What Are You Wearing?
Zoe Constantinidis
“There is a tendency to judge and dismiss fashions that seem exaggerated or impractical as being silly or punitive in some way. People who do that are missing the point.” - Vanessa Friedman
Fashion often walks a fine line between utility and artistry. The Hermes Birkin Bag, for example, created in 1984 as a baby bag for British actress Jane Birkin has since become collectable art. The original purposes of the bag were offset by the designer Jean-Louis Dumas’s artistic approach. Crafted with exotic leathers and solid gold hardware, the practical bag turned into a masterclass of craftsmanship. Ranging in price from $10,000 to over $400,000 the Birkin bag has seamlessly towed the line of fashion and function.
However, other trendy looks have leaned more heavily on the aesthetics side.
Jacquemus, a brand based in France and founded by Simone Porte Jacquemus, created 2019’s most popular bag, the Chiquito. Coming in a rainbow of colors and crafted in leather the bag was everywhere, on everybody. The only problem was its minute size. Coming in at just 12 X 9 cm, the Chiquito bag barely fits a lipstick.
Throughout history there have been fashions that defied all logic to becoming ‘it’ pieces. However, the reason behind these choices is unknown. In our pursuit of beauty why do we tend to veer toward oddity? How do these unusual silhouettes and accessories manifest themselves in our lives? And, why the hell are we carrying around 2 inch purses?
Status Symbol
“The best things in life are free. The second best are very, very expensive.”
- Coco Chanel
Last year on the streets of Hollywood Gucci debuted their spring 2022 collection. Full of quintessential glitz and tinsel town glamor the show was an ode to old hollywood glamor and wealth. However, fashion has long since been fascinated with the lives and adventures of the ultra rich.
In the 19th century when most of the population was dawning their simple linens long worn through by hard work, the upper class were experimenting with distortive silhouettes. The bustle, a cage creation strapped to the lower back, became very popular amongst the noble women of the 1870s to the 1880s. Different from the previously soft fabric gathered bustles, these dress forms were far more shelf-like and made of metal or whale bone.
The Encyclopedia of World Dress and Fashion states that “all bustles required women to sit sideways on chairs, and they also caused a wobble effect when walking.”
In the 21st century we have style guides to look wealthy. Videos on “How To Get The Look For Less,” shows like Gossip Girl that imbue in us how style is only for upper echelon society, trends on TikTok that outline how to get the “Old Money Rich Girl” look, and entire aesthetic sub-cultures surrounding the rich lifestyle.
“From a class point of view functionality is different.” Says Dawnn Karen, Fashion Psychologist and New York Times appointed Dress Doctor. “Perhaps someone of a lower class will need a bigger bag because they're working so many roles: as a mother, as a wife, as an employee. Whereas a wealthy person, they can outsource, so they can afford to buy things that are not as functionable.”
Fashion and status are intrinsically linked. The red soles of Christian Louboutin shoes tell the world the wearer belongs to the exclusive upper echelon who can afford Red Bottoms, however, what we wear is not always a reflection of our socio-economic situation.
According to Vanessa Friedman, Director of Fashion at the New York Times, what we wear is also influenced by profession and practicality.
“If you have to stand on your feet all day, because you're a short order cook or a waitress…or anything else that requires standing then wearing shoes that are not going to injure you is a higher priority than wearing shoes that seem impractical. So, yes, it is tied into wealth. On the other hand If you are a basketball player, you are very wealthy, and you are probably also not wearing shoes that are impractical.” Says Friedman.
Since the democratization of fashion, being stylish has not been exclusively for the rich. Stores such as Forever 21, H&M, and SHEIN have created a platform where trendy pieces sell at cheap prices, making style accessible to all. Now known under the umbrella term ‘Fast Fashion,’ these stores often take designs from higher-end brands and recreate them at a much cheaper price point.
While there are major environmental and human rights issues within the Fast Fashion industry, it has bridged the gap between upper and lower class styles. Now, a garment that used to be a symbol of wealth can be easily replicated en masse.
Does this new age of fashion entirely negate the argument that impractical trends are only for the wealthy? Partly, in that those styles have become accessible across most socio-economic classes, however, it does not give an explanation for the root cause. Why do these styles exist in the first place?
Bandwagon
“The thing that makes the most noise is the most extreme.”
- Vanessa Friedman
Since the advent of social media, brands have relied on social media to reach their audiences. A recent report by Women’s Wear Daily stated that retail store Revolve gains around 70% of its overall revenue from influencer driven sales.
Influencers, a common term used to describe people on social media with a large following, have become marketing targets for brands. PR packages are sent to various influencers in hopes that they will like the product enough to share it with their followers, who will hopefully purchase the product and drive company sales.
In recent months the trend cycle has rehashed the Y2K era looks with celebrities like Dua Lipa and Rihanna wearing pieces inspired by early 2000s style. The trend has now trickled down to the masses with #y2kfashion on Instagram having over one million posts.
The early 2000s is defined by its mill-like production of seemingly illogical trends, mainly the low rise jeans. Swung low on the hips with a rise barely above 7 inches, as compared to the 10 inches of the average high rise jeans popular in the 70s and later 2010s, low rise denim cut off the body at an odd point and spent many years post-idolization as the butt of the joke.
According to Dawnn Karen, renowned fashion psychologist and appointed Dress Doctor by the New York Times, the resurgence of the low-rise jean, and other Y2K styles, can be traced to the current political climate and societies craving of simpler times.
“We all adopt a trend because we want to have a sense of belongingness, a sense of acceptance, especially during times of war, during times of political uprisings, during times of racial tensions.” Says Karen. “There's a lot going on, so people want to feel like they belong.”
What Karen describes as the innate human need to feel accepted is perfectly embodied in one Miu Miu mini skirt.
In October of last year Miuccia Prada, creative director of Prada and Miu Miu, launched her Miu Miu spring 2022 collection. The show was a take on corporate dress and included a micro-mini khaki skirt whose ultra low rise and short length more so resembled a glorified belt. The skirt quickly went viral and appeared on the likes of Emily Ratajkowski, Bella Hadid, Nicole Kidman, Paloma Elsesser, and featured on the cover of at least 4 major fashion magazines.
The Skirt was everywhere, with everyone talking about it. There was discourse about the meaning, symbolism, and usability. People criticized The Skirt for excluding larger people, while supporters praised it for its unencumbered femininity. Either way, The Skirt enraptured the fashion world and all its occupants.
“People are trying to be part of a cultural moment.” Says Friedman of Miu Miu’s mega mini.
Low rise jeans and the Miu Miu mini skirt were impractical at first glance. In one, eating was impossible without feeling self conscious, and the other barely covered the butt, however, because of expert marketing and celebrity influence they have become the most recent viral trends.
“That’s that conformity piece. The need to feel acceptance, whether it's something that you're conscious of, or it's below your conscious, we're striving to be accepted, to get that dopamine, those likes, the ‘I'm a part of something’ rush.” Says Karen.
However, humans are not brainless. Most of the time our brains work independently of other people, and while we experience the need to feel belongingness we are capable of making our own decisions.
“If [a person of influence] does something and other people want to do it because they relate to something [that person] stands for. It doesn't exist without the character and the value system that's attached to it.” Says Friedman
According to both Karen and Friedman, fashion is more than pretty objects. Our clothes are reflections of our persons, our status, and our beliefs. Fashion is deeply personal, our bodies are deeply personal, how we feel in our clothes is deeply personal, being attracted to a specific trend, despite its seeming illogicalness, comes from a place beyond the lemming.
Social Commentary:
“Clothing speaks for you. You want to be loud, but perhaps in certain areas of your life you have to remain voiceless. So you're going to [speak] through your fashion.”
-Dawnn Karen
Fashion, and our subsequent decisions in what we wear, often reflects the current socio-political environment.
“Clothes, in essence, are expressions of identity and point of view and values.” Says Friedman.
If we look at fashion through this lens, our ideas of what is deemed strange changes drastically. Things that once seemed deranged become commentaries, and meaning is brought into the most inane of trends.
The Jacquemus Chiqito bag, for example, takes the preconceived notions of a bag’s purpose, and forces a challenge.
“Tiny bags are essentially meta commentaries on the whole concept of the bag and our obsession with handbags. People are attracted to them because they are philosophical statements about handbags. It's not because they really want to use a tiny little handbag.” Says Friedman.
Tiny handbags are a political statement about feminism, and the subversion of out of date ideas of who and what a women should be and wear. There are assumptions that handbags must be large in order for women to carry around their supplies: baby bottles, snacks for children, makeup, compacts. When a woman carries a handbag so small it holds barely a card, conventional feminine roles are questioned, upturned, and given a leather bound middle finger.
As put in The Atlanta Constitution in 1967 by journalist Raymonde Alexander, carrying a mini bag gets “her away from carrying around her household with her, to lighten her load, and as a consequence her step and her spirits.”
The mini bag also adds a level of ease to the wearer’s life
According to Karen, the popularity of the mini bag can be accredited to the need for peace and ease of choice.
“Say if you're in a situation where there's a flight or fight response, your frontal lobes are activated, you have to assess whether such a situation is dire or not. You [may] have to go inside your bag to pull out something. [The tiny bag] is a way to minimize anxiety, minimize decision making. Even in a catastrophic situation, you can think quickly.” Says Karen
However, the protestation of fashion reaches beyond bags.
Fashion, conventional gender norms, and societal commentary are not mutually exclusive. While men were out hunting in skins to keep warm, women were at home wiping the dirt from their hands on aprons covered in cook stains. While men were out working in their utilitarian denim, women were at home wearing loose, moveable cotton dresses taking care of the children. Men were expected to wear the uniform, women were expected to make the uniform.
By dawning exaggerated fashions, such as the panniers of the 17th century, women are claiming space in a world that tells them to be diminished. High heels, according to Friedman, convey women as tall and powerful in spaces they are told to quite themselves.
The clothes that hang from our shoulders and fall from our waists are expressions of our values as dictated by the cultural moment. Subconsciously chosen or not, fashion is a reflection of the self, and what we choose to wear is an amalgamation of various outlying factors.
“People are attracted to ideas of beauty as they are conceived by societies and culture at specific moments in time. Sometimes those ideas are exaggerated, or very crafted and fashion evolves to promote that or to express that.” Says Friedman. “I don't think it's that people are specifically trying to wear things that are impractical…people are trying to be part of a cultural moment. That may be perhaps realized, in ways that ended up being impractical to wear.”