"Y
es, I do believe Lanvin's spring collection of 1986 is quite analogous to how the fashion house is expressing itself currently," observed one averagely dressed woman shopping with a friend in Virginia.
To which the companion replied, "I know only that Gucci, too, is tracing their roots with its 85th Anniversary bags, and I don't particularly care for it."
Overhearing the conversation of these women as they browsed the racks at Neiman Marcus, I experienced an epiphany of sorts: Just as an individual can be educated in history or proficient in French, so too, is fashion subject to erudition -- an elite following of "fashion academia."
Much like there is a distinction between a red wine enthusiast and a connoisseur of the grape, or a reader of English literature and a studied professional, such is the case for fashion.
Essentially, being "fashionable" is quite different from being educated in fashion. Any Tom, Dick or Harriet can wear Chanel, but very few can speak the language of the true "sartorialist."
To be "well read" in fashion is to actively follow the industry by studying its past, present and future. Those who adopt the discipline -- usually a leisure-time pursuit, but more commonly becoming an actual discipline -- come to see clothing as far more than cloth but rather as a genuine art form, a historic relic and profound social commentary.
This may be surprising to the cynic who views fashion as frivolous and insignificant; such judgment neglects to account for the cultural relevancy of clothing.
If one were to assess the over-arching political and societal atmosphere of the U. S. or Europe through analysis of the clothing styles of various eras, much could be discerned. After all, fashion is a reflection of the times.
During Puritanical America, clothing was mainly black and austere. The high-necked dresses worn by women and the restrictive suits of the men reflected the overall social atmosphere of the time. The clothing's austerity is indicative of a distrustful, oppressed and ashamed population -- one not comfortable in its new surroundings and severance from Great Britain.
Conversely, during the reign of King Louis XIV, the confidence of the king and his court was conveyed in volumes. Women's decadent gowns were gilded in gold lame and corsets that prominently displayed their d8ecolletage, making sexuality a mainstay in the fabric of fashion and society.
And then there were the "flappers" of the Roaring 1920s, who sparked controversy with their racy short skirts and served as precursors to the forthcoming women's liberation movements. With increasing rights for women came the more outspoken "look at me" attire.
Fashion is quite sociological, and it can tell us much about a population, its values and its politics -- Cliffs Notes in aesthetic form.
Today, though, many confuse the difference between "being fashionable" and "fashion knowledgeable."
On the Hopkins campus alone, I observe an increasing number of male and female students who, to most, would be described as "fashionable." They wear more expensive brands like True Religion, Seven jeans and Juicy, and carry nylon Prada bags. And yes, dressing more "upscale" does set these individuals apart from the students who sport Abercrombie, Gap and more conventional labels. The former are supposedly "into fashion," while the latter are not.
But in my experience both at Hopkins and elsewhere, many of those knowledgeable about fashion, the industry and its history have not a single piece of designer clothing in their closets, but could tell you the fabrics favored by Halston and the life and times of Alexander McQueen.
Conversely, those who "buy nice brands" oftentimes only do so to project an image of wealth or to achieve greater status, but know nothing about the designers they wear or what their garments seek to communicate.
Frequently, these "label whores" without a clue receive the moniker of "style guru," while the plain-dresser with a plethora of real knowledge goes unnoticed.
As the true fashion intellectual knows, beautiful clothing has nothing to do with brand names, but rather the craftsmanship of the garment and its social message.
So just as purchasing a history book does not make one a historian, simply buying designer clothing does not make a person fashionable. As the two women shopping at Neiman's made blissfully clear to me, fashion is a learned discipline, as intricate and comprehensive as any other.
