Fashion Design and Architecture: Intersections and Differences - Essay Example

Fashion Design and Architecture: Intersections and Differences Introduction Fashion design and architecture have much in common. They are both based in art, science, technology and design. They both have similar functions of shelter and keeping human bodies out of the elements. These are the superficial similarities. The similarities go even deeper than this. Both architecture and fashion design use similar lines, whether the lines are geometric and rigid, or more fluid. Fashion designers are often interested in architecture, and use architecture as their cues in designing their creations. And vice-versa. Some fashion designers take the entire concept of fashion design and architecture one step further, designing creations by using materials that are found in the built environment, such as concrete and metals, while using construction of their creations in similar ways that an architect might. There are many reflections that show that fashion design and architecture are symbiotic. This essay will review all the ways that fashion design and architecture intersect. Similarities and Differences Koskennurmi-Sivonen (2009) states that the idea of the merger of architecture and fashion is not new. She states that, throughout the history of fashion design, there have been designers who have been interested in the merger of these two disciplines. She states that if a fashion designer has a background in architecture, that there is a consistency in their work, because both the designer and the architect are concerned with similar concepts of clean lines, scale and measurement to create harmony. Moreover, the marriage of architecture and fashion may also lend a certain durability to fashion, as fashion has traditionally been thought of as fleeting and ephemeral, while architecture has typically been regarded as timeless and durable. Adding timelessness and durability into the fleeting nature of fashion makes that particular fashion more timeless and long-lasting. Hedayat (2012) states that one of the major similarities between architecture and design is that both have provided shelter for people for years. Both clothing and buildings are used to protect humans from the elements. Of course, with clothing, the shelter is much more close to the body, and has always been known as a “second skin.” Architecture, on the other hand, has been known as the “third skin.” There is a difference in scale, measurements and materials as well, although, as noted below, these differences are often blurred by certain designers who might use concrete and other building materials in their fashion designs. Further, Hedayat (2012) states that, in both fashion design and architectural design, there is a similar ethos seen of boldness and courageousness. The successful designers of both fashion and buildings have to show innovativeness to stand out from the crowd, and this is yet another element that they have in common. The architect and the designer both are interested in creating unique and creative designs using basic theory, philosophy and technique. Both architecture and fashion are also based upon a common theory, which is design theory. Designing, according to Hedayat (2012) is, at its core, a problem solving process. The act of designing, according to Hedayat (2012), is a way to resolve the issues that our environment presents for us. In both fashion design and architecture, there must be a clear grasp of the problem that is to be resolved, and a strict way of overcoming the problem. At the core of both of these professions is art, and this is another basic that the two have in common. There is also an interrelationship between art, science and technology, and these three concepts are at the base of both architectural and fashion design theory. Art is at the base of both fashion and architectural design, while science and technology is what enables these both fashion and architectural design to become more innovative (Hedayat, 2012). And, because art is at the base of both fashion design and architecture, both of fashion and architectural design share the commonality of affecting the viewer and creating a relationship between itself and that which is being viewed. Provoking thoughts and feelings are at the crux of both fashion design and architecture. Art also has the quality of being infectious, in that the aim for the work of art is to provoke the same emotions that the artist him or herself had when making the work of art. Therefore, fashion design and architecture should also share this same goal of transmitting feelings and emotions from the designer to the person viewing the design (Hedayat, 2012). Quinn (2003) states that many might believe that fashion design is not, in fact, an art form, yet he states that it is an art form, in part because of the influence it has on all the other forms of art. Furthermore, imagination, memory and emotion, which are at the base of artistic expression, is currently also the base for fashion and architecture, so this is another commonality that these two mediums have with art. Further, Hedayat (2012) states that another commonality between fashion and architecture is that they are both based upon design. Design is the word that both fashion and architecture have in common. Design implies uniqueness, in that a person designs something at the specifications or the behest of another person. Therefore, the word “design” does not implicate mass production, but, rather, special production. It is designed to satisfy the special and complicated needs of the special user. The object does not have to be functional or practical, and a design is not arbitrary or created according to a pattern. Rather, the construction is with intention. With any design, there are elements which increase its value, including aesthetics, functionality, form, emotion and communication (Hedayat, 2012). Moreover, a design may only be good, according to Hedayat (2012) if it has the right proportions. Designs also change with the times, and may be influenced by music, popular culture, street culture or films. Designs also have a similar trajectory from start to finish – the briefing comes first, then comes synthesis, analysis, experimentation, constraints, then the actual design. Koskennurmi-Sivonen (2009) also states that there is another major similarity between architecture and fashion, and that is the role of drawings. In both professions, fashion and architecture, drawings is the way to communicate with the client about the finished product that the architect or the fashion designer has in mind. In both of these professions, the important thing regarding these drawings is that they communicate the style and nuances of the potential product, and this is more important than that these drawings are accurate. Koskennurmi-Sivonen (2009) further notes that the two disciplines are interconnected, as both are a part of the visual culture, and each uses materials that have been used for covering or shelter. She also states that there is a commonality between architecture and fashion in that both operate on an invisible grid, which means that the lines of both are not visible to the naked eye, yet there is a geometric symmetry if one cares to investigate. The major measurements of both are divisible by three, which is another commonality between the two mediums. Moreover, dresses are often based upon diagonal lines, and so are elements of architecture. Both buildings and dresses also require an underlying structure or framework, which is another element that the two disciplines have in common (Koskennurmi-Sivonen, 2009). Hedayat (2012) notes that there are similarities in the materials used by both architects and fashion designers, and the techniques used by professionals in both of these fields. For instance, fashion designers are increasingly using materials which are used in buildings, such as concrete, metals, glasses and plastics. Meanwhile, the architects are borrowing techniques such as draping, pleating, stapling and cutting (Quinn, 2003). Another intersection of fashion and architecture is in what as known as blob architecture. This kind of architecture, according to Hodge et al. (2007) does not have the clean lines that most other kinds of architecture has. Rather, it is amorphous and formless. There was a parallel fashion aesthetic that occurred during the same time that blob architecture was realizing its apex. The fashion aesthetic that echoed the architectural blob movement consisted of designs that did have the angularity of typical fashions, nor were they body conscious. The problem with these fashion designs, according to Hodge et al. (2007) was that they look remarkably similar to one another. However, Hodge et al. (2007) also state that the blob movement actually brings fashion design closer to the actual human body, as the blob designs interpreted the contours of the human body as evolved blobs. Blob architecture, and blob fashion design, decentre the creation, taking away any focal point, so that there is no indication what is supposed to be front and what is supposed to be the back. The fold is another concept that is used in architecture and fashion design alike. The fold, according to Hodge et al. (2007), creates a demarcation line while simultaneously bringing two surfaces together. It is visually and materially transacted, while promoting and emphasizing repetition and plurality. Hodge et al. (2007) states that the form is attractive to both architects and fashion designers, because it gives them a way to new shapes within old forms. In fashion, pleats are a kind of fold, as each of the folds of the pleat gives way to another fold of the next pleat. The pleats of the garment is reflected in architecture, according to Hodge et al. (2007), as the ionic Grecian columns are the echoes of these fashion pleats. The pleats of the Greek tunic are what inspired the vertical ridges of these Greek columns. Twisting is another form of architecture that has been well-known through the ages, according to Hodge et al. (2007). Twisting architecture may be seen in shapes which are coiled and intertwined. Fashion also features twisting, although this is a more recent phenomenon for the fashion world than for the architectural world. Hodge et al. (2007) states that twisting may be seen in, among other things, garments that use coils to control the shaping of the garment’s proportion. In architecture, such as architecture designed by Frank Gehry, twists may be seen in surfaces that constructed of straight lines and varying rotations. The fashion designer Shelley Fox was inspired by this twisting architecture, and created designs based upon these lines. She uses geometric principles to balance the construction of the garment against the geometry of the body (Hodge et al., 2007). Blurring is another term that is used in architecture, denoting the fact that architecture has become so influenced by non-architectural principles and precepts that there is a blur between where architecture begins and the non-architectural elements end. The complexity of architecture is that it blends elements of fashion design, interior design and spatial planning, which is why the boundaries of the architecture are not clear. Likewise, fashion has also become blurred, as it has absorbed elements of architecture, and as it increasingly aims to blend in with the built environment. Furthermore, as fashion becomes multi-functional, such as the fashion that doubles as shelter, this also blurs the lines between where fashion design begins and non-fashion design element end. Transparency is one concept that is prominent in architecture, as architects saw transparency as both a metaphor and a way of constructing their buildings (Hodge et al., 2007). The metaphor that was meant by the transparent buildings was democracy, and how transparency would lead to more equality. However, Hodge et al. (2007) state that transparency is the antithesis of fashion design. This is because transparency tends to reveal, while fashion design, at least in the 1980s, aimed to obfuscate and make the imperfections of the human body look better. This was the rationale behind the enormous shoulder pads that adorned garments in the 1980s, and for wonder bras, which pushed up breasts in the 1990s. That said, Hodge et al. (2007) state that transparency did have more of a role to play in fashion design during the 1960s, with plastic dresses and see through material. The transparency movement in fashion design was revived by Alexander McQueen at the turn of the new millennium, as he designed classically cut trousers and suits made in sheer material (Hodge et al., 2007). Although there are similarities between fashion and architectural design, there also are some differences, and one of the divergences lies in the historical development for each. Hedayat (2012) notes that, through history, clothing has merely been used as something that shields individuals from the elements. At least this was the case in the pre-industrial age. This means that, for most people, their clothes were not designed. The exception to this rule was the upper class, who always had their clothing designed by others. However, while clothes have not always been designed for the masses, architecture has always been based upon design. Documentation of the architectural design process goes back to the medieval period, according to Hedayat (2012). Therefore, the process of learning and teaching architecture has been different throughout history – typically architecture is taught through a process of apprenticeship, as a younger and aspiring architecture would study with an older and more experienced one. The same process may be true with fashion designers in the modern age, but it was not the case with the historical fashion designers (Hedayat, 2012). Hodge et al. (2007) state that a good example of architecture and design intersecting is the spacesuit and the spaceship. The space suit mimics the space ship, in the color of the suit, and the durable materials that is used to construct both the spaceship and the spacesuit. Both offered protection from the elements, and both served life-saving functions. These space suits and space ships inspired the space age fashion that heralded the technological advancements of the 1960s. This, in turn, inspired the urban cities to pursue the future in architecture and technology (Hodge et al., 2007). While Koskennurmi-Sivonen (2009) notes the many similarities between fashion and architecture, she also notes some key differences. One of the major differences is movement – dresses have movements, and buildings do not. A dress may move beautifully, obeying the laws of physics, but the same cannot be said for a building. Paco Rabanne, according to Hodge et al. (2007), is another designer who has experimented with constructing fashion out of materials that can be found in buildings and architecture. Hodge et al. (2007) states that the dresses constructed by him were dresses that were made of heavy metals, therefore they resembled chain mail more than they did fashionable garments. Rabanne inspired the late designer Alexander McQueen to do the same in his 2000 collection. Hodge et al. (2007) states that Rabanne and McQueen inspired other designers to use materials such as glue, staples, solders and laser cuts. Aluminum was used in fashion as well, and Hodge et al. (2007) states that aluminum was used in avant-garde artistic endeavors before it became popularized by fashion. For instance, Marcel Duchamp would use aluminum to construct his avant-garde designs, and the architect Le Corbusier used aluminum in his furniture designs. Mies van der Rohe soon was also using aluminum in his architectural creations. Moreover, it has been since used to burnish buildings by Frank Gehry (Hodge et al., 2007). These burnished buildings reflect the light and make the environment surround them look illusory. The same material was used by Alexander McQueen, as indicated above, as McQueen used stainless steel that that had the fluidity of silk, yet is reflective, such as the reflective façade of the burnished buildings designed by Gehry and van der Rohe. Mark Eisen also constructed designs out of reflective metal, designing aluminum vests that have the same effect as McQueen’s creations (Hodge et al., 2007). Perhaps a more literal way of fashion and architecture intersecting is the fact that fashion designers must have a way to display their designs, therefore architecture of the houses of the designers is a way to show the world what the designer stands for (Frings, 1982). A designer may have their headquarters in a converted loft, which might show that they are edgy and contemporary. Or they may have an elegant building, with timeless architecture, that serves as their headquarters, and this, too, would say something about the designer and the designers brand. The architecture is all a part of the designers image that he or she wants to portray to the world. Likewise, the retail stores might also offer a clue as to how the brand is perceived. Therefore, the store image is important, and architecture is a part of that image (Frings, 1982). The store atmosphere must be conducive to what is being sold within the walls of the store – it can be warm and inviting, or cold and hip. The architects who design these stores are able to cultivate a “personality” for the retail space, and this personality is what the designer wants to communicate about his or her fashions (Frings, 1982). Designers who use both elements of fashion design and architectural design To investigate the phenomenon of the merger of architecture and fashion, Koskennurmi-Sivonen (2009) looks at the designer and architect from Finland named Kirsti Kasnio. She found that several themes emerged in Kasnio’s fashion designs. One of the themes is that Kasnio goes into her designs with the final product in mind, as opposed to the process. Moreover, Kasnio uses a draping technique which is similar to the way that an architect uses a three-dimensional model – she works with pins and dress fabrics, so that there is not a pattern of the dress, but, rather, a model of the dress. Kasnio also uses the underlying structure, which his found in architecture, as a vital part of the dress itself. There is a consistency and a consciousness in how Kasnio’s light dresses fit on the shoulder of the wearer, and this consistency and consciousness have been influenced by Kasnio’s experience in the architectural realm (Koskennurmi-Sivonen, 2009). Kasnio is further influenced by her architectural background, in that there is a certain repetition or pattern to all of her unique creations, just as there is in architecture. As with architecture, Kasnio begins with basic designs that can be customized to the client. Also, as with architecture, where it is very important for a building to have some kind of continuity and connection with the surrounding environment, Kasnio’s designs have a similar ethos. Her designs are made to where they do not stand out in the environment, but, rather, blend in and interact with the environment in a harmonious way (Koskennurmi-Sivonen, 2009). According to Budds (2011), the fashion designer Airi Isoda uses elements in her designs which were inspired by architecture. For instance, she uses material that is used in buildings, such as concrete, latex, metal and paint alongside the fabrics that she uses, including cotton, silk and gabardine. The fashions that Isoda designs are also very wearable, featuring silhouettes which are minimal, functional pieces, and materials that are used innovatively. All of these, according to Budds (2011), are the hallmarks of good architectural designs. Isoda sees this merging of building materials with the clothing that she designs is her way of connecting the wearers with the built environment, and she sees this as taking the entire concept of the interconnectedness of fashion and architecture to the literal degree. While these designers merge architecture and fashion by using materials which, in the case of Isoda, are found in buildings for their fashion designs, or, in the case of Kasnio, uses common elements found in both architecture and fashion for her designs, another fashion designer uses the merging of architecture and fashion design in a much more literal way – the designer Lucy Orta has designed a rain cape that can be transformed into a tent. As Hodge et al. (2007) note, Orta’s interest is in drawing attention to the outcasts of society, the people who are living in tents and on sidewalks. This is because her clothing is not just reflective of the built environment, but also is reflected in the itinerant environment, and is a metaphor for the shelter, dress, mobility and social space. In addition to using her clothing as a statement regarding the plight of the downtrodden, her clothing also provides a solution for their problems. For instance, she has designed a line of clothing which transforms from clothing into corporal architecture by using a system of zippers, velcros and pockets which serve to stretch the material to where the garment becomes shelter. Four people wearing her garments can zip these garments together to form a large tent that could house all of them (Hodge et al., 2007). Moreover, Hodge et al. (2007) state that Orta’s designs also are a way of bringing people together. This is because they make a statement that coalesces individuals who are interested in helping the homeless as well. In this way, Orta’s clothes also emulate architecture, as architecture premise and promise is that the buildings that are constructed are meeting places, which means that architecture’s function is also bringing people together. Chalyan is another designer who uses the elements of architecture in his fashion designs, according to Quinn (2003). His interest is in designing fashions that might fit in with the built environment, while also designing clothing that emulates architecture with its geometric lines. He sees city dwellers as having something in common with one another, regardless of their nationalities, so fashion would be the common link between people. Further, he sees his fashions as being a solution for the problems of modern life. Therefore, Chalyan sees his fashion as being reflective of the environment surrounding the people who live in a certain area, which means that they are also, indirectly reflective of the architecture in this environment. Quinn (2003) further states that Chalyan sees his clothing as a kind of fusion between architecture and fashion, as they provide the shelter, protection and social structure of architecture, while also imbuing flexibility, mobility and individuality that architecture cannot supply. He also sees fashion and architecture as interlinked, as they are small parts of a larger and larger system - what we wear is a small part of the interior, which is a small part of architecture, which is a small part of the urban environment. Quinn (2003) states that, because Chalyan, who was initially interested in architecture before he became involved in fashion design, has the architectural sensibility, and the ability to conform his designs to the built environment, he is truly a designer, in that he is not simply interpreting fashion of the past, but forging his own way into the future. Yeohlee is another designer cited by Quinn (2003), in that she is also profoundly influenced by architecture when she designs her fashions. Yeohlee takes the concept that clothing is to provide shelter to a higher level, as her clothing is functional in different ways – such as a skirt which can be made into a futuristic shawl. Her clothes are constructed in layers, which is functional in that they are designed with the purpose of climate control. Quinn (2003) states that Yeohlee assimilates intellectual and visual architectural concepts into her designs, as opposed to having her designs merely reflect the built environment. For instance, she designs fashions where there are panels which are supported by the body, much as a façade is extended across the architectural framework. Quinn (2003) also states that Yeohlee’s designs mimic architecture in that the layers, or tiers, which she creates which allows for climate control and flexibility may be seen in architecture by another Chinese, Yeang, an architect who designs buildings with similar layers that keep the people in the building comfortable through any kind of weather. Social Issues that implicate fashion and architecture Hedayat (2012) goes beyond the literal connections between fashion and architecture, and explores the social issues that both fashion and architecture implicate. She also acknowledges that there are superficial similarities between the two, such as the fact that both mediums use similar techniques, such as folding, pleating and twisting. And that both mediums are influenced by one another, such as when an architect sees a certain clothing design, and this influences their own architectural design, and vice-versa. Hedayat (2012) states that both architecture and fashion design implicate similar concepts of culture, social identity and personality. Hedayat (2012) states that one of the functions of both architecture and fashion design is communication, and that this is accomplished for both architecture and fashion by the use of the image, which might include both signs and symbols. The image is the façade that an individual has that shows the world who he or she is, therefore it communicates to the world the self or identity of the person who is behind this image. Fashion functions in this manner as how one dresses communicates to the world who that person is. The image can construct the identity, while it may also communicate a truth or even a lie. A person may put his or her own personality into their dress, so this is another way that clothing operates to communicate, in that it communicates one’s psyche. It also guides perception of the people whom they encounter, while orienting them towards the façade of the individual. While it is true that fashion communicates to the world and presents an image, architecture functions in much the same way. Hedayat (2012) states that the social is what congregates in a building, therefore architecture is mediating for the social world. The social world is really made up a system of venues in this way. Just as clothing represents a kind of non-verbal communication, in that it send a message to individuals while it satisfies certain needs, so, too does architecture perform these same functions. And, just as with fashion design, in which there might be an emotional attachment to the clothing, and this is displayed by the way that a person dresses, architecture might inspire this same type of attachment. There can be an emotional attachment between the people and the space, and past experiences, knowledge, personality and memories may have an association with a certain place. The interaction between the person and the building in question are what gives the person a sense of place. Both architecture and clothing are involved in making a person’s identity. As Hedayat (2012) notes, a person’s identity may be shape by the clothing that they wear or the place in which they live. This is how one individual may individuate him or her self from all the others. A person may identify him or herself from the region of the country from which he or she hails, or by the address where the person lives. Therefore, the physical space is what provides identity to the individual. As noted above, clothing functions in much the same way. A punk might show his or her identity to the world by wearing a Mohawk, ripped clothing and piercings. A business man will show his identity to the world by wearing a three-piece suit by a prominent designer. That business man might go home to a million dollar dwelling, which also communicates an identity of somebody who has made it in life. The punk might go home to a house that shows his or her identity as well. So, in this way, architecture and fashion have another commonality, in that both may be used to communicate identity to the outside world. Quinn (2003) states that art has always been a way to understand oneself and identity, and that fashion and architectural design are increasingly used in much the same way. Furthermore, both fashion and architectural design are at least partially a function of culture. The designers of both fashion and architecture are influenced by culture, and culture is what is reflected in their designs (Hedayat, 2012). Culture may be defined as the way of life that a group of people share. It makes the individuals similar to one another, while it also gives them a commonality to share. Culture is also reliant upon common symbols, therefore architecture and fashion are symbolic of culture, and influenced by culture, at the same time that they are influencing culture. This makes both architecture and fashion symbolic of culture. That said, fashion will always be more of a reflection of the current culture, as well as be more on the cutting edge of culture than architecture would be. This is because, as Koskennurmi-Sivonen (2009) notes, architecture is more timeless and slower to change. The buildings that are built are constructed to last for many years, and these buildings will be around long after their fashion has expired – art deco buildings will be around long after the style has faded, for instance. Fashion is much more ephemeral than architecture, however, because the fashions of designers are not meant to be worn for 100 years, like the buildings are meant to last for this long. Therefore, fashion can always be changing, and there does not necessarily mean that there are remnants in the culture of a previous fashion, unlike with architecture. While architectural styles may change with the times, they are not going to change as quickly as fashion, therefore fashion styles will always be more in step with culture than would be architectural styles. Conclusion Fashion and architecture have much in common. Both are used as shelter and a way to keep a body out of the elements. This is how they historically intersect. In the modern age, fashion and architecture are entertwined, one reflecting the other. Some designers of fashion are influenced by architecture, so much so that they use materials that are used in the built environment to construct their creation – such as using concrete and metal. Other fashion designers are inspired by the lines of architecture, whether the lines are twisted, blobbed or folded. At any rate, both fashion design and architecture have at their basis art, science and technology, and both are examples of designs. The main difference between the two mediums is the timelessness and currency, however – fashion is more ephemeral and fast-moving than architecture, therefore will be more in sync with the cultural changes than would architecture. With the many similarities and examples of fashion designers taking their cues from architecture, and vice versa, it is clear that these are two symbiotic halves of an artistic whole. One would not be complete without the other. References Budds, D. (2011) “Merging architecture and fashion,” Dwell At Home in the Modern World. Available at: http://www.dwell.com/interviews/article/merging-architecture-and-fashion Frings, G. (1982) Fashion: From Concept to Consumer. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Hedayat, A. (2012) “Inquiry on interrelationships between architecture and fashion design,” Available at: http://i-rep.emu.edu.tr:8080/jspui/bitstream/11129/294/1/Hedayat.pdf Hodge, B., Mears, P. & Sidlauskas, S. (2006) Skin + Bones: Parallel Practices in Fashion and Architecture. Oxford: Hodge et al.. Koskennurmi-Sivonen, R. (2009)”Fashion and architecture: Intertwined features in the creations of Kristi Kasnio,” Available at: https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10224/4810/Kaukinen_verkko.pdf?sequence=2 Quinn, B. (2003) The Fashion of Architecture. New York: Berg Publishers. Read More