Can Couture be Modern?

Despite its traditional codes, rituals and gender divisions, couture is modernising. But is modernisation at odds with its role as a creative laboratory for dreams?

Valentino haute couture A/W 2014 | Source: Nowfashion.com

PARIS, France — Can couture be modern? The question surfaces regularly in Paris during Haute Couture Week. This season, more than ever, as designers engaged in a constant dialogue with history in order to progress: slicing, cutting, decomposing and recomposing shapes — the panier being a favourite — in a creative struggle to birth the new from a well-known repertoire. It did work, most of the time, but it also highlighted couture’s intrinsic anachronism.

Couture is a singular moment, made of peculiar rituals. For a start, there are the clothes: jewel-like creations reserved for an exclusive coterie of women. Indeed, in the audience are not the usual fashionistas, but the five-star luxury clientele, whose names are religiously kept secret by the maisons: wealthy madames and seasoned aristocrats coming from the four corners of the world, but also, increasingly, the nouveau, and decidedly younger, big spenders arriving to Paris from both established and emerging markets, well aware that the exclusivity of couture is the ultimate expression of power. There are also movie stars and celebrities, of course, but they rarely validate a show, or generate media coverage — tabloids are not exactly haute in spirit, you know.

In a world that is increasingly digital and manufactured — and thus infinitely replicable — couture is as old school as it can possibly get: hand-made, unique. Couture is like a journey into the past, a stroll in a different time period. It suggests women surrounded by maids helping them get dressed, ladies whose only preoccupation in life might be an immaculate coif and the will to shine as the irreproachable arm candy of their affluent husbands, to whom they dedicate their whole public existence. It is all about nipped waists and whalebones, arched eyebrows and splendid jewels. Ultimately, couture does without female emancipation and is the enemy of fashion’s increasing democratisation.

There is nothing democratic about couture and proudly so. It barely touches the glossies or the Internet, and, in return, is barely touched by the fever of visibility which has made fashion the religion of our time. It is a cult for the initiated and the cultivated, while mere fashion is, well, entertainment for the masses. Couture is based on values that are totally out of time. In a world that goes fast, it is slow. Extremely slow. You cannot have it right away. Buying does not happen in shops, but in ateliers or, better yet, in the mansions of clients themselves, where vendeuses reach customers to offer the best possible service. Then there are the conceptual and cultural boundaries to be considered. In a world that is increasingly open and hybridised, couture is closed and hyper-protective. (The very term haute couture is regulated by French law and membership in its governing body, the Chambre Syndicale de la Haute Couture, is restricted to a handful of fashion houses). While the rest of the world embraces a visual language that is fluid and endlessly morphing, couture celebrates traditional codes, rituals and clearly defined gender divisions. In this sense, couture will never be truly modern.

Yet, in recent seasons, we’ve seen designers embrace modernisation and the couture week that closed yesterday offers further proof of this. Couturiers want to be relevant and act as such. Raf Simons has led the modernist pack since his arrival at Dior two years ago and so have Maria Grazia Chiuri and Pierpaolo Piccioli at Valentino, whose main aim is to preserve and sustain the unique know-how of the traditional couture ateliers while creating clothes that, aesthetically, are meant for women of today. Their work is outstanding in technical finesse and grace, even when, like this season, it seems to lack coherence.

Karl Lagerfeld, too, at Chanel, keeps making the house codes lighter and younger. This means, essentially, faster lines and a stress on couture, not as occasion dressing, but as a complete wardrobe, encompassing daywear as well as incredible eveningwear and everything in between. Which is to say: couture is a service, exclusive to those who have infinite resources and prefer not to mingle with commoners.In this sense, it can be seen as modern, acknowledging that even jet-setters, today, lead hyperactive lives with very different behavioural patterns to those that came before them. Yet, with every good, there is also some bad. Although immaculately made and utterly precious, many of the pieces I saw this week — the Dior coats, for instance, or the ribbed jumpers at Valentino — looked a tad mundane on the couture catwalks, the difference compared to ready-to-wear not easy to detect with the bare eye (though if you wear or touch them, the distinction becomes blatantly apparent). These are creations that look real, maybe too real, and lack the dream element which is still couture’s main raison d’être. Or is it not?

Today, some ready-to-wear pieces are as precious, and as costly, as couture, so perhaps there is no point in exploring pragmatism in a couture collection. What we need from couture is invention: fashion’s fuel. Without this, the risk is homogenisation and fashion is already heading fast in that direction.

It’s a complicated riddle. Modernity is generally at odds with the will to make people dream. It is grounded, fast, tangible: qualities that might led couture to evolution — just think of the work of Raf Simons and Chiuri and Piccioli — or fatal extinction. One way or another, couture should be treated as a creative laboratory for beauty, much as Giambattista Valli does, consciously oblivious of what is modern and what is not. Beautiful things do not always need to be useful. They need to nurture the eye and the soul. For the rest, there are plenty of factories out there.

Related Articles

Post a Comment

10 comments

  1. Ah, couture! To be a couturier is my dream! One thing I am constantly disappointed with, though, is the lack of theatricity during the shows, exploration and risk-taking with the silhouettes. Sure, Elie Saab’s dresses are breathtaking with the beading and fabrics, but it seems like the designer is getting very comfortable with just doing embroidery and not pushing the boundaries; he’s overall staying pretty safe with his designs. What about taking risks with the construction?
    Coco Chanel in her day pushed the boundaries of what was acceptable dress for women. Having pioneered so many new types of garments, the house today no longer experiments or takes risks. Sure, the shows are impressive and grandly staged, but it is the celebrities that are used as “attention-grabbers” rather than innovative designs and garment construction. Lagerfeld garners media by having lesbian brides, then it’s Kendall Jenner making her couture runway debut. Oh and don’t forget that this time it’s a pregnant bride.
    If it wasn’t for the embroidery, I don’t see what he would sell.
    In school I was taught that mass fashion follows the dream creations of couture. After these past shows, I really don’t see what they can copy. The embroidery has been around for years, but besides that, nothing much has changed.
    Haute Couture designers, PLEASE! shock me, astonish me, take my breath away! Be the leaders!! Create a dream that will keep my attention, rather than make me yawn!

    Vitalina Pavlovna from Corona, CA, United States
  2. One designer that I am trully impressed with this season is Ulyana Sergeenko. She showed significant improval with keeping the collections cohesive. She found a more, how do I say this…. Relevant inspiration for her collections? The Russian ballet thing and traditional Russian styles wasn’t working to well for her. I just hope that she won’t lose her experimentive streak. What it all comes down to is finding the right balance between experimenting and being commercial-minded. I think she is one to watch!

    Vitalina Pavlovna from Corona, CA, United States
  3. It’s a good article. I wonder why Iris Van Herpen wasn’t mentioned, though.

    Darryl Warren from Vancouver, BC, Canada
  4. Great read. I agree. As I looked through the haute couture collections, I kept thinking RTW.. Seems like they’re blending together.

    Karolína Kučerová from Kwun Tong, Hong Kong (general), Hong Kong
  5. Haute couture “mundane looks” are dangerous… they can in a way(surficially) be copied, and when it happens, the magic goes out. It makes the fashion cycle to end prematurely. Haute Couture can be modern, as there is modern art, but it has to be unique and untouchable.

    Paola Hesse Poletto from Brazil
  6. What an article! Everything i couldn’t put into words. I have truely been missing the ‘Haute’ in the Couture shows.

    Rohitash Notani from Milan, Lombardy, Italy
  7. This is silly. If couture is a so-called “factory of dreams,” then why modernization would seem at odds with this premise? Dreams are not inherently old-fashioned; they evolve over time. If couture is indeed to continue its role as a ‘dreammaker’ in the 21st Century, than they should cater to modern dreamers.

    guilherme ferraz from São Paulo, Brazil
  8. I completely disagree. Couture is first and foremost about craft, technique. The idea that in order for luxury to be luxury it has to be ostentatious is a facile and simple-minded argument. Moreover, fantasy and romance is easy. It’s a ton of cascading fabric and some jeweled embellishment. There’s little craft or even designing to that. As beautiful as the Valli dresses are, I’m pretty confident I’ve seen those shapes and designs before – the only thing that’s changed is maybe some colors, fabrics or some feathers. They do nothing to push the field of fashion forward. In contrast, the Chanel and Dior collections were new – they took old world techniques and applied them to designs that can be worn, and worn frequently, by today’s women. There is true value in those clothes.

    harry chang from Toms River, NJ, United States
  9. “To call a fashion wearable is the kiss of death. No new fashion worth its salt is ever wearable.” -Eugenia Sheppard

    Jery McKinney from San Diego, CA, United States
  10. This is a very well-written article. I agree that couture is not for the masses – it is for the designer themselves and the house’s private clients as stated above. And no doubt there are far more considerations to what gets realized from the designs than what we are privy to.

    So if we are seeing more wearable, some might say mundane, daywear amongst the couture offerings then maybe it’s a reflection of the needs of the new clients – whose orders help to keep the couture alive. And possibly we should be comparing the collections of today to those of fifteen years ago when there was far more daywear within a couture collection because that is what the clients purchased. If we are to compare at all.

    Our modern world is indeed in conflict with dreams – whimsical ones anyway. The dreams of today seem to all have to do with money, technology, notoriety. We no longer seem to participate in dreams while we’re awake and moving through our days. When is the last time someone caught you daydreaming?

    Michelle

    P.S. I agree with Harry’s comment that couture is predominantly about craft and technique. Anyone can throw Swarovski beads onto a dress and claim it’s “couture”. The word gets tossed around with far too much ease.

    Michelle Fix from New York, NY, United States