolution in Europe and America, was once again elevated to the same status as other art forms such as music, literature and theater. Fashion was considered an important cultural and social phenomenon influencing society´s norms and behaviour. Worth paved the way for other designers, and of course for competition. One very notable competitor was Coco Chanel who began in Paris as a hat designer in 1910, but quickly expanded into all other areas of fashion. Jeanna Lanvin launched her couture house in 1889, Paul Poiret in 1904, and Elsa Schiaparelli in 1927. Several luxury brands that emerged in this period, remain in existence and are still heavily influential today.
Following the First World War of the 1910s, Coco Chanel understood that attitudes towards fashion and the concept of luxury had been changed as a result of the hardships and challenges of war. In those years when women had had to work and grew accustomed to the simplicities of uniforms, Chanel offered a new modernity in her designs, which being less overtly feminine, embodied a more practical and pared down aesthetic, which was more representative of what women wanted. By designing according to consumer behaviour and taste, she quickly rose to prominence on an international scale. Paris was viewed as the world’s fashion capital and Haute Couture the most sought after in the world (Okonkwo, U. 2007).
In parallel, the talents of designers and artisans in Italy were starting to garner attention, and by the 1930’S when Guccio Gucci and Salvatore Ferragamo began to achieve success in Florence, Italian fashion, particularly for shoes and accessories, was rivalling that of France’s. But growth in Italy was slow due to social fragmentation and economic difficulties following the Second World War; Italy’s full potential and influence on international fashion would not emerge until later.
The 1940s marked a period of significant development in the United States, due to industrial advances and a legacy from wartime innovations. New York became the birthplace of ready to wear, and combined with the increasing popularity of department stores and increased accessibility to international designs, fashion was no longer reserved for the elite, but accessible to the growing Middle Class America.
In 1951, after the fashion shows held by Sala Bianca at Palazzo Pitti in Florence, the concept of Made in Italy emerged. This concept would again change the fashion scene forever, popularizing Italian fashion and its unique heritage and traditions. Italian designers rose to prominence and Alta Mode which perfectly embodied Italy’s unique level of precision, craftsmanship and artisanship, would for the first time begin to rival Haute Couture in Paris (Masotti, 2017). The next chapter in fashion’s history was focused on Italy when a new aesthetic of Italian design emerged through Hollywood cinema. Many fashion design innovations emerged during the 60s, when fashion designers became bolder and more experimental. This decade of great fashion moments heralded a new generation of designers as celebrities changing our perceptions and societal links with fashion as a cultural and internationally recognized art form and a massive industry driver. Finally the democratisation of fashion occurred in the 1970s leading to a decade of substantial growth and fashion mass market manufacturing. This was the beginning of the modern global fashion industry (Okonkwo, U. 2007).
2.2 The Fashion Paradigm is now dominant
Fashion is big business in 2018. Fashion is now also a multifaceted industry, with the luxury good market estimated by The BoF-McKinsey Global Fashion Survey to be worth an estimated $2.4 trillion in 2016 (Ahmed, et al, 2016) and retail sales estimated at €1.08 trillion worldwide (D’Arpizio, et al 2016). Given the expected growth of the industry in the next few years, there will be inevitably be other significant changes in the fashion industry which will have a significant cultural impact on our society and its relationship with fashion and clothing.
Fashion shows and fashion stores were traditionally set up to communicate and sell fashion, but we are moving to a broader and deeper understanding of the cultural and social value of fashion. It gives us insight into the past and there is now an understanding of the importance to promote and preserve elements of fashion history. It is an embodiment of peoples and cultures, creating connections between people and to moments of historical significance. Fashion needs to be treated not just as a commodity but as a cultural, social and symbolic artifact. The theory that clothes are made in the factory and become ‘fashion’ when marketers get hold of them is too simplistic an approach. The origins and history of fashion tell us that it is a much deeper reflection of culture, identity and our society. It is a window into our past and into our past and present selves (Tungate, M. 2012).
Fashion should also be seen as an important form of communication: it is about making a statement; it has its own visual language, with its own distinctive grammar, vocabulary and syntax. It is a visual language which crosses cultures, international borders, connecting consumers and breaking down barriers. There is, of course, an imbalance in this dialogue between affluent developed countries where fashion is consumed and developing countries where it is often made. The impact on the environment in poor countries of the worst excesses of unsustainable manufacturing processes has been very damaging. But the industry has begun to have this difficult discussion driven by consumers and those within the industry. The fashion industry can take the lead in this debate on global warming and because of its global influence can make a real difference in shaping and influencing this debate for the better.
Fashion, especially since the 2nd World War, has been extremely influential as a cultural and social agent of change. It has given us the concept of the teenager; it has been key to reflecting the 60s; it has embraced social freedom; anti-war movements; feminism, punk and now the digital age. It has dressed and inspired social movements like the flower power generation, broken down social stratification and democratized choice. Women in particular have benefited from the freedom to choose how they dress. Human beings are naturally tribal and often feel safer by conforming to and following established norms: the ubiquitous blue jeans; corporate menswear; sportswear. But social differentiation and integration have always been in tension in fashion. Now girls and women feel more empowered to challenge a patriarchy that sets limits on their aspirations. They can express themselves through fashion, explore their own individuality, their emotional and psychological lives (Davis, F. 1992).
We know that there is undoubtedly a sociological and symbolic meaning behind fashion and clothing. Clothing throughout the ages has provided a way of communicating a message about our person, status and lifestyle. Clothing’s codes, and the semiotics and unconscious symbolism attached to clothes, do contain meanings, but for a long time these were not completely understood. For a start, this is made difficult by the fact that the meanings of fashion and clothing, have shifted with time and custom. Fashion codes are context dependent, and its variables often interpreted and appreciated differently within social groups and time periods. Interest in fashion ebbs and flows and is subject to events: wars, recessions, the politics of the day. The style of clothing chosen by particular groups at certain points in time, or what fabrics, cuts and colours are considered to be desirable at that moment, are dependent on these external factors. Women´s hemlines went up during the 2nd World war, for example, due to the shortage of cloth. Context is everything in understanding clothing styles. Most importantly, clothing styles and fashion trends are constantly changing and unstable. By definition, fashion is forever restless and volatile. It is governed by seasons, trends, profit, changing customer behaviour and attitudes, and external events. These codes are also affected by the genius of fashion innovators, designers and brands. They can and do influence the transmission and perception of these codes to consumers. But fashion offers rich insights into our past and present when we learn to decode its messages and it is worth the effort (Davis, F. 1992)
2.3Social Identity through fashion
Social factors play a crucial role in fashion, in how we engage with it and how we interpret it, and how we buy into its codes and values. All of us to some degree are actively participating in the construction of social identities. A key aspect of cultural identity is the construction of a sense of self based on likeness and dissimilarity, and in the participation and identification with certain social groups vs others. Humans have both a collective and personal identity and we seek to express ourselves through these different identities. Fashion caters for our public and private selves. In our working lives we may have to wear the clothing that fits our occupation and its norms. We may be affiliated to a political party, be a member of a particular religion, follow a football team: these social factors will undoubtedly influence how we dress, even what colours we will or won´t wear. Through the constructs of our social identity, fashion paradigms are born. We may welcome the collective identity we have embraced as it provides security and reassurance, and a sense of belonging. But fashion also provides us with an outlet for our private self: our uniqueness; our individuality and our private desires and feelings. Fashion designers have learned to appeal to both identities (Hall, 2008).
3.Methodological Research: Data Analysis and Review
The following independent research aims to explore our attitudes towards clothing, the overall meaning of clothing and the differences between ones need to wear clothes, and the art of dressing for emotional needs, or due to other social factors. The survey’s questions are designed to test our understanding of clothing and fashion as a means of communication, and allow for an interpretation of what it says about our population based on their need to be either similar, with a desire to appear identical, or dissimilar, with a desire to be different from our peers. The scope of the survey included 83 respondents.
Research Question 1: Do you view clothing as purely functional and practical in nature, or as a means to make a statement about who we are?
Hypothesis 1: It is expected that respondents will confirm that their clothing is reflective of who they are, via the codes of clothing, and forms part of their identity.
Research Question 2: Is fashion more about: following trends or being a trend setter; expressionism and communication of self; or creating a personal identity.
Hypothesis 2: People are more likely to associate their clothing with both expressionism and communication, or with creating a personal identity. It is not expected that they wear it solely as fashion for fashion’s sake as for most it has a deeper meaning.
Research Question 3: Is your aim when choosing your clothing to fit in with society, or to stand out from the rest of society?
Hypothesis 3: That people choose clothing with the intention to fit in with their preconceived social norms and conditions.
Research Question 4: Do you believe in the use of clothing as an embodiment of culture and/ or tradition?
Hypothesis 4: People are more likely to assume the anthropologic value in clothing and the practice of wearing clothing for the symbolic value in culture or tradition.
Research Question 5: Do you agree with the statement that some of the clothes we wear/ have worn can be linked to an emotional attachment?
Hypothesis 5: It is expected that people will have clothing or have had clothing, that they can link to an emotion or a certain set of emotions. This serves to prove the deeper connections that human beings have now with their clothes, as they relate to historical moments and oftentimes in specific memories.
Research Question 6: Do you believe that clothing often connects us or divides us within society?
Hypothesis 6: It is expected that respondents will state that clothing connects us within society.
Research Question 7: Do you believe clothing trends: are influenced by the society we live in; influence society and the world around us; can be both influenced and influence in equal measure.
Hypothesis 7: Clothing trends and traditions are heavily predetermined by what is happening in the world at any given time. Designers can however influence the transmission and perception of these codes to consumers, therefore it is expected that most respondents will be aware as to the relationships between these external factors, and the societal influences in equal measure. This demonstrates the power of fashion to influence societal behaviour.
Research Question 8: Are the choices you make every day regarding what to wear influenced by external factors?
Hypothesis 8: The codes which we want to communicate through our clothing, play a huge role in what we choose to dress ourselves in. It is expected that most respondents will confirm that their decisions are not self-made regarding their clothing, but influenced by external factors.
Research Question 9: Do you feel that you are more likely to associate yourself or disassociate yourself from certain societal groups based on what you wear?
Hypothesis 9: It is expected that respondents will acknowledge the extent to which they identify with others based on clothing.
Research Question 10: Do you feel that you are more likely to associate others with you or disassociate others from you based on what they wear?
Hypothesis 10: It is expected that respondents will acknowledge the extent to which they form judgement or disassociations with others based on clothing, on the assumption that they are dissimilar or not within the same societal groups due to their clothin
3.1Interpretation: Hypothesis vs results.
Only 13.25% of respondents answered that they viewed clothing as purely functional and practical in nature, meaning that 86.75% believe that our clothing makes a statement about and is reflective of who we are.
63.86% stated that the considered clothing to be a means of expressionism and a communication of self. This confirms the hypothesis that clothing has a much deeper meaning, and is a means for giving people a sense of belonging.
Interestingly, 81.93% acknowledged that their aim when choosing clothing was to fit in with society. This again fits the hypothesis that clothing is chosen with the intention to fit in with preconceived social norms and conditions and to possess a sense of similarity.
93.39% believe in the use of clothing as an embodiment of culture and/ or tradition, which goes back to the anthropologic importance of wearing clothing for symbolic value. (Figure 4)
97.59% agree that the clothes we wear can be linked to an emotional attachment. This serves to prove the deeper connections that human beings have with clothes, as they relate to wider historical moments and oftentimes more specific personal memories.
97.59% also believe that clothing connects us, bolstering the theory that clothing represents a need for assimilating within society.
79.52%, are in agreement that fashion trends both influence society and the world around us and can be influenced by the same factors demonstrating the power of fashion to influence societal behavior, and of society’s awareness of that fact.
The survey confirms that the choices we make every day regarding our clothes are influenced by external factors. 96.39% confirmed that our decisions are not self-made regarding clothing, but rather are determined by the codes in which we operate in society, and by what we wish to communicate about ourselves to the world.
Again pursuant to the very strong links between clothing and identity, 95.18% are more likely to associate or disassociate themselves from other societal groups based on clothing. The same number (95.18%) are also inclined to form judgement or disassociations with others based on clothing, on the assumption that they are dissimilar or not within the same societal groups due to their clothing.
4.Conclusion and Evaluation
The history of clothing begins 170,000 years ago. But the moment in time when fashion began and superseded functional clothing is harder to pinpoint. Wearing clothing to protect ourselves from the elements was a critical step in our evolution. Clothing was necessary for our physical survival. But fashion- the dressing of our bodies for ornamentation, status, identity, pleasure- satisfies deeper and more complex emotions. Even when we were naked we had a deep need for ornamentation, to “dress” our bodies; to enhance our sexual attractiveness; to give us an identity. In primitive societies they used clothing, decoration and makeup as a means of creating binding social structures, and fashion codes and symbolic meanings were born from these early constructs.
What this report has attempted to show is that these urges to dress our bodies for complex purposes led inevitably to the creation and supremacy of a fashion paradigm. The origins of the fashion industry are to be found in ancient civilizations where satisfying the needs of the ruling elites led to the employment of a small army of artisans and craftsmen. As technologies improved and trade expanded the rich and powerful could enjoy the finest clothing that befitted their rank and status Whole economies were powered by the desires of a privileged few.
These elites were also trendsetters. They were the arbiters of taste, but following them required wealth and leisure. For the majority clothing continued to be functional. We have to wait until the middle of the 20th century, when fashionable clothing became affordable for a rising middle class in both Europe and America, to see the first signs of the democratisation of fashion. Haute couture, as we saw, found a market earlier among the wealthy in Europe and the US and catered for that desire for exclusivity which always motivates those who dress for status and recognition.
What the paradigm of fashion has shown is that clothes are loaded with symbolic meaning both for the wearer and society at large. Fashion appeals to our emotional needs: for self-expression; for social acceptance; for sexual attractiveness; for identity and recognition. The 20th century was the period which saw the democratisation of fashion, the empowerment of women and their right to dress as they would like. An interesting story within the overarching history of clothing and fashion is the profound influence of men in determining what girls and women could wear. Men´s changing notions of female sexual attractiveness and moral prescriptions of what constituted modesty, determined how women dressed regardless of rank or status. This largely ended when women entered the workplace, earned their own income and became the key market for the fashion industry.
In the 21st century fashion is now a major global industry, affecting the lives of the millions who work in it or the consumers who buy it. The industry permeates every aspect of our working lives and leisure time. This has both positive and negative consequences. For the majority being fashionable is now possible due to the ready availability of cheap, ready to wear clothing. For the environment and developing countries the picture is mixed. Producing cheap fashion has had a major impact on developing countries´ natural resources; the working conditions of textile and garment workers have also been a major concern.
Clothes have always told an important story about our evolution, civilisations and cultures. Clothes have revealed our past selves, in the same way the arts have. We should value this history for what it tells us about ourselves and times. In our age the fashion industry reigns supreme. The paradigm of fashion is the winner for the foreseeable future.
Davis, F. (1992) Fashion, Culture and Identity, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London
Edmondson, J . Keith, A. (2008) Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman culture, University of Toronto Press
Gelber, H.G, (2008) The Dragon and the Foreign Devils Bloomsbury Publishing, London
Hall, Stuart. (1997). The Local and the Global: Globalisation and Ethnicity, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Kvavadze, E. Bar-Yosef, O. Belfer-Cohen ,A. Boaretto,E. Jakeli,N Matskevich,Z. Meshvelian,T (2009) 30,000 Year Old Wild Flax Fibers (Online) Available at: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5946/1359 (Accessed: 1 June 2018)
Okonkwo, U. (2007)Luxury Fashion Branding: Trends, Tactics and Techniques. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Roebroeks, W. Sier, M. Kellberg Nielsen, T. De Loecker, D. Parés, J. Arps, C. Mücher, H.(2012) Use of red ochre by early Neandertals (Online) Available at: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/6/1889 (Accessed:1 June 2018)
Toups, M. Kitchen , A. Light, J. Reed, D. (07 October 2010) Origin of Clothing Lice Indicates Early Clothing Use by Anatomically Modern Humans in Africa (Online) Available at: https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/28/1/29/984822 (Accessed: 1 June 2018)
Tungate M. (2012) Fashion Brands: Branding Style from Armani to Zara 3rd. Ed. Kogan Page
Zanda, E. (2011) Fighting Hydra Like Luxury: Sumptuary Regulation in the Roman Republic Bristol Classical Press
