Martin Margiela, The Deconstructionist Designer : An Analysis to the making of fashioning method of the postmodern designers
Around the turn of the 20th century, Martin Margiela came to the fashion world bestowing a new conceptual framework to the sartorial world. Evidently, from 2022 spring/summer runway shows, Vogue reported that Martin Margiela’s influence was ever present, with aspects of his aesthetic being referenced by multiple designers[1]. His legacy and influence were critically acclaimed, owing to his avant-garde approach towards fashion, by creating clothes based on concepts that challenged fashion’s visual communication through its fashion show, tailoring, and material making. Such heralded Martin Margiela to be considered the father of Western deconstructionism and anti-fashion. After 21 years of activity as a creative fashion designer for the currently famous, namesake label Maison Martin Margiela, he decided to leave the fashion world in 2009. Even so, he had an everlasting impact on the Industry. Specifically, his approach inspired many contemporary designers who decided to prioritise approaches in fashion to not only be functional but also conceptually challenging. Thus, in this essay, I will critically analyse Martin Margiela’s influence on the usage of an experimental conceptual framework of the unconventional fashioning of the body through methods of deconstructionism. His work will reveal the underlying complex nature of labeling deconstructionism as an act of anti-fashion or a method of resisting fashion. First, I will introduce the theoretical basis for the analysis by elaborating on the anti-fashion approach that happened in the work he did by using methods of deconstructionism. Second, I will explain how he applies said theory to clothing by referencing one of his works from the spring/summer of 1993-white through its silhouette and materiality. Third, by comparing his previous spring 1993 collection with the one he created for Hermes, I will argue how his influential fashioning has resulted in the expansion of the aesthetics that can be fashioned for the body. Subsequently, reassessing the way both outfits are materialised would showcase the transportation of deconstruction as an aesthetic. Furthermore, by analysing his 1998 fashion show where he displayed clothes without the body I will showcase Martin’s way of conducting a conceptual framework. Such analysis would then be used to critically assess if the position of runways as a spectacle is an act of resisting fashion. Finally, by combining the conclusion from all three visual analyses, I will comment on how Martin’s conduct of fashion has assimilated itself into the 21st century’s fashion scene.
It should be noted that the analytical framework used to decipher Margiela’s work, which lies on the Deconstructionist approach towards fashion, can be considered anti-fashion. For starters, Deconstruction in fashion is an unconventional approach toward clothing, manifested through methods of dismantling sartorial objects, resulting in an aestheticisation of the non-functional aspect of a certain object of fashion[2]. The Etymology of deconstruction comes from the philosophical notion of identifying alternative approaches by breaking something down — contextually, it can be translated as acknowledging the existence of different approaches to garment making and the visualisation of fashion itself[3]. Deconstructionism acknowledges fluidity and rejects a fixed definition of clothes as an object of fashion, thus blurring the boundary of what clothes could be. In the case of Margiela, his formula of deconstructionism often comes from the dissection inspired to showcase the mechanism, structure, or discourse that fashion offers to present culture[4].Meaning, that Margiela is often referential to theories related to the interpretation of Fashion and clothing as its agent of conduct. Often, his work cites Barthes’s interpretation of fashion as semiotic thus questioning the symbol and sign that structures the general conception regarding fashion[5]. Hence, Margiela’s rise to fame also comes with his defiance towards the landscape by offering an alternative meaning to fashion by focusing on its semantic values. By dismantling the function of clothes, he questioned and challenged the fashion system, which is an act of defiance towards the system. Thus it can be considered an anti-fashion movement[6]. To be anti-fashion comes from composing fashion through rejecting the unified symbolical system that defines the usage of clothes with the body [7]. Additionally, his identity as an anti-fashion designer was solidified due to his direction of hiding the identity of the models in the era of supermodels[8]. Overall, Margiela’s use of deconstructionism comes from the acknowledgment that enables the extension of the semiotics of fashion, which also makes him an anti-fashion designer at his time.
To understand how his concept works, it is necessary to examine his piece from the spring of 1993 (figure 1), which essentially plays with Barthes’s proposal of considering fashion to be assigned roles for the clothes to communicate certain languages’. Previously, it was mentioned that most of Margiela’s work is manifested through the conceptual framework given for his creations, in this case, the narrative can be correlated linearly to Barthes’ theory on fashion[9]. Starting with the piece comes from his spring 1993 collection “white”, all of the clothes including this piece were created specifically through recycling theatre costumes thus mixing minimalism with Victorian-esque to create its own unique silhouette [10]. This look adorned by the still young legendary model Kate Moss, consisted of a white top with black unfinished hems and visible lines of the top’s garment structure was paired with a rib cream skirt made from a dress folded down. Each element was styled in a way that contradicts its former role by recycling theatre costumes through styling shirts inside out and dresses as skirts tied with a small white belt. Such acknowledging of considering clothes “as the vestimentary code-words-” that can be repurposed to give a different “fashion-message-” allows a transformation of the previous message. In a sense, he refashioned the previous piece to act as something else.
This style would then remain consistent in his future works as he kept playing with the idea that the nature of fashion can be constantly redefined through acknowledging the range an object has, as the vestimentary code [11]. Furthermore, the emphasis on the material’s age was done by pronouncing the creases of the top and pairing it with a ribbed skirt, creating a blend that feels skeletal and raw. Signaling a message of showing the inner workings that construct a costume, acting as a literal application of Gill’s basic definition of deconstruction as a method of reversing construction by giving a sense of unfinishedness to it[12]. Such garment created a simple silhouette that glided on the model’s body naturally especially accessorised with the simple belt. This created an effortless that felt opposite to its previous role as a costume for plays. Metaphorically, by adapting Barthes’s idea’, the audience is presented with an opportunity to glimpse a novel approach to crafting attire that arose from the disturbance of the established conventions governing the clothing beforehand[13]. It transformed theatrical garments into something suitable as a Ready to Wear piece, that the everyday woman can use. In short, this piece showcased how Margiela’s deconstruction approach to fashion, comes from the concept of rearranging the language of clothes resulting in the refashioning of costumes to a different aesthetic that dresses the muses in his own vision.
Extracting further, this piece also hints at an anti-fashion visionary because of its position as an opposition to the fashion of the time. As mentioned before, the piece has an essence of simplicity due to the combined usage of the plain top and skirt with the skeletal-like effect it made by showing the bones or stitches of the clothes. A clothing piece that conforms its silhouettes to the model’s body, creates a sense of naturalness and formulates a character for the clothes to be fluid and androgynous. Such fashioning articulates the deconstructivist’s ideology of manifesting a postmodernist concept of beauty, made by erasing the borders of the utility of certain clothing in order to create a sense of timelessness and universality to a piece[14]. At that time, this proposition of fashion contradicted the spirit of early 90s fashion glamour due to it being emblemed by celebrity models or supermodels[15]. Therefore, for Margiela to create a piece that dresses the everyday woman, represents an introduction to a style that opposes glamour, that is the working-class style. Semiotically speaking, this was a piece, that by definition was anti-fashion as this conflicts with what fashion should signalise and represent[16] -glamour-. Moreover, it being created as a ready-to-wear piece also signifies Margiela’s fashion style and the intended audience that he would dress. Additionally, his decision to do simple makeovers for the model was anti-fashion as well, as it rejected the celebration of supermodels, an icon of early 90s fashion. In short, it was apparent that Margiela’s aesthetic was anti-fashioning at that time for choosing to fashion things in a minimalistic approach.
The minimalistic aesthetic Margiela established would then be transported to his work for the prestigious luxury brand Hermes, supplementing an expansion of how the body can be aestheticised. Previously, Margiela’s approach to fashion can be diagnosed as anti-fashion due to the symbolical power it holds carried through the rhetorical essence of his work [17]. Aside from acknowledging this philosophical mind behind his work, the output or the visual language of fashion needs would configure an individual aesthetic language. Naturally, a noticeable aesthetic style would be formulated from his work, and when analysing pieces he made for another fashion house, such as Hermes, would then show his design’s distinctive identity. For instance, examining Margiela’s work in Hermes, visually we can see a distinct styling mirroring his penchant for a certain style. As a creative director, this piece (figure 2), being a 2 set piece, a loose-fitting sweater top made out of camel cashmere with a low neckline, hanging and looping down around the chest area is paired with oversized pants created with the same material, creating dynamic vertical axes. Described as simple, clean yet a fluid silhouette successfully creating an outfit that seems comfortable and high quality. Interestingly, the silhouette created for Hermes parallels his previous design, both Figure 1 and Figure 2, have the same essence of naturalness alongside similar colour palette choices, which would then be one of his key languages to convey timelessness through neutrality. Indicating, how both works while carrying different technical approach, still communicates the same visual language. Figure 2, allows the materials to naturally fold and showcases this in a manner that seems free, similar to how Figure 1 left traces and creases of the costume to add a sense of naturality. Additionally, just as Figure 1 plays with the essence of time in clothing, his work for Figure 2 parallels the same sentiment, as stated in interviews, for his inspiration comes from revisiting heritage and retrieving lost memories[18]. This illustrates how the perception of images converted into languages automatically establishes several prescript vocabularies [19] to the clothes making it an expansion of the aesthetic codes given to clothes as a subject of fashion. Such would then encapsulate Margiela’s concept and would extrinsically be interpreted as a form of aesthetic that represents minimalism and timelessness.
Aside from the creation of aesthetics, the most apparent way he showcased his ingenious conceptual showcase was in significant collections such as the 1998 (figure 3) one, where he decided to showcase a blazer without the body. The quintessential of fashion is the body itself, acting as the one subjugated when approaching fashion in a theoretical manner [20], yet, here we have Margiela creating a jacket that was independently tailored. Visible, by looking at the straight seams alongside the structure of the blazer that rigidly stays on the vertical line clearly indicate an intention to create a blazer that could stay flat when hanged. Furthermore, the choice to be sleeveless shows the inner lapel of the jacket, being made from a different fabric alongside the collar that symmetrically aligns with each side of the shoulder, making the dress feel more 2 dimensional. Everything in combine, alongside the neutral grey fabrics creates a sense of flatness and clearly indicates an intention that the clothing was made to fashion itself in a hanger, not the body. Therefore, establishing a new silhouette through deconstructing how objects could operate independently without a body. Additionally, the neutral colour of the blazer combined with playing in one axis, enhances the flatness of the jacket. Essentially, deconstructing and setting a distinction of the clothes as an item that has an individual meaning[21]. Furthermore, an intrinsic message from Figure 3 comes in the form of an auto-critique on the system, questioning whether the structuring of clothes necessarily needs to conform with the universal notion of fashion as an adornment to the body [22]. Hence, demonstrating a postmodernist approach to fashion that feels scientific[23] (). Therefore, by interpreting Figure 3 and the way it was displayed can be set as an example of Margiela’s experimental runway that plays along with his creative deconstruction philosophy while inspiring the fashion landscape itself.
In conclusion, by examining Figure 3 we showed both the philosophy and visual output of Margiela’s conduct which was done through pushing the language that constructed the semiotic of fashion. Which managed to expand the horizon on how clothes can be created and presented in fashion. The dissection of clothing, presented in the way he approached the fashion show and clothes themselves, makes him kin to a scientist who dissects the system behind what fashion signifies can be heralded as a postmodernist approach to fashion. Here two things can be discerned; on one hand, Margiela, as we compare both Figure 1 and Figure 2, enables the creation of a new aesthetical language that would influence, and then define Margiela’s conduct of deconstructionism. On the other hand, Margiela’s conceptual framework as examined in figures one and two inspires the reconstitution of fashion, by refusing conventional means that paved the way to create the industries’ horizon of how fashion could be operated. Everything, in the end, is derived from his theoretical framework that often references how the concept of fashion is made to be, as he introduced the fashion world to a new conceptual way to refashion the semiotics in fashion. Showcasing how deconstruction in fashion has a complex nature where it can create an aesthetic but also philosophically challenge the landscape, thus allowing anti-fashion perspectives to coexist. Therefore, his usage of the experimental conceptual framework through unconventional fashioning method-deconstructionism- paved the way to create new ways to fashion clothes.
[1] Laird Borelli-Persson, “The Surprising Martin Margielaism that resurfaced for spring 2022”, Vogue, October 27 2021. https://www.vogue.com/article/the-surprising-martin-margielaism-that-resurfaced-for-spring-2022
[2] Alison Gill, “Deconstruction Fashion: The Making of Unfinished, Decomposing and Re-Assembled Clothes”,1998, https://doi.org/10.2752/136270498779754489.
[3] Kelly L Reddy-Best., and Leslie Davis Burns, “Avant-Garde Fashion : A case study of Martin Margiela.”, 2013, https://doi.org/10.7233/ijcf.2013.13.2.001.
[4] Alison Gill, “Deconstruction Fashion: The Making of Unfinished, Decomposing and Re-Assembled Clothes.”
[5] Nadica Maksimova, “Thoughts on: The Anti-Fashion- Deconstruction Revisited”, 2020, https://zmj.unibo.it/article/view/11284/11472.
[6] Nadica Maksimova, “Thoughts on : The Anti-fashion- Deconstruction Revisited”.
[7] Macolm Barnard, “Fashion Theory”, 2020, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315099620.
[8] Nadica Maksimova, “Thoughts on : The Anti-fashion- Deconstruction Revisited”.
[9] Roland Barthes, “The Fashion System”, 1990 : 180–184
[10] Laird Borrelli-Persso=n, “Maison Margiela : Spring 1993 Ready To Wear”, 2015, https://www.vogue.com/fashion-shows/spring-1993-ready-to-wear/maison-martin-margiela
[11] Kelly L Reddy-Best., and Leslie Davis Burns, “Avant-Garde Fashion : A case study of Martin Margiela.”
[12] Alison Gill, “Deconstruction Fashion: The Making of Unfinished, Decomposing and Re-Assembled Clothes.”
[13] Malcolm Barnard, “Fashion Theory”. https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1990-1999/.
[14] Timothy Campbell, “Style Description:/Provenance:/Period :”:Martin Margiela, Fashion Authorship, and Romantic Literay History”. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-26898-5
[15] Karina Reddy, “1990–1999 Fashion History Timeline.”.
[16] Malcolm Barnard, “Fashion Theory”.
[17] dica Maksimova, “Thoughts on : The Anti-fashion- Deconstruction Revisited”.
[18] Suzy Menkes. “Martin Margiela Discusses His Hermes Years”. https://www.vogue.co.uk/gallery/suzy-menkes-martin-margiela-discusses-his-hermes-years
[19] Roland Barthes, “The Fashion System”, 1990 : 190–192
[20] Malcolm Barnard, “Fashion Theory”, 2020
[21] dica Maksimova, “Thoughts on : The Anti-fashion- Deconstruction Revisited”.
[22] Alison Gill, “Deconstruction Fashion: The Making of Unfinished, Decomposing and Re-Assembled Clothes.”
[23] Bonnie English, “A Cultural History of Fashion in the 20th and 21st Centuries: From Catwalk to Sidewalk”, https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350284760.
