Copyright Š 2018 Mckenzie Forbes Harris All rights reserved
1
2
3
4
5
6
DUCHAMP IS MY LAWYER
7
Current “PROTECTIONS” for fashion design under United States legislature.
8
Article I, section 8 of our Constitution lays the framework for our nation’s copyright laws. It grants Congress the power to award inventors and creators for limited amounts of time exclusive rights to their inventions and works. The Copyright Act of 1976 proclaims, “copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either
ity, fashion designs are not protected by traditional intellectual property protections. The fashion ―design as a whole is unprotected in the United States under the current state of the law.8 However, aspects of that design may be safeguarded under existing intellectual property protections.the three main areas of protection which designers can try to seek refuge in are patent,13 trademark (and trade dress),14 and copyright. Copyrights are not granted to apparel because articles of clothing, which are both creative
Trademarks only protect brand names and logos, not the clothing itself. And the Supreme Court has refused to extend trade dress protection to apparel designs. Thus, if a thief steals a creator’s design, reproduces and sells that article of clothing, and attaches a fake label to the garment to market it, he would be violating Federal law. However, under current law, it is perfectly legal for that same thief to steal that same design, reproduce and sell the article of clothing if he does not attach a fake label to it. This loophole allows pirates to cash in on other’s efforts and prevent designers in our country from reaping a fair return on their creative
““[C]opyright protection extends to original works of authorship fixed in ANY tangible medium” directly or with the aid of a machine or device.”121 The Act originally defined “works of authorship” as (1) “literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5)pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6)motion pictures and other audiovisual works; and (7) sound recordings. Most industrialized nations provide legal protection for fashion designs. However, in the United States, the world’s leader in innovation and creativ-
and functional, are considered useful articles, as opposed to works of art. The design of a garment remains unprotected in copyright for one main reason: the expression of the design serves a utilitarian rather than an artistic purpose. On one end of the intellectual property spectrum is patent law, which provides protection to objects utilitarian in nature. A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by the state to an inventor for a limited period of time in exchange for the disclosure of his Invention. Although patents can be used to protect “any useful
art, manufacture, engine, machine, or device, or any improvement therein not before known or used,” patent law imposes strict requirements. To acquire a patent, an invention or design must meet five requirements: the patentable subject matter requirement, the utility requirement, the novelty requirement, the description requirement, and the non-obviousness requirement. Design patents are intended to protect ornamental designs, but clothing rarely meets the criteria of patentability.
9
Copyrighting the “Useful Art” of Couture: Expanding Intellectual Property Protection for Fashion Design M.C. Miller. William and Mary Law Reveiw Volume 55. 2014. INTRODUCTION To those unfamiliar with the fashion industry, the world of style—although a frivolous land of superfluous trends and ridiculous price tags—is a place where runway models pose, teen girls spend, and all participants coexist in superficial bliss. To fashion insiders, however, the elegant fashion shows and mall-rat madness serve only to mask a long-brewing truth: the fashion industry is at war. On one side of the battleground stand those who create—a group composed primarily of designers and creative directors working for couture fashion houses that service celebrities and the upper echelon of society.1 For these individuals, the creative design process is a labor of both love and a commitment of time. On average, it takes approximately two years for a designer or creative team to turn a visionary concept into a physical object ready for wear.The first step in this creative process requires designers to predict what trends will be popular nearly two years into the future when the final garment will be produced. In addition to following color and textile trends, designers draw further inspiration from studying street fashion, visiting art museums, traveling to other nations, keeping track of other design industries, and, most importantly,using their imaginations. Once a designer collects enough inspiration to begin crafting a new design, he uses his knowledge of garment construction and unique sense of creativity to create a two dimensional sketch dictating the physical creation of the design. After he is satisfied with this blueprint, the designer searches for fabrics and materials that will not only enhance the aesthetic appearance of the design but also will physically support the actual creation of the garment. Once the designer selects the appropriate 10
fabric, he uses his sewing skills and artistic knowledge to create a mock version of the garment, which is later inspected and tailored by the designer and his creative team. Finally, after nearly two years of innovative effort and technical labor, the designer approves the article of clothing for public or private manufacture and begins seeking new inspiration to begin the lengthy design process all over again. Opposing these couture designers on the fashion industry battleground stand those who copy—massproducing discount retailers who target fashion-forward twentysomethings on a budget.Instead of creating unique designs and signature styles like their imaginative components, many of these discount retailers instead focus their efforts on providing their customers with the chance to purchase designer “knockoffs”—articles of clothing and accessories that are designed to look like high-end fashion pieces from thecouture runway but are sold at a dramatically more affordable price. Unlike the attention to innovation and careful productionprocess valued by the designers described above, these fashion offenders are primarily concerned with strict replication and quick construction. As a result, originality and creativity are often conspicuously missing from the discount retail production process. Take, for example, Forever 21, an American-based mass retail chain that sells trendy clothing and accessories at an affordable price. Instead of employing fashion designers, Forever 21 hires a team of “design merchants” who purchase inventory from a wide variety of suppliers. These suppliers also take a similarly unimaginative approach to the clothing they produce. The owner of Simonia Fashion, one of the leading suppliers of Forever 21, described her “design method” simply, explaining, “If I see
something on Style.com, all I have to do is e-mail the picture to my factory and say, ‘I want something similar, or a silhouette made just like this.’” Another discount retail supplier, Faviana, routinely sends representatives to take photographs of the red carpet trends at runway shows and celebrity events and immediately submits these images to Chinese factories with the capacity to quickly massproduce less expensive copies.As a result of this production process that values designer replication over original creativity, Forever 21 has become known for supplying low-end alternatives to popular designs from the Runway. But these designs do much more than draw general inspiration from the overall form of high-end pieces; they are true copies, purposefully indistinguishable from the originals they emulate. Thanks to the striking similarities between many of Forever 21’s designs and the pieces on which they are so obviously based, the retail chain has become involved in much litigation concerning its designs In an attempt to put an end to the chain’s unapologetic copying, renowned designers like Diane von Furstenberg, Betsy Johnson, and Anna Sui have filed suits against Forever 21, claiming that the store violated their intellectual property rights by copying their work. Unfortunately for these designers, their fashion designs—the creative works to which they devoted time, labor, and imagination—receive little to no protection from America’s modern intellectual property regime. As it stands today, no meaningful legal recourse exists to put an end to Forever 21’s unabashed behavior. Whereas previous scholarship concerning this issue has focused primarily on the reasons fashion designs do or not deserve various types of intellectual property protection, this Note will attack the intellectual property framework as a whole in order to illuminate the reasons why fashion designs can and should receive intellectual property protection, namely copyright protection. More specifically, this Note will argue that the current distinction between different types of intellectual property protection should not present problems for fashion designs.
DEFINING FASHION: A UTILITARIAN ART FORM People typically stride through life clothed. Recent proclamations of equal protection and civil liberties aside, clothes are an unavoidable part of everyone’s life today. However, clothes—“fashion”—mean very different things to different people, as a result of both situational factors and personal characteristics. Given both the situational and personal differences that can affect the characterization of a given fashion object or design, the true nature of the articles of clothing we drape over our bodies each day is difficult to describe. In order to arrive at an accurate description, one large, overarching question must be answered: are pieces of fashion useful, everyday objects or pieces of high art? An important point to consider in answering this question is the utilitarian nature of these objects. The articles in question can be classified anywhere on the spectrum of “clothes” (solely utilitarian objects that have secondary, aesthetic features but exist primarily to protect our bodies and avoid the exposure of indecent body parts) to “fashion” (art objects that may happen to serve utilitarian functions but are created for solely nonutilitarian reasons). As the illustrations above demonstrate, the same object may fall at different places along this spectrum depending on both situational and personal contextual factors. Unfortunately, the answer to the question posed above has no effect on the amount of true protection afforded to fashion designs under America’s current intellectual property regime. Regardless of whether fashion designs are classified as utilitarian objects or pieces of art, fashion designers whose work has been copied receive little legal recourse from the three main branches of intellectual property law—patent, copyright, and trademark. If an article of clothing is classified as a utilitarian object, patent protection is unavailable for all practical purposes because this recourse applies only to certain types of true “innovations” and protects only individual elements of the overall design. If, on the other hand, an article of clothing is classified as an art object, copyright protection is currently unavailable because fashion designs also serve unavoidable utilitarian purposes and are not widely accepted as 11
Fashion: An Unprotected Object of Art and Utility Fashion designs have the potential to be original, particularly when they are compared to other copyright eligible objects. The most widely drawn comparison is that between fashion designs and works of literature. Any piece of English literature, for example, is composed of words. These words (and sentence structures, rhetorical devices, etc.) are all drawn from a relatively finite “master list.” Authors draw from this unoriginal master list but are simultaneously able to combine unoriginal words in unique ways to create works of art that as a whole are remarkably original. Creating fashion designs operates much in the same way as creating pieces of literature. Designers draw from a preexisting vocabulary of color, pattern, form, and shape, and some talented designers are able to craft these elements together in ways that create works that are unmistakably original in overall design. On the other end of the spectrum, similar logic can be employed to argue that fashion designs do not have the potential to be original. In other words, because fashion designs necessarily involve drawing inspiration from an industry-wide vocabulary of color, form, and texture, some critics ignore similarly situated copyright-protected mediums and argue that it is inherently impossible for a fashion design to achieve the high level of originality required for copyright protection to apply. As a result of the current intellectual property protection framework, fashion designers are left with no realistic legal defense with which to protect themselves against the growing mass-market trend of blatantly copying couture designs.102 The modern system, which is designed around a strict dichotomy between useful and artistic objects, unfairly forces items that are useful in one context to suffer from the ways in which the same objects might be artistic in another context (and vice versa).While fashion designs deemed primarily utilitarian in nature can never escape their artistic potential in order to receive a relevant design patent, fashiondesigns deemed artistic in nature can never escape their potentiallyutilitarian functions in order to receive copyright protection. In order to combat this problem, fashion advocates have proposed various solutions to disincentiv12
ize mass retail chains from copying couture designs without permission. The legal system, however, should not be forced to invent “solutions” like these when America already has a long-standing intelletual property framework in Place. The Architectural Design Amendment of 1990 The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act was added in 1990 and amended the Copyright Act to include “architectural works” as works of authorship. This new medium is defined in the amendment, which states that an “architectural work” is the “design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.”124 Such a work includes “the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features.” Obvious comparisons can be made between architecture and fashion in terms of both separability and originality. In terms of separability, architectural works operate much like fashion designs—no matter how beautiful or ornamental an architectural design may be, it unavoidably has the capacity to fulfill the basic utilitarian function of providing shelter. In an attempt to sidestep this problem, the Architectural Design Amendment leaves separability largely unaddressed.126 Artistic notions aside, works of architecture provide the unavoidable function of providing shelter regardless of their artistic value. Regardless, these works are now provided copyright protection despite their utilitarian nature. In terms of originality, the same basic principles apply to the originality of works of architecture that apply to fashion designs. They are both a type of three-dimensional visual art that is comprised of various elements—color, shape, form, and texture—and is intensely detail-oriented. The Architectural Design Amendment handles the issue of originality directly; the statutory language clearly states that the term “architectural works” does not include individual standard features, but instead looks to the overall composition and form of the design and building. This same standard could be used to determine the originality of fashion designs as well. For example, imagine a four-story brick building
centered around a spiraling staircase that leads to a pointed lookout needle. Many building designs may include each of these individual elements, but perhaps no building has combined the elements together to create the same overall effect. Under the Architectural Design Amendment to the Copyright Act, this type of total uniqueness is sufficient for a finding of originality. In the similarly situated world of fashion, take a long, flowy dress with thin straps, a plunging v-neck, an elaborate floral detail, and distinctive black borders. Each of these elements standing on its own may not be “original”: Many dresses are long and flowy. Many dresses have thin straps. Many dresses have plunging v-necks. Many dresses have elaborate floral detailing. Finally (and not surprisingly at this point), many dresses have distinctive black borders. All of this unoriginality in mind, it is alsopossible that no other dress has combined the individual elements in this way before, so the dress taken as a whole design is original. It is important to note that not every fashion design would be original enough to garner copyright protection (just as not every architectural design would be original enough to receive protection); each design must be evaluated on its own merits. However, an important takeaway is that the legislature has already determined that it is possible to determine whether an object comprised of “unoriginal” elements can still be original when these elements are combined in a new and distinct way. This comparison to original architecture in mind, it is important to consider the ways in which courts have construed the concept of originality. For example, in Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., the Court held that when a total concept is the same, copyright may be infringed. This holding is significant because it implies that designs that, as a whole, are too closely identical to another design, can still be deemed to infringe upon the first design’s copyright even if there are small differences between the two (namely fabric or threading).If these “prerequisites”—designed to keep objects with utilitarian characteristics from receiving the benefit of copyright protection—can so easily be forgotten when it comes to architectural designs, why should critics constantly cite them as unavoidable bars against giving copyright protection to fashion
designs? Clearly, the legislature has begun to realize the artificiality of the art-utility distinction underlying America’s intellectual property regime and started to carve out specialized exceptions to this general rule. CONCLUSION As this Note has demonstrated, America’s current intellectual property regime unfairly forces unique objects like fashion designs—objects that possess both utilitarian and artistic components, and which may appear more utilitarian or artistic depending on a context-specific analysis—to “chose a side” on the art-utility spectrum in order to receive some form of intellectual property protection. Once a fashion design is submitted for either patent or copyright review, the design’s unavoidable artistic or utilitarian components stand as effective bars that prevent the design from actually receiving the desired protection. Given that both the historical underpinnings of American intellectual property law and the recent amendments to the Copyright Act of 1976 expose the artificiality that underlies granting intellectual property protection is based on such a rigid framework, it is necessary for lawmakers to abandon the art-utility dichotomy and allow fashion designs, much like architectural designs, to receive intellectual property protection. A brief analysis of the Copyright Act of 1976 and the changing norms of international custom and technology reveal that extending copyright protection to fashion designs is both workable and necessary. Intellectual property is concerned with protecting objects that are either useful or artistic. Fashion designs, works that have far reaching effects on American lifestyles, culture, and economy, should not be denied this protection because they are both. M.C. Miller
13
inspiration
Marcel Duchamp
The artist who the readymade, is arguably the century’s most influential development on artists’ creative process. His peices attack the preconcieved notion of an artist and revolutionized what can be considered art. Fountain is the most famous of Duchamp’s so-called readymade sculptures comprised of mass-produced, commercially available, often utilitarian objects, that were then modified and recontextualized as a work of art. Readymades disrupted centuries of thinking about the artist’s role as a skilled creator of original handmade objects. Instead, Duchamp argued, “An ordinary object [could be] elevated to the dignity of a work of art by the mere choice of an artist.”1 Duchamp is characterized as“a prolific artist, his greatest contribution to the history of art lies in his ability to question, admonish, critique, and playfully ridicule existing norms in order to transcend the status quo—he effectively sanctioned the role of the artist to do just that.”2 The idea at hand, of art primarily as a concept rather than an object, is what would make Fountain arguably the most intellectually captivating and challenging art piece of the 20th century. It epitomises the assault on convention and accepted notions of art and the artists. Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain was arguably the first ever piece of conceptual art-- work that was “in the service of the mind,” as opposed to a purely “retinal” art, intended only to please the eye.3 The original, which is now lost, consisted of a standard urinal, laid flat on its back and signed with a pseudonym, ‘R. Mutt 1917’. This work is one of a small number of replicas which Duchamp authorised in 1964, based on a photograph of the original by Alfred Stieglitz.
14 14
1
Duchamp as quoted in “Eleven Europeans in America,” James Johnson Sweeney (ed.), The Museum of Modern Art Bulletin (New York), vol. 13, no. 4/5, 1946, p. 20 Rosenthal, Nan. “Marcel Duchamp (1887–1968).” In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000–. http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/duch/hd_duch. htm (October 2004) 3 Duchamp as quoted in H. H. Arnason and Marla F. Prather, History of Modern Art: Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, Photography (Fourth Edition) (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1998), 274 2
MARCEL DUCHAMP
‘Fountain’ by Marcel Duchamp, 1917 Photograph by Alfred Stieglitz 15 15
16
17
18
19
20
INTRO
21
The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even (The Green Box) Marcel Duchamp 1934
Duchamp published this collection of 94 documents to explain some of his thinking and to show some of the preliminary works relating to The Large Glass. The notes were left loose so that their relationships for the reader would be determined by chance
22
L.H.O.O.Q. Marcel Duchamp 1919 One of the most famous derrivate works
23
24
25
Editors Letter
26
Joseph Kosuth
Art after Philosophy 1969
INTRO
The function of art, as a question, was first raised by Marcel Duchamp. In fact it is Marcel Duchamp whom we can credit with giving art its own identity. (One can certainly see a tendency toward this self-identification of art beginning with Manet and Cezanne through to Cubism, 11 but their works are timid and ambiguous by comparison with Duchamp’s). ‘Modern’ art and the work before seemed connected by virtue of their morphology. Another way of putting it would be that art’s ‘language’ remained the same, but it was saying new things. The event that made conceivable the realization that it was possible to ‘speak another language’ and still make sense in art was Marcel Duchamp’s first unassisted Readymade. With the unassisted Readymade, art changed its focus from the form of the language to what was being said. Which means that it changed the nature of art from a question of morphology to a question of function. This change - one from ‘appearance’ to ‘conception’ - was the beginning of ‘modern’ art and the beginning of ‘conceptual’ art. All art (after Duchamp) is conceptual (in nature) because art only exists conceptually. Art ‘lives’ through influencing other art, not by existing as the physical residue of an artist’s ideas. The reason why different artists from the past are ‘brought alive’ again is because some aspect of their work becomes ‘useable’ by living artists. That there is no ‘truth’ as to what art is seems quite unrealized. What is the function of art, or the nature of art? If we continue our analogy of the forms art takes as being art’s language one can realize then that a work of art is a kind of proposition presented within the context of art as a comment on art. We can then go further and analyse the types of ‘propositions’. The analogy I will attempt to make is one between the art condition and the condition of the analytic proposition. In that they don’t appear to be believable as anything else, or be about anything (other than art} the forms of art most clearly finally referable only to art have been forms closest to analytical propositions. Works of art are analytic propositions. That is, if viewed within their context - as art they provide no information what-so-ever about any matter of fact. A work of art is a tautology in that it is a presentation of the artist’s intention, that is, he is saying that that particular work of art is art, which means, is a definition of art. Thus, that it is art is true a priori (which is what Judd means when he states that ‘if someone calls it art, it’s art’).
27
PRAD Personal Blog ppl knocking eachother off lol
Followed by timblanks, iamnaomicampbell , alessandromichele + 120k more
28
DA
TM
29
christopherkane
celine celine
3A.
robertocavalli
1A.
30
moschino
marahoffman
3B.
publicschool
1B.
Answer key: 1. Left; Celine Resort 2016, Right Mara Hoffman RTW Fall 2017 2. Left: Roberto Cavali, Right: Public School PF17 3. Christoper Kane Fall 2015, Moschino Resort 18 31
“Call it out, Call it out, Call it out,
Diet Prada is not going to let anyone get away with coping. Diet Prada does not like that,� Naomi Campbell said during a recent Instagram Live. What the industry has to say about its newly annointed fashion police.
32
33
“Diet Prada, a must-follow for fashion lovers, has become a runway referee that calls out designers for, as its bio says, “knocking each other off.” Diet Prada’s razor-sharp references indicate that its founder is a fashion historian through and through, and its no-holds-barred approach makes it clear that no one in the industry is safe. So who’s the brains behind the blows? We may never know, though this much has been revealed: it’s a fashion insider who prefers to remain anonymous.” Alexa Tietjen for WWD “Inspiration or copy? Internet users are being asked to make the decision. The topic is being presented by Diet Prada, an Instagram account which has made design
past. They hope to shift from Instagram to visual essays soon. “It’ll be really great for talking out my ideas,” they explain to i-D. Below, they discuss the demands — and career risks — of running a secret Instagram account and what makes fashion so rife with appropriation and plagiarism. André-Naquian Wheeler for i-D Magazine “They say imitation is the best form of flattery but I’m sure these hardworking designers think otherwise. In the age of social media, it is almost impossible for copycats to get away with stealing ideas. Netizens aren’t afraid to tell it like it is and somehow get justice for the original artists. Two people in particular are
legitimately fear the loss of advertisers. The duo side-track this problem through utilisation of a free public social platform, like Instagram, that allows them to connect with millions of users that can access their content at any time, provided they have internet access. Whether their budding friendships with the brands will impact the objectivity of their content remains to be seen, but so far Diet Prada is a no-cost platform for fashion criticism that whilst original, will ironically, have copycats.” Asbos Magazine “The anonymous account basically serves as the fashion police, calling out designers for ripping off creations of their peers, not without a
“...Please say sorry to me!!” Stefano Gabbana, in response to a D&G targeted post
comparisons its thing, highlighting publicly the lack of originality from certain designers in naming (and shaming) the most obvious copycats seen on the recent runways.” Chenu Alexis for Fashion Network “That’s what makes the account @dietprada a delight for fashion nerds. It’s a collection of all those “I think I’ve seen this before…” runway moments, pairing familiar-looking pieces with their alleged inspirations. The account was not born out of ill-intent intent, however. The anonymous creator of @dietprada works in the fashion industry, and the account is simply a natural extension of their obsession: studying fashion history to understand how the trends of today come from the 34
doing away the filter and posting for the world to see.” Tisha Ramirez for Inquier “Darling, I make this job from 32 years, we made all this world in the ‘90…. so, if you are ignorante is much better for you don’t say anythyng about this image… Gucci copy us in many different way!!! This is one of… please say sorry to me!!”...”@diet_prada dear you need to take fashion lesson in some school before to speak information is the top in fashion history” Stefano Gabbana In Response to a D&G targeted post “Their truth-to-power assessments of major brands is a practice that is avoided by most publishers, who
touch of sass.” Margraux Meisel for Nylon “NO ADVERTISERS MEAN NO FILTER.@diet_prada is the Gossip Girl of the fashion world. The anonymous Instagrammers (two people run the account) are fast gaining followers with their growing stack of receipts about “ppl knocking each other off.” Daniel Geldenhuys for Spree ‘Whether or not you like artificially sweetened goods, we guarantee you’ll like the Instagram account Diet Prada. The account started in 2014, and is really a grand theft fashion series with all eyes focused on who’s ripping of who in the industry. And in an industry rife
“Why on earth have you waited for Diet Prada to denounce possible plagiarism between creators? Because when we open - today again! - the pages of a fashion magazine, or when one goes through well established media forums, fashion critics often seem to want to annoy anyone. The fear of losing an ‘advertiser’ if an article is too hostile has often silenced the feathers of fashion. We bet that with the emergence of future Diet Prada through social networks, the media will remember that their strength lies in an objective analysis, including in fashion.” Steemit “Diet Prada is hilarious. I look at their page from time to time. I think
Instagram account publicizing these instances and engendering a muchneeded debate from their followers about where we draw the line. With originals on the left, and the accused plagiarist on the right, Diet Prada is the online authority on who’s ripping off who. The freefall discourse that lives in internet comment sections has people making cases for both sides, and it’s seen Rihanna’s core fanbase turn ugly when Diet Prada noticed a very sus similarity in some art direction for Fenty Beauty.” Max Grobe for Highsnobriety “DESIGNER BEANS are being spilled across every sector of fashions multi billion-dollar industry with its current (and not so clean)
be heard.” Jenni Sellan, fashion writer “LOL” Lee Oliviera, photographer and stylist “Hell hath no fury like a fashionista scorned – and whoever p*ssed off Diet Prada needs to apologise, now. Fighting back against facsimile fashion with an acerbic attitude and a sartorialist’s whit, the faceless social media page has become a terrifying enemy to the everyday designer –pointing out the obvious catwalk copy and pastes that so freely go unchallenged. A vengeful attack on the status quo that treads the line between hilarious trolling and cutthroat callouts,
“A vengeful attack on the status quo that treads the line between hilarious trolling and cutthroat callouts, the unvarnished commentary that followed SS18 left brands looking over their shoulder as claims on provenance became the encore heard across the globe.” they have me on it sometimes, too. It’s funny. I mean, listen, fashion should be fun. Fashion is full of references. I think a lot of younger people don’t really understand the influences that came from a long, long time ago. What they see is probably limited to the last three seasons. Hopefully, with Instagram, people are starting to unearth more and letting people learn more about where the origins of everything are.” Jason Wu, Designer “While theft in fashion is not a new concept, access to decades of online archives has allowed some eagle-eyed fashionheads to call out this copycat culture and hold idea-theives accountable. Diet Prada began in 2014 as an anonymous
reputation being exposed by those with an eagle eye and a full cup of courage.Fashion has found a multitude of new voices and naming & shaming is trending high. The source? Diet Prada. Surprisingly it’s not all about the haters right now but rather fashion industry insiders unafraid of creating a little disruption for the greater good of the industry Insta heavy weights @ diet_prada may not have millions of followers (yet) on Instagram, their reach is influential. We are experiencing a time where every facet of the fashion industry is well and truly being called to clean up its act and its nothing short of brilliant to see these emerging industry influencers providing a pathway for the once silent voices to
the unvarnished commentary that followed SS18 left brands looking over their shoulder as claims on provenance became the encore heard across the globe. A double-tap delight for any fashion nerd, Diet Prada seems to know more about the inner workings of the fashion world than even some of the most schooled Vogue boffs.” WearVaugh.com “...This account exposes high-end designers who seemingly spend their time unceremoniously ripping each other off. And for an industry that spends a lot of time ribbing Zara for doing the same thing, it’s an interesting (and occasionally dangerous) perspective” Bianca O’neill, Fashion Journal 35
diet_prada ”@vaquera.nyc started with the promise of bringing excitement and originality to NYFW... and then did this. Super specific @chanelofficial archive suspender/girdle/utility pant combo with a lil’ JPG cone bra action for good measure”
36
@vaquera.nyc thanks @diet_prada we call ourselves fashion fan fiction for a reason recontextualizing iconic styles is the name of our game
37
GIACOMO BALLA
The Antineutral Suit: Futurist Manifesto
Humanity always dressed itself with modesty, fear, caution, and indecision, forever wearing the mourning suit, the cape, or the cloak. The male body was habitually diminished by neutral shades and colors, degraded by black, stifled by belts, and imprisoned by folds of fabric. Until now, men wore suits of static colors and forms, rather solemn, heavy, uncomfortable, draped, and priestly. They were expressions of timidness, melancholia, and slavery, a negation of the muscular life, which was repressed by the unhealthy traditionalism of weighty materials and boring, effeminate, or decadent halftones. The mood and rhythms resembled a funereal, depressing, and desolate peace. TODAY we want to abolish: 1. All of the neutral “nice,” faded, “fanciful,” murky, and humble colors. 2. All pedantic, professorial, and teutonic shapes and hues. Designs with stripes, checks, and diplomatic little dots. 3. Mourning suits, which are not even fitting for gravediggers. The heroic dead should not be lamented but rather commemorated by us in red dress. 4. The mediocrityo f moderations, o-called good taste and socalled harmony of colors and forms, that curb our excitement and slow us down. 5. The symmetrical cut and static lines that tire, depress, sadden, and bind the muscles; the uniformity of ill-fitting Lapels and all wrinkles; useless buttons and starched collars and cuffs. We Futurists want to liberate our race from every neutrality, from fearful and enervating indecision, from negating pessimism and nostalgic, romantic, and flaccid inertia. We want to color Italy with Futurist audacity and risk, and finally give Italians joyful and bellicose clothing. Futurist attire will therefore be: 1. Aggressive, in order to intensify the courage of the strong and overcome the sensitivity of the cowardly. 2. Agile, such that it will augment litheness of body and encourage momentum in struggle, stride, and the charge of battle. 3. Dynamic, with textiles of dynamic patterns and colors (triangles, cones, spirals, ellipses, circles) that inspire the love of danger, speed, and assault, and loathing of peace and immobility. 4. Simplicity and comfort, that is, easy to put on and take off, so that one is well prepared to aim the gun, ford the streams, and hurl oneself into the water. 5. Hygienic, or cut in such a way that every pore of the skin can breathe during long marches and steep climbs. 6. Joyful. Colored materials of thrilling iridescence. The use of muscular colors: the most violet violet, the reddest red, the deepest of deep blues, the greenest of greens, brilliant yellows, vermilions, and oranges. 38
7. Illuminating. Phosphorescent textiles that can ignite temerity in a fearful crowd, spread light around when it rains, and meliorate the dimness of twilight in the streets and in the nerves. 8. Strong willed. Violent colors and designs that are imperious and impetuous like the commands on the field of battle. 9. Asymmetrical. For example, the tips of sleeves and fronts of jackets will be rounded on the left side, squared off on the right. There will be ingenious counterdispositions of lines. 10. Short-lived, so that we may incessantly renew the wanton pleasure and liveliness of the body. 11. Changeable, by means of alterations (the incorporation of materials, of enlargements and layers, varying colors and designs) to dispose of when and where you want, from whatever part of the suit, by pneumatic buttons. In this way anyone can invent a new suit, at any moment. The changes will be arrogant, annoying, unsettling, decisive, warlike, etc. The Futurist hat will be asymmetrical and of exhuberant, aggressive colors. Futurist shoes will be dynamic, different from one another in form and color, and happily able to kick all the neutralists. The pairing of yellow and black will be vehemently prohibited. One thinks and acts as one dresses. Since neutrality is the synthesis of all tradition, today we Futurists display these antineutral, that is, cheerfully bellicose, clothes. Only the gouty ones disapprove of us. All of Italy’s youth will recognize that we don our feisty Futurist banners for our urgent and imperative great war. If the government does not take off its passdiste attire of fear and indecision, then we will double, CENTRUPLE THE RED of the tricolor flag, in which we dress. Giacomo Balla, painter. Approved enthusiastically by the Direction of the Futurist Movement and by all of the Italian Futurist groups. Volantino della Direzione del Movimento Futurista, Milan, September 11, 1914.
39
40
Giacomo Balla, Anti Neutral Suit
41
KASIMIR MALEVICH (1878-1935)
From Cubism and Futurism to Suprematism: The New Realism in Painting
Only with the disappearance of a habit of mind which sees in pictures little corners of nature, madonnas and shameless Venuses, shall we witness a work of pure, living art. I have transformed myself in the zero ofform and dragged myself out of the rubbish-filled pool ( Academic art). I have destroyed the ring of the horizon and escaped from the circle of things, from the horizon-ring which confines the artist and the forms of nature. This accursed ring, which opens up newer and newer prospects, leads the artist away from the target of destruction. And only a cowardly consciousness and meagre creative powers in an artist are deceived by this fraud and base their art on the forms of nature, afraid of losing the foundation on which the savage and the academy have based their art. To reproduce beloved objects and little corners of nature is just like a thief being enraptured by his legs in irons. Only dull and impotent artists screen their work with sinceritv. In art there is a need for truth, not sincerity, Things hate disappeared like smoke; to gain the new artistic culture, art approaches creation as an end in itself and domination over the forms of nature. The Art of the Savage and its Principles The savage was the first to found the principle of naturalism: fashioning his drawings out of a dot and five little sticks, he tried to recreate his own image. This first attempt laid the basis for conscious imitation of the forms of nature. From this arose the aim of approaching the face of nature as closely as possible. And all the artist’s efforts were directed towards the representation of her creative forms. Collective art, or the art of copying, had its origin In the tracing of the savage’s first primitive image. Collective, because the real man with his subtle range of feelings, psychology and anatomy had not yet been discovered. The savage saw neither his external image, nor his inner condition. His consciousness could only see the shape of a man, animal, etc. And as his consciousness developed, so the scheme by which he depicted .nature grew more complicated. The further his consciousness embraced nature, the more complicated his ,work became and the more his knowledge and ability increased. His consciousness developed only on one side, the side of nature’s creation, and not on the side of new forms of art . .~ Therefore his primitive pictures cannot be considered as creative work. The deformities in his pictures are the result of weakness on the technical
42
.side. :’ Technique, like consciousness, was only on the path of its development. - And his pictures must not be considered as Art. For inability is not art. He merely pointed the way to art. Consequently, the original scheme was a framework, on which the generations .hung newer and newer discoveries made in nature. And the scheme grew more complicated and achieved its flowering in the Ancient World and the Renaissance of art. The masters of these two epochs portrayed man in his complete form, both inner and outer. Man was assembled and his inner condition was expressed. But despite their colossal mastery, they did not complete the savage’s idea: The reflection, as in a mirror, of nature on canvas, And it is a mistake to believe that their age was the brightest flowering in art, and that the younger generation must at all costs strive towards this ideal. Such a concept is false. It diverts young forces from the contemporary stream of life, thereby demoralizing them. Their bodies fly in aeroplanes, but art and life are covered with the old robes of Neros and Titians. Thus they are unable to see the new beauty of our modern life. For they live by the beauty of past ages. So the Realists, Impressionists, Cubism, Futurism and Suprernatism were not understood. These last-mentioned artists cast off the robes of the past and came out into contemporary life to find a new beauty. And I say: That no torture-chamber of the Academies can withstand the passage of time. Forms moue and are burn, and we make newer and neuier discoveries. And what I reveal to you, do not conceal. And it is absurd to force our age into the old forms of time past ‘*’*’* In copying or tracing the forms of nature we have fed our consciousness with a false understanding of art. The work of the Primitives has been taken for creation. That of the Classics - also creation. [ . . . ] The transferring of real objects onto canvas is the art of skilful reproduction, and only that.
43
44
Female Torso, 1933 by Kazimir Malevich 45
Suprematist Eight Red Rectangles 1915, Kazimir Malevich
46
47
48
49
50
51
VOLT (Vincenzo Fani)
Manifesto della moda femminile futurista (1920)
Women’s fashion has always been more or less Futurist. Fashion: the female equivalent of Futurism. Speed, novelty, courage of creation. Greenish yellow bile of professors against Futurism, old bags against style. For the moment, they can rejoice! Fashion is going through a period of stagnation and boredom. Mediocrity and wretchedness weave gray spider webs upon the colored flower beds of fashion and art. Current styles (the blouse and chemise) try in vain to hide their basic poverty of conception under the false labels of distinction and sobriety. There is a complete lack of originality, a withering of fantasy. The imagination of the artist is relegated to details and nuances. The sickening litany of “saintly simplicity” “divine symmetry” and so-called good taste. Silly dreams of exhuming the past: “Let’s revive the classics.” Exhaustion, mollification, feeble-mindedness. We Futurists intend to react against this state of things with extreme brutality. We don’t need to start a revolution. It’s enough to multiply a hundredfold the dynamic virtues of fashion, unleashing the bridles that hinder them from surging forth, leaping over the vertiginous jaws of the Absurd. A. INGENUITY One must absolutely claim the dictatorship of artistic ingenuity in female fashion against the parliamentary meddling of foolhardy speculation and the routine. A great poet or painter must take over the directorship of all the great women’s fashion houses. Fashion is an art, like architecture and music. A dress that is ingeniously conceived and carried well has the same value as a fresco by Michelangelo or a Titian Madonna. B. DARING The Futurist woman must have the same courage in donning the new styles of clothing as we did in declaiming our wordsin- freedom against the asinine rebelliousness of Italian and foreign audiences. Women’s fashion can never be extravagant enough. And here too we will begin by abolishing symmetry. We will fashion zigzag decolletes, sleeves that differ from one another, shoes of varying shapes, colors, and heights. We will create illusionistic, sarcastic, sonorous, loud, deadly, and explosive attire: gowns that trigger surprises and transformations, outfitted with springs, stingers, camera lenses, electric currents, reflectors, perfumed sprays, fireworks, chemical preparations, and thousands of gadgets fit to play the most wicked tricks and disconcerting pranks on maladroit suitors and sentimental fools. In woman we can idealize the most fascinating conquests of modern life. And so we will have the machine-gun woman, the thanks-de-Somme woman [sic], the radio-telegraph antenna woman, the airplane woman, the submarine woman, the motorboat woman. We will transform the elegant lady into a real, living three-dimensional complex.
52
There is no need to fear that in so doing the female silhouette will loose its capricious and provocative grace. The new forms will not hide but accentuate, develop, and exaggerate the gulfs and promontories of the female peninsula. Art exaggeration. Upon the feminine profile we will graft the most aggressive lines and garish colors of our Futurist pictures. We will exalt the female flesh in a frenzy of spirals and triangles. We will succeed in sculpting the astral body of woman with the chisel of an exasperated geometry! C. ECONOMY The new fashions will be affordable for all the beautiful women, who are legion in Italy. The relative cost of precious material makes a garb expensive, not the form or color, which we will offer, free, to all Italians. After three years of war and shortages of raw material, it is ridiculous to continue manufacturing leather shoes and silk gowns. The reign ofsilk in the history offemalefashion must come to an end, just as the reign of marble is now finished in architectural constructions. One hundred new revolutionary materials riot in the piazza, demanding to be admitted into the making of womanly clothes. We fling open wide the doors of the fashion ateliers to paper, cardboard, glass, tinfoil, aluminum, ceramic, rubber, fish skin, burlap, oakum, hemp, gas, growing plants, and living animals. Every woman will be a walking synthesis of the universe. You have the high honor of being loved by us, sappersoldiers at the avant-garde of an army of lightning. Volt [Vincenzo Fani] Roma Futurista, Rome, February 29, 1920.
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Joseph Cornell, ‘Untitled’, 1931. Reproduced in Harper’s Bazaar in February 1937 under the rubric ‘The Pulse of Fashion’. Curator Richard Martin has observed that for male Surrealists the sewing machine was a metaphor for the woman, as it evoked ideas of fertility, fabrication and fantasy, and that they represented the object both as a symbol of positive productivity and as a diabolical tool of exploitation.
81
In the words of...
82
VIRGIL ABLOH
83
Yoko Ono Cut Piece (‘65) Performance
84
85
86
In advance of a broken Arm Marcel Duchamp 87
88
89
‘Dress designing, incidentally, is to me not a profession but an art. I found that it was the most difficult and unsatisfying art, because as soon as a dress is born it has already become a thing of the past […] The interpretation of a dress, the means of making it, and the surprising way in which some materials react – all these factors, no matter how good an interpreter you have, invariably reserve a slight if not bitter disappointment for you. In a way it is even worse if you are satisfied, because once you have created it the dress no longer belongs to you. A dress cannot just hang like a painting on the wall, or like a book remain intact and live a long and sheltered life.’
90
Schaparelli, Elsa Shocking Life 1954
91
92
93
“Established or undiscoveredwe all have been touched by fashion design piracy. We luckily survived despite its disastrous effects, but many colleagues whose names you will never hear, had to close.�
94
The Innovative Design Protection & Piracy Prevention Act: Hearing on H.R. 2511 Before the Subcomm. on Intellectual Prop., Competition and the Internet, 112th Cong., 1 (2011) (statement of Lazaro Hernandez, Fashion Designer & CoFounder, Proenza Schouler). 95
96
97
98
99
100
BANKSY Picasso Quote, 2009, carved marble and reinforced wood.
101
102
103
In the world of...
Yves Klein
1928-1962, Painter, Preformance Artist
Yves Klein was a French Conceptual artist with a wide-ranging and highly influential practice. Perhaps best remembered for his creation of a vivid shade of blue, he began creating his monochrome series in the 1950s by developing and patenting his own signature hue known as IKB, or International Klein Blue. For his Anthropométries series the artist employed nude models to act as “living brushes” and paint canvases with their bodies covered in Klein Blue. Klein’s paintings strip things away further, carrying no motifs, with the artist himself suggesting that there was nothing there at all (he famously titled a series ‘The Void’). However, we also know that Klein was fascinated by the mystical. So perhaps the ‘nothing’ he referred to was not a negative concept but a blank canvas that allowed a viewer to forget imposed connotations and free their minds. Colour as the path to cerebral freedom. A satire on abstract art. 104
YVES KLEIN
YVES KLIEN 105
Anthropometry of the Blue Period (ANT 82), 1960
106
Pure pigment and synthetic resin on paper laid down on canvas 61 3/5 × 111 1/5 in 156.5 × 282.5 cm Musée National d’Art Moderne, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris CNAC/MNAM/Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Art Resource, NY / Klein, Yves (1928-1962) © ARS, NY
107
“My works are my art”
108
only the ashes of
Yves Klein, “The Monochrome Adventure” (1958), in Gilbert Perlein and Bruno Cora, eds., Yves Klein: Long Live the Immaterial!, Nice, Musée d’art moderne and d’art contemporaine, and New York, Delano Greenidge Editions, 2000, p. 77. 109
Section of Yves Klein, Anthropometry of the Blue Period (ANT 82), 1960.
110
Celine Spring/Summer 2017 111
Yves Klein Anthropometry: Princess Helena Reflected 1960
112
Yves Klein Anthropometry: Princess Helena 1960
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
Kazimir Malevich, Suprematism Eight Red Rectangles,1915. Oil on canvas,
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135