I don't always see the fashion in fashion magazines. I get bogged down looking at the models. They may still be way too young. Or they look too "exotic" with their tattoos, piercings and/or shaved hairstyles. I applaud the use of models of color, but they are sometimes treated like artful canvases and not the real women they are. I may recognize those minor celebrity models, but I couldn't tell you their names. I'm not even sure I enjoy seeing models I once loved (Amber Valletta, Christy Turlington) making guest shots, so to speak.
Never one not to come up with a solution, I have one. Why not bring back fashion illustration in a big way? Especially in this time of Coronavirus, why not protect everyone and use our imaginations?
Maybe it's just me, but I've always found it easier to see myself in an illustration than a photograph. I loved Betty Betz's teenagers from the 1940s and wanted to be one when I grew up (i.e. became a teenager).
Annabritta—I know nothing more about her than her name—illustrated Claire McCardell's "What Shall I Wear?" I've always wanted to look like those drawings, and I kind of think I do.
There have been many celebrated fashion illustrators, of course. The art deco Erte comes to mind, but his work and those of others of the period are dated, literally around 1926.
In the 1930s fashion illustration took a more natural turn. There were plenty of stars then too, on into the '50s and early '60s. Rene Bouché (below) was one. That's how I'd like to look reading a history book.
Fashion illustration can be realistic or fantastic. It can evoke a mood as much if not more than a photograph. We tend to see photographs in literal terms and give illustrations "artistic license".
Remember that J Peterman catalogue of "Seinfeld" notoriety? They sold a tremendous amount of product with simple illustrations and a lot of evocative text. The company is still in business and still uses illustration, but they add a touch of reality to their online site. I'm thinking, give me that old-time fantasy.
I love the idea of bringing back fashion illustrations. I actually do this for myself by drawing a little sketch of the outfit silhouettes I am thinking of wearing on a little pencil drawing of myself. The J. Peterman catalogue was one of my favorites because they had drawings without human distraction, so I could imagine myself in the clothing.
ReplyDeleteLori, I do the same thing, especially when I am planning what to pack. Did you love paper dolls (as I did) when you were a kid?
DeleteAbsolutely. I remember carefully cutting out the outfits from the magazines my mother got. I bought sturdy Victorian styled paper dolls for my daughter just as soon as she was old enough to play with them!
DeleteWhat a great idea, Michelle! And all those struggling artists out there (the art world has been hit so hard with COVID), this could really be something to explore! Erte's work is just stunning, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteSo many of those artists from the '20s were fabulous. I fear that style may not transfer well to today, but I love looking at their work. Thanks again for writing.
DeleteI am confused, didn’t Vogue just run illustrations on their covers? What is this blog referring to? I would have though illustration was booming! Look at all the digital art, it’s everywhere. The blogger writes like a child, true, and seems to have no clue about the world. Strange to suggest illustration is dead, ergo, needs to ‘come back’
ReplyDeleteI particularly loved her observation about Erte: ‘There have been many celebrated fashion illustrators, of course. The art deco Erte comes to mind, but his work and those of others of the period are dated, LITERALLY around 1926.’
Really? Well, seeing as the Art Deco period was around that time, yes, 1926, literally IS when he was drawing. Proof that writing is not her strong suit, when the completely wrong word is inserted into a sentence stating the bleeding obvious. Fashion historian she is not.
The writer is referring to the dearth of illustration in print magazines, not on the internet.
ReplyDeleteThanks, I think you "got" what I was thinking.
DeleteI agree that photography is literal. It is “reality” to many eyes and leaves little room for the viewer to participate freely with his or her imagination.
ReplyDeleteI agree it would take a lot of re-education in our very literal society to fire up the imagination cylinders. Thanks for reading!
Delete