The book
is not so much an anthology of looks. Rather, it's an analysis of how fashion
fits and evolves within a specific time and space. "The goal for all my
books is to put fashion in context. Fashion is not created in a vacuum by
designers; it is a cultural expression, and there are many influences upon its
creation and success. The journey fashion takes from inception to passé is a
fascinating story I try to tell in all my books," Walford said in an
email.
Here,
Walford explains some of the factors that made the fashion of that decade so
worthy of discussion.
Tribune: You start the book describing the
sociopolitical setting of the 1960s. Specifically, you mention a climate of
fear and anxiety, but also excitement and anticipation. How do you see this
climate as having shaped attitudes toward propriety, aesthetics and
consumerism?
Walford: The 1960s was fractured. There is
no one fashion that represents the decade any more than there is one style of
music that represents the decade. Anxieties about the present caused an
interest in both the past and the future. The younger generation was not
falling in line with the status quo — they were looking to reinvent the world
for their generation. The mods in England were consumers with voracious
appetites for novelty, and yet the hippies of California were anti-consumers
who lived out of backpacks in communal flats. It was a revolution, and fashion
reflected every aspect of that revolution.
Tribune: The '60s is credited with the death
of fashion and the birth of style. To you, what is the distinction between the
two, and what is it about the '60s that lent itself to this shift?
Walford: In context of the era, fashion in
1960 meant conformity, tradition and established notions of beauty and
deportment. There were rules for how to dress and when to wear what, where and
how. The rule books were tossed out the window in the 1960s, and like most
times when rules change radically, the good is sometimes tossed out with the
bad. However, from the fashion melee an appreciation for personal expression
emerged. Creativity and the pursuit of uniqueness and self-identity brought
about new ways of looking at clothes, and with it experiments in color, styles
and accessories. Although the rules of fashion may no longer apply, those who
are creative in their attire are applauded for their efforts. Unfortunately
there is also a lot of "I don't give a damn" slovenliness around that
has accompanied a lack of occasion in dress.
Tribune: One thing that stood out to me is
your mention of the rise of certain fashion phenomena that remain prevalent
and, some say, troubling today. These include consumers' desire for
inexpensive, trendy clothing; a reliance on cheap manufacturing overseas; and
increased use of synthetic materials that, while ubiquitous, we now understand
to be harmful to the environment. What is the value in tracing the origins of
these occurrences?
Walford: I think it's a matter of
recognizing when the trend came about and why. Ready-to-wear manufacturers
focused on the extremes of the market — affordability and prestige. I know I am
not alone in questioning the validity of buying cheap clothes that don't
benefit the environment or domestic economy. At the same time, it is very
difficult to justify the value of a pair of $2,000 shoes or a $5,000 purse.
Tribune: Ultimately, what are you hoping
readers will take away by understanding the trends of the 1960s and the forces
behind them?
Walford: There is an old French saying,
"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose," which means the more
things change, the more they stay the same. Everything that happened in the
1960s to fashion is still with us, but it might be easier to recognize it when
we look at the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment