hilosopher Gilles Lipovetsky, who writes: ‘Fashion is a 13 speci?c form of social change, independent of any particular object; it is ?rst and foremost a social mechanism character- ized by a particularly brief time span and by more or less fanciful shifts that enable it to affect quite diverse spheres of collective life.’12 Lipovetsky gives us here a very broad descrip- tion of fashion, one which precisely emphasizes that it is a question of a general social mechanism and not just clothing. Fashion in attire is simply to be considered as one fashion phenomenon among many. It is dif?cult to conceive of any social phenomenon whatsoever that is not in?uenced by changes of fashion – whether it is body shape, car design, politics or art. Others, however, link fashion exclusively to clothing: the art historian Anne Hollander, for example, de?nes ‘fash- ion’ as the entire spectrum of attractive clothes styles at any given time, including ‘the haute couture, all forms of anti-fash- ion and nonfashion, and the garments and accessories of people who claim no interest in fashion.’13 The position of the cultural historian Elisabeth Wilson lies very close to this de?nition: ‘Fashion is dress in which the key feature is rapid and continual changing of styles. Fashion, in a sense is change, and in modern western societies no clothes are outside fash- ion.’14 But is it the clothes themselves or a quality they have that constitutes ‘fashion’? Wilson’s de?nition is ambiguous, because it both links fashion unequivocally to clothes and to a particular quality (i.e. change).
没有评论:
发表评论
注意：只有此博客的成员才能发布评论。