'Pointing Out References' Is Not Qualitative Assessment
Two hours before I wrote this, I had an epiphany about fashion references. I’ve previously expressed my feelings on brands’ debilitating need to use references as crutches because not only do they embody historical value, but they are also, in a way, pre-approved by many. With the help of time, these archival ensembles are positioned as ‘era-appropriate’ fashion artifacts. On the other hand, I can also understand our irresistible desire to reinterpret history. A part of us wishes we could experience history in person, and that perhaps is the biggest reason why fashion reiterations, well done, can feel so good to us. It’s like watching the Egyptians build the pyramids all over again right before us, but this time, it took the form of a cube.
Now, I want to focus on discussing the use of archival fashion knowledge in our assessment of fashion. I have to assume that if you’re a reasonably well-read and ‘well-scrolled’ fashionista, you would inevitably come across posts describing specific iconic collections from various designers. These posts often aim to educate and inform you about the designer’s career highlights, celebrate their genius, and immortalize their creations as works that not only touched our hearts and blessed our eyes but cannot be replicated. A friend and I often chat on Instagram, and we are never that serious about fashion over text. Still, we have a mutual appreciation for each other’s work. He has vast knowledge of Yohji Yamamoto and Issey Miyake, and when we met in London, the way he talked about them was awe-inspiring. He loves his research and isn't afraid to talk to you about fashion for ten hours straight. I love him, both for how tireless he is and also for his research ethics. He has consistently emphasized the importance of learning about the archive and what lies in the past so people don’t get things wrong. One issue he made clear to me is people’s mistakes when talking about Issey Miyake, where they conflate work by Naoki Takizawa with Issey Miyake. In this case, I’m mad at these misinformed posts with him because it should be a given that you must know your history when talking about history; it’s just the sensible thing to do.
However, archival knowledge shall not be used as a trump card in the qualitative assessment of fashion.
As mentioned, I understand that it is common practice nowadays for designers to include pieces that reference the brand’s history or the designer’s portfolio, but when it comes to giving constructive criticism, pointing out the reference is not a sufficient reason to sway any aesthetic judgment. The awareness of where designs come from will only serve as context, a subordinate factor in the assessment. A Historian can exhaustively list all the past events that mirror what is going on right now in the world, but will that help us understand what they actually think is going to happen next? Not at all.
The same logic applies in my aesthetic judgement; context rarely dramatically alters my judgement because the satisfaction from completing the design inspiration puzzle does not equate to aesthetic qualities, and it hardly satisfies personal biases; it does nothing but paint a more complete picture. Of course, context is always useful as it sometimes unveils something that was previously confusing to you. Understanding the origin of designs can transform the vague and seemingly random combinations of colors and silhouettes into something more solid by the nature of analogy and comparison. However, the result of such a comparison will always remain just a comparison; it should never be able to provide actual qualitative assessments.
Archival knowledge, like anything else, needs to be used diligently. Just because you know a lot doesn’t mean that it is beneficial in all situations.