Anniversaries are a bit of a crapshoot when incorporating them as an influence in design. Part of the problem is balancing the right amount of hype, social relevance and public interest. Too much hype can actually backfire; look at any public event given advance as the event of the century. It creates expectations that will more often than not supersede what is delivered because the promises made too far in advance allow a public a lot of room to tailor their expectations. By the time the event happens it fails to live up to what we imagined so well and becomes a bit of a let-down.
Rather, it is having just enough time with something new, or at least new enough to enough of the population that we can get curious without getting intellectually abandoned to our own devices. The perfect timing of recycled trends fits this model because they meet these conditions. But forecasting trends has its limitations because we are an evolving species with a multitude of factors that evolve our consciousness. It’s healthy that we aren’t so perfectly predictable. However, that’s not something a designer wants to hear when anticipation and preparation of a concept plus investment of time and resources satisfies a theory more than the reality of the environment.
In 1996 a movie was in the works with a huge expense, glamour factor and cultural relevance as it articulated social observations that the current audience at the time felt but hadn’t declared: the time-honored issue of fairness and democracy of social class. It wasn’t anything we haven’t been through before but the timing was right. The austerity of the fall of the decadence bubble of the 80s left many countries and cultures feeling the pinch as they tightened their belts after living a more prosperous existence (albeit a false one built on credit abuse, encouraged irresponsibly by governments looking to invigorate their economies). Many had to scale back and the gap between haves and have-nots widened. It didn’t go unnoticed and, for those who had a taste and had to leave material aspirations behind, the pain was felt more deeply. Job cuts, wage freezes, and other various austerity measures were imposed on this more vulnerable segment of the population while those on the higher end of the chain actually saw bonuses and raises. And while the first half of the 90s was one where conspicuous consumption was considered vulgar given the severity of the fall from financial grace, towards the latter half the consumption was starting to return.
This, coupled with media focuses on sweat shops and other corporate abuses stirred the public conscience. It wasn’t yet the stage of taking responsibility, but it was at the delicate line between recognition of unfairness and lingering desire for having that taste of decadence back in one’s life. And as “Titanic” came into the theatres, this story in its glory of vivid visual accuracy blasted forth. The Edwardian lines were fresh in the eyes of the public and designers alike and the opulence a perfect fit as fashion had become increasingly relevant as part of the attention of mainstream culture. And for those who were more into fashion in the 80s, the return of romantic English elements (such as frock coats) favored in Paris runways during Gothic exploration were easily embraced by the fashion elite who missed the heydays of better times.
You’d think that, with this being the 100th anniversary, with social conditions being even more similar and with the return of 90s fashion itself that the Edwardian influence would be more prominent. Yet you can see in our culture that it’s not as powerful an influence overall. And while there were a few designers that incorporated vaguer element s of Edwardianisms and, to a lesser extent, flourishes hinting at Art Noveau (Etro, Giles, Andrew Gn, Louis Vuitton, and Vivienne Westwood) for the most part these nods were more minor. So what’s the difference?
Despite the social similarities of frustration of economic equality we have changed. Our reality programming and forensic bent in entertainment has shaped our approach. Whereas the romance, aesthetics and rumination of our history had more weight back then, our critical examining side is now more prominent and more ingrained. Fed a plethora of entertainment supporting our critical abilities to observe and assess, we can’t help but take that with us as we lean towards looking to the future. And there’s nothing romantic about that.
Also, this period of austerity is different. It’s more fearful, more widespread and more impactful. We’re actually focused more on re-evaluating our habits because the recovery is tenuous at best. We’re taking time to streamline our lives more, live with less and make more sensible choices from an investment point of view rather than merely consuming. And although dreams for a good life aren’t gone, our practical sides are more awake. And again that’s not romantic. Rather than reach for a taste we are reconciling that, for many, it’s out of reach, not as practical to indulge in, and not a priority. And many designers who pay attention may have noticed that, while tapping into previous cycles to mine ideas happens, not every trend has as much weight.
Certainly the events over the last six months were enough proof of that. Historically we’re a lot closer than before to sentiments of economic inequities faced in that period. But perhaps that’s a bit too close to the bone and dressing the part is the kind of fantasy that doesn’t sit well, especially if the clothing puts us in more of the villainous role. So while some designers have wistfully let in some of the romantic notions of that decade (i.e. the 90s) seep in, it’s more about hedging one’s bets and it proved to be a wise move. Stuff happens when there’s too much time to think and while we’re getting cues to be inspired by fashion, the public seems to be saying that this one can go in the back seat. Judging by how many designers did not incorporate Edwardianisms, it looks like many were thinking the same thing.