The main gist of Friedman's article is that the articles chosen for the exhibition are largely taken from up-and-coming designers are fashion houses, whose position in the couture pantheon is not yet assured:
The problem in placing it [the work of the new designers chosen to be exhibited]
in the museum is that the work takes on an importance it may not actually
i) the museum valorises objects
Freezing them in an institution at this stage in their development seems odd.
ii) the museum effectively 'kills' objects, or at the very least puts them into suspended animation
Friedman goes on to comment about the atmosphere surrounding the exhibition, likening it to a trade event rather than an exhibition.
iii) museums and commerce don't (shouldn't) mix.
It would be easy to imagine Selfridges or, for that matter, Harvey Nichols, the
main stockist in London for most of the emerging New York designers,
doing a similar thing for this generation [of fashion designers]. But
a museum? Shouldn't the idea be to get the clothes on living bodies
before they end up on mannequins?
iv) museums denude objects of their utility, their functionality. These clothes will cease to be clothes is they are never worn, suggesting that garments need that particular intimacy with the human body to become/be accepted as historical documents. Without the individual, the personal, what are they? Art? And what a canonical of worms that would open, eh?!