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 on the surface as 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 upon which Margiela's work. With a specific focus on the Maison Martin Margiela Spring/Summer 1990 show, the house's third show in Paris, my goal is to select different aspects of the presentation, from the clothes to the location, to demonstrate how the Belgian designer's work points towards that of Derrida. deconstruction theory. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Before discussing the parallels in the two men's works, it is important to understand what Derrida meant when he coined the term "deconstruction" in the late 1960s. Although giving the term a clear definition would be contradictory, philosophical thinking could be understood as a process of dismantling established forms, conventions and boundaries, revealing the instability and ever-changing nature of words and sentences. Meaning in language is produced by signs, consisting of the 'signifier' and the 'signified'. The signifier is the input perceived by the brain and the signified is the concept/idea that the signifier points to. The signifier and what it signifies cannot be real, as everyone has highly complex and slightly different ideas about 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 a pair of pants. Developing this idea, he suggested that signs not only depend on each other for their meaning, but that other signs were always present within the meaning of each specific sign, in what he called their "trace." . When a given concept is thought, other concepts, signs, meanings and signifiers are present within the sign itself to define its meaning. By oxymoron, these concepts are neither present nor absent in the signifier, but are 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 Derridian ideas to critique the fashion system as a whole, from the function of the clothes themselves, to the mechanisms of the industry. When the Maison Martin Margiela show took place in 1990, it could be seen as a rejection of the ostentatious luxury that came to define the fashion of the previous decade. Almost all of the shows in this period were presented in tents erected around the first arrondissement of Paris. This show, however, was different. As can be seen in Figure 1, the event took place in a dilapidated playground in the 20th arrondissement of the capital. The show was served on a first-come, first-served basis and did not have a seating arrangement. The models were literally walking on a surface of rubble. This created what seemed to fashion journalists to be a highly absurd and inappropriate scene. Here Margiela uses Derrida's idea that the meaning of a sign derives from its difference from other signs, retaining a "trace" of what it does not mean. The Belgian designer forces us to rethink our default notions of what constitutes a fashion show by juxtaposing ourexpectations of beauty and luxury associated with fashion and Paris, holding the ceremony in the seemingly harsh environment of a deprived neighborhood on the outskirts of the city. There is no trace of a traditional "catwalk" as the models are forced to adapt their usual swinging steps to a more cautious walk, typical of everyday women, to ensure they do not trip on the uneven dirt road. This contrasts with the fashion parameters of the previous decade, where the catwalk was defined by unattainable beauty standards and classist unattainability. These themes paralleled the "unkempt" hairstyles that Margiela asked Stegerhoek (Margiela's serial collaborator, hairdresser) to create. Martin asked Stegenhoek to make the model's hair look "as if women could put it together themselves", incongruous with the "very correct" hairstyles popular in the late 1980s. The open door philosophy democratized entertainment. High-profile journalists, accustomed to being chauffeured around the Louvre, sitting in reserved front-row seats at fashion shows, now had to travel to the end of the city, fighting with children for a reasonable view. Margiela was seen to be criticizing the way the fashion system works and creates trends. Designers first present their clothes on elegant celebrity models on an elevated catwalk to be seen by journalists and other high-ranking attendees, a world apart from the eventual transfer of these clothes to more commodifiable forms, worn by ordinary people. Margiela breaks these traditions by displaying his clothes on models representing everyday women, in an environment that emulates everyday life. Corresponding to Derrida's intended purpose behind his writings on deconstruction as a method of critical analysis of organizations, the clothes in this show serve as a multifaceted critique of the fashion system. Margiela juxtaposes the glitz and glamor of the previous decade, ushering in a new era of fashion by having a model walk the runway wearing a supermarket bag. When the term "deconstruction" is applied to the field of fashion, it is often misinterpreted. as a binary opposite of the term "construction", as the clothes appear destroyed/incomplete. This simplification is common, but it fails to capture the idea the French philosopher was aiming for. 'Building' something is the action of building said thing. Derrida adding the prefix 'de' to the verb is paradoxical, insinuating a bidirectionality of the method. This bidirectionality is explored in this look. Cutting out an entire piece at the bottom of a bag destroys the function of the bag in its original form, as a tool used to carry things, but creates an opportunity for the bag to be used differently, making it possible to put the bag over the body as wearable object, repurposing the handles as shoulder straps. Margiela questions the stability of the signs used to indicate the main functions of clothing. Different types of clothing and the way in which they are worn constantly indicate the social status of the wearer. The unkempt appearance and use of a free, disposable, everyday item, such as a plastic bag, is a caricature of the signifiers embedded in the cheap clothing worn by individuals of lower status. By displaying such an aesthetically shabby garment on a model during a fashion show in Paris, an occasion reserved for only the most exclusive, well-made and expensive clothing items, Margiela rebukes the idea that social position can be read and accurately assumed through clothing. Despite adhering to Western ideals regarding social etiquette and nudity, the plastic top showsthat clothing can still be considered indecent, and does so with objects whose traditional purpose lies outside the field of fashion. The House is aligning itself with Derrida's practice of breaking down ideas of the conventional, revealing the ever-evolving nature of signs and what they mean. The upward-facing plastic bag serves as a crude reference to Derrida's writings in Of Grammatology about how a sign's meaning derives from its difference from other signs, containing a trace of what the sign does not mean. The new plastic vest is now seen as an item of clothing, but the trace of what it is not, or no longer is, is made evident by Margiela's effort not to hide the garment's history as a disposable object in a supermarket bag . A key theme explored in the infamous fashion house is anonymity. The growing influence of media publications and broadcasts led to an accelerated rise in celebrity culture in the 1980s. The fashion industry was no different: the faces and personalities of the designers were intrinsically linked to the clothes they presented and sold, epitomized by a leading designer of the time, Jean Paul Gaultier, whom Martin had assisted for years. Similar to many of his opinions on 1980s fashion, the Belgian designer was not impressed and decided to look the other way in an attempt to reimagine the framework that governs fashion. Margiela decided not to publish personal interviews or portraits, and preferred to let the clothes speak for themselves. This decision to remain incognito is embodied by the infamous 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, in the same way that a text cannot use language as a 'transcendental signifier', a label cannot unambiguously indicate a high or low priced item of clothing. For Margiela, it is not who designed the clothes that gives them their value, but rather the thought and time that go into designing and making them. Like the blank label, the logo on the front of the supermarket bag now seems like a mockery of the lazily embossed logos that designers paste on their work to validate and legitimize the exorbitant prices they charge. The supermarket bag, made from a cheap item, now in the form of an everyday tank top, is analogous to clothes that are often covered in logos, as items that don't offer much more in terms of design or manufacturing. These lazy signatures used as design motifs could be seen as embodying the consumerist nature of the fashion industry, run by hierarchical power structures that have become synonymous with clothing. Margiela's motivation in questioning the substructure of that industry can be easily recognized by the blank label. The blank card is also intended to provoke the consumer who expects at least a simulation of legitimacy, validating the decision to purchase high-end goods. In line with his anonymity and contempt for the fashion system, Margiela chose to present this collection on the women of the street cast, rejecting the idea that a high-end show must be composed of supermodels. This is yet another reference to Derrida's idea of ​​the “trace,” now more obviously embodied by binary opposites. When thinking of the sign "Paris fashion show", the concepts of paid catwalks and celebrity models are commonly associated, however these connotations contain a hint of what they are not: in this case, a dilapidated public space andwomen who find themselves there.Derrida did not intend to give deconstruction a specific methodology or definition. Payne emphasized the difficult nature of defining this term, as deconstruction exists automatically through an attempt to communicate, as deconstructive processes constantly occur within a text waiting to be interpreted. This is reflected in Margiela's footwear. Thanks to Margiela's lack of attempt at explanation, the shoes speak for themselves, being "deconstructed" by simply existing. Figure 4 shows the Tabi boots worn by models on the runway at the Spring/Summer 1990 show. The split-toe shoe has been featured in slight variations every year since its first show in 1989 until today, 2020, establishing it as an iconic piece of footwear. The boot is inspired by the traditional Japanese sock "jika-tabi", dating back to the 15th century. The Tabi boots featured 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 Autumn/Winter 1989 show." First Margiela painted over the shoes with a white base coat, on top there is also a graffiti style painting. These shoes address the fragility of the term "avant-garde." When presented to the Western consumer, these shoes present themselves as a new and experimental garment. However, if presented to a Japanese peasant, these shoes would be seen as simply a slight variation of a historical piece of clothing, and certainly not an example of the avant-garde. This is in keeping with Derrida's idea that a signifier does not have a universal meaning, and is interpreted differently depending on factors such as the time and place in which a person attempts to understand it. By painting on the same pair of previously used shoes, Margiela further questions what it takes for an idea, or design, to be considered new. The tabi boot is a shoe that has small aesthetic changes compared to the jika-tabi sock to which it refers. Not by making a new pair of shoes in a new color, but by reusing the same shoe, simply painting over the color it was previously in, Margiela addresses the foundations of the term avant-garde and what it takes for an object to gain , and lose such a nickname . Does the exact same pair of shoes, which were actually considered avant-garde, lose their ability to be so, only changing the color? This is paradoxical because the color is new and the shoe has changed slightly, but in its evolution it may lose its ability to be considered new, since it is now just a different version of a previously created idea. White paint is a characteristic design code associated with the infamous fashion house. Here, the white paint does a good job of signifying the open use of historical references. In a rare quote, Margiela said 'white signifies the strength of fragility and the frailty of the passage of time. An expression of unity, purity and honesty.' Just as it is not possible to hide the unique marks and signs of wear on white shoes, Margiela does not want to hide the unique inspirations that have inevitably contaminated his creative mind. As the shoe is worn, the layers of paint on the boot will inevitably crack, revealing the palimpsest nature of the design. This is a metaphor for designers' failed attempts to deny the history that inspired them, juxtaposed with Margiela's ruthless brutality in his honest interpretations of fashion history, making his references clear in form. Revealing the potentially erogenous section between the large and index toes confer.