I like writing about fashion. I use https://mcessay.com/do-my-homework.
Meaning of clothing is fully revealed by M. Barnard in his article “Fashion, Clothing and Meaning”. Unlike Barthes and Davis who focus on specific products or clothing items, Barnard provides a broader view on the meaning and symbolism of clothes, which may be extrapolated on other products as well, which are traditionally associated with some specific cultural environment and serve as elements distinguishing cultural identity of an individual. On analyzing the meaning and symbolism of fashion and clothing, Barnard stresses the fact that the meaning of clothing as well as fashion should be and is interpreted at two levels internal and external. On the one hand, there is internal perception of clothing and fashion, when the wearer is the “source of meaning of a garment” . This means the way an individual, wearing clothing, perceives him/herself and his/her clothing, its meaning and significance. On the other hand, there is the external level of perception and interpretation of the meaning of clothing. Barnard states that it is “external to the garment or ensemble but which claims to be the origin or source of meaning” . This means the way other people perceive an individual’s clothing. In such a way, the meaning of clothing as well as fashion at large is formed on the basis of both internal and external interpretation of the meaning of clothing. At the same time, it is important to point out that both internal and external interpretations are subjective and they can vary in the course of time.
At the same time, objects of art, fashion and design that accompany humans in their everyday life are not really eternal and, in spite of their symbolism and significance, they can not only evolve but they can simply fade away. For instance, R. Porch in his article “The Digital Watch: Tribal Bracelet of the Consumer Society” expresses his regrets on the disappearance of traditional Swiss timepieces which “were not universal in appearance” and have been totally replaced by a new generation of watches – digital watches, which became modern “tribal bracelets” . The author argues that the new product, digital watches, have acquired more significant aesthetic value and became a part of modern fashion and culture to the extent that the modern life is practically unimaginable without this, at first glance, insignificant object. On the other hand, digital watches still have a profound symbolic meaning since they symbolize the new information age, where new technologies rule and define the development of art, fashion and design. In such a way, through the analysis of the gradual disappearance of traditional watches and their irrevocable replacement by digital watches, the author shows the dramatic cultural change and change of aesthetic values of the society which affect consistently art, fashion and design.
In this respect, it is possible to compare the change of epochs of traditional watches and digital watches to the change in the field of photography, which can be easily uncovered on visiting the exhibition of Catherine Opie, American photographer . In fact, Catherine Opie seems to have the similar nostalgic attitude to the traditional black and white photography which used to be the mainstream trend in the past as Porch has nostalgic regrets of the disappearance of traditional Swiss timepieces. At the same time, Catherine Opie also shows that traditional aesthetic values of the past can persist even in the present epoch in her black and white photos, but they apparently gave in to the new mainstream trend of colored photos which dominate in the modern culture.
However, it is possible to assess the full extent of the impact of changes on art, fashion and design, on reading Adolf Loos’ article “Ornament and Crime”, in which he reveals the trend to the total neglect of ornament which contrasts to the admiration with ornament which used to be of the utmost importance in the past. In fact, Loos argues that “ornament means wasted labor” . In other words, ornament becomes absolutely useless and unnecessary. In such a situation, the rejection of ornament implies a consistent change of aesthetic values in the field of art, fashion and design.
In this regard, the growing trend to the dominance of functionalism becomes obvious. In fact, G.H. Marcus argued that functionalism is “clearly rooted in mid-nineteenth-century England, yet the concept did not fully coalesce until well into the twentieth” . Moreover, the functionalism produced a profound impact on the development of design as well as art at large throughout the 20th century. The dominance of functionalism naturally lead not only to the minimization of the role of ornament and its neglect, but also to the dominance of function over the form of objects. As a result, the functionalism led to the re-evaluation of aesthetic views on art, fashion and design, which used to be form-oriented, and their reorientation on the function.
Thus, in conclusion, it should be said that art, fashion and design are susceptible to consistent changes. The changes occur always and they are inevitable. However, some objects may preserve their symbolic meaning throughout different epochs. At the same time, their aesthetic value changes and evolves along with the change and evolution of movements and styles in design, fashion and art. In this respect, the 20th century art, fashion and design are particularly noteworthy. During the 20th century consistent transformations in art, fashion and design led to the substantial change of traditional aesthetic values. As a result, objects which used to be traditional objects of admiration and had huge aesthetic value, eventually became meaningless, out of date and faded away.
