Fashion theory -roland barth

Roland far and the End of the Nineteenth Century Roland far was a french philosopher, linguistic, critic and theorist. He was also the first begins systematic aloney to think through the knowing changes in the study of elan and change state. His fashion theory has a close relationship to his structuralism and linguistic knowledge, and specify fashion, array their origins and functions within the system. First of all, Farther saw fashion as a whole system. Based on the article, system has been delimitate as a group or set of related materials or indifferent(p) things categorying a unity or mixed whole.Fashion as a sorting of system, has the features of that parts can non be explained with erupt interpreting the relationship to the whole system. Also, fashion is should be explained by other ratios in the society too, such as affectionate facts, and so on. So, he summarized the thoughts like fashion system is the sum of money of loving relations and activities that be ask for fashion to come into existence. He pointed out the systematic society relies on structured human activities, and human scotch activities can be dual-lane in tierce proportions Production, strutting and ingestion.Respectively, he divided trims in three dimensions based on the theory firstly, strong garments, which corresponds to the dimension of production represented garments, corresponds to the dimension of distribution used garments, relates to the dimension of consumption. So, in style(predicate) garments be not belong to the substantial garments, instead they are object lesson garments since they are in the realm of distribution that producers want to ensure that the garments are satisfied the demand of consumers.Followed y the report, the chapter focused on the introduction of the three dimensions of garments. Real clothes, which arises to indicate the modality garment assumes before it is translated into the garment of representation. They do not represe nt anything, so Farther defined the real clothes as an object like a prototype. The represented garments can be separated into role clothing and written clothing, which belongs to two systems system of image and the system of wording. He took the sheath of a fashion magazine that uses severally of the two systems to descriptor a cushion garment.He concluded that lyric is a more powerful system because it more readily renders the physical aggregate of the real garment into a set of common, nip signifier. In addition, image and linguistic process has different functions. According to Farther, image clothing provides the latent users with a print of the real garment and inflects there traces of real garments in an aesthetic fashion while language translated the garments into a system of abstract and intellective meaning and it is appressed to the temperament of true fashionable garments.In the other word, loathes have more similarities with language than image, because th ey are two models of communication. His thoughts included a lot of philosophies from formal chapters, which dissertate clothes through sociology and history. Farther admits that clothing is a social phenomenon and memorizen as a set of garments that have acquired their present for, because of their past. It is also notable that Farther not agreed with the base that the origin of clothes is decoration. He thoughts this research should be explained from the aspects of systematic.Farther thoughts was highly structured eased on his field. Also, he forceful the function of language probably because his study on linguistic. It is interesting that in this article I saw more about his structuralism theories from the example of clothing. Highlights of the Article Farther who first begins systematically to think through the intellectual changes that would eventually amount to a paradigm change in the study of clothes and fashion. Breathers reputation as a fashion thinker rests mainly upo n the doctorate that never was, The Fashion System.The books opening section titled Introduction Method is a palatial and lucid demonstration of his methodological approach to the question What is fashion?. System, defined as a group or set of related or associated material or immaterial things forming a unity or complex whole, lay at the heart of the revolution that swept through French intellectual living after the Second World War and genius which has come to be known by the generic term structuralism. System, structure and totality are all closely related terms intended to signify.They (structuralisms) importune that the whole and the parts can be properly explained only in arms of the relations that exist between the parts. The key assumption at work is the idea that any social fact, such as fashion, should not be gazeed as something having a singular identity. The central thrust of the idea of system is to carefully sort out the differential components of fashion and then see how the complex network of relationships can Join together these different dimensions into a dynamic whole. Systematic is the process of bringing together different elements into relationships of reciprocal dependency.The fashion system is the totality of social relations and activities that are required for fashion to come into existence. System, therefore, is a way of conceiving of human existence as something in which a structured collective being precedes, and provides the foundation for, private being, and this has steadily become a central organizing principle of Western thought. clement action is structured into patterned networks. In order that the necessities of life be secured and so ensure that social life and the life of the individual will continue, public have to act in an organized, collective manner.Human economic activity came to be en as comprising of three dimensions. Production what ensures that stuff gets do diffusion what ensures that what is made r eaches the people who need it Consumption the ways in which what is made is used up. Farther saw the analytical possibilities of extending this model of production, distribution and consumption to social institutions other than economic ones, in particular to dimensions of social life such as art and culture. The first of these distinctions separates clothing into three garments. These he calls the real garment, the represented garment and the used garment.The real garment corresponds to the dimension of production, the represented garment corresponds to the dimension of distribution, while the used garment corresponds to the dimension of consumption. The implication of this is that consumers never encounter the real garment. What they encounter is the fashionable garment, the garment that is already in the realm of representation. Breathers theory of the revised fellowship of the real garment arises to indicate the modality clothing assumes before it is translated into the garme nt of representation.The real garment is something like a prototype that is, the object before it is named. The last distinction made by Farther is in the central category of represented clothing, which he separates into image-clothing and Written clothing. Language, on the other hand, Farther considers to be a purer, more powerful code for the production of meaning because it more readily renders the physical substance of the real garment into a set of common, abstract signifier. It is clear that image-clothing and written clothing have different functions within representation.Image-clothing provides the potential user with a stencil of the real garment and, at the same time, inflects these traces of the real garment in an aesthetic direction. Material stuff is being dark into language. The garment is being translated into a system of abstract, intellective meanings and it is this final modality of the garment that Farther sees as the true fashionable garment. In other words, c lothing is a social phenomenon. By this he meaner the tendency among previous writers to regard not Just clothes, but social life in general, as a collection of individual traits, each with its own evolutionary highroad into the present.Clothing, in this model, is seen as a set of garments that have acquired their present form because of their past. Farther rejects the conclusion that it is decoration which is the chief motive for clothing. The tendency of all bodily covering to insert itself into an organized, formal and normative system, which is recognized by society. If we are set on explaining the origins of clothing, we have to include in that explanation an account of the coming into being of that aspect of the phenomenon that is collective, organized, formal and normative.Clothing seems to resemble language in a number of ways. Like language, clothing was pre-eminently a collective activity. His final move was of a more general nature and this was to categorize clothes as a mode of communication. Clothes are always a combination of a specific signifier and a general signified that is out-of-door to it (epoch, country, social class). The most influential of Branders methodological advances is his separation of the historical time continuum into three distinct sorts of durations. Clothing does not reflect anything but it may react in its own way to an external disturbance.