The dark side of beauty

Bacon's Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion; provocation was a by-product

THE fashion world is mourning one of its leading lights. Somewhat predictably, the press lost no time in labelling Alexander McQueen a “genius”, regardless of whether or no it had previously been familiar with his work.

There is no doubting McQueen’s talent for the spectacle. The quality of his haute couture was such that he was regarded as one of the very best in the industry, becoming head of design at the French house Givenchy in the 1990s (aged just 26) before entering into a partnership with Gucci, another fashion giant.

Despite this, McQueen was beset by personal demons. As well as the death of his mother, which is thought to have played a major role in his own, he lost his closest friend and mentor Isabella Blow when she took her own life three years ago.

McQueen leaves behind an industry that rotates on huge contradictions. It regards its output as art, yet thrives only through exploitation and dishonesty. It is provocative but only for provocation’s own sake, rather than as a by-product in the search for truth. And it cannot even answer its own moral dilemmas without ham-fisted, over-demonstrative and inadequate responses.

Speaking on Radio Wales this morning, the designer Elizabeth Emanuel said McQueen’s work concerned itself with “the dark side of beauty”. It is a description that could be applied to the industry as a whole.

In his book Gamorrah, Roberto Saviano revealed how many of the world’s best known fashion houses are happy to work with middle men who farm their orders out to organised crimes syndicates, who in turn run Neapolitan sweat shops that produce the clothing. Camorran transportation networks, shops and malls are also used. There is no fair trade here for these immigrants and dirt poor Italians who are paid pennies for good that are sold for often thousands of pounds.

The fashion industry also stand accused by Saviano of turning a blind eye to the production of “true fakes”, counterfeit reproductions that are so alike the original because they are made by the same hands. It should be remembered that the production of counterfeit goods is now the world’s largest criminal enterprise, ahead even of narcotics. The Neapolitan Camorra prefers it. Even while the fashion houses are not directly involved, the have yet to do anything about the situation, preferring the margins to the thorny problems of dealing with near-Third World exploitation.

Emanuel used her phrase to describe a show where McQueen had featured a double amputee and had a pair of “beautifully crafted” false limbs made for her. If his aim was to de-stigmatise disability then he should be applauded. However, elsewhere in the fashion industry, there is little or no evidence that it has done anything to combat the issues of self-esteem (and consequent mental illnesses like eating disorders) among young people that it causes in the way it presents to the world. Again, we must assume that the profit margin comes first.

Which comes on to the last point: is haute couture art? It all depends on the definition and, since art is often connected with abstract concepts such as truth, the answer is likely to be subjective. The most obvious question is how much high fashion will be remembered in centuries to come? The most obvious answer is Coco Chanel’s little black dress, but that is a socio-historical phenomenon. Similar landmarks designs, like the minidress, are seen more as symbols of the time.

We are told that haute couture leads fashion. If that is so, then it has been regurgitating itself for the past 30 years, which hardly speaks towards originality, boundary-pushing. Many of the pieces are incredibly intricate, difficult to produce and even harder to imagine, but creativity does not mean art, particularly when it has a nasty heart. Many of those pieces are created only with a look-at-me goal in mind (isn’t that, after all, the point of fashion?) When that becomes provocative, then talk of art inevitably begins, because these days one has become confused with the other.

This is wrong. Art like Francis Bacon’s Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion are provocative because they challenge taboos and speak uncomfortable truths. Now, an artist like Bacon would be well aware of what he was creating, but shocking the world would not have been the primary purpose (just a happy coincidence).

So for those who admired Alexander McQueen, mourn him for his work, and not for what a loss he will be to his industry. It is exploitative, self-deceiving and self-deluding, narcissistic and parasitical and does not serve our sympathy. And when its works are commonly made for something other than personal vainglory and fortune – at the expense of the poorest  – then those of us outside the industry will perhaps properly applaud its talents.