Читать книгу Re-presentation Policies of the Fashion Industry - Eleni Mouratidou - Страница 13

Fashion is a creative industry that “has become a model for many industries, such as the automobile industry, which now varies in color to the other” (Godart 2016, p. 97, author’s translation). In particular, it is integrated into the capitalist system of conglomerates, groups in possession of numerous brands in the sector, aiming at oligopoly, or even monopoly of the latter. This industrial organization affects all segments of fashion, from the bottom of the range to luxury goods. Emblematic brands in the luxury sector with constantly growing sales, such as Louis Vuitton, Dior, Gucci or Balenciaga, belong to groups such as LVMH for the first two and Kering for the other two²².

As for luxury ready-to-wear, whose projected values are based on quality, rarity and selectivity, it has to face its trivialization, both symbolic and commercial, for two main reasons. The first is the change in its manufacturing methods. Luxury today is produced according to semi-industrial or industrial processes, with craftsmanship being reserved for certain exclusive and unique products. Take the case of the Louis Vuitton brand. Founded in 1854, initially specializing in the handcrafted manufacture of travel trunks, it inaugurated its first ready-to-wear collection in 1998; it currently manages “45 directly operated boutiques around the world”²³. This beneficial expansion for the LVMH group has led to a certain trivialization of Louis Vuitton brand products, which have become omnipresent and particularly popular. As Bruno Remaury notes:

Under the effect of the unprecedented transformation of the object into merchandise, we are witnessing in a few decades a shift in the very definition of luxury, from the individual and aristocratic vision of luxury (luxury as use, election, way of life) to that of a mass-produced object (luxury as a consumer item). (Remaury 2011, p. 307, author’s translation)

Luxury has to deal with the possible dysphoric values that may emanate from its presence “in a new territory [...] managed by financial groups, based on an industry perspective oriented towards mass markets” (Barrère and Santagata 2005, p. 262, author’s translation).

The second reason for this trivialization is the dysphoric discourses and values that are often associated with the fashion industry in general. Many brands are relocating factories and workshops, which is a strategic choice that allows “companies to reduce their labor costs” (Koromyslov et al. 2013, p. 38, author’s translation)²⁴. This has two consequences. The first is symbolic, since consumers associate the offshoring process with fast fashion, mass consumption and lower quality. The second is managerial and directly linked to the working conditions and remuneration of workers in developing countries or countries undergoing major economic crises.

The fashion industry is also subject to denunciations concerning some of its managerial practices: conditions of recruitment of female and male models, moral and sexual harassment. If the majority of the models remain silent on the psychic and physical pressures suffered, the revelations of some draw a picture of a particularly different view from the aesthetic, beautiful and smooth face of the fashion industry:

Non-consensual kisses, spankings, pinches. […]. Lack of adequate space for the model to change. Persecution from editors, photographers, stylists and clients who want us to be topless or nude. Publication of nude pictures when the contract stipulates that it is forbidden to use them. Unauthorized massages. Inappropriate e-mails, SMS and calls. Pressure to consume alcohol while underage. [...]. Being forced to sleep at the photographer’s home rather than being able to sleep in a hotel. Being threatened with losing my job if I don’t cooperate. Being called difficult, feminist, virgin, diva, when I talk or say no. I’ve lost count. And that’s just what’s “easy” to share, and that happens at such common times as 9:00 in the morning, at fittings or at lunch.²⁵

Likewise, the recruitment criteria for models walking the runway during fashion weeks are also subject to denunciations. With the fashion brands advocating the idea that their collections are more valued when they are worn by slim, even skinny bodies, the models on the catwalk during these periods are also under pressure: forced to lose weight in a short period of time to go from size 4 to size 2, some daring to speak out and publicize the practices of this profession²⁶. In addition to this, studies have shown that fashion is a particularly polluting industry,²⁷ while numerous journalistic investigations demonstrate the tax tricks devised by the industry’s conglomerates²⁸.

Even if the industry’s communication and media strategies can be interpreted as a generalized response to the “rise in consumer suspicion and saturation of marketing in general and promotional discourse in particular” (Berthelot-Guiet et al. 2014, p. 263, author’s translation), it is also because of all the constraints described above that the fashion industry is bound not to restrict itself to canonical promotional strategies. Quite the contrary, it must promote itself through its speaking engagements, which vary according to the media, according to the mobilized media and the promised communication contracts, but which converge toward a staging strategy and minimization of the values and dysphoric qualities associated with it. Throughout the first and second parts, I will attempt to demonstrate how the occupation of the spheres of politics, art, culture, the sacred and religion responds to a strategy of market mediation based on re-presentational policies designed and practiced by the fashion industry. Because they emerge through diverse communicational practices, because they are designed for a multiplicity of media and because they tend towards a general occupation of the fashion industry of the media space and sometimes even of the public space, these re-presentation policies form a generalized apparatus.