How can fashion photography influence the way we psychologically relate to our personal dress?
How can fashion photography influence the way we psychologically relate to our personal dress?
Definitions
Dress – As defined by Mary Roach-Higgins and Joanne B. Eicher’s in 1992, “Dress of an individual is an assemblage of modifications of the body and/or supplements to the body.” This includes a myriad of garments, accessories, all different body modifications, anything that is placed on the body or done to the body that changes its appearance, scent, feeling, etc.
Fashion – Fashion is defined by change, something currently in fashion will not always be. In the article by Patrick Aspers and Frédéric Godart they define fashion as “an unplanned process of recurrent change against a backdrop of order in the public realm.”
Garment – A singular clothing item.
Introduction
Fashion photography has, since the early 1900s, been a crucial element of the fashion industry. The way we dress intertwines heavily with our personal identity, it can relate to our religion, gender, age, hobbies, work, class, and personal style. Fashion photography can greatly affect the meaning of an outfit, and the way we read a person’s identity through their clothing. Fashion photography can place context on a garment, through techniques of narrative, characterisation, and symbolism. In this essay, I will argue that by manipulating visual perception and social cues, fashion photography significantly influences our psychological connection to personal dress, through this it affects social norms, self-esteem, and perception of self and others. This essay will begin by discussing the psychology of fashion, how one connects to clothing both physically and cognitively before looking at the way fashion photography has been used throughout history to imbue garments with meaning. Finally, I will relate this to contemporary fashion photography practises and the ways fashion photography is used today to influence how we view clothing.
1.
In sociology, fashion is something that has been widely dismissed as being trivial for its association with women and vanity. Because of this, research is lacking. It hasn’t been until more recent years that philosophers and sociologists began theorising and valuing the world of fashion. Most of the first theories of fashion noted that fashion is driven by imitation (Spencer 1897, Tarde 1890). For example, fashion may be used by a member of a lower class to imitate someone of a higher class. This allows one to feel more belonging in a community, easing psychological stress (Simmel 1904). Fashion, then becomes a social act, used as a means of connection, or even disconnection, depending on the wearer’s intent.
Embodiment is the key theory to understanding our relationship between body and dress. As theorised by Merleau-Ponty (1947), the self is located within the body, which is in turn located in time and space. When experiencing dress comfortably, we may not notice its presence. However, if something is ill fitting, harsh against the skin or simply uncomfortable we may experience “epidermic self-awareness” (Eco, 1986), in which we are made aware of the end of our body against the beginning of a garment.
While dressing is something both male and female bodies perform, it is important to acknowledge the different experiences that one can have with the body dependant on their sex and other physical factors, and therefore within dress. In a 2012 study by Hajo Adam and Adam D. Galinsky, participants wearing a lab coat showed increased selective attention compared to those in their own clothes. Furthermore, those participants told it was a doctor's coat exhibited greater sustained attention than those told it was a painter's coat. Proving that the symbolic meaning of clothing, linked with the physical act of wearing them influences our psychological processes. This experience has been called enclothed cognition.
While dress is a physical action, we primarily dress to be socially acceptable, as body without dress is thought of as disruptive. The way we dress is often dictated by social factors, dependant on the level of freedom one has at a social meeting. Douglas compares this restriction to a second body stating that we have a physical body, and a social body (1973). She states that the social body is what makes the physical body appropriate for public display. One person’s opinion on our social body can impact the way we use it, as well as the way we view it. The social body can also be used to be socially disruptive, whether intentionally or not. The social expectations regarding dress are huge, in relation to gender, religion, politics, etc. Depending on who you are, where in the world you are located, your age, your size, and factors we don’t even consider, society has different sets of unwritten rules for us. For example, in the workplace, where gender roles are often enforced, women may be required to wear make-up and heels, but if men were to dress this way it would be deemed inappropriate. Female bodies are expected to look attractive and feminine, while male bodies are instructed to look professional and powerful. This effects not only the way the body experiences the workplace, but also how the mind does. Wearers can also communicate their values and identities through wearing garments that, outside of this social context, lose most if not all meaning (Aspers & Godart 2013). For example, tattoos in Japan can be seen as a connection to the Yakuza (the organized crime unit of modern Japan), however in countries like Australia, tattoos are simply another form of dress (McCallum, 1995, p.128).
It is also important to consider western society's aversion to nudity. This traces back to religious principles, particularly Judeo-Christian beliefs emphasizing separation between humans and animals and the sacred and the profane (L.M. Friedman & J.L. Grossman, 2013). In these terms covering genitals separates humans from animals. Today, societal discomfort with nudity largely centres on its perceived link to sexuality. In Victoria, Australia, laws on public nudity are ambiguous, with terms like "obscene" and "sexual" undefined (Summary Offences Act 1966). Despite legal uncertainties, social norms dictate modest attire. Safety concerns, particularly regarding women and children vulnerable to exploitation, also shape dress codes. Thus, dress standards reflect both societal expectations and personal preferences regarding body coverage. Religions outside of the Judeo-Christian sphere also have a strong history and belief system around dress and modesty - making religion another important aspect in how one chooses to dress.
The above mentioned effects of dress and fashion on ones person can be seen in the way fashion photographs are created and how they influence our own perception of clothing and self. The way dress and self overlap allows fashion photographs to use the psychology of clothes to make them more appealing to a certain audience. The way we view clothing in a designed image alters the way we view the clothing on ourselves, and in turn, alters our own view of self.
2.
In the early day of fashion photography, the camera was used simply to document. With the rise of artists like, Martin Munkásci (Fig. 1) and Edward Steichen (Fig. 2) in the early 20th century, this quickly changed. Fashion photography became an art form allowing photographers to put their own artistic style into their work. The world of fashion photography and art photography continuously began to overlap. Fashion magazines often employed art photographers to create campaigns as they were able to take the imagery in a different direction than a typical fashion photographer could. A photographer who conveys this is Deborah Turbeville. Her most recognized series “Bathhouse” was created as a campaign for Vogue in May of 1975; today, numerous images from this collection are sold as art prints. Turbeville places the models within a bathhouse scene (Fig. 3), all disconnected from each other with only one looking towards the camera. She uses an effective blur that creates an effect of steam, this offers a dreamlike energy. The rundown looking bathhouse beside the sculpturally posed models brings together a mood of decay and sensuality. The image takes away reality and replaces it with wonderment and a craving to be part of the ever-glamourous group who rest in the dirty bathhouse. The models are clothed in large underwear, robes, and head wraps. While these items on their own don’t evoke a glamorous, sensual mood, the image conveys them in this way. The combination of the mystery behind the setting and characters, and the chic poses, wraps the clothing in new meaning. Moreover, fashion photography taps into deeper social and psychological themes. Turbeville's use of near nudity and the taboo setting of a women's bathroom/change room adds layers of voyeurism and rebellion, making the clothing appear more desirable. This association of garments with taboo and fantasy encourages viewers to explore their own identities and boundaries through fashion, seeking garments that reflect their aspirations and inner desires.
Fashion photography has become so intertwined with the world of fashion, that the identity associated with a brand or garment is often decided by the images themselves. For example, in 1994, when Gucci was on the verge of bankruptcy, Tom Ford was appointed their new creative director. One of his first moves was to collaborate with Mario Testino, to bring a new look to the label. This collaboration was hugely successful, and combined Testino’s vision of glamour and sex, with the already rebellious face of Gucci, and the sophisticated style that Ford brought, to create the new Gucci brand (Fig. 4). Testino’s striking use of light and shadow, and the choice to put the imagery in black and white, highlighted the sensuality of the models, and, by extension, the clothing.
3.
Not only is fashion photography heavily affected by the climate of the fashion industry, but the opposite is also true. Photography has made fashion hugely accessible, no longer is the fashion industry exclusive to attendees of fashion weeks. The democratisation of fashion through photography has allowed for more diversity in designers as well as a larger audience. Fashion photography is the first view most audiences will have of a collection. This means the collection will be remembered as it is portrayed in the images. The creative direction of a fashion campaign can place an identity onto clothing, exemplified by Corinne Day's early work in the 90s. She became a key figure in popularizing the “heroin chic” aesthetic, notably discovering Kate Moss, the face of this look. This controversial aesthetic was said to glamorize drug use and an unhealthy lifestyle, diverging from the traditionally idealistic beauty of fashion photography. Day adopted a family album snapshot aesthetic—grungy, candid, with unconventional lighting and compositions (Fig. 5). While the heroin chic aesthetic may have inadvertently promoted unhealthy lifestyles, it also allowed fashion to be viewed outside traditional contexts, resonating with those who didn’t fit the conventional beauty mould. This created a new narrative within fashion, particularly appealing to younger demographics. However, the term “heroin chic” is grounded in reality; models and photographers were often engaged in lifestyles involving hard drugs and recklessness.
Fashion photographers also used cinematic inspiration to imbue fashion with identity, meaning or narrative. One of the most well-known photographers who took inspiration from film is Gregory Crewdson (Fig. 6), who creates elaborate sets which feel like movies in themselves. Crewdson’s work often requires elaborate lighting set ups and large sets requiring meticulous planning and production. These scenes often have the viewer left feeling like a voyeuristic party to the scene, with no involvement in what is happening within. An example of a cinematic take on fashion photography includes Cedric Buchets Prada campaign for the spring/summer collection of 2001 (Fig. 7). These images use camera angles that replicate filmic ones, looking down from a high crane. The models appear on a sandy beach; they cross paths but don’t interact, leaving the viewer suspended in a place between the surreal and the real. The viewer is also left looking beyond the frame, knowing that there is more to the story that occurs outside the image, this gives Buchet the control. The garments are then not only connected to an image and a body, but to a story and character. In this image, (Fig. 7) one model appears in red stiletto heels and a white collared dress with slicked back hair and simple makeup. This alludes to her sophistication and easy air of glamour. The unpractical shoe choice also adds to the surreal feeling, attaching an unpractical shoe choice to a glamourous ideal.
4.
Fashion photography of today differs greatly from that of the 90s and early 2000s, this is a result of ever-increasing social media usage, specifically by young people (who often have the biggest impact on the trends of fashion). Traditional fashion magazines, once the cornerstone of fashion media, have largely transitioned to digital formats. This shift is driven by the rapid pace of trend evolution, fuelled by social media's oversaturation of content, which eliminates the need for physical copies. However, what we view on social media is vastly different to what was printed in a fashion magazine. The narrative and creativity involved in fashion photography is becoming overlooked, instead of moods, characters and feelings turning into diverse fashion trends; single items are being promoted by social media influencers, which are then cheaply purchased, before being quickly replaced by a new trending garment. This constant cycle impacts our psychological relation to dress, by promoting a mindset of disposability and rapid change. With social media making the effects of fashion imagery more immediate and temporary.
Nonetheless, fashion magazines are slowly coming back to popularity with a younger generation. These new magazines are typically niche and smaller in audience, lending more towards having a group of avid followers of a certain aesthetic rather than wanting broad approval. The new era of magazines is typically both digital and printed, following the Gen Z trend of going back to a more physical, less digital lifestyle. This shift can assist young people in establishing a deeper connection to dress, emphasizing the importance of personal identity and lasting value.
BRICKS magazine, an independent London-based magazine follows this new model. They focus on emerging creatives who explore socio-political issues within their work, marketing towards a young, artistic demographic who care about planet, and politics. By sharing fashion alongside these topics, BRICKS gives a visual aesthetic the target demographic can align with the readers values. This allows for a new way of being creative within fashion photography, allowing for new fashion photographers to showcase the difference within this fast-paced generation. Further deepening our connection to personal dress through linking styles to social and political identities.
A brand that has adjusted well to the change of pace is Heaven by Marc Jacobs. By utilising social medias most popular stars, they have created a campaign that not only speaks to the fashion world lovers, but also appeals to people on the outside. This campaign, shot by Zamar Velez (2024), illustrates a new trend in fashion photography: the "anti-aesthetic," reminiscent of the 90s' heroin chic but devoid of its negative connotations like drug use and unhealthy body standards. In an image staring Ice Spice, (Fig. 8) the blue and pink cotton candy clouds emit the same whimsical aura as the Sandy Liang x Heaven by Marc Jacobs bow handle bag. Even if the bag isn’t the first thing seen, the whole image captures its essence. The hard, on-camera flash and high-contrast background evokes the Gen Z trend of simple point-and-shoot digital photography. Through this campaign, Heaven by Marc Jacobs is inviting a new era of fashion enthusiasts into the fashion world and allowing for them to deepen their personal connection to dress, shaping identities, values, and a sense of belonging.
In conclusion, the influence of fashion photography on the psychological relationship we have with our personal dress is profound and multifaceted. This exploration underscores how fashion photography transcends mere documentation to become a powerful medium that shapes and reflects societal norms, personal identities, and cultural narratives. The ability of fashion photography to craft narratives and characters that imbue garments with meaning demonstrates its significant impact on our personal relationship with dress. For instance, Deborah Turbeville's work evokes a sense of mystery, sensuality, and rebellion, influencing viewers' perceptions and desires. It enables garments to hold symbolic value as well as aesthetic appeal, shaping not only how we choose to present ourselves but also how we wish to be perceived by others. In the digital age, the influence of social media has transformed fashion photography. While some may argue that its creativity is weakening, I contend that it is simply being used in new ways. Modern fashion is shifting towards authenticity and sustainability, as seen in the rise of anti-aesthetic photography. Fashion photography will continue to evolve alongside the world itself, but its influence on our personal relationship with dress will remain significant, forming a crucial intersection between fashion, identity, and psychology. Examining fashion photography’s influence on an audience has prompted me to consider the impact my fashion imagery may have on the viewer. In my portfolio, I will focus on capturing the personal connection we have with clothing. However, I recognise that fashion photographs inherently convey meaning, and therefore, I will attempt to convey truth and authenticity within my imagery.
Reference List
Adam, H. and Galinsky, A.D. 2012, 'Enclothed cognition', Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 918-925.
Aspers, P. and Godart, F. 2013, 'Sociology of fashion: Order and change', Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 39, pp. 171–192.
Barnard, M. 1996, Fashion as communication, Routledge, London.
Delyfer, C. 2019, 'Introduction', e-Rea, vol. 16, no. 2, viewed 21 May 2024, http://journals.openedition.org/erea/7512.
Entwistle, J. 2000, The fashioned body: Fashion, dress, and modern social theory, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Friedman, L.M. and Grossman, J.L. 2013, ‘A private underworld: The naked body in law and society’, Buffalo Law Review, vol. 61, pp. 149-194.
Goodman, J., Knotts, G. and Jackson, J. 2007, ‘Doing dress and the construction of women’s gender identity’, Journal of Occupational Science, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 100–107.
Johnson, K., Lennon, S.J. and Rudd, N. 2014, ‘Dress, body and self: Research in the social psychology of dress’, Fashion and Textiles, vol. 1, p. 20.
McCallum, D. 1995, 'Historical and cultural dimensions of the tattoo in Japan', in A. Rubin (ed.), Marks of civilization, University of California, Los Angeles, pp. 109-134.
Merleau-Ponty, M. 1945, Phénoménologie de la perception, Gallimard, Paris.
Roach-Higgins, M.E. & Eicher, J.B., 1992. Dress and identity. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 10(4), pp.1-8.
Shinkle, E. 2017, ‘The feminine awkward: Graceless bodies and the performance of femininity in fashion photographs’, Fashion Theory, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 201–217.
Victorian Consolidated Acts 1966, Summary Offences Act 1966 - Sect 19 Sexual exposure, viewed 21 May 2024, http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/vic/consol_act/soa1966189/s19.html.