Welcome to the 183rd insertion of DEMUR®, an analytical series highlighting the intricacies of the artistic world and the minutiae lying within. In this episode, we break down fashion’s relationship with deconstruction, explaining its origin in design, defining aspects and evolution through time.
Since the late 70s, deconstruction has been a prevalent theme in fashion. Rooted in rebellion, the design element was pioneered by Vivienne Westwood, Martin Margiela and Rei Kawakubo, since leeching into mainstream media. As a core ethos of the anti-fashion movement, deconstruction works to reinvent our preconceived ideals of not only the fashion industry, but of the everyday world.
To uncover the origin of deconstruction, we’ll first take a look through a philosophical lens. The premise is widely accredited to philosopher Jacques Derrida, who introduced the idea of destabilized truth in the late 1960s. Challenging our accepted ways of thinking, she’d work to question the very constructs of our reality, igniting a domino effect within all fields of expression.
As the foreign methodology grew, designers would begin to revolt against industry-wide standards for ‘perfection’. Disbanding from traditional norms, the Parisian fashion circuit released hems and created ill-fitting garments, finding fulfillment in asymmetries and flaws. Deconstructing society’s limitations in graphic design and silhouette, take Westwood’s ‘destroy’ tees or Margiela’s wearable mannequin bust, we’d work to break free of these unspoken limitations.
Digging deeper and deeper, deconstruction pushes creatives to find the root of universally accepted silhouettes, mechanics and functions. In stride with the human desire to evolve, the premise encourages artisans to continue creating, to differ from the norm. To think that without such provoking thought, distressed jeans and oversized silhouettes wouldn’t be prevalent, speaks to the importance of this ideal.
So, to answer the question that preceded this monologue, fashion is obsessed with deconstructionism because it has to be. Without it, we remain stagnant, boxed in a boardless field deprived of ingenuity.
Comments