Introduction
Davis () said that anti-fashion is as much a creature as fashion itself. Anti-fashion is in fact so closely linked to the intrinsic dynamic of fashion, that it relies on anti-fashion for its evolution (bloomsbury). For example, it was the anti-fashion movement led by Rei Kawakubo of the 1990s of deconstruction that led to the popularity of the colour black in the fashion world (bloomsbury).
Anti-fashion can be defined as a movement against the fashion establishment (Bloomsbury), it develops a certain aesthetic, that until that point was unheard of and doesn’t fit in with previously established categories (Lavinia). Martin Margiela’s first runway show, shocked the fashion industry, as they couldn’t relate it to anything they had seen before, expect perhaps art (example) (docu).
Furthermore, it strives to break down set rules and represents a certain indifference towards fashion (Givan) Takahiro Miyashita, who titled his collection The Soloist, was just that – following his own track of mixing conventionally tailored and sporty pieces. Male or female? Hard to tell with the faces covered by hoods as if facing a post-apocalyptic future where gender might be irrelevant (Menkens). Even high street brand such as H&M and zara have stepped onto the gender fluidy bandwagon.
But above all, anti-fashion is driven by a need for change (Bloomsbury), a post-modern response to the circumstance of both the world and the fashion industry at the time (gray).
At the end of the 20th century, several designers started revolutionising fashion, by attacking the very idea of fashion and epitome of western fashion: (false) beautiful appearances. Rei Kawakubo, designer behind the brand Comme des Garçons, deconstructed the built and rebuilt image of femininity in fashion (bloomsbury). She defied female objectification, even cementing this idea in to her brand name which translates to “just like men” (docu). She strived for a new type of embodiment and broke down the space between the garment and the person wearing it (Frankel), in this process creating new shapes that had never been seen before. Graduate from the Antwerp Royal Academy of Fashion, Martin Margiela, took this even further and deconstructed fashion to the extent that all its secrets were exposed by literally turning it inside out (docu), fashion brought an ideal to life and he wanted to contest this. He cunningly played out the constant need fashion had for innovation, by deconstructing used garment but doing it with a quality finish, as Gill words it “he sticked a dialogue with the past into its future.”
20 years later there is a new surge of anti-fashion, but this time it isn’t one of deconstruction. 21st century anti-fashion is one of appropriation, parody and sign entropy; being remade as unusable, distasteful or aged the balenciaga crock, or matress men.
The resurge of anti-fashion came from a need to break through the oversaturated fashion world (Gray). The anti-fashion pioneers of the 1990s had left its mark, and the fashion industry absorbed these changes rather than rejected them, resulting into a wave of minimalism and at its height the emergence of normcore. Initially designs caught attention by their sheer ugliness EXAMPLE (givan) (birkenstocks from celine). The emergence of technology had broken down all the barriers and caused a democratising of fashion and bombarding us with images (Lavinia), only something truly shocking will grab the attention and break through the clutter of imagery. Givhan “fashion has cosied up to the ugly aesthetic of the past”. It drew it’s attention through sheer ugliness and the attention seeking by the mundane. Dhl tshirts from vetements or the Birkenstock. It was the ugliness paried with the ‘I don’t care’ attitude, the coolness, but this tendency along with the pressure fashion had caused fashion to be stuck (de vere).
Fashion in 21st can’t be categorised by style anymore as before, everything has become an anti-fashion, first the ugly but now the ugly is in style, so the hyper feminine and sex appeal serves as its anti-fashion. Icon of this is the hyper sex collections, but even ever elegant brands are following the current fashion to stay in touch with the younger generations
Versace has been designing to remind you of woman’s power (Cartner-Morley).
By contrast, the 21st century of anti-fashion heavily and actively critiques the fashion industry where the 20st century anti-fashion, revolutionised and reconstructed the ‘grounds’ of fashion, where 21st century anti-fashion intends to evolve fashion. (Gill) Margiela often repurposed old vintage clothing, but by no means was this an initial attempt at eco-fashion (Bloomsbury), however anti-fashion of the 21st century is very much conform with its zeitgeist, styles reflecting issues of a time of economic, political, environmental and aesthetic crisis. Maria Grazie for Dior with we should all be femenists. These aesthetics reinforce, or contribute to the deflection of a desire to bring transformations to consumer society and its practices of obsolescence and disposability (Gill) prices imply these clothes are to be thrown away, discarded like a condom before being loved and savoured, teaching young consumers that fashion has no value and thus the culture of fashion is destroyed (Edelkoort).
The postmodern, and postfashion strategy, is one of reinventing through fashion history and popular culture. Juxtapositioning the hyperfeminie next to fluidity. With this lack of conceptual innovation the world is losing the idea of fashion (Edelkoort). We can draw a parallel to the end-of-the-century state of art. Following Arthur Danto’s famous essay (1999) he remarked that in the 20th century, the different narratives in the art world succeeded each other by such a speed that the art world came to a standstill. There was no longer an direction for progress (Margan Purje, 2015). A situation similar to the current state of fashion exemplified by the array of different styles represented at each fashion week an the endless repetition of recreating old styles. Art transitioned from modernity to post-modernity through anti-art, which according to Dickdie (1975) caused the death of art. It started seeking new paths by the return of art into everyday life and designation non art objects as art. Again a parallel to fashion, fashion is part of our everyday life by giving mundane objects the status as a fashion symbol (McEviley, 2006). All this led to a standstill for art, all paths were explored and depleted, art would always keep existing yet would stop revolutionising and evolving according to Danto (1999).
We can already see these symptoms occur in the fashion industry, endlessly recycling old ideas, trying to break free from conventions by seeking special in the mundane yet all this will lead ot eventual stand still to, a supposed end of fashion. Reasons for it are the overconsumption, the immense pressure designers have to endure and this kills innovation and creativity, thus the inevitable cycle of fashion where it needs to keep redefying itself (see text, Bloomsbury on this). But what caused this thinking, the sense of time in both directions, one in the sense of nostalgia and the second in the sense of nihilism, that there is no purpose.