Being the first to respond to Chris's essay gives me a chance to say why I selected his piece to begin this series of writings by people whose work I admire but for whatever reason we've never been able to work into the projects we've undertaken on SHOW.
There has been a lot of debate among the SHOWstudio team about the PFF project during its development; whether in fact fashion, a fundamentally ideological entity in itself, CAN be used to express a political point without influencing or compromising that message beyond recognition.
Chris's position, that "when garment becomes bill-board, all the nuances of signification in which political meaning ultimately lies are amplified into a one-dimensional propagandist rant" is slightly more sophisticated than my own, intital anxiety about the project's aims. That is: single-issue politics, when played out on a fashion garment, is flattened into caricature.
Furthermore, that 'billboard' approach stops the more interesting and complex 'politics of dress/production/dissemination' from rising to the surface of the debate: "far better to recognise the paradoxes and tensions which position fashion as paradigmatic of the broader politics of the time".
This is absolutely where I hope discussion of this project will lead. Fashion is intrinsically political: it's the most extreme expression of global capitalism that we experience in our daily lives. If it requires the expression of mainstream political anxieties using the fashion garment/fashion photograph/fashion film as a trojan horse to get down to exploring the real political issue in fashion -the politics of beauty- then so be it.