This essay examines the extent that Jacque Derida’s philosophical studies inspired Belgian fashion designers Martin Margiela. Derrida may appear to be a scientist who studies writing and grammar, but his ideas are important because they can be used to critically analyse institutions, which is the basis for Margiela’s creative work. The Spring/Summer 90 show of Maison Martin Margiela, the third Parisian showing, is the focus of my analysis. I will pick apart the different aspects of this presentation from the clothes to location to demonstrate Derrida’s deconstruction theory.
Before we discuss the parallels of Derrida’s works, it is essential to understand his meaning when he coined “deconstruction” at the end of the 1960s. Deconstruction is a philosophical term that, while it would be difficult to define in a straightforward manner, can be understood by the idea of destroying established forms and conventions.
Signs are the means by which language conveys meaning. They consist of a’signifier” and a’signified”. The signified refers to the idea or concept that the signal points towards. It is impossible for the sign to be true, as everyone interprets it differently. For instance, a blouse is a blouse because it’s not the same as a pair pants. He elaborated on this concept, suggesting that the signs do not just depend on each other, but other signs are always present in each sign’s meaning. Other concepts, signifiers, and signs are all present in the sign to give it meaning. In an ironic twist, these concepts do not appear or disappear in the sign but can still be recognized by their trace. Derrida uses ‘difference’ to describe how meaning exists between signs.
I will use examples that illustrate how Margiela utilizes these Derridean notions to critique the entire fashion system. This includes the clothes, their function, and the industry’s mechanisms.
The 1990 Maison Martin Margiela show was a rejection of ostentatious excess that had defined fashion in the decade before. Most of these shows were held in tents around Paris’s first arrondissement. The show that was presented this time, however, had a different feel. The show was held in an old playground located in the 20th district of the capital. No seating plan was in place and the show was open to all. The models literally walked on rubble. The fashion journalists were shocked by the scene. Margiela is using Derrida’s notion that the meaning of signs comes from their difference from others, and holding a trace of what they don’t mean. The Belgian Designer forces us all to rethink predefined notions about what a Fashion Show is. She juxtaposes the expectations we have of Parisian luxury and beauty with the harsh surroundings of an affluent borough located on the fringes of the City. No traditional ‘catwalk,’ but instead, the models must change their hip-swinging steps to an everyday woman’s cautious walk so as not to trip over the uneven dirt. The catwalk of the last decade was characterized by unreachable standards of beauty and classism. Stegerhoek’s (a Margiela collaborator and hair stylist who has worked with him for many years) ‘dishevelled” hairstyles reflected these themes. Martin asked Stegenhoek for a hairstyle that looked ‘as though the woman could have done it herself’. This was in contrast to the’very appropriate’ hairstyles of the late 1980s. The open-door philosophy democratised this show. The open door philosophy democratised the show.
Margiela may have been criticizing the way fashion works and creating trends. Designers show their clothes at first on models who look like celebrities on elevated catwalks for the benefit of journalists and others with high status. This process is different than when they eventually bring these clothes down to a more accessible form, which can be worn by everyone. Margiela breaks the tradition by showcasing his clothes on women who are representative of everyday women.
This show is a multifaceted criticism of the fashion industry, and corresponds with Derrida’s purpose in writing about deconstruction. Margiela contrasts the glamour and glitz of the previous decade by sending a woman down a rubble runway with a grocery bag.
When the term ‘deconstruction’ is applied to the field of fashion, it is frequently misinterpreted as a binary opposite to the term ‘construction’, due to the clothes looking destroyed/incomplete. A common but utterly misguided simplification. The action of constructing something is called ‘constructing’. Derrida adding ‘de’ before the verb is paradoxical. This implies bidirectionality. This look explores the bidirectionality. This look explores this bidirectionality.
Margiela challenges the reliability of the symbols used to denote the main functions for clothing.
The type of clothing and how it is worn are constant indicators of social status. Plastic bags and their scruffy appearance are caricatures of the low-status clothing that’s worn. Margiela refutes that a garment of such poor quality could be read or assumed by the wearer. The model wore the garment in a Paris fashion event, which is reserved for high-end, expensive and well-made clothing. The plastic top, despite adhering Western standards of nudity and social etiquette in clothing, shows how clothing can be considered offensive even when it is made from objects that have no traditional fashion purpose.
The Maison is in line with Derrida and his practice of revealing how signs and their meanings are constantly changing. Derrida explains in Of Grammatology the way that a sign gets its meaning from the differences it has with other signs. By turning the bag upside down, the plastic bag becomes a crude nod to this idea. Margiela has tried to reveal the past of the plastic vest, which was originally a grocery bag.
In the infamous fashion label, anonymity is one of the key themes explored. In the 1980s, celebrity culture grew rapidly due to media coverage and broadcasting. Martin spent several years as an assistant to Jean Paul Gaultier a fashion designer who was at the forefront of 1980’s fashion. The Belgian designer, like many others, was not impressed by 1980s fashion and turned the other direction in order to reimagine fashion’s framework. Margiela chose to avoid publishing personal portraits or interviews and let the clothes speak. This incognito decision is best exemplified by the infamous label. Figure 3 shows this. Labels play a huge role in high-end fashion, as they are used to signify authenticity. Derrida wrote that a label could not unambiguously denote a high-priced or low-priced piece of clothing. Margiela believes that the value of clothing is not determined by the designer, but the time and thought that went into their design and production. The logo on the front label of the bag is a parody of the lazy embossed logos designers use to justify the exorbitant prices they charge. The supermarket bag is made from a cheap material, but it has been reshaped into a tank top. This makes the bag resemble the clothing that’s usually covered in logos and doesn’t have much in terms of design or fabric. The lazy signatures that are used as design elements could be interpreted as a symbol of the consumerist nature in the fashion industry. Hierarchical power structures have come to represent clothing. The empty label is the easiest way to identify Margiela’s intention to question the substructures of the fashion industry. The blank tab was also designed to provoke consumers that expect to see at least some form of legitimacy when purchasing such expensive goods.
Margiela, in keeping with his anonymity and disdain for the fashion system as a whole, chose to present the collection using street models, rejecting notions that ‘high-end shows must be dominated by top models. Derrida’s ‘trace’ idea is again embodied through binary opposites. As soon as the phrase “Paris fashion show” is mentioned, images of celebrity models and ticketed shows come to mind. Yet, this connotation contains a hint of what it’s not: a rundown place and its women.
Derrida wasn’t trying to define or give a methodology for deconstruction. Payne emphasized the difficulty of defining a deconstruction term because it is a process that occurs automatically when a text is being read. Margiela’s shoes reflect this. Margiela doesn’t explain anything, and the shoes are “deconstructed” by simply existing. Figure 4 depicts the tabi boot that models wore at the Spring/Summer 90 show. The split-toed shoes were presented in small variations every year since 1989 until today, 2020. They have become an iconic item of footwear. The boot is inspired by the 15th-century Japanese traditional sock, ‘jika tabi’. Figure 4 depicts the tabi footwear that was shown at the Spring/Summer 1991 show. Geert Brumoot says that the Tabi boots were the same ones that were used in the Autumn/Winter 89 show. Margiela first painted the shoes with a white base, then added a graffiti style. These shoes are a response to the fragility of ‘avant garde’. These shoes are marketed to Western consumers as an experimental and new garment. The Japanese farmer would see these shoes as a variation of an old item of clothing. It is not considered avant-garde. Margiela questions the notion of what constitutes a new idea or design by painting over a pair of shoes previously worn. The tabi shoe is an altered version of the jika-tabi, which it refers to. Margiela has tackled the meaning of the word avant-garde by reusing a shoe in the original colour and simply painting it over. Is it possible that the exact same pair of shoes which was considered avant-garde loses its status by changing just their colour? The shoe is slightly different, the colour has changed but it’s still the same idea.
The white paint used by the famous fashion house has become a design signature. White paint is used to signify the use of open historical references. Margiela once said that white represents fragility. Margiela has said that white represents unity, honesty and purity. The layers of paint will crack as the boot is worn, revealing its palimpsest design. The shoe is a symbol of designers who have tried to hide their inspirations, and contrasted against Margiela’s brutal honesty, which makes his references in the form clear.
The shoes’ unsettling character is attributed to revealing the erogenous region between the large and index feet. This section can cause a wide range of reactions. By exposing an area that is typically hidden, the shoe illustrates that fashion has no real avant-garde ideas, because it’s always linked to the human body.
Margiela’s time would have never imagined that these shoes existed. The shoes were out of fashion for the period, but they raise questions about the definitions of high and lower fashion. They also pose the question as to how clothes are deemed suitable to walk the Paris catwalk. The plastic bag vest was also a way to criticize the fashion system. Another play on high fashion is seen in the paint used on the shoes. They resemble graffiti found on the walls of the area surrounding the fashion event in Paris.
Margiela is trying to decode, redefine and reveal the rules of high fashion. He also wants to challenge the insatiable search for the new avant-garde. He does this in a Derridean fashion, by not giving a clear answer or revealing his opinions. Instead, he prods onlookers into asking themselves what they think. Deconstruction is a process that involves deconstructing. There is no absolute truth. Instead there are many possible interpretations. They change constantly from one person to another, and also place to put.
Martin Margiela is credited with transforming high-end couture from the ostentatious frivolity that was prevalent in 1980’s fashion to a more conceptual branch of art in 1990’s. Margiela clearly understood Derridean text and interpreted them uniquely in fashion. Margiela exemplifies Derrida’s philosophy of deconstruction. His work is a great example of how to think critically. Margiela was called a deconstructionist by a number of journalists before, but their interpretations were largely wrong. The eponymous fashion brand and deconstruction are both philosophical concepts that I wanted to compare. It is not a blasphemous interpretation of the French fashion phrase, “la destroy”, which could be interpreted as an antifashion, destructive message. This central concept is woven into every aspect of the Maison’s fashion collection. The show’s location, the bag that was turned into a top and the second-hand shoes were all based on the idea of a sign being given meaning by its differences from other signs. They left a trace as to what they are not. The logo on a bag and the anonymity that comes with the blank label is a way to deconstruct our notions of authenticity and value. The repainted shoes and the second-hand shoes are meant to show how each person perceives signs differently, and criticize the lack of substance and importance of the quest for the next avant garde. Margiela is a Belgian designer who, through his attempts to decode fashion’s insatiable pursuit of a new avant-garde as well as redefine its parameters, has become a personification of that.