The Suit by Interior Designer David Mlinaric - Essay Example

Mr. Fish Mr. Fish: Striped Corduroy, Double Breasted, and Androgynous Adaptation of a Male Oriented Design Mr. Fish 2 Abstract The suit on display at the Victoria and Albert Museum entitled “Mr. Fish”, donated by interior designer David Mlinaric, is an example of design from the late 1960’s which embraced the concept of androgyny as a way to express the blurred sexual identity that culture was embracing. In looking at the design, the first most obvious aspect of the work is that it embraces Edwardian ideals in its construction, a formalized and romantic style that brings to mind the books of Jane Austin. The fabric is a striped corduroy, a fabric more traditionally used in work clothing in a coloration that was not normally adapted to men’s clothing. The styles of the era created a softer, more feminized version of men’s wear exemplifying the growth of feminism as young men, admittedly as much in rebellion against older generations, were seeking to understand the mystical sense of the ’Otherness’ of the female gender. As the sexual revolution was creating a confusion within the defining factors of gender identification, embracing both aspects of the human experience became popularized and reflected in cultural art and design. In looking at “Mr. Fish”, the design, texture, and construction of the suit creates the soft aspects of the feminine, while adapting the integrity of a male perspective in clothing. While the experimental periods of the 1960’s and 1970’s was curbed with the onset of the AIDS epidemic in the early 1980’s, the philosophical and theoretical discourse on sexuality that has interwoven identity with sexual desire and expressions has created an environment of on-going contemplation of the meaning of gender within the framework of the human experience. Mr. Fish 3 Mr. Fish: Striped Corduroy, Double Breasted, and Androgynous Adaptation of a Male Oriented Design The concept of gender as compared to the concept of sex has been defined as one having to do with cultural and psychological identification, and the other having to do with biological identification. When the physical attributes of an individual does not match the culturally accepted behaviors that identify them as the gender associated with those behaviors, the individual finds themselves in a situation of that is not ideal for socialization. However, the 1960’s saw a time where the cultural norms associating gender to sex were blurred, creating an effect that was reflected in art and design. In looking at the displayed garment “Mr. Fish” which resides at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London, an example of 1960’s design with overtones of androgyny allows for a discussion of gender identity, cultural reflection and philosophy. The aim of this paper is to clarify the purpose behind design intended for one gender that incorporates opposite gender aspects. The paper will discuss the many ways in which sexuality has developed into an aspect of identity due to philosophical changes within society. The feminist perspective will be briefly examined to show the way in which society has developed in the aspect of perception of the female gender. The reasons why male gendered clothing might embrace a sense of androgyny and why this might be appealing is also discussed. The artistic reasoning behind embracing a duality of genders will be presented as the design aspect of “Mr. Fish” is examined. The period of the 1960’s brought a new concept of gender identity into mainstream discussion which influenced the way in which design was approached and Mr. Fish 4 developed. Popular culture began to mirror the sexual revolution in the way in which gender was approached and began to blur from the structuralized pinnacle of repressed and inhibited thematic styles of the 1950’s. Not only did the issues of gender begin to blur, but the foundations of sexual preference began to fracture as expressions of desire no longer were limited to traditional forms of couplings and the era of uninhibited experimentation created a ripple affect on the identity of culture. In looking at the exhibit of the Mr. Fish suit at the Victoria and Albert Museum, the reflection of these gender identity theories can be seen in the form of the design. In Michel Foucault’s, The History of Sexuality (1988), a discussion of the concept of repression and identifiers within the concept of sexuality that have developed through the discourse on the topic, prove that Western society, by the nature of its fascination, has not be repressed. Foucault (1988) supports the idea that by virtue of the discussion, the conceptualization of sexuality has developed beyond the context of the natural. From this need to broaden the concept has developed the creation of the confession that must be expressed in regard to desire. By virtue of the compulsion to confess, sexuality is a more open topic than is sometimes recognized. The concept of confession was originated as an expression between a congregant and his or her confessor, or priest. However, in the modern age, the concept of the confessor, while still available in a religious context, has moved to the realm of psychology and to the psychoanalyst. In creating a dynamic between the confessor and the confessant, a system of power becomes established as the nature of the ’secret’ becomes the source of dominance for the confessor. Knowing the truth creates a position Mr. Fish 5 of the confessant in which to become vulnerable, thus the statement, mostly unsaid, becomes ’I know’, therefore both having the aspect of a control factor, and of a release factor for the confessant. In the process of revelation, a sense of freedom can be attained, unless it forms a bond of secrecy that then leads to the sense of power manipulation. In creating this sense of confession and in creating a foundation for conversation about sexuality, the classification of desire created a typography that could be studied, creating lifestyles that would be adapted as central to the identity. Foucault (1988) said that “The sodomite was a recidivist, but the homosexual is not a species”. In other words, the act was no longer just a part of one’s personal history, but the actions both past and future would create an identity. In creating a scientific basis of study on sexuality, the way in which sexuality is expressed has become inextricably tied to the identity. How one conducts their sex life becomes a part of the their sense of self. Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (1953) discusses the feminist view point on gender and the aspects of the self that are affected by the sense of sexuality that creates a foundation for the sociological phenomenon of suggesting female inferiority in a patriarchal society. She suggests that this is analogous to the experience of racism which also intends to create a class of people that are designated as inferior. In creating this Mr. analogy, she suggests that “Just as in America, it’s not a black problem, but a white problem. . . so the woman problem has always been a problem for men” (Simons 1999: p. 170). In this way, the problem of female inferiority is not created through the displays of women, but through the oppressive actions of men. Simone de Beauvoir creates a concept of the Other in regard to the feminine Mr. Fish 6 presence. This denotes the mystery that has so often been associated with the female gender which can be associated with certain mythologies that have developed as a way for the male dominant society to control the opposite gender. Another similar concept was put forth be Edward Said (2003) in his work, Orientalism, suggested that in creating a way to diminish the cultures of the East, a concept of them designating them as the ’Other”, allowed for Western cultures to set themselves as superior. The same concept is applied in this use where males set themselves up as superior by virtue of creating an ’alien’ like association to the concept of the feminine. However, as the sexual revolution advanced, the exploration of the ’Other’ became relevant to the explorations of the generality of sexual identity. The male sexual experience did not, it seems, have the same depth that the female experience could entail. “Even if we refrain from invoking the hystericization of her entire body, the geography of her pleasure is far more diversified, more multiple in its differences, more complex, more subtle, than is commonly imagined - in an imaginary rather too narrowly focused on sameness.”(Irigaray 1985: 28). As the feminine concept created such a problem for the male gender identity, a sense that an adaptation to the feminine was needed by the male gender promoted concepts of androgyny. Creating more tactile and variety in the Mr. experience of the male was one way in which the concept of crossing gender lines was attempted within the changing human experience of sexuality. Mr. Fish 7 “Mr. Fish” Victoria and Albert Museum (1968) Illus. 1. David Mlinaric, who donated the suit for the display, “Mr. Fish” to the Victoria and Albert Museum, has provided a visual and design representation of a growing sense of androgyny that pervades the 1960’s and 1970’s as sexual identity and exploration has become a diverse set of theories that were undefined and not well measured. Mlinaric was an interior designer, reportedly working on homes for popular icons such as Mick Jagger and Eric Clapton (Cecil & Mlinaric 2009: 14) during the early 1960’s. Fashion Mr. Fish 8 was in its infancy in its new expansive and popular culture as the concept of the supermodel had not yet even been invented, and the freedom of personal expression was only just breaking open the rules and traditions of classic clothing design. According to Cecil and Mlinaric (2008) “the young men wanted to parade in peacock colors, patterns, and dandified shapes, as worn by Mick Jagger and Eric Clapton” (p. 14). Illus. 2 In looking at the fabric of the suit, one can see that the corduroy, a traditional work clothing fabric, has been used for its colorful stripes and unusual (at least for men’s clothing) color configuration to create a design marvel that has a tactile and visual textural experience. The design has features of androgyny incorporated within the structure as the slimmer legs and hips of the pants work towards an accentuation of Mr. Fish 9 traditionally female attributes of desire. The reinvention of the Edwardian design creates a femininity, while staying within the category of the men’s suit. As one looks at Illus. 1, the hair of the mannequin displays the feminized characteristic of the style, while looking at Illus. 2, Mick Jagger’s hair shows a real life example of this dichotomy of soft, feminine appeal on the male gender offering an androgynous approach. Part of the appeal was in the shock that was created in older generations, suggesting that a greater acceptance of homosexuality was impending, and opening the door to identity issues as they were being discussed within the framework of a discourse on sexuality. Androgyny provides a new structure within which to understand the human experience. It is often found within artistic communities as philosophically, the act of creation attempts to incorporate multiple aspects of sexual expression. Virginia Woolfe said that “If one is a man, still the woman part of the brain must have effect; and woman also must have intercourse with the man in her”(Pawlowski 2001; p. 83). In order to fully remain attached to the aspects of the human experience in the act of creation, an understanding of both the male and the female must be understood within the artist in order to create an authentic expression. This is not to say that one aspect may not dominate another but if both are not understood on some level, the work will not have an innate sense of balance Judith Butler (1999) creates a conversation within her work about the difference between sex and gender. She suggests that the concept of ’male’ does not necessarily mean that the male body will embrace that aspect of gender, nor will the female necessarily be embraced within a female body (p. 10). The concept of gender is intended Mr. Fish 10 to capture a sensibility based on the proclivity of the mind, rather than defined by the Biology of the body. “Taken to its logical limit, the sex/gender distinction suggests a radical discontinuity between sexed bodies and culturally constructed genders” (Butler 1999: p. 10). In looking at a piece of clothing, the way in which it is constructed will determine the gender of the intended wearer, not based on the design, but based on the culture within which it is designed. As an example, the way in which some cultures wear clothing might not be seen as culturally relevant in another culture as concerns gender. For instance, the traditional male garment as worn in Kuwait (Illus. 3), would be seen as feminine when worn in a Illus. 3 Western culture although it does not seem in the least inappropriate on an Arab male, Mr. Fish 11 even when worn in the West because it is understood that it is part of that culture. However, if a garment of similar construction that has no cultural relevance, is worn by a Western male, an interpretation might be made concerning gender. Thus, gender is not always determined by physical attributes, but defined by cultural adaptations to those attributes. As mentioned, the suit from David Mlinaric uses a male oriented design style in the Edwardian influenced double breasted suit design while feminized by the use of fabric and color. The suit can be categorized as a male gendered article of clothing, but has aspects of the feminine represented in the overall design. However, if cut for the female body, the suit would need no other alteration other than that aspect in order to translate to a female gendered article of clothing. Thus, the piece has a balance of gender in its design, weighted toward the culturally male aspect. The design style was influenced by a rising rock and roll culture that embraced the androgyny of artistic creation and desired the shock value and separation that this adaptation provided between generations. The design is also influenced by the culture of the sexual revolution that was in play during the period which crossed gender boundaries and opened the spaces between the male and female gender philosophies. Butler explores the possible problems that arise when gender issues become blurred and individual expressions of gender do not follow the logical path set forth by a culture. “Indeed, precisely because certain kinds of “gender identities” fail to conform to those norms of cultural intelligibility, they appear only as developmental failures, or logical impossibilities from within that domain” (Butler 1999: p. 24). However, the Mr. Fish 12 aspect of feminism that seeks to break this cultural barrier is based on the idea that perceiving women through the sense of the “Other” (de Beauvoir, 1953) creates a void between the genders that sets up a sense of superiority and inferiority based on these culturally diverse identifiers that are not well received if crossed between the sexes. The creation of a gender blur in the 1960’s which continued into the 1970’s, was an answer from the male gendered world to the female intrusion into their cultural gender identity. As women explored their male aspects and looked to enter the world on equal footing with the male counterparts, males began exploring the feminine side of their gender, softening and making vulnerable the way in which they could be perceived. As seen in the innocence of Illus. 2 where a very young Mick Jagger appears softened by the length of the hair, the sense of androgyny that was explored created a shift in gender identity. “Mr. Fish” as well creates this same sense of vulnerability combined with the male aspects of gender. The suit is defined as a man’s suit by virtue of the dictated style of the time, combined by the cut that is suitable for the classic male body. Gender is created through personal proclivities, balanced by personal choice. How a man or woman sees their gender is then reflected in the choices made in order to express that sense of gender. When a piece of clothing expresses a clear choice, society has determined parameters within which those choices must be made, and an individual has followed those guidelines. When clothing is designed to express a dichotomy within the genders, an individual will choose to express that opposing gender within the choice to wear that design. There is debate over the individual’s origin of gender affiliation, whether it is from nature or nurture. However, when creating designs that reflect societal Mr. Fish 13 changes that represent a shift in the way that people see gender and their sexuality, vital information about the culture of the time is left as a record for future generations to explore and examine. The nature of “Mr. Fish” provides this kind of cultural opportunity. Mr. Fish 13 List of Illustrations Illus. 1 “Mr Fish” (1968) Victoria and Albert Museum. Available at http://www.vam.ac.uk/images/image/18564-popup.html Illus. 2 Mick Jagger Available at http://rollingstones.com.sapo.pt/jagger%20no%20 circo%20de%20cartola.jpg Illus. 3 Traditional Male Arab Dress. January 2007. Available at http://www.chilln ite.com/traditional-male-arab-dress Mr. Fish 14 List of References BEAUVOIR, S. D. (1953). The second sex. New York, Knopf. BUTLER, J. (1999). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York, NY: Routledge. CECIL, M., & MLINARIČ, D. (2008). Mlinaric on decorating. London, Frances Lincoln. FOUCAULT, M. (1988). The history of sexuality. New York, Vintage Books. IRIGARAY, L. (1985). This sex which is not one. Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell University Press. “Mr. Fish”. (2009) Victoria and Albert Museum viewed 25 March 2009 PAWLOWSKI, M. M. (2001). Virginia Woolf and fascism: resisting the dictators seduction. Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave. SAID, E. W. (2003). Orientalism. New York, Vintage Books. SIMONS, M. A. (1999). Beauvoir and The second sex: feminism, race, and the origins of existentialism. Lanham, Md, Rowman & Littlefield. Read More