Comme de Garcons, 2006, the design combines two opposing aesthetics giving both a presence but denying either totality. Both garments are deconstructed from their original forms and are in play with one another.
Karl Lagerfeld, Dries Van Noten, and Hussein Chalayan, F 2009
Le Destroy: Gill states that “deconstruction fashion” is an attempt to associate fashion with deconstruction in four different interpretations of “le destroy”: Anti fashion, recession, zeitgeist, eco-fashion and theoretical dress. Gill looks at these different ideas through the designs of Margiela.
Anti Fashion: Influences taken from the “street” by designers like Westwood, Gaultier, Versace, Galliano and Hamnet. Inspired by counter culture’s ability to uncover taboo sexual and political ideas, fudge gender roles and explicit nudity. Anti fashion goes against the basic purpose of clothing: functionality. It renders clothes unusable, distasteful and aged. However, it might not be “deconstructive” because of it’s direct, playful dialogue with fashion, it refuses a negative critique.
Zeitgeist: (spirit of the times). This interpretation associates decaying clothing as a response to the decaying economic, political, aesthetic and environmental crises as a mirror image of the social stress and degradation around us. Patching is said to allude to the ensuing disaster where all resources will be depleted. Could be seen as an aesthetic crisis in response to formalism. However, this interpretation seems to depend too much on history without including other influences. It images an undisputed bond between cause and effect.
Eco-Fashion: Presents the image of recyclability- literally making recycling fashionable. Could also represent the fallibility of mass/machine-produced clothing by leaving gaping holes and shreds. However, since the production of these items is not based in preservation or recycling, this argument holds little weight.
Theoretical Dress: stems from writings of Derrida who defined deconstructional analysis as “a literary backlash arguing that no work can have a fixed meaning, based on the complexity of language and usage. Liberating application of theory” Argues that by undoing the garment, it is liberated of functionality and thrown totally into the realm of aesthetics. However, this theory is debunked because clothes are not liberated from functionality because they still serve the purpose to hide nudity, also disregarded because it mixes a heavy philosophy with a light subject.
Philosopher Jaques Derrida had troubles reconciling the word “deconstructionism” with a set definition. He said that the definition of anything claims a universal truth that cannot be validated. This questioned the formation of western society by claiming that reason is uncertain.
Tries to undefine deconstructionism saying that it is not a explainable thing, but rather an event that “goes on”
Gill concludes that deconstructed fashion is not physical representation of philosophy , but the dialogue between the two gives us a new way to interpret fashion. She argues that Margiela’s intent with his line is to return focus to the object. Margiela has created the idealized form of fashion by the production of a garment that illuminates the forms of construction.