Through the ages fashion has been an integral aspect of our cultural expression. It reflects our utilitarian requirements, our aesthetic preferences and our aspirations, with one category taking precedence over the others depending on the circumstances we as a people dictate. The democratic accessibility of fashion that we have enjoyed more recently has taken the aesthetic aspect and gave it more power and prominence in our modern society. This quality also aids in our declaration of belonging, be it to a generation, lifestyle and class. We may wish for society to be democratic, but our innate desire for power and prestige are at odds with this more humanitarian wish as our egos seek satisfaction.

Part of this aesthetic is the desire to be current if not ahead of the curve, and so the relationship to cultural expressions such as trends, which are really our expression of our point of view, also have more merit, particularly where populations’ activities have moved beyond the basics and focus on more cerebral sophistications. For example, someone who farms or lives in a small town where culture has low prominence will not need fashion’s more aesthetic aspects as much as someone living in Paris or Manhattan, where culture is more integral to the livelihood of the population.

In particular, fashion aims for the future. It makes sense from a business aspect to have a product that adds value because it has more long-term use. The ability to design commodities that have this attribute, and the people behind them, are more valued in this industry because the gift of providing forward-performing garments translates into more confidence in the purchase, thus winning over consumers who value conformity within this construct and have a wide array of designs at their disposal.

Also at play is the designer’s quest to make a name for themselves within their field of specialty to contribute to our wider culture by producing items that are so forward thinking that they transcend their own time. We value a designer such as Chanel or Dior because their approach to fashion has made an impact that continues to this day. Our celebration of their cultural contribution and of fashion itself in our more recent human history adds power to this honor of being remembered for this influence. So when designers have the opportunity to look forward with full expression while being conscious of the legacy potential, the lure to create is quite strong.

The issue at hand is that we are at a unique point in our age. As we cross the cusp of centuries, we now are in the awkward place of design. The bulk of the population is of the 20^th century and these people have aesthetic limits that harmonize with that century’s sense of fashion. We are, though, in the 21^st century and know that our fashion will change to reflect this new shift.  The problem with designing for a new generational shift of this magnitude is that the bulk of the frame of reference i.e. the designers who are alive today, is anchored in what we have had before , and that our nostalgia is rooted in our point of creative origin which is still the 20^th century.

We can’t help it. Our perspective will always be an accumulation of our experience and perspective, and influences will be on what was before us. If our lives were pre-21^st century we will always have this vestige of reference influence our design. And so, as we talk about looking forward, we find we still have anchors that betray where we have been. Looking at deigns all over the world and the quest to find new expressions, we look at our last impactual jumping points where we were left in awe by those who broke the rules before us.

The distortion of form is a relatively new construct in our fashion history, really taking license post-war. After our technology became more developed in relation to the years before us, our lives are indeed the things that were of science fiction and this realization has given us courage to try out new ways to dress. So when we look at unconventional materials and breaking established dress codes, we find the 60s and 70s influencing our design aesthetic. When we look to breaking with conventional form, we look to the 80s. When we seek the expressions with utilitarian approaches, we dig into the 90s.

That utilitarian aspect take more prominence in American fashion translates to more 90s influence. That Italy admires this also finds this aesthetic incorporated but that sex appeal also enjoys prominence lends incorporation of the free-wheeling 60s and 70s. That the UK is more prominent with the Olympics and the Royal Jubilee has brought more encouragement to new materials and experimentation such as what was seen in the 60s and 80s, and for Paris, the ultimate seat of fashion, the expressive experimentation of the 80s also takes form. Looking closer, these decades were cultural heydays of the 20^th century when considering looking to the future for these places, and so their reference points will be from those launch points. And we see these heavily in the collections.

It’s not to say that we don’t add our own voice or twists to what is brought out. But our last frame of forward –looking fashion came from these places. It came from Courreges, Pierre Cardin and Paco Rabanne in the modernization and experimentation of silhouette and use of unconventional materials. It came from Yves St. Laurent and Halston in the streamlining and sleekness in modern form. It came from Gaultier in the deconstruction of elements.  It came from Rei Kawakubo in breakdown of form and assembly, from Yohji Yamamoto in the distortion in romantic drape and from Issey Miyake in the hyper-technical experimentation of materials.  And in all of these designs you see coming out of the Fall/Winter 2012-13 collections you can find their work incorporated. These modern greats are our points of reference. These are the designers who made an impact, and they are all we know, for no one can know the future.

And so our ability to design will always look like some else’s vision. We may stumble on that crucial stepping stone, that bridge that links our sensibility with the next century, but chances are that this will not come from those we have before us but from those who are still growing up and have yet to show us their point of view. It will be from someone who has no real connection for the last century because that is how it has always been. And when we do it will be foreign and beyond our senses to those of us from the 20^th century…and comfortably familiar and right to those of the 21^st.