...which points to the political role of the stylist, something undiscussed in this project thus far.
If the web is democratising this activity away from the governance of its professional custodians, at what point was their power strongest? The clue is generally in the job title which has changed over the past thirty years to reflect the rising status of what is essentially the same creative act, though in changing political circumstances.
Were they most powerful in the 70s, when what we now refer to as stylists were 'fashion assistants or directors' on the books of mainstream magazines, where they got paid, maternity leave, sickpay and the other trappings of full-time employment (Coddington, Tilberis, Brana Wolf etc.). Or was it once they asserted their authorship in the late 80s and 90s; they were credited with their creative contribution to a shoot but worked for free and had to scrabble around for minor retainers to support themselves (Blame, Foxton, Petri, Ward, Cockburn, England etc.)? [Here is a great point to discuss the great style press rip-off, but I digress...)
The thing is that authorship in this realm doesn't really equal power, no matter how much political resonance we might accord the imagery and designs produced. The latter group of stylists might be acclaimed for the creativity of their work, but it's the third group of 'Fashion Creative Directors' who went in search of the campaigns (Grand, McKenna, Ward, Goldstein) that actually ended up with the money and political leverage (consultancies at Prada, Vuitton, D&G, Helmut Lang, Karl Lagerfeld etc.).
So the question is: which group were the more politically astute?
