Fashion and the museum
An interesting little article in this weekend's FT magazine (7/8th April 2007), 'Playing to the gallery' by Vanessa Friedman (p. 34-35), which discusses the current swathe of exhibitions devoted to haute couture and fashion, with a focus on the V&A's next offering 'New York Fashion Now'. The comments about the perceived role of the museum, or - indeed - the effect of the 'museumfication' process on objects/artefacts are illuminating.
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:
i) the museum valorises objects
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.
She concludes:
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are never worn, suggesting that garments need that particular intimacy with the human body to become/be accepted as historical documents.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?!
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
merit.
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.
She concludes:
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?!
Comments
The perception of the commercialisation of museums (as separate entities from galleries) is an important issue - museums are clearly still considered to be institutions 'above' such base considerations as money, trade and profit. So the idea of the museum as a temple to the arts, with the objects within promoted to iconic status, is still very much prevalent in contemporary British society (al least, that's the gist of this article).
I wonder how differently a similar exhibition of the works of young and upcoming British designers would be received? Something I failed to mention in my original post was that Friedman herself recognises that in the fashion world, until very recently, American designers were considered by Europeans to be 'copyists' - which suggests a perception that they were in it for the money, as opposed to the 'art'. Perhaps the legacy of these attitudes continues to colour 'our' view of fashion and its (lowly?) hierarchical position in the pantheon of design?