...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?

By Sandrine at 11:33 Wed 26 Mar 2008
reply to this

Isn't being 'anti-fashion' just a different flavor of fashion? Isn't that like saying you're 'anti-music' or 'anti-film'?

I think the definition of fashion as 'the marketing of clothes' is way too narrow. I always thought of 'fashion' as the general zeitgeist of everything in the manifestation of how we look.

By Landon at 01:58 Thu 27 Mar 2008
reply to this

... I have this suspicion that anyone who is 'anti-fashion' ... somehow , in a kind of 'Frudiantly' speaking way ... has a hidden love-hate relationship with fashion ... therefore his/her passion for fashion is even ever stronger than let's say a 'fashion victim' .... with the ' difference' that one is active 'aesthetically' speaking and the other passive 'emotionally' speaking ...

No..... there will never be such a thing as ' anti-fashion' if just because somehow the so called ' anti-fashion' manifestation manages just then to bring fashion back to reflect... and become more alive !!! .... and just like in Frankenstein's:):).... to announce ....' I' m alive ' .... again ! .... and subsequently strike back to the 'anti-fashion ' .....
But then again this just a 'theory' of my wildest .... imagination :):)

By Galileo's Universe at 11:47 Thu 27 Mar 2008
reply to this

I don't agree. I work in fashion because I have a certain 'expertise' and have not yet decided what else to do - I do still enjoy aspects of my work very much. I did have a fascination in fashion until I really discovered what it was all about. Now the mystique has gone.
Now my real interest in fashion is in how its influence can be overrided.

By Karl Fuler at 13:38 Thu 27 Mar 2008
reply to this