Sophia Errey: Codes, signatures, labels
School of Art, RMITUniversity, Melbourne, Australia
Discussions of fashion and identity are primarily focused on issues of sexual, social and cultural identity. But in the fluid play of signifiers which constitute meaning in creating photographing and writing around fashion the identities of brands- of house labels – and of descriptors- style labels – are potent players.
From the time of Charles Worth Couture and more latterly Ready to Wear has been linked to the name of the putative creative “artist” designer. The term “signatures” has come to be used in relationship to the distinctive features which mark the “style” of a particular firm’s output. The umbilical link between a design personality and an individual poses problems for an established firm when the name designer dies, retires, or is ousted by the commercial powers behind the throne and succeeding designers often struggle to negotiate a balance between their own style, a House style and the available resources of design teams, money and publicity.
In the case of Christian Dior the ability of Dior and his design team to create and reinforce a coherent brand image is surely a significant factor in the tenacity of a conception of the House style. From the mid eighties the new management of Dior pursued a policy of reducing licences seen as diluting the House image, and augmenting the cultural alignment and image of the firm by museum exhibitions.
John Galliano came to Dior in late 1996; his first collection for Dior was presented as an Haute Couture show in January 1997. In spite of the pronouncements of doomsayers (including designers) who prophesized the destruction of a classic House by a newcomer unsuited by training, temperament and ethnicity to inherit Dior’s mantle, the House has apparently continued to prosper, with majority opinion conceding the designer’s claim to be respectful of the tradition.
The term “signatures” has overtones of an artist’s oeuvre and authentification and seems to be closely linked to the “griffe”, the claw/inscription of a recognizable individual style. “Diorisms” have been characterized in terms of polarities, avoiding an overemphasis on relatively (and literally) superficial indicators as evidence of style.
While individual style resists precise articulation, fashion writers, confronted with the vast quantities of garments shown internationally each season, are confronted with a daunting task in presenting the “trends” to potential consumers. A survey of a range of publications from 1999-2006 suggests that almost every season a set of terms focused on the group ethnic, folkloric, hippy, bohemian is brought into play. Analysis indicates a remarkable looseness in the application of these terms in concert with images. Erecting a contrast between “hard” styles associated with decade periodization and “soft” styles linked to geography and overlaying qualifiers are devices used to further specify style.
Yet if we turn to the individual, how is dress composed, in the plethora of both real and imagined or fantasized possibilities? Are these “looks” and label terms really “inspirational”? Only recently has research begun to grapple with the elusive area of daily choices in purchases and wear – a subject emerging from the wardrobe and on to the street or even the workplace. This is the theme of my ongoing project “Fashioning in the Image of Time”.