Kazys Varnelis' belief is that architecture is on the brink of demise due to the, somewhat recent, lack of creative structure. Varnelis focuses on the 17th & 18th centuries in which both couture, custom made goods (fashion), and architecture were correlated together in the sense that they displayed wealth factors and aristocracy. I believe the disunity of couture and architecture began after the second world war. Much of Europe was destroyed by battle and conquest and did not have the proper funds to rebuild buildings of high design. For instance, London possesses a much more industrial vibe with the occasional landmarks, that brighten and color the city... rebuilding as soon as possible, and as cheap as possible, was the goal of the time. The beautiful architecture of Europe is simply the remaining structures that bombs did not explode.
However, the reconstruction of Europe after WWII cannot conclude the division of architecture and couture. While fashion is continuiously evolving, the structure or ARCHITECTURE of buildings has remained rather primative. What needs to occur, is a demand. Today, couture is much more accessible. In 17th century France, the elegance and grace of buildings were to imply the wealth and status of the people inside; extravagence was meant to amuse those who could obtain or live in such structures. Now that couture has been popularized, the need to unify both fancy architecture and fashion has dissipated.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree that couture is somewhat lost. With all of the cheaper imitations that are both more easily obtained, and increasingly similar to the product it is mirroring, high fashion is something of an oxymoron. At this point the only measure by which we can distinguish high from low fashion is the amount of money spent on either product. Name has come to mean more than appearance does.
But as far as architecture goes, buildings themselves have become something of a fashion. In many cases you can tell exactly what kinda of things go on inside a building by its outer appearance. But in many others, it is simply the architects vision. People like Frank Gehry are using a powerful knowledge of architecture to make abstract buildings. They are almost like expressionist art. The Disney Concert Hall is in itself a beautiful piece of art, and if I may say so, very fashionable. It is beautiful to look at, but boasts a daring unconventional appearance at the same time.
I do not believe that Varnelis' thinks that architecture is on the brink of demise, but rather the contrary, she argues that fashion in architecture is alive and well in todays society, maybe todays more than ever, and that todays attention to fashion holds a much deeper significance than it did in the past. Fashion and architecture have always gone hand in hand, "architecture and fashion are linked in an enduring relationship" says Varnelis; the changes that can be observed in the history of fashion can be used to shed light upon the history of architecture as well. In todays society couture is becoming an idea of the past as class distinctions are blurred and high fashion is more easily imitated and available to all people. So instead of the Idea that Couture is coming to its peak, like you say, she believes that haute couture as an idea is rapidly dying out.
Varnelis starts out with the idea that "that architecture and fashion are linked in an enduring relationship and that the dramatic changes in fashion culture over the last fifteen years force us to reconsider the very structure of architecture itself." She talks about how architecture and fashion have always been closely linked. In earlier times, she believed "architecture's mission, then, was a divine one: to announce the presence of the more holy, devout, or noble both to themselves and to the common." Fashion held the same mission. When looking at the clothes a person is wearing, one can generally get a sense of their social status. Whether their clothes are old and tattered, or fine fabrics with fancy embellishments, one can tell their approximate status. Varnelis said that before the 1960's people would annually travel to Paris to collect the new lines of clothes that were haute couture. During the 60's designers took inspiration from multiple classes, and made their fashions more available to people in "ready to wear lines". This made popular fashions more accessable to a much larger number of people. I believe today, it is harder to tell at one glance what status a person holds in society because of their clothing. Whether designers make a dress for $10,000 or redesign a dress that was $10,000 and sell it for $30, designers are generally using similar inspiration and creating pieces that look similar to one another. I think that Varnelis was trying to say that like fashion, architecture needs to "find a way to take advantage of of a society in which difference is no longer something only for the very rich, but is now for everyone."
Post a Comment