The Body the Dress Invents
When a dress makes a body look unfamiliar, we tend to assume the dress has distorted something that was previously neutral. That assumption deserves more attention than it usually receives.
Rei Kawakubo's Spring/Summer 1997 collection for Comme des Garçons, Body Meets Dress–Dress Meets Body, placed asymmetrical padding beneath stretch garments. Soft swellings interrupted familiar outlines, gathering where conventional fashion might have tried to remove volume. Gingham made some of the shapes seem almost disarmingly domestic. The Met's account describes the collection as a challenge to the accepted proportions of the fashionable body. [1]
The effect unsettles the expectation that clothing should explain the figure beneath it. Instead, it becomes difficult to decide where the garment's shape ends and the body's begins.
But clothing has always participated in making the body we think we see. A shoulder pad changes the apparent width of a shoulder. A structured bodice changes the relationship between waist and chest. We recognize those interventions so readily that they can stop looking like interventions at all.
Kawakubo's collection makes that familiarity harder to trust. Its unusual volumes draw attention to a process that more conventional clothes can conceal: the dressed body is already a collaboration.
Some contemporary reviews used the language of deformity and illness to describe the collection, as the Met records. [1] Those descriptions reveal the limits of the visual vocabulary being applied. Faced with a body that would not organize itself into an approved silhouette, critics reached for terms that made unfamiliarity sound pathological.
I am interested in the point where aesthetic discomfort becomes a judgment about which bodies should be visible. Calling a shape strange can be a description. Calling it wrong makes a different claim.
The collection does not have to be comfortable, practical, or universally flattering to expose that difference. Nor should an experimental garment be treated as proof that the fashion industry has become inclusive. A runway can question a standard while remaining selective about the people it allows to embody the question.
What survives in the archive is therefore an unresolved proposition. These clothes do not offer a replacement formula for the ideal figure. They interrupt the demand for a formula.
Even the title suggests a meeting rather than a hierarchy. The dress does not simply obey the body, and the body does not merely submit to the dress. Something is produced through their encounter that neither possesses alone.
Looking at the collection now, I find its most difficult question is also its most ordinary. When we say that clothes should flatter us, what are we asking them to confirm? There may be pleasure in recognizing ourselves in a familiar silhouette. There may also be value in a garment that makes recognition briefly uncertain, leaving room to ask who taught us what a body ought to look like.
Comments