I am speaking, of course, of Wendy Davis, the Texas state senator and beleaguered gubernatorial candidate, as well as famed Mizuno sneaker wearer. A blond wig, a bright suit andthose sneakers doth a costume create. Who needs masks when you have fashion?
Clothes have the power to define a person and a position, and though they are often seen as handicapping women in positions of authority, acting as a distraction from their achievements and substance, they can also be a strategic communication tool. One that is, ironically, more accessible to women than to men, who are stuck in a never-ending generic suit loop, forced to rely on the distinguishing characteristics of hair and tie color.
“It felt like it was the right time to look at the rise of women in contemporary power roles, and how they view and use fashion to facilitate their place in the world,” said the co-curator, Donna Loveday, describing the show as one of the most ambitious the museum has done.
She and her fellow curator, the fashion historian and journalist Colin McDowell, began work on the exhibition 10 months ago. Designed by Zaha Hadid, the first woman to win the Pritzker Prize, it is laid out over almost 6,500 square feet in three parts: There is an analytic “corridor of power” that identifies 16 of the most influential dressers in history, starting with Hatshepsut, the Egyptian queen who used elements of male dress to establish authority after her husband’s death; culminating with Hillary Clinton; a 150-year timeline highlighting moments of public sartorial change (the “freedom from constraints” of the turn of the 20th century, the suffragist movement of the 1920s); and, most significant, a gallery of current power players who contributed a Q. and A. and favorite garments that reflect their words.
And since, as Ms. Loveday pointed out, “I don’t think there has really been an exhibit in a museum on the subject before,” it makes me wonder if this marks a turning point in our own relationship with fashion.
Just consider the fact that the show includes 25 high-profile women happy to go public with their thoughts on clothing. This includes the usual suspects: fashion professionals like Natalie Massenet, executive chairwoman of Net-a-Porter; the designer Vivienne Westwood; and the model Naomi Campbell. But it also includes Wei Sun Christianson, co-chief executive of Morgan Stanley Asia Pacific; Anne Hidalgo, the mayor of Paris (who also opened the exhibition); Alfiya Kuanysheva, chief executive of the Kazakhstan finance group BATT; and Kirsty Wark, the British broadcaster.
That, it seems to me, is an enormous and meaningful change in the conversation about achievement and gender. The idea that women whose power is undeniable and exists in traditionally male sectors like banking and politics might stand up and say, for the record and posterity, that clothes matter and require (and deserve) thought is, in my experience, unprecedented.
Even just three years ago, Michelle Obama, featured in the corridor of power, was denying giving any real consideration to clothing, announcing on “Good Morning America”: “Look, women, wear what you love. That’s all I can say. That’s my motto.”
(It just so happened that she loved wearing dresses from small American brands made by designers with notably diverse backgrounds, hence raising their profile on the international stage — but, hey, guess that was a coincidence.)
Fashion, like money — if not more than money — has been the off-limits topic, the subject whispered about and obsessed over, but rarely acknowledged in any nonpejorative way. It’s the invisible elephant in the room; like disinformation, it’s the tool everyone uses — and has used, as the exhibition makes clear, since Joan of Arc threw on some male armor — but refuses to admit they use.
“For a very long period, as women began entering the workplace and taking up roles traditionally occupied by men, the subject of dress was really put to one side, and treated as a frivolous distraction,” Ms. Loveday said.
Indeed, in a Daily Beast article last year about Ms. Davis and her sneakers, the liberal pundit Sally Kohn wrote that noting what women wear “undercuts the leadership of women and quashes their voice.” It seems to me, however, and this exhibition shows, that the situation is the opposite: What women wear is an embodiment of their voice, and identifying it helps identify their agenda (as it does with men, for that matter).
Granted, there were still women, and some very big names, that chose not to take part in the Q. and A. section of the Design Museum show. Ms. Loveday had Angela Merkel, Hillary Clinton and Queen Elizabeth II on her wish list, and all begged off from participating in the interactive, though they are referenced in the show. But, Ms. Loveday said, the reason she was given for their demurrals was not “I don’t want to be seen talking about that subject,” but rather “time.”
Before you say “Well, isn’t that the same thing and weren’t they just being polite,” consider the fact that a few years ago when I was trying to convene a panel of power women to do some image analysis for a different newspaper, the answer I heard over and over again from chief executives I approached was a straightforward: “Thanks for thinking of me, but I can’t be involved in any overt discussion of fashion. It would undermine my hard-won seriousness.” (I’m paraphrasing, but not that much.)
I’m not saying the time excuse should be taken at face value or is anything but an excuse (though it could be true), but the sheer fact that the women involved bothered to make it, as opposed to taking umbrage at the very idea they might think about clothing is, in my book, a step forward.
Besides, even without the active participation of such pivotal figures, it is meaningful to think that for six months visitors to the Design Museum will be able to read the property developer Morwenna Wilson’s words — “Jackets are very important to me because I am petite and a woman, yet one with responsibility and authority working in a male dominated industry, often with a team of people older than me” — and Ms. Christianson of Morgan Stanley attesting that “I decided that while I was working in a man’s world, I was not going to suppress my femininity in an attempt to blend in.”
“It’s an incredibly positive message,” said Ms. Loveday, referring not just to Ms. Christianson’s words, but her willingness to contribute. I would have to agree.
Even more pointedly, the fact that this is now a public subject of conversation, blessed by a major institution, suggests that perhaps during the coming British elections, which will take place in May but with campaigning beginning in January, image analysis may be discussed in formerly unheard-of ways — and vis-à-vis candidates of any gender. And given that after “Women Fashion Power” closes in London, it may travel to the United States, Asia and Europe, it could potentially play a part in the presidential election here,if Hillary Clinton is a candidate.
And that in turn means that it is possible that this political cycle, instead of the usual disingenuous disavowals and fights about whether or not clothes are a legitimate part of spin and manipulation and the fight for higher office, we might actually be able to have a meaningful conversation about how exactly our candidates are attempting to communicate through cloth, and what exactly the subtext is.
Trick or treat?
QueenieAustralia formal dresses melbourne
没有评论:
发表评论