After reading both articles I had been given to choose from, I decided to write and reflect about Barnard, M., 2002. Fashion as communication. Psychology Press. From Chapter 1, I would summarise this as being a brief overview on meaning behind the speech used to describe ‘Fashion’, ‘Style’ and ‘Clothing’. and the context in which it is being used in. The word fashion (originally derives from the latin word factio) meaning making or doing, over time, has changed it to something completely different. For example to say ‘ You are wearing something fashionable’ or I am fashioning a box pleat’, one is decided as a verb and one an adjective, a development of speech has changed this word throughout time. Continuing from the word fashion, Barnard.M talks about meaning behind adornments and clothing. ‘While all Clothing is an Adornment (Adornments meaning  to decorate) not all adornments are Fashionable and while all clothing is an adornment, not all clothing (Clothing meaning oneself to dress) is fashionable.’ A continuation of this describes not all fashion is a type of dress it can be a changing colour or shape of the body, for example tattooing , originating back to 3500 BC found on woman mummies. A social standing was also explored within this text, quoted by Simmel 1971 written in 1905. That two social tendencies are essential to the establishment of fashion, one a need for union, a desire to be part of a larger whole and to be sociable. And another need for isolation, desire to be apart and individual from the larger whole. The development of fashion has come from a group or gang of people who have rebelled against what the current social and so-called ‘appropriate’ thing to wear in that era of time. For example, in the 1970’s the punk stereotype was rejected from society as the music ‘ Punk rock’ wasn’t accepted. In the book Agins, T., 2000. The end of fashion: How marketing changed the clothing industry forever. New York: Quill. The idea of fashion being developmental and changing lives with everyone whether they know it or not is compromised within this text explaining ‘good taste had fallen by the wayside as millions of Americans sank into sloppiness, wedded to their fanny packs, t-shirts, jeans and clunky athletic shoes. ‘Have we become the nation of slobs’ blared the cover headline of Newsweek February 20th 1995. The accompanying article provided a mountain of evidence that people were no longer dressing to impress’ (Agins, T .2000). Going back to development of fashion, the two social tendencies that divide us apart disagrees with Agins that the american nation now don’t have a care for fashion at all. That it is for practical reasons only for comfort, this is where the revolutionary sportswear brands made clothing more for everyday use. More than ever, any social class can access fashion and create it themselves, the development of street fashion from the younger generations and teenagers is now apparent and stylish. Fashion is no longer a subject that determines whether you are being a ‘rebel’ or being ‘sociable’ , everyone has the right to dress how they want and more accepting than ever.

Bibliography

Agins, T., 2000. The end of fashion: How marketing changed the clothing industry forever. New York: Quill.

Barnard, M., 2002. Fashion as communication. Psychology Press.

http://www.huckmagazine.com/art-and-culture/brief-history-british-tattoo/