Fashion theory -roland barth

Roland Farther and the End of the Nineteenth Century Roland Farther was a French philosopher, linguistic, critic and theorist. He was also the first begins systematically to say finished the intellectual changes in the sphere of elbow room and dress. His expressive style theory has a close relationship to his structuralism and linguistic knowledge, and specify fashion, clothes their origins and functions within the system. prime(prenominal) of all, Farther saw fashion as a solely system. Based on the article, system has been defined as a group or rophy of related materials or immaterial things forming a unity or complex whole.Fashion as a sort of system, has the features of that parts chiffoniernot be explained without interpreting the relationship to the whole system. Also, fashion is should be explained by other marks in the society too, such as favorable f snatchs, and so on. So, he summarized the thoughts like fashion system is the integrality of social relations an d activities that are required for fashion to come into existence. He pointed out the systematic society relies on structured human activities, and human stinting activities can be divided in three dimensions Production, strutting and consumption.Respectively, he divided garments in three dimensions based on the theory firstly, real garments, which corresponds to the dimension of yield re pass oned garments, corresponds to the dimension of distribution used garments, relates to the dimension of consumption. So, spiffy garments are not belong to the real garments, instead they are representative garments since they are in the body politic of distribution that producers want to ensure that the garments are satisfied the demand of consumers.Followed y the explanation, the chapter focused on the introduction of the three dimensions of garments. Real clothes, which arises to indicate the mood clothing assumes before it is translated into the garment of representation. They do not repr esent anything, so Farther defined the real clothes as an object like a prototype. The represented garments can be separated into image clothing and written clothing, which belongs to two systems system of image and the system of language. He took the example of a fashion magazine that uses each of the two systems to descriptor a cushion garment.He concluded that language is a more powerful system because it more readily renders the corporal substance of the real garment into a set of common, abstract signifier. In addition, image and language has opposite functions. According to Farther, image clothing provides the potential users with a print of the real garment and inflects there traces of real garments in an esthetical direction while language translated the garments into a system of abstract and intellective meaning and it is closer to the spirit of true fashionable garments.In the other word, loathes have more similarities with language than image, because they are two m odels of communication. His thoughts included a lot of philosophies from formal chapters, which discuss clothes by dint of sociology and history. Farther admits that clothing is a social phenomenon and seen as a set of garments that have acquired their present for, because of their past. It is also notable that Farther not agreed with the desire that the origin of clothes is decoration. He thoughts this question should be explained from the aspects of systematic.Farther thoughts was highly structured eased on his field. Also, he emphasized the function of language probably because his study on linguistic. It is interesting that in this article I saw more about his structuralism theories from the example of clothing. Highlights of the Article Farther who first begins systematically to think through the intellectual changes that would eventually amount to a paradigm change in the study of clothes and fashion. Breathers reputation as a fashion thinker rests mainly upon the doctorate that never was, The Fashion System.The books opening section titled Introduction Method is a impressive and lucid demonstration of his methodological approach to the question What is fashion?. System, defined as a group or set of related or associated material or immaterial things forming a unity or complex whole, worldly at the heart of the revolution that swept through French intellectual life sentence after the Second World War and one which has come to be known by the generic term structuralism. System, structure and totality are all closely related terms intended to signify.They (structuralisms) insist that the whole and the parts can be properly explained only in arms of the relations that exist between the parts. The key assumption at work is the idea that any social fact, such as fashion, should not be regarded as something having a singular identity. The central thrust of the idea of system is to carefully sort out the differential components of fashion and then see how the complex network of relationships can Join together these different dimensions into a dynamic whole. Systematic is the process of bringing together different elements into relationships of mutual dependency.The fashion system is the totality of social relations and activities that are required for fashion to come into existence. System, therefore, is a way of conceiving of human existence as something in which a structured collective being precedes, and provides the foundation for, individual being, and this has steadily become a central organizing principle of Western thought. Human do is structured into patterned networks. In order that the necessities of life be secured and so ensure that social life and the life of the individual will continue, humans have to act in an organized, collective manner.Human economic activity came to be en as comprising of three dimensions. Production what ensures that stuff gets made Distribution what ensures that what is made reaches the peop le who affect it Consumption the ways in which what is made is used up. Farther saw the analytical possibilities of extending this model of production, distribution and consumption to social institutions other than economic ones, in particular to dimensions of social life such as art and culture. The first of these distinctions separates clothing into three garments. These he calls the real garment, the represented garment and the used garment.The real garment corresponds to the dimension of production, the represented garment corresponds to the dimension of distribution, while the used garment corresponds to the dimension of consumption. The implication of this is that consumers never encounter the real garment. What they encounter is the fashionable garment, the garment that is already in the realm of representation. Breathers concept of the revised category of the real garment arises to indicate the modality clothing assumes before it is translated into the garment of represent ation.The real garment is something like a prototype that is, the object before it is named. The closing distinction made by Farther is in the central category of represented clothing, which he separates into image-clothing and Written clothing. Language, on the other hand, Farther considers to be a purer, more powerful code for the production of meaning because it more readily renders the physical substance of the real garment into a set of common, abstract signifier. It is clear that image-clothing and written clothing have different functions within representation.Image-clothing provides the potential user with a stencil of the real garment and, at the same time, inflects these traces of the real garment in an aesthetic direction. Material stuff is being turned into language. The garment is being translated into a system of abstract, intellective meanings and it is this final modality of the garment that Farther sees as the true fashionable garment. In other words, clothing is a social phenomenon. By this he meaner the tendency among previous writers to regard not Just clothes, but social life in general, as a collection of individual traits, each with its own evolutionary pathway into the present.Clothing, in this model, is seen as a set of garments that have acquired their present form because of their past. Farther rejects the conclusion that it is decoration which is the chief motive for clothing. The tendency of all bodily covering to insert itself into an organized, formal and normative system, which is recognized by society. If we are set on explaining the origins of clothing, we have to include in that explanation an account of the coming into being of that aspect of the phenomenon that is collective, organized, formal and normative.Clothing seems to resemble language in a number of ways. Like language, clothing was pre-eminently a collective activity. His final move was of a more general nature and this was to categorize clothes as a mode of comm unication. Clothes are always a combination of a specific signifier and a general signified that is international to it (epoch, country, social class). The most influential of Branders methodological advances is his separation of the historical time continuum into three distinct sorts of durations. Clothing does not reflect anything but it may react in its own way to an external disturbance.