Image Courtesy Loewe.
Assessing the merit of a garment, much less a full collection, is more difficult than it can outwardly seem. Possessing the critical competencies required to evaluate either with any real credibility, are at a premium.
This is largely due to the misappropriated understanding of ‘fashion’, ‘design’, ‘taste’ and ‘objective’ as one, equalised, conceptual formula, that adopts some version of the following logic. Whatever garment or collection is considered ‘objectively good fashion’ should be considered ‘objectively well designed’ and if you share this view, then you possess ‘objectively good taste’.
The aforementioned formula is flawed, due to the fact that it conflates four distinctly separate notions that should be treated individually in order to exercise a valid assessment of whether a garment is good or bad.
[Left] Photo: Brad Elterman. Image Courtesy Gucci. [Right] Helmut Lang AW03. Image Courtesy @helmut_lang_archives [Instagram].
Taste, or more specifically, good taste, is a disingenuous precept. According to Art Critic, Dave Hickey, this is because bad taste is the only genuine taste level we have: “good taste is the residue of someone else’s privilege”. Therefore, by Hickey’s measure, taste cannot be objectively defined, given that there are precontrived, socially-imposed value sets that have been subjectively asserted through hierarchical superiority.
For the purposes of this argument, consider fashion as a visual flavour that evokes feeling when seen. There is a discernible difference between the flavour offered by Alessandro Michele’s garments to that of Helmut Lang. Neither is objectively a stronger designer than the other, however, depending on your personal taste, you may prefer the contributions of one over the other.
Good taste is the residue of someone else’s privilege.
Whilst fashion struggles to fit into the confines of an objective assessment, design slots in with considerably greater ease. If something is designed, it is usually created with the intention of performing one or more functions. The strength of a design can therefore be based on whether or not it succeeds at accomplishing its intended task, and then further parameters of measurement can be established to determine how well this is done.
If fashion criticism is to serve its purpose, then surely it is worth getting the opinion of the person who is aware of the functional aim of the collection — even if the said aim is to simply evoke a defined range of reactions. This would lend itself to getting the design team of each collection to complete some format of self-assessment post-presentation, perhaps in a mould not too dissimilar from how Miuccia Prada and Raf Simons have held discussion panels as an adjoining act to each of their co-collaborative Prada shows thus far.
The current paradigm of criticism procures the opinions of individuals who spend fashion week sitting and watching a series of ten-minute shows, as opposed to the teams who spent three months developing these garments. It’s a relationship that feels markedly imbalanced — given how little time critics spend with the garments, it throws into question whether they are in a position to give any more valid a view than the design team? Yet the reason why this model of criticism persists is down to the audience, who do not desire objectivity, merely the guise of it.
In this scenario, there is greater entertainment value in the subjective than the objective. Equally, there is an obvious conflict of interest in giving fashion designers the impetus to define the reception of their own collections. What this, therefore, suggests about Fashion Criticism, is that beyond entertainment value, any feigned attempt at objectivity is entirely arbitrary. But as many of our consumption patterns will tell us, it is often the most arbitrary of things that fixate our attention most firmly.
With all that said, follow us on Instagram for on-the-fly coverage of Paris Fashion Week running through to 10 March 2021.