Art seen from outside: Non-artistic legitimation within the field of fashion design

(1)

1. Introduction

Oneofthechallengesthatanyﬁeldofculturalproductionmayhavetofaceisthedissolution,orat least the attenuation, of its external boundaries, along with the transformation of its internal hierarchies.Inthespeciﬁccaseofartisticproduction,theboundariesthatdistinguishthisdomain

Art

seen

from

outside:

Non-artistic

legitimation

within

the

ﬁeld

of

fashion

design

Marco

Pedroni

a,

*

,

Paolo

Volonte´

b

a

DipartimentodiSociologia,Universita` CattolicadiMilano,LargoGemelli1,20123Milano,Italy

b _Dipartimento_di_Design,_Politecnico_di_Milano,_Via_Durando_38/A,₂₀₁₅₈_Milano,_Italy

Availableonline20March2014

* Correspondingauthor.

(2)

fromothersthatclaimﬁneartsstatus,buthavetraditionallybeenexcluded,havegrownincreasingly blurred. Many cases have been studied in this regard, such as photography (Bourdieu, 1990), cinematography(Baumann,2001),classicalmusic(DeNora,1991),jazz(Lopes,2002;Peterson,1972), andfashion(GeczyandKaraminas,2012).

Inthisframework,therepresentationofartpredominantineachcontiguousdomain,ontheone hand,isasourceofinformationaboutthedynamicsofcontactbetweenthetwospheres,whilstonthe other, it sets a benchmark that art must consider as it undergoescurrent transformations and constantlyseekstoreconstructandredeﬁneitssocialidentity.Fortheidentityofart,itisalsothe productofhowitisperceivedbythosewhostandonitsborders.

Thisarticleexaminestherelationshipbetweenartandoneofthoseadjoiningworlds—thatof fashion.Itdwells,inparticular,ontherepresentationofartprevalentamongfashiondesignersofone oftheleadingcontemporarycapitalsoffashion,namelyMilan.By‘‘representation,’’wemeanwhat designers say about themselves in terms of their identities and practices, how they perceive themselves as professionals, and how they represent themselves when they account their experience.

Thisarticleutilisesempiricalresearchtofocuson theprocessesbywhichtheculturalfield of fashion is legitimated. We show that—whereas in many documented cases, a field of cultural productionislegitimatedbybeingelevatedfrom‘‘commerce’’to‘‘art’’(Baumann,2007)orthroughits ‘‘artification’’(Heinichand Shapiro, 2012; Shapiro,2007)—Milanese fashiondesigners do notsee themselvesasartists;rather,theylegitimatetheirindividualcreativity inoppositiontoart,even thoughbothscholarsandprotagonistsofthetwosectorshavecreated,atleastatarhetoricallevel,an intenseandambiguouslinkagebetweenfashionandart.ThecaseofMilanesefashionaddsbreadth anddepthtothetheoryofartificationandtotheproductionofculturetheory(DiMaggio,1991,2000; Peterson,1994),showingthatcomparisonwiththefineartsbyactorsinafieldofculturalproduction inconstantsearchoflegitimationmaycomeaboutthroughchannelsotherthanassimilationintothe worldofart.

2. Artandfashion

Scholarswhoconcernthemselveswiththeculturaleconomy(Scott,2000),theaestheticeconomy (Entwistle,2009)orthecreativeeconomy(Howkins,2001)haveshownthatthereisalinkageamong developmentsthatdistinguishthemultipleformsofcreativeactivityinmetropolitancontexts.For example,artisticvitalityisacharacteristiccommontothecitiesinwhichfashioniscreated(cities, note,whichcoincidewithfourorﬁvemetropolisesintheWesternworld,namelyParis,NewYork, London,Milanand,partly,Tokyo,commonlyknownas‘‘thefashioncapitals:’’seeBrewardandGilbert, 2006)becausetheyarecitiesinwhichtherehasdevelopedageneraleconomyofcreativitycomprising art,theatreandmusictogetherwithfashion,artgalleriesandnightclubs,whichgeneratesbothproﬁt andculture.Thisfostersanurbanfabricinwhichoperatorsinthecreativesectorestablishclose relationswitheachotherandwiththeirpublics.Overtime,theserelationshavestructuredthemselves withineventhemostintimatepartsofthevariousspheres,suchastheinstitutionsofsocialisation.In London,forexample,whichisaworldcapitalofbothfashionandart,theprincipaltrainingcoursesfor fashiondesignersaredeliveredbythecity’sfamousartschools(McRobbie,1998).Theseinstitutions fosterintheirgraduatesacultureinwhichartandfashionareonlytwodifferentwaystounderstand thesameprofessionalvocation.

AndyWarholwastheﬁrsttomoveagilelyinthenewscenariothatwehavebrieﬂydescribed. Indeed,hisnamehasbeenusedtodenoteacorrespondingeconomicsystem:theWarholeconomy (Currid,2007).ButastheWarholeconomyhasadvanced,thesuspicionhasgrownthattheNewYork artistwasonlyaprecursorofwhathasbecomeabroadertrendinwhichartistscollaboratewith industry,designhousesandmediacorporationstocreatemassmarketproductsforawideraudience. Consider,tociteaconcreteandtopicalexample,thecontemporaryJapaneseartistTakashiMurakami, whobothcreatesworksexpresslyintendedfortheartmarket(andworld)andcollaborateswiththe LouisVuittonfashionhouseinthemanufactureofmassproductslikeT-shirtsandgadgetsofvarious kinds,sometimessellingbothtypesofproductthroughthesamecommercialchannels(Thornton, 2008,pp.181–218).

(3)

The study of the relationship between the art worlds and the adjoining worlds of creative productionacquiresimportancebecauseitisinthisborderareathatemergingfeaturesoftheartistic spherebecomevisible.Assumingasanemblematiccasetherelationshipbetweenartandfashion,as weshalldohere,itisnecessaryﬁrsttorefertothedebateonwhetheritispossible,andtowhatextent, foractors,phenomenaorartefactspertainingtothefashionsystemtobelegitimatelyincludedinthe domainofthearts.

Thequestionastowhetherfashionisartmayappearnonsensicalifweconsider,ontheonehand, themasters ofﬁgurativeart(Michelangelo) and,on theother,theindustrialproduction of high-portabilitygarmentsforamasspublic(Armani).Butitbecomesamuchmorenaturalquestionifwe compare,ontheonehand,artwearorparticularcasesofartisticperformanceliketheconceptualartist JanaSterbak’smeatdress(Vanitas:FleshDressforanAlbinoAnorectic,1987)and,ontheother,the mostradicalexperimentsin‘‘fashiontobeseen’’proposed byGalliano,McQueen, ortheleading Japanesefashiondesignerswidelyregardedascreativeartistsbyartcriticsandmuseumcurators (Mears,2008,p.96).Intheselattercases,fashion—likeart—employstherhetoricofinspiration,genius, and creativity. Although fashion is essentially commercial in its nature, it comprises numerous experiencesandprofessionalstylesthatcomeclosetothemodelofartisticcreation.Fashiondesignis described as ‘‘creation;’’its most innovativeexponents are considered an‘‘avant-garde’’ able to transform contemporary aesthetics (Crane, 2000, p. 154); designers work as conceptual artists, formingmovementsandincorporatingsocialcriticismintotheirworks(seeGill,1998).Moreover,this concernsnotonlyfashiondesignbutalsofashionphotography,thedirectionoffashionshows,and otherprofessionstypicalofthesector.Fromthisperspective,itispreferabletospeak,notoffashionas art,butofartwithinfashion:thefashionsystemseemstobeaworldthatleavesampleinternalspace fortheactivitiesofpeoplewhoassumeart(ortheirrepresentationsofart)asthemodelfortheir action.

Thisdebate,ofancientorigin(itcanbetracedbacktotheeighteenthcentury,asshownbyMorini, 2012,p.35),becameparticularlyanimatedinthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury.Thequestion ‘‘Isfashionart?’’explicitlyposedbyanarticlepublishedin1967inthebulletinoftheMetropolitan MuseumofArt(Norelletal.,1967)becamethesubjectofdebatebyfashiontheorists(Kim,1998; Miller,2007;Steele,2012)andartcritics.Amongthelatter,MichaelBoodrobluntlydeclaredthathe consideredthetwospheres entirelyincompatible because‘‘artis artand fashionisanindustry’’ (Boodro,2011[1990],p.369).Inotherwords,thecommercialandserialnatureofanideativeactivity excludesitsartisticvalueapriori.Ofcourse,thepreviouslymentionedcaseofMurakamiconfutesthis bluntdismissal.Thereobviouslyexistmorenuancedthesesontheartisticqualitiesoffashionthat acknowledgeitsdistinctivelyambivalentnature:acapacitytobebothfunctionalandartistic,both commercialandcultural(McNeil,2008),andindissolublyboundupwithconsumption(Martin,1998). Thedebatehasbecomeevenmoreanimatedsincethe1980s,afterthecontroversialretrospectiveof 1983withwhichtheMetropolitanMuseumofArtcelebratedthecareerofYvesSaintLaurent.The entryofa couturier,forthat matteronestillalive, intothetemple ofartwasanunprecedented occurrencebecauseitseeminglyinstitutionalisedthestatusoffashiondesignersasartists.Astatus thatCharlesFrederickWorth—conventionallyconsideredthefatherofhautecouture—hadalready claimedforhimselfinthenineteenthcenturywhenhedeclared,‘‘Iamanartist,’’asreportedbyTaine (1867).

For alongtime,therefore,voices internalandexternaltothefashionworld,but attimesalso internaltotheartworld,haveadvancedtheideathatcertaincreationsproducedbytheformercanbe equatedwiththoseofthelatter.Ourpurposeinthisarticleisnottoreconstructthisdebateindetail, nortoanswerthequestionastotheartisticityoffashion—aquestionthatwebelievetobemisleading andfutile.Instead,weintendtoshedlightontheinteractionbetweenthetwoworldsand,especially, onhowcontemporaryfashiondesignersperceiveart.

3. Threedifferentperspectives

Fashion studies have investigated the relation between fashion and art from three main perspectivesthathaverespectivelyfocusedonobjects,practices,andtheinstitutionalsetting.Theﬁrst domain—theonemostfrequentlyinvestigated—isthatofobjects,orofartisticartefactsandfashion

(4)

products.Aquestionveryoftenasked(Bickers,2002;Sischy,2004;Townsend,2002)isthis:canthe creationsoftheforemostfashiondesignersbeequatedwithworksofart?Orputmorecautiously:are therefashioncreationsthatcouldbeincludedina historyofWesternart?Theanswersgivenby several scholarsand actorsrefertoa seriesofvariables concerningthepropertiesof anartefact: whetheritisinnovative;whetheritcorrespondstothestylisticchoicesofawell-establishedartistic movement;whetheritisunique,multipleorserial;whetheritisrare;andwhetherithasnoutility otherthan aesthetic contemplation.Under theseconditions,theartefactmeets theconventional criteriaforevaluationasanaestheticobject.Afashiondesignerwillthereforeberegardedasbeingan artist(ornot)whenitisdeemedthathisorhercreationsexhibit(ordonot)thepropertiestypicalof worksofart.

Notethat,fromthisperspective,muchlesssalienceisusuallygiventothequestionsinreverse: whether,underwhatconditions,andtowhatextentartisequivalenttofashion.Theasymmetryof treatmentobviouslyderivesfromthefactthat,whilstfashionaspirestolegitimationasartbecause thisbringsprestigeandalsoproﬁt,noartaspirestobeingconsideredfashion,sincethiswoulddemote itfromtherealmoftheeternal(art)tothatoftheephemeral(fashion).And,contrarytothehistorical evidence,mostofusareconvincedthatworksofarthavealwaysbeensuchandwillalwaysremain such.

Thesecondareaofinquiryinvestigatedbystudiesoffashionandartconsistsofpeopleandtheir practices:artistsandfashiondesigners,waysof‘‘doing’’artandwaysof‘‘doing’’fashion.Inthissecond case,thekeyquestionnolongerconcernsartefacts butinsteadpeopleand theirbehaviours.Itis thereforeaskedwhethertherearefashiondesignerswhosepracticescanbelikenedtothosemost frequentamong artists.Thisquestionraisesa seriesoffurtherones. Whatdeterminesacreative person’sinclusioninthedomainoffineartsratherthanfashiondesign?Whatconsequencesensuefor hisorherlifefromsuchaffiliation(intermsofbehaviours,aspirations,representations)?Aboveall, underwhatconditionscanfashiondesignersbeconsideredartists?Sinceitwillbesaidthatafashion designerisanartistbecauses/hebehaveslikeanartist,thedefinitionofhisorherstatuswillcome aboutonthebasisofhisorherpractices.Forexample,designerswhoabandontheclassicformof presentationoffashioncreations—thecatwalk—andreplaceitwithmorestaticformsofpresentation similartoartexhibitions,asMartinMargielahasdone,aremorelikelytobeequatedwithartists.The sameappliestothosedesigners,likeJohnGalliano,whoconstructtheirpublicimagesonthemodelof thedoomedorbohemianartist.Aboveall,fashionstudiesusuallyequateasartiststhosedesigners who distinguish themselves by the radical departure of their creations from the canons of internationalfashion(e.g.,seeWilcox,2001)andwhobelonginwhatCrane(1993,1997a,1999,2000)

hastermedthecategoriesofthe‘‘avant-garde’’andthe‘‘post-modern.’’Ingeneralterms,herethe principalevaluationcriteriaareattitudesandpractices—suchaseconomicdisinterest,independence fromdominanttastes,apartialityforradicalinnovations,andthecapacitytoraisesociallyrelevant issues,withnonverbaltools(e.g.,seeSudjic,2008).

Although the importance of focusing on the third perspective—the institutional setting—is obvioustosocialscientists,theprotagonistsofartandfashion,butalsohistoriansoffashionand criticsofcostume,arerarelyawareofthisthirdstandpoint.HowardBeckerandPierreBourdieu,in particular, have developed the theoretical framework withinwhich to understand this crucial dimensionoftherelationshipbetweenfashionandart.Becker(1974,1982)hasfamouslycoinedthe expression‘‘artworlds’’torefertorelativelystablecooperativenetworksamongactors(individuals, butalsoorganisations)whoagreeonthedefinitionofwhatcanbelegitimatelyconsidered‘‘art’’and, therefore,onthesetofobjectsandpeoplewhichbelongtothatworld:‘‘Artworldsconsistofallthe peoplewhoseactivitiesarenecessarytotheproductionofthecharacteristicworkswhichthatworld, andperhapsothersaswell,defineasart’’(Becker,1982,p.34).Whilstthisproposalhashadthemerit ofshiftingthediscoursefromthelevelofobjectsandpeopletothatofinstitutions—showingthatart isasetofpartiallyautonomoussocialworlds,aswellastheoutcomeofrelationalprocessesand collectivepractices—lessconvincingisitsabilitytoexplainhowandwhytheseworldschangeover time.Itdoesnotexplainwhatforcesinduceanartworldtoevolveandchange.PierreBourdieu(1983, 1994[1992])hassuggestedusingthenotionof‘‘socialfield’’forthispurpose,denotingitasanarena of ‘‘production,circulation,andappropriationof goods,services,knowledge, orstatus, andthe competitivepositionsheldby actorsintheirstruggle toaccumulateandmonopolise...different

(5)

kindsof capital’’ (Swartz, 1997, p. 177).Understood as a site of physical andsymbolic forces, Bourdieu’stheoryofthefieldentailstheideathatthepeoplewhoarepartofafield—thathastobe understoodas a site of physicaland symbolic forces—occupy ‘‘positions’’that stand in a mutual relationshipthatwemaycall‘‘hierarchical’’-based,thatis,ondominationandsubordination(Bourdieu andWaquant,1992,pp.94–114).Hence,ifartisasocialfield,ratherthanbeingamoregeneric‘‘world,’’ thosewhoarepartofitbelongtoanetworkofperpetualstruggletoacquirethemostsought-after positions.Thesameappliestofashion(BourdieuandDelsaut,1975).Hence,Bourdieu’sapproachhasa more markedly conflictual thrust: according to him, art is a field marked by collaborative and antagonisticrelationshipsamongitsmembers,andwhatisconsideredtobeartatanyparticulartimeis nottheoutcomeofconsensusamongalltheagentsinthefield,butratherofanaccordamongthe dominantfactionsthatautomaticallyexcludesthoseinmarginalpositionsfromtheauraofartisticity. ForbothBeckerandBourdieu,itisagreementamongagentsthatdeterminestheboundariesofwhat ‘‘art’’is; butunlikeBecker,Bourdieu acknowledgestheexistenceofactors whodonotaccept the definitiongivenbythedominantgroups,eveniftheymustsomehowadjusttoit.

Ifweconsiderfashionandartfromtheinstitutionalpointofview,andthereforeastwodistinct socialfields,itbecomesevidentthattheyhavedifferentfeatures.Forexample,thereareartmagazines andfashionmagazines;andasarule,theformerdonotconcernthemselveswithfashionandthelatter donotconcernthemselveswithart,unlessthedeclaredintentistodealwithsomethingextraneousto theirrespectivefields.Thesameappliestotheprincipalinstitutions(corporativeassociations,awards andcompetitions,supervisorybodies).Thereare,then,organisationsthatpertaintotheartworld (museums,galleries,auctionhouses,publishinghouses)andorganisationsthatpertaintothefashion world(companies,tradefairs,professionalfirms,publishinghouses),andtheyalmostnevercoincide. Thereexistnormsandformsofbehaviourthatareperceivedasmoreorlesscompulsorybythosewho belongtotheartworld,and normsandformsofbehavioursconsidered obligatoryinthefashion world.Thesameholdsforhierarchiesofvalues,materialculture,andbodiesofsharedknowledge.On consideringfashionandartassocialinstitutions,thequestionsoftenariseastowhatdistinguishes themasinstitutionalfields:whatmakesthemsimilar,andwhatmakesthemdifferent?Arethere areasofoverlap betweenthem? Whattypesof relationstiethetwo worlds together?From the institutionalperspective,itwillbesaidthatafashiondesigneris(orisnot)anartistbecauseheorshe belongs(ordoesnotbelong)tothefieldofart(ChurchGibson,2011;Clark,2012).

Wesuggestthattheinstitutions-centredapproachhasthegreatmeritofaddressingtherelations betweenfashionandartinadisenchantedmanner,eschewingpreconstitutedideasofwhatisartand whatisnot.Ifonefocusesonobjectsorsubjectsperceivedasborderingonthetwoworlds,oneislikely toask questions (‘‘Is this dress a work of art? Is this designer an artist?’’) that cannot receive unanimouslyendorsedanswers.Conceptualisingfashionfromtheculturalproductionperspective makesitpossibletograspthecollectiveandrelationaldimensionofbothfashionandart.Worksofart, aswellasfashioncreations,canbeanalysedastheoutcomesofpracticesthatinvolvenumerousactors andbindthemtogetherinasocialspacethatrequirescompliancewithnormsandroutinesand,over time,thatchangesasaconsequenceoftheinteractionsamongitsmembers.Givingprioritytothe institutionalleveloftheissuedoesnotprecludethestudyofobjectsandsubjectsthatarepartofthe ﬁeld,butratherhelpstoplacethemintheirsocialspaceandtograsptheirmutuallinks.

4. Effectsbetweenﬁelds

Iffashionandartarecorrectlyunderstoodasinstitutionalisedsocialfields,theirrelationshipis seenasaninteractionbetweendifferentworldsinwhichbothseeksomethingfunctionaltotheir survivalandperpetuation.Thisinteraction(which,itshouldnotbeforgotten,canberealormerely represented—for instance,when a couturier poses as an artist) can generate influences, almost gravitationalforces,whichproduceeffectsineachofthetwoworlds—effectsofverydifferentkinds. Thefashionstudiesliteraturehasdescribedfourspecificeffects.

Thereisfirstacross-fertilisationeffect:theinteractionbetweenartandfashionproducesmultiple formsof‘‘contamination’’that,likemanytypesofhybridisation,generateparticularlycreativeand innovativefruitsinbothfieldsthroughthetransferofculturalandtechnologicalknowledge.Inthe contextofcelebrityculture,forexample,fashionseemstohavesubstantiallyinfluencedmanyrecent

(6)

trendsintheartworld:artpushestowardsfashionifweconsiderthecasesoftheBritishartistTracey Emin,whoinherperformanceswearsclothesdesignedbyVivienneWestwood,andafortiori,the ItalianFrancescoVezzoliwhoexhibitedin2011attheGagosianGalleryofNewYorkduringthelocal fashionweek(ChurchGibson,2012).

Notsurprisingly,cross-fertilisationisfollowedbyametamorphosisofoneworldintotheother, andviceversa:fashionartifiesitself,artcommodifiesitself.Theartificationprocessoccursatthelevels ofobject,practice,andinstitution.Thisisdemonstratedbyanumberofexamplesconcerningthe artificationoffashion(Crane,2012a,b).Atthelevelofobjects,garmentsarelikenedtoworksofart,as happenswhentheyentermuseumsortheybecomeitemsforauction.Atthelevelofpeople,thestatus offashioncreatorshaschangedsincewhen,withCharlesFrederickWorth,hautecouturegavethe couturierthetaskofinventing(andimposing)garmentsfortheclient,thusreversingthetraditional relationshipbetweentheclientandthetailor-artisan(Lipovetsky,1994).Attheinstitutionallevel, therehaveariseninstitutionsthat,fromschoolstoartgalleries,promotefashionasaformofcultural activity.Ontheonehand,fashiontendstodisguiseitselfasartandtoappropriatecertainmodelsof behaviour(bothavant-gardisteandacademic)ofcontemporaryart;ontheotherhand,arttendsto assimilatetactics,practicesandcommercialhabitsfromtheworldoffashionand,aboveall,tosubject itselftothesyncopatedrhythmsoffashion(Thornton,2008).

Theinteractionbetweenfashionandartalsogeneratesanidentityeffect,inthesensethateach worldisinducedbyitsencounterwiththeothertowithdrawintoitselfandredefineitsboundaries andrationale.Arttendstodefineitselfinoppositiontofashion.Sincefashioniscommonlydefinedby values that some conceptions of art explicitly disavow (the ephemeral and the temporary, the utilitarian,thecommercial,etc.),artusescomparisonwithfashiontomakeclearwhatartoughtnotto be.Bycontrast,fashion,givenitsequivocalandinconstantcharacter,oftenchoosesartastheparagon withwhichtodefineitself,butdoesso—asweshallseeinlightofourempiricalevidence—sometimes byidentification,sometimesbyopposition.

Thefourthandfinaleffectisthatoflegitimation.Thisistobefoundinmanyfieldsofcultural productionthatrefertoartsoastodifferentiatetheirproductsbetween‘‘high’’and‘‘low’’(forthecaseof film,seeBaumann,2001).Intruth,inthiscase,theeffectislargelyone-directional.Artshunsfashion, whoseprinciplesandmodelscouldeasilybeasourceofdelegitimation.Itisforthisreasonthatarttends todissimulatethedynamicsoffashiontoitsinterior,whilstatthesametimeitincreasinglyconstructsits sociallegitimacywiththemechanismsofsocialprestige(celebrity,glamour),whichare,infact,the groundonwhichfashionitselfgrows.Foritspart,fashioncandrawontherhetoricsofarttolegitimate itselfasanactivitywithvalueandprestige.Anditoftendoessowithsuccess.SincethefirstgreatParisian couturiersoftheendofthenineteenthcentury,referencetoarthasbeenusedbyhautecoutureto legitimateitselfasacreativeactivitydistinctfrommeresartorialpractice.AsMorini(2012)shows,the self-representationofcouturiersasartistshasthepurposeofconferringprestigeandcredibilityonthe productionofclothes:Worth’sclaimof‘‘Iamanartist’’shouldbereadasadeclarationofintentmadefor promotionalpurposesbyatailorawarethatthestatusof‘‘artist’’wasentirelytobeaccomplished.Thisis a form oflegitimation‘‘from within’’that,with time,is flankedbyanalogous sourcesofexternal legitimation:forexample,artmagazines(likeArtforum,whichin1982featuredthefashiondesigner IsseyMiyakeonitscover)andartmuseums,whichincreasinglyopentheirroomstotheexhibitionof designers’work(liketheGuggenheiminNewYork,whichin2000/2001stagedamuch-discussed retrospectiveexhibitionofGiorgioArmani’swork).

Itisadvisable,however,nottoconsiderthesefourtypesofeffectsolelyasforcesthatoperatefrom fashiontoart,orviceversa.Theymaybealsothesuperficialmanifestationofdeep-lyingforcesthatact on both fieldssimultaneously. In a well-known study on Paul Poiret,in which therelationship betweenfashionandartisacentralaspectofthetreatment,NancyTroy(2002)suggestsshiftingthe attentionfromformalanalogies,interactions,andcross-referencesbetweenfashionstylesandartistic movements—a paradigmatic example is the reciprocal influence between Elsa Schiaparelli and Salvador Dalı´—to ‘‘deeper’’ and ‘‘structural’’ relations (Troy, 2002,p. 3),i.e., to the cultural and historicalnatureoftherelationshipbetweenthem.Sincetheperiodconsideredisthefirstdecadesof thetwentiethcentury(PaulPoiret’speriod)—inwhichtheWesternworld’sexpanding industrialisa-tion spread the ideas, values, practices and contradictions of modernism and avant-garde movements—theideaunderlyingTroy’sstudyisthatPoiret’scommercialstrategiesandDuchamp’s

(7)

artisticstrategieswereboundtogether,andthatthelinkconsistedintheintroductionoftechnical reproducibility of artefacts in worlds based on the principles of originality, authorship, and exclusiveness—somethingthat,followingDiMaggio(1992),wemaylabela‘‘changingopportunity space’’outside both theﬁeld of fashion and art. When mass production gives accessto objects previouslysought-afterbecausetheywereunique and distinctive—aswe knowfrom Benjamin’s (2008[1936])famousessayontheworkofartintheageofmechanicalreproduction—thencertain valuesonwhichtheworldsofartandfashionwereoriginallyfounded,eachinitsownway,suddenly becomeirrelevant.Inthisview,theeffortstoapproachartbycouturierslikePaulPoiretshouldbeseen not only as attempts to give their maisons a new aura that exceeds their nature but also as reproductionoftheavant-gardistestrategyadoptedbyartistsinthosesameyears tocounterthe expansionofartmarkets,thereproducibilityofartefacts,andthepopularisationoftaste.Itconsists,in short,ofadualattentiontotheeliteandthemiddleclassresemblingthepromotionalstrategyusedby thecubistpainters,ontheonehand,housedinprivategalleriesand,ontheotherhand,shownin exhibitionsintendedforthegeneralpublicandpublishedinpopularbooks.Troy’s(2002)analysis showsthatfashiondoesnotmerelyapeartisticstrategiesandrhetorics;rather,itperfectlyembodies them.Perhapsevenmoreexplicitlythanartitself,itchannelsthecontradictorypressuresofmodern culturebymergingelite cultureand popularculturetogether. Therelationship betweenart and fashionshouldnotbesimplisticallyunderstoodasamovementinthefashionworldthat‘‘knockson thedoor’’ofart,butratherastheencounteroftwoworldsthat,throughoutthelastcentury,were repeatedly and violently shaken to their ﬁrmest foundations (values, conventions, principlesof legitimacy)bytechnologicalprogressandsocialtransformations.

5. Culturalmobilityandartiﬁcation

Treating the themes of cross-fertilisation, metamorphosis, identity and legitimation from an institutionalperspectivemakesitpossibletoavoidlapsingintotheobject-centredviewwhichholds thatartisobjectivelydeﬁnedandthatfashionresemblesart,orotherwise,forintrinsicreasons.Thisis thereasoningtypically adoptedbythose whoargue that fashioncannotbe artbecauseit hasa commercialpurposeorbecauseitismass-produced(e.g.,seeBoodro,2011[1990];Evans,2003;but alsoseeCrane,2012a,b).Itisassumedthatifartistobesuch,thenitcannotservecommercialends, regardless ofthe fact that theworldof art alsocomprises activities undertakenfor commercial purposes.

Fromtheinstitutionalperspective,thequestionthatweshallseektoanswerwithourempirical materialisthereforenotwhetherornotfashionisart,butwhetherornotfashiondesignersuseartas ameanstoshapeidentityorgainlegitimationand,thereby,institutionalisetheirﬁeldofcultural production(fashion)asartistic.Thislatteraspecthasbeenmainlyinvestigatedintwotraditionsof study: the production perspective developed by RichardPeterson and others since the 1970s (DiMaggio, 2000;Peterson,1994;PetersonandAnand,2004)and,more recently,thetheoryof artiﬁcationpropounded byRoberta Shapiro(Crane,2012a;Heinich andShapiro, 2012;Shapiro, 2007).

Theproductionofcultureperspectivearoseinoppositiontothetraditionalsociologicalviewthat culturereflectsthesocialstructure,sothatculturalchangesaretheexpressionofsocialones.Itinstead maintainsthatcultureandsocietyaredifferent‘‘productions’’thatproceedindependentlyfromeach other.Hence,thecontentsofculturearetheeffectnotonlyofsocialstructuresandchangesbutalso, andespecially, ofthecontextin whichtheyareproduced,distributed, taught,and conserved.In polemicwiththeoriesofmasssociety,theproponentsofthisperspectivehaveshownthatpopular culture,initsvariousforms,didnotsufferadeclineduringthetwentiethcenturyduetoagreater standardisation,simplicity,andsuperficialityofproducts.Onthecontrary,theculturalindustrywas abletomultiplyitssupplybyadoptingdiversificationstrategiesdictatedbyorganisationaldecisions andeconomicinterests,whichledtotheformationofmoresophisticatedcultural‘‘niches’’alongside thesimplerandmoreserialones(DiMaggio,1977).

Regardingtherelationshipbetweenpopularcultureandart,ifthedistinctionsbetween‘‘high’’ and‘‘low’’withinandamongtheﬁelds of culturalproduction stemfrom dynamicsinternal to thoseﬁelds themselves(and arenot objectivefeatures),thena culturalor aesthetic‘‘mobility’’

(8)

(Peterson,1994,p.179)is possible.This consistsin theelevationof a certainfield, previously considered‘‘low,’’tothestatusof‘‘highculture.’’Thisapplies,inparticular,totheperformingarts, accordingtoapatternwellexemplifiedbythemobilitythatraisedjazzfromthestatusoffolkartto thatofpopularartand,then,tothatoffineart(Peterson,1972).

DiMaggio(1982a,b)hasshownthatthedistinction betweenfineart andpopularculture,and betweenhighbrowmusicandpopularmusic,istheproductofaseriesofdecisionsandactionstaken bythesocialeliteofBoston(andotherAmericancities)inthelasttwodecadesofthenineteenth century.DiMaggiomaintainsthatculturalcapital,likeeconomiccapital,mustbe‘‘valorised:’’thatis,it requiresaninstitutionalsystem,equivalenttothebankingsystemforcurrency,ableto‘‘guarantee’’it. Justascurrencycanmaintainitsvalueonlyifthereexistinstitutionsabletoimplementmonetary policies, sothe products ofcultural capital cannot acquire and maintaintheir value withoutan institutional effort of some kind. DiMaggio’s (1991, p. 142) thesis is that, although thesimple distinctionbetweenhighandlowstillpersists,ithasbeenalteredbyrecentsocialchanges.Ontheone hand,‘‘thesocialstructurecontinuestogeneratehighlevelsofdemandfortheculturalgoodswith whichsocial identitiescanbefashioned’’ (DiMaggio,1991,p.142).On theotherhand,structural changes‘‘weakentheinstitutionalbasesofculturalauthority’’(DiMaggio,1991,p.142).Andallofthis producesan‘‘inflationaryspiral’’underminingthetraditional culturalcapital‘‘whileproliferating weakercurrencies.’’Thisexplainswhy,forexample,quiltscanbeconsideredart(Peterson,2003)or,to returntoourinitialexample,whyithasbecomedifficulttodistinguishbetweenwhatisartandwhat isnotinthecreationsofTakashiMurakami.

Thethesisofculturalmobilityputforwardbytheproductionofcultureperspectiveexhibitsclose similaritieswiththeFrenchtheoryof‘‘artiﬁcation.’’Thelatterisaneologismcoinedtodenotethe transformationofwhathasnot(hitherto)beenconsideredartintoart(HeinichandShapiro,2012,p. 20),aprocessofmetamorphosisensuingfromchangesinthestatusofpersons,objects,and‘‘concrete’’ activitiesofaculturalformthatinclude:(1)changesinthesocialactorsinvolved intheactivity, especiallyregardingeducationlevel,socialstatus,artisticknowledge,degreeofcultural sophistica-tion,andautonomyin relationswiththepublic;(2)changesintheculturalartefactitself, which becomesmoresimilartoanartisticobject;(3)thebirthoforganisationssuchmuseums,schools,or foundationsthatpromotetheculturalactivity;and(4)changesinthestatusoftheculturalform, particularlyon thepartof culturaland governmentalorganisations, which begintoclassify the activityasaculturalgoodtobeprotectedinmuseumsandﬁnanciallysupported(Shapiro,2007;see alsoCrane,2012a,p.105).

Thespecificityoftheartificationapproachconsists,accordingtoitsproponents,inthe‘‘genetic’’ perspectivethatitpromotes.Infact,theyareinterestednotsomuchintheinstitutionalconstraints thatthe(alreadyexisting)artworldanditsorganisationsimposeonactorsasintheindividualactions oftheselatterastheyseektodefinetheirownidentity.Itisthis,Shapiroargues,thatconstitutesthe maindifferencebetweenthisperspectiveandboththeBourdieusianperspectiveandtheinstitutional oneofPetersonandDiMaggio:

Wecanneverinsistenoughonthedifferencebetweentheparadigmofartisticlegitimacy,a classiﬁcatoryapproachwhichestablishesdegreesofvaluewithintheartworld,andthatof artiﬁcation,whichseekstounderstandontheonehandthegenesisoftheartobjectorartistic activity,andontheother,theconditionsforitsexistence.(Shapiro,2012,p.23)

Putbriefly,whilsttheinstitutionalperspectiveemphasisestheproblemoflegitimatingfieldsof culturalproduction,theartificationperspectivestressestheproblemoftheiridentity,assuming—in ourview,toosimplistically—thatthequestionoflegitimationcomesgeneticallyafterthequestionof identity.

DianaCrane(2012a,b)hasappliedtheideaofartificationtothecaseoffashion.Shereachesthe conclusionthat,iftherehasbeenanartificationoffashion,ithastodatebeenonlypartial.Ontheone hand,Cranemaintains,fashionwasindeedartifiedforalargepartofthetwentiethcentury.Afirst formofartificationconcernedthegreaterprestigeofdesigners,anditsinitiatorinthe1800swas Worth.Asecondformcanbeobservedinthestrategiessometimesemployedbyfashiondesignersto increasethevalueattributedtoparticularfashionobjects—forexample,collaborationwithartistsand theproductionoflimitededitionswithnumbereditems.Athirdconsistsinthecreationofschoolsof

(9)

fashiondesign—asubjectnowtaughtatuniversitiesandartschools—andtheentryoffashioninto museumsandauctions.

Ontheotherhand,accordingtoCrane,thisartiﬁcationispartialfromvariouspointsofview.The economicstructureofthefashionsystemtodaygivesa fewmultinationalcompanies(theluxury conglomerates)monopolyoverlargepartofthefashionbrands,thusreducingdesignerstotheroleof employeeswhoare,tovariousextents,subjecttothebrand’spolicies.Moreover,fashionisusually exhibited in specialised museums, whose features are substantially different from those of art museums(particularlyas regardstheir capacity tokeep themselvesindependent fromthemain marketactors).Finally,thesecondarymarket(forexample,auctions)setsvaluesonfashionproducts incomparablylowerthanthosefor worksofart,thusimplicitlyassertingasubstantialdifference betweenthetwotypesofculturalproduct.

Fashionisthereforeafieldofculturalproductionsubjecttoprocessesofculturalmobilityand/or artificationthatcomeaboutonlypartially.TheoriginalityoftheMilaneseempiricalcase—whichwe shallexploreinthenextsections—consistsinthefactthat,inthis‘‘fashioncapital,’’fashiondesignis legitimatedasa fieldof culturalproductionwithhighsymboliccontentwhilstatthesametime rejectingitsidentificationwithart,unlikeotherfieldsofculturalproductionthathavebeenartified.In thisway,thedesignersenactaprocessofculturalmobilitywhoseobjectiveisnotrecognitionoftheir activityas‘‘high’’(inthesenseofhighculture),butadifferentformoflegitimationconsistinginthe abilitytocontroltheservicerelationbetweenclothingandthehumanbody.Asweshallsee,inMilan, individualcreativityisconstrainedwithina‘‘cultureofwearability.’’Ourthesisisthatfashion,asitis conceivedandpractisedinMilan,toalargeextentevadesthemechanismsenvisagedbythetheories outlinedabove.

6. Dataandmethods

We have interviewed actors in the fashion world, particularly ones who predicate their professionalactivityonconcepts,practicesandvaluessimilartothoseofartisticcreativity.Theyare not, therefore, professionalsbelonging generically tothe fashion system;specifically, they are fashiondesigners.Ourinterestisintheirrepresentationsofart—i.e.,inwhattheymeanwhenthey talkaboutart.Thefashiondesigners’ideaofartisnotagaugeofwhatartisinreality.Rather,itisthe resultand expression of two processes: the biographies (lives and work) of the interviewees themselves,andthehistoryofrelationsbetweenthetwofields(artandfashion).Itisagaugeofa certainidea ofart, namelytheonesharedin thefashionworld.Hence, theaccountsof fashion designersaregaugesoftheconceptionofartthatartitselfmustfacewhenencounteringthefieldof fashion.

Therelationshipbetweenthebest-knownfashiondesignersandthecontemporaneousworldofart hasalreadybeenamplydescribedin theliterature.Weknowa greatdealabouttherelationship betweenSchiaparelliandDalı`,theworkofThayahtandMarianoFortuny,theprofessionalcareerof VictorandRolf,andthecollaborationbetweenMarcJacobsandTakashiMurakami.Butweknow muchlessabouthowartisperceivedbyordinarydesigners,thosewhoproducefashioncreationsfar fromthespotlightofcelebrity.

Webaseourtreatmentofthewayfashiondesignersperceivetheworldofartondatadrawnfrom interviewswithasampleofdesignersworkinginthefashionindustry.Thetestimoniesonwhichthe followinganalysisisbasedwerecollectedby21in-depthinterviewsconductedatdifferentmoments between1990and2007bytheauthorsofthisarticleandotherresearchersattheCentroperloStudio della Moda e della Produzione Culturale (ModaCult) of the Universita` Cattolica, Milan. The intervieweeswereItalianfashiondesignersordesignerswhohadbeenworkinginItalyforseveral years,mainlyfemale(sevenintervieweesweremales)andagedbetween24and71atthetimeofthe interview.ThemajorityofthemwerebasedinMilan,andallofthemreliedonMilanforthepublicising andmarketingoftheirproductsorthoseoftheﬁrmforwhichtheyworked.Theinterviewswere conductedinthecityofMilanfortworeasons.First,itistheItalianhuboffashion-relatedactivities. Second,it belongs,withParis,London, NewYorkand Tokyo,tothesmall groupoftheso-called ‘‘fashioncapitals’’andthereforeoffers,comparedwithotherItaliancities,theadvantageofbeingat thecentreoftheWesternfashionsystem.

(10)

Only a few of the fashion designers interviewed could be considered famous: two were of internationalrepute;onewasverywell-knowninItaly,andanotherwaswell-knowntoindustry insiders.Butthemajorityworkedasassistantstootherdesignersorwereemployedincompanystyle ofﬁces.Overall,sevenentrepreneursandsmallentrepreneurswereinterviewed,sevenemployees, fourcraftspersonsanddealers,andthreeownersoffashionstudios.Thelargemajoritywereclothes designers;therestweredesignersofaccessories.

Thesefeaturesofoursampledidnotoriginatefromapreviouslyestablishedresearchdesign.Since theresearchersfounditparticularlydifficulttoaccessthefashionfield,itwasnotpossibletoplanthe survey procedure. The access was hampered by theaccelerated pace at which therespondents worked,butalsoandespeciallybytheinterestsofthefashioncompanies;interestswhich,giventhat theyconcernpromotionofthebrandandthesystemofvaluesconnectedwithit,conflictedwiththe researcher’s interests in discovery and understanding. Nevertheless, an attempt was made to safeguardthevarietyofthestructuralfeaturesoftheintervieweesand,inparticular,tomaintainalow incidenceoffamousdesignersinthesample,forthereasonsgivenabove.

Theinterviewsusedthe‘‘life-storyapproach’’(seeBertaux,1981):inparticular,theycollected professionallife-stories.Theywerenon-directiveinterviewsofadurationrangingbetween1and3 h, andtheywereconductedonthebasisofanentirelyunstructuredoutline.Theybeganwithasingle pre-deﬁned(buthighlygeneric)initialstimulus,afterwhichthesequenceoftopicswasestablishedby theintervieweesaccordingtotheirassociationsandordersofimportance.Thisapproachisintended tominimisetheinterviewer’sintrusiveness;and,infact,itisbasedonvarioustechniquesofneutral story resumption. Moreover, it collectsinformation not somuchon theobjective setting ofthe professioninvestigatedasontheinterviewees’perceptionsofitandtheinterpretationsthattheygive toit.Theinterviewswererecordedandtranscribed,andthentheywereanalysedwithouttheuseof dedicated software. The analysis was conducted both cross-wise, through the construction of interpretativecategoriesappliedtoallthematerials,andlongitudinallyinterviewbyinterview.

7. Fashiondesignersandart

Inrecentdecades,empiricalstudieshaveshedlightontheprofessionoffashiondesignerinvarious geographicalcontexts.Besidesthesurveyreferredtointhisarticle—whichconcernsMilanandwhose moregeneralresultsaresetoutinVolonte´ (2008,2012)—moreorlessdetailedinformationhasbeen publishedon fashion designers in England (Horowitz, 1975; McRobbie,1998), Finland(Gronow, 1997),HongKong(Skov,2002),theNetherlands(Roso,2005),andDenmark(Skov,2012).

The information collected by these various sources is scant and fragmentary. However, it is sufﬁcienttoshowthatattitudestowardstheﬁgureoftheartistvarygreatlyamongdesigners.Thisisa characteristicthatdoesnotunitefashiondesignersbutinsteaddifferentiatesthem.Onemaycome acrossadesignerwhosays:

ByfarthemostadvanceddesignersareMiyakeandGalliano.Theyaredoingwhattheywantto inspiteoftheneedtomakemoney.Noristheirworkjustaboutfashion.It’saboutimagination and projection. Like them, I ﬁndtwo-dimensional workexciting. And Ilike theidea of a crossoverbetweenfashion,paintingandillustration.(quotedbyMcRobbie,1998,p.107) ThemodelforthisLondondesignerisclearlytheartistuninterestedinthemarket,focusedon conceptualratherthanmaterialinnovation,attractedbythemeansofvisualrepresentationtypical oftheartworld,andwhobelievesthatfashionismore‘‘advanced,’’themoreitapproachesthe canonsofart.

Orthereisthedesigner(employedintheGiorgioArmanistyleofﬁce)whodeclaredduringthe interview:

It’sfinetobecreative,butnottobejustcreativeandnotveryconcreteandrational.Ingeneral, thisappliestoallformsofart,andespeciallytoartintendedforpracticaluse.Ifyoumakeasuit withfivesleeves,itbecomesasculpture,it’snolongerafashionobject.(female,35) Evidentinthiscaseisadistancingfromthefieldofart.Infact,fashionislikenedtoanappliedart,as opposed toa fineart. Twoalternative formsof creativity are contrasted:pure artistic creativity

(11)

consideredasbeingabstract,irrationalandundertakenforitsownsake;andthecreativityofthe appliedarts,whichshouldbefunctionaltopracticalpurposes.Itisnotimportantheretodetermine whetherartisindeedabstractandirrationalorwhetherafashiondesigner’svocationistocreate functionalproducts.Butitisinstructivetonotethattherearesomefashiondesignerswhoworkin accordancewiththisconvictionandotherswhoinsteadbelievethat,preciselybecauseartisticactivity isextraneoustothelawsofthemarket(orissupposedlysuch),itshouldbetakenastheparagonfor thebestfashiondesigners.Thesetwoexamplescanbetakenastheextremesofthegamutofpositions assumedbycontemporaryfashiondesigners.

Researchalsoshowsthatfashiondesignersinothercountriesexhibitthisdiversityamongthose wholikentheirworktoart,thosewhorejectthiscomparison,andthosewhoignoretheworldof artandrefertootherenvironmentstoconstructtheiridentityandlegitimation.Highlysignificant inthisregard,evenifconductedinageographicalcontextmarginaltothefashionsystem,isthe studybyMoniqueRoso(2005)—whoidentifiedtheexistenceoffourdifferentwaystopursuethe professionoffashiondesignerintheNetherlands,onlyoneofwhichisclearlyorientedtotheart world.Whilstfashiondesignerswhobelonginthisgroupdrawresourcesfromparticipationinthe art network made up of foundations, exhibitions, administrators and critics, the other three groups—cross-creativedesigners,entrepreneurdesignersandconsumer-orienteddesigners—and, inparticular,thelasttwoareentirelyextraneoustotheworldof art.Inacompletely different framework, McRobbie (1998, pp. 33–52)shows that, in Great Britain,the attitudes of fashion designerstowards art may differ markedly according to the training thatthey have received. McRobbieidentifies,in fact,threemaintypesof training forfashiondesigners,whichshecalls ‘‘conceptualfashion,’’‘‘professionalfashion’’and‘‘managerialfashion.’’Ofthese,onlythefirsttype, characteristic of the fashion courses at art schools, is based on the essential identification of creativesinfashionwithcreativesinart,sothatgraduatesadoptanidentitarianattitudetowards art.Asaconsequence,manyfashiondesigngraduatesfromtheBritishartschoolsprivilegethe production of ‘‘fashion to be seen’’ as opposed to the ‘‘fashion to be worn’’ preferred by the mainstream of fashion designers (The Malcolm Newberry Consulting Company, 2003, p. 12;

McRobbie,1998,pp.102–116).

In short, the fashion studies literature evidences that the fashion design world does not uniformlyseektolikenitselftotheworldofart, neitherforpracticalpurposesnorforthoseof identiﬁcationorlegitimation.Norcanitbesaidthatitdividesbetweenfashiondesignerswho conceivethemselvesonaparwithartistsandthosewhodosoinmorecommercialterms.Mears (2010)adoptsandmodiﬁesaconceptualmodeldevelopedbyEntwistle(2009),andshearguesthat the fashion market can be arranged along a continuum between ‘‘editorialfashion’’ or ‘‘high fashion’’atone extremeand‘‘commercial fashion’’or‘‘mass-marketfashion’’ attheother. The formerischaracterisedbyasearchfornovelty,uniqueness,andanavant-gardelookforthereaders of avant-garde magazines; the latter is characterised by a conventional and classic look, one relatively‘‘normal’’andmiddle-class.Thisdistinctionderivesfromempiricalresearchonmodel agencies;butifitisappliedtothefashionproductionsystem,andinparticular—forourpurposes here—tothe professionof fashiondesigner, it can appeartoo simplistic.The above-mentioned studiesby Roso(2005)andMcRobbie(1998)alreadyshowthatthesituationis morecomplex.

Crane(1993,1997a,1999,2000)identifiesfivemaintypesoffashiondesign.Volonte´ (2008)shows thatthefive‘‘idealtypes’’offashiondesigndescribedbyCranearepresent,indifferentproportions, inallfourofthefashioncapitals.OnreadingEntwistle(2009)andMears(2010),oneunderstands thatthecommercialsector,whichinregardtomodelagenciesfallsundertheheading‘‘editorial,’’ correspondstotheentiresectionattheapexofthefashionproductionpyramid(andperhapsnot surprisingly,alsotoclients,likeH&MorBenetton,belongingtolowerbutstronglystyle-oriented sections),regardlessoftheattitudesofcompanystyleofficestotheartworldandtotherelationship betweenfashionandart.

8. TheMilanesefashiondesignersandart

Attitudes towardsthearchetypeof theartistcan varysubstantiallyin Milan, aswell.Atone extreme,thereisthecaseofthedesignerwhostressestheimportanceofbreachingtheconventions

(12)

imposedbythefashionsystemsoastobetrulycreative—athemecloselyboundup,aswehaveseen, withtheﬁgureoftheavant-gardedesigner:

Ifyouaretobecreative,youhavetobefree.Ifyouaren’tfree,ifyouhaverestrictions,toomany constraints,thenthere’snocreativity.They’vealreadytoldyouwhattodo,andthat’snotright.I mean,youhavetostartlikethis,withwhatcomestoyou,atmostyouputitright...Youcutit whereit’snotright,ifit’stoocomplicatedyoumakeitsimpler.Butatthebeginningyoumustbe unconditioned.(female,26)

Thedemandforfreedomofinvention,forthosewhoworkinafirm(asinthiscase),istheattitude thatmostcloselyapproachesidentificationofdesignworkwithartisticactivity.Implicitintheabove interviewextractistheconstantnegotiation(orstruggle)withthecompanymanagementtogain legitimacyandtostrikeabalancebetweenthedemandsofcreativityandthoseofproductionand marketing.However,wedidnotcollectanystatementsinourinterviewsthatexpresslyequatedthe professionalfigureofthefashiondesignerwiththatof theartist,and thiswasregardless ofthe interviewee’sorientationtowardsan‘‘editorialmarket’’ora‘‘commercialmarket’’(Mears,2010), towardsavant-gardeorinnovativefashion(Crane,2000).Theownerofawell-knownbrandofmen’s clothing(luxuryready-to-wearandindustriallyproducedsecondlines,withamaisoninParis)was theonlyintervieweewhoidentifiedfashionwithanappliedart,buthedidsosolelytodifferentiateit fromthefinearts:

[Fashion]isanart,yes,it’sanappliedart.Itisanappliedartwiththegreatdifference,somewhat typicaloftheappliedarts—butwhichinfashiongoesmuchfurther—thatitsexpressionistiedto time.Pureartisfreefromtime,whileappliedartisconditionedbytime.Inthecaseoffashion evenmoreso,allthisisexasperatedtothemaximumdegree.(male,71)

Theconceptofappliedartisthusrelatedtofashion,notinordertofavouritsaestheticmobility,but toshiftthedynamicsoflegitimationinadirectionotherthanartistic.Thesameinterviewee,when discussingthecaseofAzzedineAlaı¨a, saidthat‘‘artists’’doindeedexistintheworldoffashion,but thattheycanonlysurvivetotheextentthatthey‘‘rejectopportunitiestosetuponalargescale.’’ Consequently,theyendupbeing‘‘futileembellishments’’inaworldwhosesubstanceisindustrialand commercial.

AdistinctivefeatureoftheItalian fashionsystem,comparedwiththoseoftheotherprincipal Westerncountries,isthepersistenceofimportantandwidespreadproductiveorganisationsinboth industryandcrafts(PasquiandBolocanGoldstein,2002;RicchettiandCietta,2006;SegreReinach, 2006;Steele,2003).This,togetherwiththecharacteristicsoftheeducationsystem(Bucci,2002)anda series of other significant ‘‘geographical variables’’ (Volonte´, 2012), means that Italian fashion creativesconsiderproductiveexperiencetobeanessentialcomponentoftheirtrainingandcreativity. Thedimensionof‘‘doing,’’whetherincraftsorindustry,wasoftencitedbytheintervieweestodefine theidentityofthefashiondesigner.Forexample,anemployeeinthestyleofficeofalargefirmsaid that:

A designerisindeed acreative, but shemustalsobea entrepreneur.She musthave both features.Armani,forexample,isoneofthesepeople:he’sacreativebutalsoanentrepreneur. Accordingtome,itisthisdoubleaspectthatthedesigneroftodayshouldtakeintoaccount. (female,35)

Afashiondesignerwhoownedacraftsﬁrmconﬁrmedthisobservation:

Thelogicofdesignmeansthatyoumustalsounderstandindustrialthingslikecosts.Imean,I would never do things unless I know where they’re going to end. It’s not this type of experimentationthatinterestsme.Ipreferexperimentingwithsomethingthatwillhavealarge market.Curiously,I’mhere,buttobehereIneedto‘‘withdrawintothebackground’’(laughs). (female,60)

Designersmustbeinnovativeinthecreativephase,buttheymustbeableto‘‘withdrawintothe background’’whenthecollectionisdeﬁned.Itisasiffashionproductsmustbedevotedtotheclothing demandsoftheﬁnalcustomer,nottotheneedforartisticexpressionoftheircreators.Asimilarideais

(13)

implicitinthefollowingstatementbyadesignerofaccessorieswhoworksfreelancewithhisown ﬁrm:

Thedesignermustacquireexperiencebyworkingforcompaniesandthenperhapsfindwaysto workasaconsultantor...[setuponhisown].However,ifadesignerwantstostartup,hemust haveagreatdealofexperienceinaspecificsector.Imean,hemustfirstgainexperienceatsome company.Thenhecanperhapsbecomeanexternalconsultant.(male,56)

Asmallentrepreneureffectivelysummarisedallthisbysaying:

AsIconceiveit,designisnotanart,becauseIdon’tbelievethatartexists.SoIwoulddeﬁne designasamixamongtechnology,industryandcraftsmanship.(female,44)

ThemoststrikingaspectoftheinterviewswiththeMilanesedesignerswasaviewofthefashion designprofession that not only ignoredidentiﬁcationwiththe archetypeof theartist but often expressly rejected it, usually objecting that the fashion designer must deal with industrial manufacturing,salesvolumes,andaretailmarketthatcannotbeputatriskbyproposinggarments thatconsumersmayﬁndeccentricoruseless.

To graspthis aspectfully,consideragainthebriefquotationfromaninterviewconductedby

McRobbie(1998)andreportedatthebeginningoftheprevioussection,whereGallianoiscitedasan exampleofthe‘‘mostadvanceddesigners’’byvirtueofhisartisticbent.Becauseofhislife-choices,as wellashisprofessionalones,andbecauseofthewayhepresentshimselfinpublic,Gallianocanwell beconsideredaprototypeoftheavant-gardedesigner,constantlypoisedbetweenradicalsubversion ofaestheticandmoralcanonsandsocialmarginalisation.ThequotationfromMcRobbieillustrates howmanyEnglishfashiondesignersreadandinterprethisstory.Thatsamestorywasrecountedin entirelydifferenttermsbytheMilanesedesignersinterviewed,whosawitasanexampleofhowtodo fashionthatdidnotconcernthem.Aparadigmaticcasefollows:

Idon’tseemyselfaslikeapainter,forexample.Thishasgotnothingtodowithme:We’renot artists.Becausewhatistobedoneinfashionhasalreadybeendone.Artistsweretheoriginal creatorsoffashion;wemustbegoodatproposingwhathasalready beendonewithsome variations...I don’t see myself as an artist. No. I’m not an artist. I see myself as more a psychologistthananartist.Yes,Ireckonthatapsychologistgetsclosertowhatadesignercould be...ButIdon’tseethefashiondesignerasanartist,becauseyouseewhatdesignersasartists do,likeJohnGalliano.Heisnowanartist,hehasfun.Butthat’snormal,he’sgottothetopand he’ssaid:‘‘okay,nowthatI’vehadeverythingfromlife,I’mgoingtoenjoymyselfandbring theseweirdcharactersoutonthecatwalk,’’dresstheminimpossibleclothes,withawfulshoes, orabsurdmake-uplikeamask.Who’dgoaroundlikethat?Nobody.Buthe’sjusthavingfun.So, yes,inthatwayhe’sbecomeanartistbecausehecancreate,like,jacketswithhugelydreadful collars,which weren’taroundbefore,but we’vegotnow becausehe’screated them.Buta normaldesignerisnotanartist,I’msorry.Manyofthemdeceivethemselvesthattheyare,but theyaren’t.Atschool,wesawJohnGalliano’sshows,andwesaid:buthowdoeshesellthis stuff?Infacthedoesn’tsellwhatheshows.Hedesignsacompletelydifferentline,asoftone, whichhethensells.Butthoseimpossiblehigh-fashionthingsstaywithhim.Theydon’teven wearthemin Hollywood...In fact,Idon’tthinkthat,forexample,ascrubbingbrushanda bucketareart.Youknow,theseyoungartiststhatwe’vegotnow.Artusedtobeart.Itwas Michelangelo,itwasLeonardo.Itcan’tbeyou!Doyouunderstand?Perhaps...abstractionism yes,butthesedon’t sayanythingtome, theydon’t givemeanyinput.In theend,even a housewifedoesit:welldone,you’vemadeart!Understand?Iseeitthisway.Thesamegoesfor thedesigner.Irepeatitagain:weareabsolutelynotartists.(female,24)

Wehavereportedthisoutburstbyayoungfashiondesignerinitsentiretybecauseitcontainsmany elementsrecurrentintheviewexpressedbytheMilanesefashiondesignersabouttheirprofession. Firstly,itcontainsthecentralideathatbeingafashiondesignerisverydifferentfrombeinganartist. Thisdepends not only on theconception of their profession cultivated by theMilanesefashion designersbutalso,andespecially,ontheirnotionofart.Theterm‘‘artist’’doesnotconnoteprestige.A distinctionisdrawnbytheintervieweebetweentheclassicartist—theproducerofaculturalheritage

(14)

tobeprotectedbecauseof itshistorical importance(Michelangelo,Leonardo,‘‘perhaps’’ alsothe abstractionists)andwhoisthereforethe‘‘true’’artist—andthecontemporaryavant-gardeartists,who arenot‘‘true’’artistsbecausetheyproduceworksthatdonotrequireanygreattechnicalmastery,and which‘‘evenahousewife’’couldproduce.Thedesignerisinsteadcomparedtoapsychologistofdress; a comparison anythingbut eccentricifone considersthe subtlepsycho-sociologicalwork(often unconscious) of understanding consumers performed atvarious levels throughoutthe industrial manufacturing process of clothes, from coolhunting to merchandising. The fashion designer is thereforeconceivedmoreasaculturalmediator,theproduceroftoolsforcommunicationandsocial interaction.

Theinterviewcitestwomainreasonswhyafashiondesignercannotbeidentiﬁedwithanartist. Theﬁrstisthatfashionisnotdrivenbyradicalinnovation,butbyanincrementalinnovationthat constantly recovers the creations of the past. Because there is only a limited range of possible solutions, they have been thoroughly explored in the history of fashion. Another interviewee expressedthisconceptbydistinguishingbetweennewandinnovative:

There’sverylittlelefttoinventnowadays.Therearecertainlyveryinnovativeideas;butthey’re innovative,they’renotnew—whichaccordingtomeisdifferent.Letmeexplain:forexample, weproposedawoman’stiemadeoffurasanaccessory.Thisisinnovativebutitisn’tnew.Many otherdesignershavecreatedtiesforwomen,andinanycasetiesarenotnewbecausethey comefromtheman’swardrobe.Whatdidwedo:wemadethetiefromfur,somethingnotseen before.Therehavebeenscarvesmadeoffur,butneverfurties.Yetthisissomethinginnovative; itisn’tnew.(female,27)

Thesecondreasonisthatfashionisnotproducedforthosewhocreateitorforapublicofobservers but,instead,forapublicofconsumers,ofﬁnaluserswhomustwearit.Consequently,asanother intervieweepointedout,fashionisdifferentfromartbecause‘‘itissomethingwhichtouchespeople’s lives;itisnotacoldthing’’(male,34).Itistruethatthecreationofsomethingvisually(‘‘optically’’) innovativecanhelpattracttheconsumer’sattention.ButasGallianoshowedwithhiscollectionsfor Dior,truefashion,whichisintendedtobeworn,isverydifferentfromartisticcreation.

Art—contemporaryart—wasperceivedbytheseintervieweesassomething‘‘cold,’’somethingthat doesnot‘‘giveanyinput’’andasextraneousto‘‘people’slives.’’Hence,althoughartisakintofashion becauseofitscreativecontent,itisdistantfromtheidealof‘‘truefashion,’’sincethisisdesigned‘‘tobe worn.’’Theloyaltytoacultureofwearability,asopposedtothecultureofvisibility,typicalofa conceptualisationoffashiondesigninspiredbyartandavant-gardemovements,andwhich—assaid above—is particularly widespread in the UK, is another distinctive feature of Milanese fashion designers(Volonte´,2012).Anintervieweedeﬁnedtheconceptofwearabilityasfollows:

Itisdifﬁculttoﬁndwearablethings,becauseifthepersondesigningtheclothesdoesn’tknow theproportionsofthebody,thenperhapseverythingmaygowellwiththeshow,butwhatI meanissomethingelse.Withclotheseverythingisveryconcrete,theymustlookgood,they mustbedurable,theymustbewearable.Youhavetobeabletowearthemforalongtime,so thatnothingislefttochance,there’sagreatdealofattentiontodetailsothateverythingis perfect.(female,60)

Initsgeneralmeaning,wearabilitydistinguishesclothesdesignedtobewornbytheconsumer fromthoseintendedtobeappreciatedbycolleagues,criticsandjournalists.Theyareclotheswhose essentialqualityisnotmanifestatthemomentwhentheyareseen,butratherwhentheyareworn: Wearemaniacalaboutﬁtandwearability,whichIthinkarecertainlyourstrengths.Something thatIlikealotwhenI’mintheshopisseeingthat,whenagirlgoesintotheﬁttingroomwiththe clothes,ninetimesoutoftenshebuysthem.WhileinmanyshopsIassureyouthatninetimes outoftentheydon’tbuyanything.(male,33)

Ratherthan‘‘artistic’’qualityenjoyablethroughperception,therefore,itisthecapacitytoproduce garmentsthatsuittherequirementsoftheuserthatdistinguishes‘‘good’’from‘‘bad’’fashionand, therefore,giveslegitimacytoqualityfashiondesign.Ofcourse,themeaningof‘‘suittherequirements oftheuser’’variedaccordingtotheinterviewees.Forsome,itcorrespondedtotheideathatclothes

(15)

shouldbeacceptabletothetasteoftheaverageconsumer,thattheycanbewornwithoutthefearof beingtoodaringorattractingtoomuchattention.Forothers,thereprevailedtheideathatclothes shouldﬁttheshapeofthebodywithouthamperingitsmovements:thatis,theyshouldbedesigned withmaximumattentionpaidtoshapingtheconstructivedetailsinrelationtotheirbehaviourduring use.Foryetothers,wearabilitycomprisedtheideaof‘‘sincere’’clothesthatattractthepurchaser,not withgimmicksthatmakethemparticularlyostentatious,butratherwiththeircapacityto‘‘sitwell’’on thehumanbody.Finally,therewereintervieweeswhoinsistedontheideaofdurability,whereby clothesare ableto withstandchanges in fashion and resistwear and tear, thus becoming truly personal objects. But overall, all the interviewees believed that they were subject, not to the judgementofcolleagues,journalistsandcritics,buttothatofﬁnalcustomers(i.e.,consumers).This wasnotinthesenseofpassivelysubmittingtothestandardisingpowerofthemarket,asarguedby

Crane(1997b,p.410)inregardtosmallFrenchfashioncompanies,butinthesenseofconceiving fashiondesignasservingthecause,notofpersonalartisticexpression,butofthediverseneedsof consumerswhorequireclothesfortheharmoniousconductoftheireverydaylives.

In short,theinterviewswiththeMilanesefashiondesigners clearlyconveyed a viewof their professioninwhichthearchetypeoftheartistwasnotonlyregardedasamodelnottobepursuedbut wasoftentakenasareferencepointtosaywhatafashiondesignershouldnotbeordo.Inastriking case,thisbecameapparentwhenanintervieweedescribedhimselfasan‘‘artist’’butatthesametime saidthathehadhadtostopbeinganartisttobecomeadesigner:

Iattendedﬁneartsschoolbytakingeveningclasses.Igraduatedinengravinganddrawing.I’d saythat I’vealwayshadanartisticvocation...Butthen,apartfromsomedrawings,Ididn’t continue.Itwasusefulformyhobbies...alsowhendesigningstagesetsforthetheatre.Butthat wasit,theendofmyartisticcareer!(male,44)

Thisfootweardesignerwithanartisticvocationhadusedtheskillsacquiredforthatvocationinhis hobbies(suchasstagesetdesign),buthesaidthathehadbeenforcedtoabandonthemintheexercise ofhisprofessionasafashiondesigner.

Thesymmetricaloppositewasthecaseofthefashiondesignerwhoconfessedthathedreamedof becominganartistwhenheﬁnallystoppedbeinganeyeweardesigner:

InthefutureIplantobeanartistandtostopdesigningglasses.Iwanttobeapainterandthat’s it!Apainterofabstractart.IwanttodowhatIwanttodo,becreativepureandsimple!Withno conditioningsofanykind,nottohavetheseproblemswithﬁrmsanymore.(male,56) Tobeabletocreateart,hesays,itisnecessarytoescapefromthefashionsystem.

9. Conclusions

Inthisarticle,wehaveconsideredthequestionoftherelationshipbetweenartandfashion—two ﬁeldsofculturalproductionmarkedbycontacts,contrasts,andshiftingboundaries—andwehave investigateditinlightoftheperceptionsofartamongordinaryfashiondesigners.

Wehaveidentifiedthreedifferentapproachestoanalysisofthisrelationshipinfashionstudies.In doing so, we have abandoned the emphasis on fashion products and fashions designers for an institutionalperspectivethatconceivesfashionandartassocialfields.Inthisframework,wehave drawnontheliteraturetooutlinetheeffectsproducedbetweenthetwofields—cross-fertilisation, metamorphosis,identity,andlegitimation—andwehaveconcentrated,inparticular,ontheprocesses of identity formation and the legitimation of fields of cultural production. These are themes consideredprincipallybytheproductionperspectiveandthetheoryofartification.

Theempiricalmaterials—interviewswithMilanesefashiondesigners—havebeenanalysedinorder todeterminenotwhetherfashionisorisnotartbut,instead,whetherornotfashiondesignersuseart asameanstoacquirelegitimacyandtocreateanidentity,therebyinstitutionalisingtheirﬁeldof culturalproduction(fashion)asartistic.Theﬁndingwasthattheydonotuseartforthispurpose.

Wefoundthat,intherepresentationsofordinarydesigners,theeffectsofidentityandlegitimation operate otherwise: identiﬁcation with art is often rejected by fashion designers, who seek to legitimatetheirculturalproduction,notthroughart,butthroughacultureofwearability.

(16)

Thisresultaddsfurtherelementsfordiscussionaboutthetheoryofartificationandtheproduction ofculturetheory.Weknowfromtheformerthatfashionisinprincipleasocialterrainsusceptibleto artification,butourempiricalcasestudyshowsthatfashiondoesnotpursueit—atleast,itdoesnotdo sogenerally and systematically (institutionally) as thetheory of artification would have it. The Milanese fashion designers interviewed—who were neither marginal actors in the field nor representatives of a fashion ‘‘other’’ than avant-garde—were not involved in any of the transformationsthatelevateobjects,practices,andpeoplefromnon-arttoart.

Asregardstheproduction perspective,thedistinction between ‘‘high’’ and‘‘low’’ apparent in Milaneseready-to-wearfashiondoesnotderivefromtheattributionofartisticvaluetotheproducts orthedesigners,asintheperiodofhautecouture,butratherfromthedriveforwearability,without any(evident)institutionalisationoftheproductbut,instead,withastrongemphasisonindividualor collectivecreativityinoppositiontotheartisticdimension.

Inthisregard,itisusefultocomparethecaseoffashionwiththatofthecinema(Baumann,2001). Inbothfashionandthecinema,thereisan‘‘artistic’’sectorandapurelyindustrialmainstreamone. WhattheMilanesefashiondesignersshow,however,isthatevenwhentheyworkintheindustrial mainstream,theymayrejecttheideaofworkingforthemassificationofculturalconsumption.They doso,however,inordertolegitimatethemselvesthroughtheidea,notofartor‘‘highculture,’’butof wearability.TheMilanesefashiondesignersinterviewedrejectedidentificationwithartbecause theywereinclinedtoindividualcreativity:thecultureofwearabilityconcernsgarmentssuitedto theneedsoftheindividual,itisnotacultureofmassproduction.Fashiondesignisthereforeinthis contextasocial fieldthatlegitimatesitself asafieldofculturalproductionwithhighsymbolic content—being,inthisrespect,differentfromthetypicalmediaandcultureindustry.Butatthesame time, it rejects identification with art, also distinguishing itself from those fields of cultural production thathavebeenartified orseekartification.Itis thisparadoxicalfeaturethatmakes theMilanesecase interesting.TheMilanesefashion designsceneis neither a culturalindustry affected by aesthetic mobilitynor one undergoing artification; rather it is a form of cultural productionthatseekslegitimationthroughreferencetoavalueofitsown,thatofclothingintended tobewearable.

Acknowledgements

Wewouldliketothanktheguesteditorsofthisspecialissueofthejournalfortheirverydetailed and helpful feedback and the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticisms and thoughtfulcomments.

References

Baumann,S.,2001.Intellectualizationandartworlddevelopment:ﬁlmintheUnitedStates.AmericanSociologicalReview6,

404–426.

Baumann,S.,2007.Ageneraltheoryofartisticlegitimation:howartworldsarelikesocialmovements.Poetics35,47–65.

Becker,H.S.,1974.Artascollectiveaction.AmericanSociologicalReview6,767–776.

Becker,H.S.,1982.ArtWorlds.UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley,CA.

Benjamin,W.,2008(1936).TheWorkofArtintheAgeofMechanicalReproduction.PenguinBooks,London.

Bertaux,D.(Ed.),1981. BiographyandSociety:TheLifeStoryApproachintheSocialSciences.Sage,London.

Bickers,P.,2002.Marriage-a`-lamode.ArtMonthly(November),1–4.

Boodro,M.,2011(1990).Artandfashion:aﬁneromance.In:Welters,L.,Littlethun,A.(Eds.),TheFashionReader.Berg,Oxford,

UK, pp.369–373.

Bourdieu,P.,1983.Theﬁeldofculturalproduction,ortheeconomicworldreversed.Poetics12,311–356.

Bourdieu,P.,1990.Photography:AMiddle-BrowArt.StanfordUniversityPress,Stanford,CA.

Bourdieu,P.,1994(1992).Thelinkbetweenliteraryandartisticstruggles.In:Collier,P.,Lethbridge,R.(Eds.),ArtisticRelations,

LiteratureandtheVisualArtsinNineteenth-CenturyFrance.YaleUniversityPress,NewHaven,CT, pp.30–39.

Bourdieu,P.,Delsaut,Y.,1975.Lecouturieretsagriffe:contributiona` unethe´oriedelamagie.Actesdelarechercheensciences sociales1,7–36.

Bourdieu,P.,Waquant,L.J.D.,1992.AnInvitationtoReﬂexiveSociology.TheUniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago.

Breward,C.,Gilbert,D.(Eds.),2006. Fashion’sWorldCities.Berg,Oxford,UK.

Bucci,A.,2002.FashioninMilan:StyleandBusinessinaChangingCity.AbitareSegesta,Milan.

ChurchGibson,P.,2011.FashionandCelebrityCulture.Berg,Oxford,UK.

ChurchGibson,P.,2012.Nuovealleanze:mondodell’arte,casedimodaecelebrita`.In:Pedroni,M.,Volonte´,P.(Eds.),Modae

(17)

Clark,H.,2012.Conceptualfashion.In:Geczy,A.,Karaminas,V.(Eds.),FashionandArt.Berg,London, pp.67–75.

Crane,D.,1993.Fashiondesignasanoccupation:across-nationalapproach.CurrentResearchonOccupationsandProfessions8, 55–73.

Crane,D.,1997a.Postmodernismandtheavant-garde:stylisticchangeinfashiondesign.Modernism/Modernity4,123–140.

Crane,D.,1997b.Globalization,organizationalsize,andinnovationintheFrenchluxuryfashionindustry:productionofculture theoryrevisited.Poetics24,393–414.

Crane,D.,1999.Fashiondesignandsocialchange:womendesignersandstylisticinnovation.JournalofAmericanCulture22,

61–68.

Crane,D.,2000.FashionanditsSocialAgendas:Class,GenderandIdentityinClothing.UniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago.

Crane,D.,2012a.Boundaries.In:Geczy,A.,Karaminas,V.(Eds.),FashionandArt.Berg,London, pp.99–110.

Crane,D.,2012b.Lamode.In:Heinich,N.,Shapiro,R.(Eds.),Del’artiﬁcation:Enqueˆtessurlepassagea` l’art.E´ditionsdel’E´cole

desHautesE´tudesenSciencesSociales,Paris, pp.241–251.

Currid,E.,2007.TheWarholEconomy:HowFashionandArtDriveNewYorkCity.PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton,NJ.

DeNora,T.,1991.MusicalpatronageandsocialchangeinBeethoven’sVienna.AmericanJournalofSociology97,310–346.

DiMaggio,P.,1977.Marketstructure,thecreativeprocess,andpopularculture:towardanorganizationalreinterpretationof

mass-culturetheory.JournalofPopularCulture11(2),436–452.

DiMaggio,P.,1982a.Culturalentrepreneurshipinnineteenth-centuryBoston.PartI:Thecreationofanorganizationalbasefor highcultureinAmerica.Media,Culture&Society4,33–50.

DiMaggio,P.,1982b. Culturalentrepreneurshipin nineteenth-centuryBoston.PartII:Theclassiﬁcationandframingof

Americanart.Media,Culture&Society4,303–322.

DiMaggio,P.,1991.Socialstructure,institutions,andculturalgoods:thecaseoftheUnitedStates.In:Bourdieu,P.,Coleman,J.S.

(Eds.),SocialTheoryforaChangingSociety.WestviewPress,Boulder,CO, pp.133–155.

DiMaggio,P.,1992.Culturalboundariesandstructuralchange:theextensionofthehighculturemodeltotheatre,opera,and

dance,1900–1940.In:Lamont,M.,Fournier,M.(Eds.),CultivatingDifferences:SymbolicBoundariesandtheMakingof

Inequality.UniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago, pp.21–57.

DiMaggio,P.,2000.Theproductionofscientiﬁcchange:RichardPetersonandtheinstitutionalchangeinculturalsociology.

Poetics28,107–136.

Entwistle,J.,2009.TheAestheticEconomyofFashion:MarketsandValuesinClothingandModelling.Berg,Oxford,UK.

Evans,C.,2003.FashionattheEdge:Spectacle,ModernityandDeathliness.YaleUniversityPress,NewHaven,CT.

Geczy,A.,Karaminas,V.(Eds.),2012. FashionandArt.Berg,London.

Gill,A.,1998.Deconstructionfashion:themakingofunﬁnished,decomposingandre-assembledclothes.FashionTheory2(1),

25–50.

Gronow,J.,1997.TheSociologyofTaste.Routledge,London.

Heinich,N.,Shapiro,R.(Eds.),2012. Del’artiﬁcation:Enqueˆtessurlepassagea` l’art.E´ditionsdel’E´coledesHautesE´tudesen SciencesSociales,Paris.

Horowitz,T.,1975.Themaninthemiddle:thestudyoftheroleofthefashiondesignerintheprocessofformationanddiffusion offashioninGreatBritain.JournaloftheMarketResearchSociety17,26–40.

Howkins,J.,2001.TheCreativeEconomy:HowPeopleMakeMoneyfromIdeas.PenguinBooks,London.

Kim,S.B.,1998.Isfashionart? FashionTheory2(1),51–72.

Lipovetsky,G.,1994.TheEmpireofFashion.PrincetonUniversityPress,Princeton,NJ.

Lopes,P.,2002.TheRiseofaJazzArtWorld.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,UK.

MalcolmNewberryConsultingCompany,2003.AStudyoftheUKDesignerFashionSector.ConclusionsandRecommendations.

DepartmentofTrade&IndustryandtheBritishFashionCouncil,London.http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/

http://www.dti.gov.uk/support/textiles/pdfs/designer.pdf(accessed29.01.14).

Martin,R.,1998.Fashionasart.In:Kelly,M.(Ed.), EncyclopediaofAesthetics,vol.2.OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford,UK,pp. 154–157.

McNeil,P.,2008.We’renotinthefashionbusiness:fashioninthemuseumandtheacademy.FashionTheory12(1),65–82.

McRobbie,A.,1998.BritishFashionDesign:RagTradeorImageIndustry?Routledge,London.

Mears,A.,2010.Sizezerohigh-endethnic:culturalproductionandthereproductionofcultureinfashionmodeling.Poetics38, 21–46.

Mears,P.,2008.ExhibitingAsia:theglobalimpactofJapanesefashioninmuseumsandgalleries.FashionTheory12(1),95–119.

Miller,S.,2007.Fashionasart:isfashionart? FashionTheory11(1),25–40.

Morini,E.,2012.Creatore,artistaodesigner?Ilproblemadellalegittimazione.In:Pedroni,M.,Volonte´,P.(Eds.),Modaearte.

FrancoAngeli,Milan, pp.35–50.

Norell,N.,Nevelson,L.,Sharaff,I.,Nikolais,A.,Courreges,A.,Tucker,P.,1967.Isfashionart?MetropolitanMuseumofArt

Bulletin. NewSeries26(3),129–140.

Pasqui,G.,BolocanGoldstein,M.,2002.Fashionandproduction.In:Bucci,A.(Ed.),FashioninMilan:StyleandBusinessina

ChangingCity.AbitareSegesta,Milan, pp.249–255.

Peterson,K.E.,2003.Discourseand display:themoderneye, entrepreneurship,andtheculturaltransformationofthe

patchworkquilt.SociologicalPerspectives46(4),461–490.

Peterson,R.A.,1972.Aprocessmodelofthefolk,pop,andﬁneartphasesofjazz.In:Nanry,C.(Ed.),AmericanMusic:From

StoryvilletoWoodstock.TransactionBooks,NewBrunswick,NJ, pp.135–151.

Peterson,R.A.,1994.Culturestudiesthroughtheproductionperspective:progressandprospects.In:Crane,D.(Ed.),The

SociologyofCulture.Blackwell,Cambridge,MA, pp.163–189.

Peterson,R.A.,Anand,N.,2004.Theproductionofcultureperspective.AnnualReviewofSociology30,311–334.

Ricchetti,M.,Cietta,E.(Eds.),2006. Ilvaloredellamoda.Industriaeserviziinunsettoreguidatodall’innovazione.Bruno

Mondadori,Milan.

Roso,M.,2005.ModevormgevinginNederland:deontbrekendebruggentussencreatieencommercie.Premsela,Stichtingvoor

NederlandseVormgeving,Amsterdam.http://www.premsela.org/sbeos/doc/ﬁle.php?nid=1944(accessed29.01.14).

(18)

SegreReinach,S.,2006.Milan:thecityofpreˆt-a` -porterinaworldoffastfashion.In:Breward,C.,Gilbert,D.(Eds.),Fashion’s

WorldCities.Berg,Oxford,UK, pp.123–134.

Shapiro,R.,2007.Artetchangementsocial:l’artiﬁcation.In:LeQue´ au,P.(Ed.), Vingtansdesociologiedel’art:bilanet perspectives,vol.2.L’Harmattan,Paris,pp.129–136.

Shapiro,R.,2012.Avant-propos.In:Heinich,N.,Shapiro,R.(Eds.),Del’artiﬁcation.Enqueˆtessurlepassagea` l’art:E´ ditionsde l’E´ coledeshautesetudesensciencessociales,Paris, pp.15–26.

Sischy,I.,2004.InterviewwithArmani.In:Celant,G.(Ed.),GiorgioArmani.RoyalAcademyofArts,London, pp.2–19.

Skov,L.,2002.HongKongfashiondesignersasculturalintermediaries:outofglobalgarmentproduction.CulturalStudies16 (4),553–569.

Skov,L.,2012.Itwasahugeshock:fashiondesigners’transitionfromschooltoworkinDenmark,1980–2000s.In:Mathieu,C.

(Ed.),CareersinCreativeIndustries.Routledge,NewYork, pp.270–288.

Steele,V.,2003.Fashion,ItalianStyle.YaleUniversityPress,NewHaven,CT.

Steele,V.,2012.Fashion.In:Geczy,A.,Karaminas,V.(Eds.),FashionandArt.Berg,London/NewYork, pp.13–28.

Sudjic,D.,2008.TheLanguageofThings:UnderstandingtheWorldofDesirableObjects.PenguinBooks,London.

Swartz,D.,1997.CultureandPower:TheSociologyofPierreBourdieu.TheUniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago.

Taine,H.-A.,1867.NotessurParis:VieetopinionsdeM.Fre´ de´ ricThomasGraindorge.Hachette,Paris.

Thornton,S.,2008.SevenDaysintheArtWorld.Norton,NewYork.

Townsend,C.,2002.Rapture:Art’sSeductionbyFashion.Thames&Hudson,London.

Troy,N.J.,2002.CoutureCulture:AStudyinModernArtandFashion.MITPress,Cambridge,MA.

Volonte´ ,P.,2008.Vitadastilista:Ilruolosocialedelfashiondesigner.BrunoMondadori,Milan.

Volonte´ ,P.,2012.SocialandculturalfeaturesoffashiondesigninMilan.FashionTheory16(4),399–432.