OF POLITICS BY DIOR AND CHANEL Noyonika Sircar

UTOPIA THROUGH DYSTOPIA: THE FASHIONABLE USURPATION OF POLITICS BY DIOR AND CHANEL

BY NOYONIKA SIRCAR

“Here’s what I think, fashion isn’t really about clothes. It is about life, go to the street and see it. Everyone can afford fashion on some level and everyone can talk about it. So what else do we say? We can’t talk about flowers and lace and aquamarines.” --Franca Sozzani, former Editor-in-Chief of Vogue Italia [1]

INTRODUCTION

Fashion is a social phenomenon. Politics entered the realm of fashion through the front door and has settled ever since. The presence of politics makes fashion a ground for the exchange of information, a conjecture of rhetorics, an influential denominator of rules and also a lucrative transformer of commodities. Through the politicized roles of fashion, fashion has become a channel for exhibiting important semiotics of personal characteristics or ties, for any politician, activist, reformist or for a revolutionary cause. Fashionable political messages gather greater attention and show how much the wearer is absorbed in political propaganda. A similar significance works in the fashion industry, especially on the runways. The themes of fashion shows are layered with manifold meanings and cause a whirlpool of sentiments, beyond the pecuniary value of the garment.

The runway is the undisputed ground of recognition of representation and promotion, both by influencing and by being influenced. My research questions are cemented on the palate of power weaved in fashion shows. The linchpin of success of any fashion show is an evocating an array of emotions, edgy or sharp, provocative or heart-warming, essentially anything garnered with attention, to create a long lasting impact. Therefore, the projection, protection

and emancipation of the element of power in fashion shows is paramount. Power is materialised through clothes and symbolically produced by the subsystems (media, social media, magazines, consumers) in the process of defining fashion. Through this research, I argue on fashion shows as a platform of power and the embodiment of politics. I unmask the role of power in fashion shows with the help of case studies of Chanel 2015 Spring/Summer and Dior’s Spring 2018.

CASE STUDY ONE: CHANEL SPRING SUMMER 2015 READY TO WEAR COLLECTION

Chanel’s Spring/Summer 2015 Ready-To-Wear show brings out the predicament caused by the undue power that resides in the fashion industry. I aim to look into Chanel’s 2015 show to unwrap the idea of power and the political tone vested in fashion shows.

Coco Chanel has been widely acclaimed as the first lady in fashion. Ever since Karl Lagerfeld took over the throne, he took care of the house in his own distinctive way to protect the house and help it flourish. This show sparks serious sentiments and also calls me to rethink how a still unresolved issue like feminism can be treated to serve as a theme for trade. Is this the unanticipated impending fourth wave of feminism? Or is this fashion’s attempt to capitalize on a radical socio political movement?

Djurdja Bartlett addresses women by saying, “After all, fashion was one of the social vehicles of a female citizenship, just as the suffragette movement was a political vehicle.” [2] Politics and fashion are both supplementary to each other in nature and precisely offer each other rich visual and narrative spaces for manifestation. In addition to courting controversy and being called a supremacist, body shamer, and Islamophobic while gravely disassociating from the fashion industry’s connection with eating disorders, Karl Lagerfeld did not truly resonate with the theme of feminism. This was clear in his witty choice of feminism as a theme. Even though he was far from being identified as a feminist himself, he understood the commercial potential of the undercurrent of Chanel and feminism. He anticipated the wave of controversies that such a theme could potentially bring, the kind of media attention it would attract, and how it could hold the public in suspense until the next season of shows began.

Blooming from the cauldron of feminist movements in 2015, especially Emma Watson’s global “He for She” campaign for the United Nation, Largerfeld’s 2015 Spring Summer ready-to-wear show glorified functionality by addressing women of the world. The jargon of mixed messages overshadowed the true message of the show and got stirring bold statements by feminist groups about whether this was another void marketing play of Chanel to garner attention. The linchpin of the strategy was not to carry ahead a progressive message for women, but instead to use feminist themes for a clever fashion marketing ploy. The show was held in the Paris Grand Palais, which had been transformed into a photographic facsimile street complete with puddles. The setting evoked an atmosphere of protest, linking the ready-to-wear collection to Chaka Khan’s 1978 song “I am Every Woman” from 1978, to the undercurrent of Coco Chanel, who tied feminism to fashion.

Keeping in mind the theme, the show was reminiscent of women’s first air of liberation and employment in the 60s. The models had purses with messages like “je ne suis pas la solde” or “I am not for sale” which took the audience back to the 1960s, when deep-seated transformations were allowing the entry of more women into the sphere of paid roles.

The end of the show witnessed the same models marching and chanting slogans. Led by Cara Delegvine and Gisele Bundchen, other models marched down together with fashionable faux politicized slogans like “Ladies First,” “Women’s Rights Are More Than Alright” and “History Is Her Story.” Reflecting Karl Largerfeld’s sense of humour, some of the slogans screamed “Make fashion not war” or “Tweed is better than tweet.” The clarion call was a megaphone, with Cara Delegvine shouting “Who are we?” and other models answering with traditional protest cries.

A myriad of sentiments were touched on and the

media collected responses from everyone – from the feminist groups to the fashion panellists. Surprisingly, from a consumer perspective, this satire worked: Chanel reported a 6.24 billion business in 2015 with a 23% profit margin. But then, are we really challenging the position of this superstructure or are we feeding it?

Feminism is fashionable but that cannot be used to tag expensive clothes and sell them. The idea of fashion and feminism is disruptive. This helps me analyse the fashionable propaganda behind the show when accessories and the bags, particularly made for this show, had political messages attached, to ensure the afterlife of its message lasts. Thus, this can also be seen as a way to capitalize emotions when fashion is so connected to the dialogue between the commodity and the consumer.

CASE STUDY 2: DIOR 2020 SPRING SHOW

Dior has been a champion of feminism ever since it was reborn after Maria Grazia Chiuri stepped in as its first female creative director for the first time in the 70 year history of the house. Chiuri’s Dior debut had a kickstart with a slogan t-shirt that read “We Should All Be Feminists” from a Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie TED talk.

The 2016 show of Dior received a unison of plaudits and cheers from millennials as Maria Grazia Chiuri proved her prowess with the collection of slogan T-shirts and its feminist tagline. Unlike the case of Chanel, the media frenzy around Dior was accepted as a positive change and spread of ideas. Dior’s show made a point that rooted in the minds of women and connected them. The collection’s success was the afterlife of the shirts that long remained visible. Taking an inspiration from the archive “Support Miniskirt,” Dior’s collection resisted the air of pants and brought back a new silhouette of ballerinas to fashion. Fashion is about

representation, and the success of Dior’s reinvention etched itself into people’s hearts received a warm reception from the media. With slogans like “We all should be feminists” and “It’s a No, No, No,” Maria Grazia has glorified the relevance of the brand by clipping it to the modern issues of women.

This brings me to the difference in the communication of political messages. Chanel’s show, which was also founded on feminism, made a joke of the theme and was met with unforeseen rebukes. However, the same doesn’t apply to Dior. The show’s message was profoundly feminist and brought people together for a common cause. The subversive attempt to speak about the plight of women, coming from Dior’s first woman creative director, united craftsmanship with a cause. The spell lasted with Instagram hashtags and Twitter trends, and the brand told the world that fashion is not deaf to social causes. Again, politics has always been carried ahead with fashion as a social vehicle. Here, the idea of politics is negotiated but not a part of it. The method was traditional but the message was thought provoking.

CONCLUSION

This research aimed at the concept of politicized fashion, with runway as a medium. The Chanel show is a clear example of political infiltration and dilution, and the Dior show is an example of a pressing political infiltration, a ripple result of fashion’s contribution to the a new wave of feminism and resistance to oppression. In both the shows, fashion is commodified and used as a social and political vehicle. Thus, politics and fashion intersect. Therefore, the representative and the communicative power of fashion shows must be treated with calculative care. In the wake of the pandemic, fashion consciousness has become the call of the hour. Rather than being subjected to resistance, I believe that with the growing fast paced overnight fashion can be judiciously used to communicate by repurposing the role of fashion.