I'm getting into the fashion research now, which is interesting to say the least, but I'm also trying to draw some parallels between architectural theory I've been reading and fashion as a whole (without really knowing too much about it, it has to be said).
The book I've just finished reading, Architecture and Disjunction by Bernard Tschumi, repeatedly highlights the paradox that exists between form and function. Basically, the argument goes something like this (very dumbed down version):
Some architecture is conceived with no regard to anything other than itself. It is a spatial configuration of light and forms that has no other purpose than being architecture, just as art has no other purpose than being art. However, once such a work is constructed and exists within built reality, it cannot be separated from its function. It cannot just be architecture, because there is no architecture without human events activating the building. There is no architecture without program. There is the paradox.
What struck me reading that (and again, this book has nothing to do with fashion in any sense) is that the same thing could be said of fashion. Clothes have to be worn, there is no fashion without the human body. And yet some fashion is wildly uncomfortable, inconvenient, or just plain silly, such as Lady Gaga's meat dress. Some fashion designs make it impossible to see, walk etc (see below). Is this, then, still fashion? Is it designed for no purpose other than to be fashion? Just as architectural projects can reside forever in the realms of drawing or digital representation, so fashion could rest perpetually on the mannequin, neither are dependent on their explicit manifestations. Just as, also, architecture has an extremely large number of programs or building types that can be explored, so does fashion have any number of items of clothing/accessories. There are definitely similarities and a relationship to be explored here.
Below are some links to the kind of 'pure fashion' I'm talking about, fashion that is mighty inconvient even if it hasn't been explicitly designed for its own sake:
Some architecture is conceived with no regard to anything other than itself. It is a spatial configuration of light and forms that has no other purpose than being architecture, just as art has no other purpose than being art. However, once such a work is constructed and exists within built reality, it cannot be separated from its function. It cannot just be architecture, because there is no architecture without human events activating the building. There is no architecture without program. There is the paradox.
What struck me reading that (and again, this book has nothing to do with fashion in any sense) is that the same thing could be said of fashion. Clothes have to be worn, there is no fashion without the human body. And yet some fashion is wildly uncomfortable, inconvenient, or just plain silly, such as Lady Gaga's meat dress. Some fashion designs make it impossible to see, walk etc (see below). Is this, then, still fashion? Is it designed for no purpose other than to be fashion? Just as architectural projects can reside forever in the realms of drawing or digital representation, so fashion could rest perpetually on the mannequin, neither are dependent on their explicit manifestations. Just as, also, architecture has an extremely large number of programs or building types that can be explored, so does fashion have any number of items of clothing/accessories. There are definitely similarities and a relationship to be explored here.
Below are some links to the kind of 'pure fashion' I'm talking about, fashion that is mighty inconvient even if it hasn't been explicitly designed for its own sake:
And some sketched interpretations of Craig Greens work:
On a more pragmatic architectural note, I've begun to think how the project might be organised etc. At the moment this is still initial ideas, not even 'planning' (eurgh), but such as it is...
The project will probably (everything is open for discussion, but almost definitely in this case) use the tram depot and huge brownfield site to the west of New Basford as it's anchor. This provides the opportunity to create a fantastic link with NTU through the tram and immediately provides a lot of space for any large-scale intervention. These two elements will then feed back into the suburb, re-igniting some of the old industrial buildings/re-vamping public spaces etc. I'm thinking of the arteries/movement metaphor here (Flesh and Stone).
Here's a diagram:
Here's a diagram:
Looking for a hackney man and van service? We can move you from anywhere in the UK to anywhere in Europe. We are the Man And Van Hackney number 1 man and van company. Packing up your house for the big move can be a long and arduous process, but with the right removal company like Supreme Man and Van (Hackney), you can rest assured that your most precious belongings will be taken care of. Supreme Man and Van will ensure that your belongings are taken care of in the packing process, so you won’t arrive to your new house to find new scratches or markings on your furniture.
ReplyDelete