This essay will examine the extent to which Jacque Derrida's studies in the field of philosophy inspired the work of Belgian fashion designer Martin Margiela. While Derrida's work appears at first glance to be an analysis of grammatology, the scientific study of writing, the importance of his ideas lies in their ability to be used as a method of critical analysis of institutions - providing a backbone on which Margiela’s work can exist. Focusing specifically on Maison Martin Margiela's Spring/Summer 1990 show, the house's third in Paris, my aim is to distinguish different aspects of the presentation, from the clothes to the venue, in order to demonstrate how the Belgian designer's work is inspired by that of Derrida. deconstruction theory. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get an Original EssayBefore discussing the parallels between the two men's works, it is important to understand what Derrida meant when he invented the term "deconstruction" in the late 1960s. Although giving the term a clear definition would be contradictory, philosophical thought could be understood as a process of breaking established forms, conventions and boundaries, revealing instability and nature constantly changing words and phrases. Meaning in language is produced by signs, made up of the “signifier” and the “signified”. The signifier is the input perceived by the brain, and the signified is the concept/idea to which the signifier points. The signifier and what it means cannot be real, because everyone has very complex and slightly different ideas around each sign. The signified and the signifier are united in the brain, and the French philosopher believed that the differences between signs are what give them their meaning. For example, a shirt is a shirt because it is not pants. Expanding on this idea, he suggests that signs do not only depend on each other for their meaning, but that other signs are always present in the meaning of each specific and unique sign, in what he calls their "trace". . When a given concept is thought, other concepts, signs, signifieds and signifiers are present within the sign itself to define its meaning. Oxymoronically, these concepts are neither present nor absent in the signifier, but identifiable by their trace. Derrida uses the term “différance” to explain how meaning exists in the space between signs. I will use examples to illustrate how Margiela uses these Derridean ideas to critique the fashion system as a whole, from the function of the clothes themselves to the mechanisms. industry.When the 1990 Maison Martin Margiela show took place, it could be seen as a rejection of the ostentatious luxury that came to define fashion in the decade that preceded it. Almost all of the shows at this time were presented in marquees set up around the first arrondissement of Paris. This show was different though. As shown in Figure 1, it took place in a dilapidated playground in the 20th arrondissement of the capital. The show was first come, first served and had no seating chart. The models were literally walking on a rubble surface. This created what seemed a very absurd and inappropriate scene to fashion journalists. Here, Margiela uses Derrida's idea that the meaning of a sign derives from its difference from other signs, holding a "trace" of what it does not mean. The Belgian designer forces us to rethink ourpredefined notions of what a fashion show is by juxtaposing our expectations of beauty and luxury associated with fashion and Paris, by organizing the ceremony in the seemingly harsh environment of a deprived area on the outskirts of the City. There is no sign of any traditional 'catwalk', as models are forced to adapt their usual hip-swinging steps, to a more cautious, everyday woman's gait, in order to make sure you don't trip over uneven dirt. This contrasts with the fashion parameters of the previous decade, where catwalks were defined by unattainable beauty standards and unattainable classism. These themes were paralleled by the “disheveled” hairstyles that Margiela asked Stegerhoek (Margiela’s serial collaborator, hairstylist) to create. Martin asked Stegenhoek to make the model's hair look "like women could have put it together themselves", which is incongruous with the "very proper" hairstyles popular in the late 1980s. Open door philosophy has democratized the show. Top journalists, accustomed to being driven around the Louvre, sitting in reserved front-row seats at shows, now had to travel to the ends of the city, fighting with children to get a reasonable view . Margiela could be seen criticizing the way the fashion system works and creates trends. Designers first display their clothes on elegant celebrity models on a raised catwalk to be seen by journalists and other high-ranking attendees, a world apart from the eventual diffusion of these clothes into more commercial forms, worn by ordinary people. Margiela breaks these traditions by showing her clothes on models that represent everyday women, in an environment that mimics everyday life. Corresponding to Derrida's intended purpose behind his writings on deconstruction as a method of critical analysis of organizations, the clothing in this exhibition serves as a multifaceted critique of the fashion system. Margiela juxtaposed the glitz and glamor of the previous decade, heralding a new era in fashion, by sending a model down the catwalk from the rubble carrying a supermarket bag. When the term “deconstruction” is applied to the fashion field, it is often misinterpreted. as a binary opposite to the term “construction”, due to the clothes appearing destroyed/incomplete. Such simplification is common, but it largely misses the idea the French philosopher was pointing to. “Building” something is the action of constructing said thing. Derrida adding the prefix “de” to the verb is paradoxical, insinuating a bidirectionality in the method. This bidirectionality is explored in this look. Cutting a whole out of the bottom of a bag destroys the function of the bag in its original form, as a tool used to carry objects, but creates an opportunity for the bag to be used in a different way, allowing one to put the bag on the body as a portable object, reusing the handles as shoulder straps. Margiela questions the stability of the signs used to signify the main functions of clothing. The different types of clothing and the way they are worn constantly indicate the social status of the wearer. The scruffy look and use of a free, disposable everyday object, such as a plastic bag, are a caricature of the signifiers embedded in the cheap clothing worn by lower status individuals. By showing such an aesthetically shabby piece of clothing on a mannequin at a fashion show in Paris, an occasion reserved for the most high-end, finest clothingmade-up and the most expensive, Margiela rebukes the idea that social status could be read and assumed precisely through clothing. Although it adheres to Western ideals around social etiquette and nudity, the plastic top shows that clothing can nevertheless still be considered indecent, doing so with objects whose traditional purpose lies outside of the fashion field. The House aligns with Derrida's practice of breaking down ideas from the conventional, revealing the ever-changing nature of signs and what they mean. The upturned plastic bag serves as a crude reference to Derrida's writings in Of Grammatology about how the meaning of a sign derives from its difference from other signs, containing a trace of what the sign does not mean. The new plastic vest is now considered clothing, but the trace of what it is not or no longer is is made clear by Margiela's effort not to hide the history of the item, as a disposable garment.supermarket bag.A key theme explored by the famous fashion house is anonymity. The growing influence of media publications and broadcasting led to an accelerated rise in celebrity culture in the 1980s. The fashion industry was no different: the faces and personalities of fashion designers were intrinsically linked to the clothes they presented and sold, embodied by one of the leading designers of the time, Jean Paul Gaultier, whom Martin helped for years. Like many of his opinions on 1980s fashion, the Belgian designer was unimpressed and decided to take the opposite route, aiming to reinvent the framework that governs fashion. Margiela decided not to publish any interviews or personal portraits and preferred to let the clothes speak for themselves. This decision to remain incognito is epitomized by the famous blank label, shown in Figure 3. The label is an extremely important feature of high-end clothing, providing a sign of authenticity to a garment. According to Derrida's writings, just as a text cannot use language as a "transcendental signifier," a label cannot unequivocally indicate high or low priced clothing. For Margiela, it's not the person who designed the clothes that gives them their value, but rather the thought and time put into their design and making. Much like the blank label, the logo on the front of the supermarket bag now reads like a parody of the lazily embossed logos that creators plaster on their works to validate and legitimize the exorbitant prices they charge. The supermarket bag, made from an inexpensive item, now in the form of an everyday tank top, is analogous to clothing that is most often covered in logos, as items that do not offer not much more in terms of design or manufacturing. These lazy signatures used as design motifs could be seen as an embodiment of the consumerist nature of the fashion industry, run by hierarchical power structures that have become synonymous with clothing. Margiela's motivation to interrogate the substructure of said industry can be easily recognized by the empty label. The empty tab is also intended to provoke the consumer who expects at least a simulation of legitimacy, validating their decision to purchase such high-end products. In keeping with her own anonymity and the reduction typical of the fashion system, Margiela chose to present this collection. on women of the street, rejecting the idea that a high-end fashion show must be made up of top models. This is againanother reference to Derrida's idea of ​​"trace", now embodied more obviously by binary opposites. When one thinks of the sign "Paris Fashion Show," the concepts of paid runway shows and famous models would typically be associated, but these connotations contain a trace of what they are not - in this case, a dilapidated public space and the women there. Derrida did not intend to give deconstruction a specific methodology or definition. Payne pointed out the difficulty in defining such a term, as deconstruction exists automatically through an attempt at communication, as deconstructive processes are constantly occurring in a text awaiting interpretation. This is reflected in Margiela's shoes. Thanks to Margiela's lack of any attempt at explanation, the shoes speak for themselves, being "deconstructed" simply by their existence. Figure 4 shows the tabi boots that models wore on the catwalk in this Spring/Summer 1990 show. The split-toe shoes have been featured in slight variations every year since its very first show in 1989 until today, 2020, making it an iconic shoe. The boot is inspired by the traditional Japanese “jika-tabi” sock, dating back to the 15th century. The Tabi boots shown in this Spring/Summer 1990 show can be seen in Figure 4. Geert Bruloot states that the models "reused the exact same Tabi boots that were used in the Fall/Winter 1989 show." Margiela painted the shoes with a white base coat, before painting in a graffiti style on top of that. These shoes tackle the fragility of the term “avant-garde.” When presented to the Western consumer, these shoes constitute a new and experimental piece of clothing. However, presented to a Japanese farmer, these shoes would simply be considered a slight variation on a historical garment, and certainly not an avant-garde example. This is in harmony with Derrida's idea that a signifier does not have a universal meaning. and is interpreted differently depending on factors such as when and where a person attempts to understand it. By painting on the same pair of shoes used previously, Margiela further questions what it takes for an idea, or design, to be considered new. The tabi boot is a shoe that has minor aesthetic modifications compared to the jika-tabi sock to which it refers. By not making a new pair of shoes in a new color, but reusing the same shoe, simply painting the color it was previously in, Margiela is tackling the foundations of the term avant-garde and what it takes for an article to make money. , and lose such a nickname. Does the same pair of shoes that were actually considered avant-garde lose their ability to be avant-garde, just by changing their color? This is paradoxical because the color is new and the shoe has changed slightly, but in its evolution it could lose its ability to be considered new, because it is now just a different version of a previously created idea. White paint is a signature design code associated with the famous fashion house. Here, the white paint does a good job of signifying the overt use of historical references. In a rare quote, Margiela said that "white signifies the strength of fragility and the fragility of the passage of time." An expression of unity, purity and honesty. Just as one cannot hide the unique marks and signs of wear on white shoes, Margiela does not wish to hide the unique inspirations that have inevitably tainted her.