Former collaborator of Algridas Julien Greimas in the “Groupe de recherches sémio-linguistiques” (EHESS-CNRS), J.-M. Floch devotes the fourth chapter of Visual Identities (1995) to “Chanel changing: the total look”. His goal is to analyse the Chanel silhouette in its entirety, without stopping at its particular pieces, while focusing on real, material clothing (as opposed to the work carried out by A.J. Greimas and R. Barthes on the written metadiscourses present in fashion journals on the occasion of La mode en 1830, essai de description du vocabulaire vestimentaire de l’époque de la mode (1948) and Système de la mode (1967).
The challenge is significant. If R. Barthes had given up studying real garment in favour of written garment because of the difficulty in understanding its syntactic nature, J.-M. Floch intends to go beyond this aporia by using the distinction between figurative semiotics and plastic semiotics first made by A. J. Greimas in his “Figurative semiotics and plastic semiotics” (1984). As a reminder, while figurative semiotics aims to identify visual signifiers and associate them with signified ones through a “culturally relative ‘reading grid’”, plastic semiotics escapes the mere lexicalization of the signifier to embrace the idea of a semiology including linguistics.
At this stage, how can these two reading modes be applied to the Chanel silhouettes? How do they differ?
Figurative semiotics
First of all, let’s look at the figurative semiotics of the “total Chanel look”. To do this, J.-M. Floch uses two of the five sketches drawn by K. Lagerfeld for the 1993 Chanel catalogue, where the designer endeavours to present the “Elements for an immediate identification of Chanel”.
The first consists of sketches representing a black pointed toe, a padded bag, the little black dress, a tailor’s jacket, a catogan, a camellia and a gold button on which is written “CC”. On the second one, K. Lagerfeld mentions “the bag, the jewellery, the shoe, the camellia, the buttons, the chains, it’s all there! “, leaning against three archetypal Chanel silhouettes. J.-M. Floch extracts a series of identification elements acting by metonymy. Among them are the following the sailor’s blouse of 1913, the jersey of 1916, the cardigan of 1918, the little black dress of 1924 or even the 1928 tweed. A figurative reading proposes to insert them in their context of the early 20th century, as well as in the history of Western costume. It reads as an opposition to Paul Poiret, as well as to the feminine silhouette of the early 20th century, which hinders the movement of the body. For example, the pockets are designed to completely insert one’s hands, and short skirts encourage freedom. In addition, one notices the recurrence of elements borrowed from the male and worker’s cloakrooms, such as the jersey and beret, short hair or pants. At the figurative level, J.-M. Floch therefore proposes to highlight two main elements: the theme of individual freedom and the influence of the masculinity.
Plastic semiotics
Plastic semiotics is based on a completely different approach. It is no longer a question for J.-M. Floch to list the identification elements of the Chanel look to situate them in history of the costume but to link them to H. Wölfflin’s theories around the distinction between classic and baroque.
To this end, Floch examines the “sensitive dimension of the total look” around four main points:
- The production of a “closure of the general shape” by the black toes of the shoes, the short hair or canoe hat, facilitating the dissociation between floor and shoe, and between face and sky, respectively.
- The primacy of the line: the braiding of the suit, belt or print, contribute to a general segmentation of the silhouette by the emphasis placed on the contour.
- The solid areas: the jewellery forms kinds of “enclaves”, controlled masses, helping to fragment the silhouette. 4. The light of colours and materials: beige, navy blue, white, red and black, jersey, tweed, or crepe all tend to control light.
J.-M. Floch notes that these elements represent a dialectic between classical and baroque aesthetics, terms that do not refer here to their historical roots, but to the conception outlined by H. Wölfflin in his Principles of Art History (1915). In his case, the distinction takes shape through five oppositions:
- Linear vs pictorial: classical aesthetics seems to give importance to the line, the contour, the stability of the structure, unlike baroque aesthetics, preferring mass consciousness and the interweaving of objects.
- Planes vs depths: the classical space is organized into separate plans, parallel and frontal with respect to the fixed observer, when the baroque is characterized by depth.
- Closed form vs. open form: the classical tends to present a “limited image in itself” and opposes baroque’s aversion to any limitation.
- Plurality vs unity: if classical aesthetics seeks the harmony of different aesthetic elements by maintaining their independence, the baroque aims at fusion, absorption by suppression of the different parts’ autonomy.
- Lightness vs. darkness: classical light tends to make shapes and forms more readable and is opposed to the baroque in that it develops a reality subject to the whims of light.
Thus, J.-M. Floch points out on the one hand a logic of distinction, permanence, isolation, and on the other hand, the movement, instantaneity and indivisibility.
Concerning the Chanel silhouette, it seems that the tailor’s braiding gives primacy to the line, and that the way the body touches the ground corresponds to a logic of distinguishing planes in space. Similarly, we note a closed shape in the “closure effect” of the “total look” provided by the shoes, the short hair or the sailor’s hat. The masses of the jewels refer to the classic multiplicity. Finally, colors and materials tend to control the light, to the readability of forms, and in this way are opposed to the relativity of baroque light. J.-M. Floch nuances his point by suggesting that some elements of the silhouette refer to the baroque aesthetic. This is how jewellery and the chain of the bag are confused and intertwine to serve the classic aesthetic. Semiotically, we can therefore see a combination of the two visions, although inclined in favor of classical order.
Once the distinction between figurative and plastic semiotics has been made, it is easy to understand how the latter helps us when it comes to moving to a “second” level of interpretation. The analysis of the Chanel silhouette is no longer limited to the themes of individual freedom or masculinity (figurative semiotics), but evokes Wölfflin’s theories and interprets it more as a dialectic between classical and baroque aesthetics. These two types of reading can be applied to the work of any creator and definitely provide us with the opportunity to approach the real, unwritten clothing. It would be easy, for example, to compare the manifesto “Le vêtement anti-neutraliste” published in 1914 by G. Balla with the aesthetics of André Courrèges.
No comments:
Post a Comment