In reply to la:
LA: Bamia,can i pick up on a few points you make?
Firstly i don't think anyone was suggesing appropriating a picture of a starving chld to demonstrate that fashion has the ability to articulate political thought.
BAMIA: Fashion imagery in the past has appeared to have done exactly that though.
LA: You say that fashon is ideologically castrated and the only reaon you appear to give is that it is decorative.Surely this can be levelled at painting or indeed film both of which I guess you think can express political thought.
BAMIA: I also said that fashion is not an appropriate medium to build a serious political argument. As you said yourself, fashion is driven by impulse, it is fickle or ‘crucially time based’, and it does not have the good of society as its core motivation because, as you say, ‘it isn’t particularly friendly for the environment’ and it uses ‘political incorrectness’ to generate excitement and ‘craving’. To me this clearly illustrates why fashion is not a reliable means of making a serious point. Don’t confuse political messages with images of political ‘controversy’ or ‘sensation’. They are not the same thing. You’ve already answered your own question here.
And no, I do not believe good painting and film to be merely ‘decorative’. Good fashion imagery in my opinion is alluring because it succeeds in weaving an exquisite deception. It can trick its onlooker into believing there is some kind of profundity behind it. That profundity feeds the craving for the goods. Fashion has never made a profound statement beyond telling us what we want; it is only about desire - this is why it can never be political in the context you are trying to frame it. Good art, film and literature can unquestionably make far-reaching political points that demand intellectual engagement. Fashion has never managed this with me. That is not to say, however, that I don’t immensely enjoy looking at it.
LA: You also state that when fashion is appropriated by poliical thinkers it creates a fascistoid model,do think this was true in the case of Punk,one of the most visually original and initially one of the most individualistic of youth cults.
BAMIA: Absolutely. When I use the term ‘fascistoid’ I am talking about extreme movements that similarly operate on extreme, unsustainable ideas. Punk was exactly such an extreme movement, created by discontent and fuelled by sentimentality. It used antisocial behaviour, violence and provocative slogans; it was exclusive and discriminatory and had a strong visual element at its root that overshadowed any real and practical principles about how we should live our lives. Punk was gestural, it was a trend; in many ways it was not truly political. If it had become a political movement and in turn, a real punk society had been formed from that movement, a state of perpetual degradation would have resulted. Punk didn’t survive because it was more about style and impulsive reactive gesticulation than it was about a concrete ideological basis. I’m sure Vivienne Westwood will back me up on this.
The Third Reich, although totally different in its ideas, was also extreme, sentimental, discriminatory and used strong visual styles and motifs to draw its collective tighter together into a state of magnificent unity. Ultimately, too, it was unsustainable. Rather than the grotty abandon of punk, fascism was about symmetry, order, magnitude, national provenance. Interestingly, in stylistic terms, it was not totally dissimilar from a lot of Soviet or Chinese communist motifs. Compare the magnitude of Tiananmen square or Berlin’s former Stalinallee for instance with the scale of something like Schinkel’s original plans for the Reichstag.
Historically, fashion and political extremism have made bedfellows – they share an intimate dialogue between idealism and aesthetic realisation. Fashion as it exists today is a eunuch because its deployment is concerned with image alone and the desire and sensation created by image. It doesn't really prescribe a way of thinking aside from consumer impulse. Fashion exists in its own protofascist playpen and it is allowed free reign within these confines. I concede that a lot of creatives want to shape the way people think, but really, beyond changing what people want to spend their money on, I don’t believe these ambitions will ever be fulfilled.
We do not live in danger of fashion crossing over into politics because fashion has sealed its pact with the buck. Fashion remains an adjunct to capitalism, not ideology. Pretences at crossing into political influence are absurd and belie creative megalomania. In turn this can be fun to observe and makes for interesting imagery.
The two qualities of ‘visual originality’ and ‘individuality’, you ascribe to punk have nothing to do with politics. I think the term ‘politics’ is being used too loosely here. ‘Image’ and content cannot be exchanged so liberally. I feel these ways of thinking about politics are largely symptomatic of the way it is mediated today, through a lot of image and spin that leaves one unable to differentiate between brass tacks and surface hype.
LA: You make great play in your last paragraph of the role of commerce in negating artistic expression,do we all really believe that .Please lets not pretend that with out the enourmous profits made in the art world that it would be so exciting as it is right now.
To borrow an often quoted saying from the world of Fashion,I'm not sure Gursky,Koons or Hirst get out of bed for much less than 10,000 pounds.
BAMIA: I think the matter of whether the art world is ‘exciting’ today is a matter of opinion. I also think that ‘art’ whether good, bad, inauthentic, whatever, is always a reflection of its times. Incidentally, most of the things at big art fairs like Frieze I feel are of little interest; faddy, showy and devoid of much real substance. I go to have a look because I think it is important to see what is going on but I would be lying if I claimed the actual art itself interested me. What I find really interesting is to observe the art world from the outside and the way that people organize themselves hierarchically using status symbols and the new vernaculars of consumption that arise out of this. It is totally ripe for satire. I believe at the moment the art world is only really exciting for one kind of person: investors.
LA: In my opinion, people who have something they feel is important to say express it in the medium that they are most skilled in. For some that is painting ,some,singing,and some fashion. ( clearly it is not writting in my case!) and I dont feel it is the medium that should validate the authenticity and worth of the message.
BAMIA: That’s fine. I think that fashion creatives make a good job of making arresting imagery. If they think they’re being ‘political’ and this makes them feel more relevant or validated in their role as creatives, then that’s fine. In my opinion, fashion does not need this kind of validation.
