Image sourced from GATA Magazine
I will begin with the statement that fashion, as an umbrella term, is not an evocative object. In its modern form, fashion is too widespread, commercial, capitalized, and individual for all of it to be considered evocative. Fashion is viewed by the mass majority of people in the way Kopytoff defines commodities- being produced materially as something, but also being marked societally as such. It is a wonderful, divine medium, but it doesn’t have one singular meaning, as not all of them are exactly designed to shake a person’s worldview or way of thinking, nor act as a transitional object and a basis of emotional connection. What is infinitely more interesting, however, is when designers use the medium of fashion as an object through which they can proclaim their own evocations, as does the Spring 2001 collection entitled Voss by the late, great British designer Alexander McQueen.
There is an evocation of insanity throughout the collection- the models walk with jerky, unnerving, enigmatic movements and expressions. The makeup is pale and bilious, the hair is covered with wrappings and bandages as if they’ve just come out of surgery. The set is designed to look like a padded cell, and there are one-way mirrors inside offering a voyeuristic view into the encagement, a view that satirizes the way the fashion industry preys on designers and models, treats them as entertainment, discards them the moment their evocation has been ran dry.
There is an evocation, that of discipline, throughout the collection. It is often said that fashion is a discipline itself, a code, a simultaneous desire and denial of values, be it aesthetic, functional, or emotional. The showpieces are uncomfortable, made of unconventional materials, both unorthodox in style and responsibility. A bodice of blood-red venetian glass, a breastplate of spiked silver and black pearls- a dress of ostrich feathers and microscope slides, a periwinkle straightjacket frilled with amaranth. It is all a discipline, a discipline of lunacy that is par for fashion’s course.
Furthermore, the evocation of transition and reinvention manifests with intrigue and aplomb. Many pieces are distinctly androgynous- menswear staples such as the pantsuit are deconstructed into gauzy and feminine silks and chiffons. Comedic surrealism is also used- a necktie becomes a makeshift halter, an unfinished puzzle is now a chestplate, a model castle perches itself on a model’s shoulder, weighing her down with the burden of being just that, a model. It’s a very liminal form, a form that tiptoes between expectation and self, the cultural and the natural, the rigidity of grounded society and the freedom of surreal insanity.
And another evocation begins to reveal itself, that of meditation and vision. Natural materials feature throughout- seashells fresh from the British coast, various explosions of feathers, the fearsome stillness of taxidermied birds. They are indeed familiar, but they are manifested uncannily, disorientingly unfamiliar. They infuse the collection with a contemplation of sorts, a contemplation on how these objects have both been made and found, found to be made into its own reflection on the hauntings and perils of modern fashion.
Indeed, at this point in his life, McQueen, who was 31, had grown tired of the insatiable thirst of the fashion elite. He was in the process of leaving his position as the head of Givenchy, a storied Parisian couture house, and he had always struggled with the press’s framing of him as a rebellious, working-class outsider in the upper-class society of luxury fashion. He was heavily smoking and using drugs, and had grown weary of the immense pressure put on him, especially regarding rumours surrounding his work at Givenchy.
So when one analyzes this show retrospectively, it becomes clear that this collection is, by both definition and practice, a quintessential example of what Turkle considers to be an evocative object. The whole show is a double-entendre, showing the fashion elite what they want to see by way of “wearable” clothing and commercialized androgyny, but also laughing in their face, satirizing their seriousness and forcing them to commit their own sins, viewing the clothes and models as scrutinized lab rats for experimentation. It is an object of discipline and desire, controlling his deranged fantasies within the constraints of traditional fashion. It is an object of transition and passage, allowing the concepts in his mind to be transported into reality, traversing the line between the constructed and the abstract, the self and its surroundings. It’s a liminal collection, an intermediate space between fashion’s expectation and McQueen’s heedlessness.
And, most obviously, it is an object of meditation and new vision, giving old objects a new meaning and purpose through a new medium or way of thinking. A dress of razor clam shells is most likely the most obvious reference to this logic, with McQueen even referencing it in a 2000 Women’s Wear Daily interview, saying “The shells had outlived their usefulness on the beach, so we put them to another use on a dress. Then Erin [O’Connor] came out and trashed the dress, so their usefulness was over once again. Kind of like fashion, really.” (Fallon)
It’s all a phantasmagoric display, escalating into a final display of writer Michelle Olley, fat, nude, and covered in moths, a direct contrast to the sanitized, tall sylphs floating through the show. And yet, the collection is its own evocative object for McQueen, in its existence as a provocation to thought, a companion to his emotional life, an undying legacy in the face of modern fashion’s tendency to steal, beg, barter, copy, backstab, and ignore. It’s pure, unbridled, raw, hopelessly realistic fashion that is simultaneous in its purpose as a commodity and its evocation as a manic transcendence.
Objects, as per Turkle, shift their meanings with time, place, and individuals. Fashionable objects go in and out of style. But just like the amaranth, the unfading bloom, a designer’s evocation never dies.
Works Referenced:
Turkle, S. (Ed.). (2007). Evocative Objects: Things We Think With. The MIT Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5hhg8p
Fallon, J. (2020, April 23). The McQueen Chronicles. Women’s Wear Daily. https://web.archive.org/web/20240807033219/https://wwd.com/feature/article-1201126-1706647/
Kopytoff, I. (1988). The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. The social life of things (pp. 64–91). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819582
understitch,. (2024, March 2). The Life and Death of Alexander McQueen. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CY1fkAWprE
All photographs sourced from firstVIEW unless otherwise stated
Written by Rosetta Jones
“There is an evocation, that of discipline, throughout the collection. It is often said that fashion is a discipline itself, a code, a simultaneous desire and denial of values, be it aesthetic, functional, or emotional. … It is all a discipline, a discipline of lunacy that is par for fashion’s course.”
So beautifully said, and just a well-written blogpost in general. If this was on Substack, it would do numbers.
I love this distinction between how fashion as a widespread notion is not an evocative object due to its reach, but a specific collection can hold evocative power to one person. I think this relates back to our own unique approaches to material possession attachment, in which we attach ourselves to specific objects through repeated exposure, and thus these materials become unique, special, and personalized to us. With something like fashion, where these materials and objects are curated over time, this takes on a wholly different flavour, as the discipline of taste and curation is a major contributor to our identity.
You bringing up the discussion on material possesion attachment and its presences in objects of repeated exposure is especially interesting to me, partially because that attachment is especially prevalent throughout McQueen’s career. You have elements of his Scottish heritage (Highland Rape Fall 1995 + The Widows of Culloden Fall 2006), his relationships and influences (La Dame Bleue, Spring 2008), his complex relationships with fashion and its industry (not just Voss, but also Untitled Spring 1998 and his final three realized collections), as well as his loves of birds/aviary themes, cinephilia, tailoring, his explorations of feminine fear and suffering. Any of his collections could’ve provided an interesting read into his psyche and tendency to use fashion as an evocative object, quite frankly, just because his ability to translate his worldview and loves into a new context and form is unparalleled in its authenticity, something that I find is lacking a LOT in fashion today
I really enjoyed reading this analysis of McQueen’s Voss collection and how it functions as an evocative object! The way you unpacked the multiple layers of evocation, insanity, discipline, transition, and meditation, shows how fashion can transcend mere commodity and become a medium for personal and cultural expression. I was especially drawn to the discussion of liminality, where the collection balances between commercial expectation and McQueen’s own chaotic vision. It makes me think, can modern fashion ever achieve this level of emotional and conceptual provocation or has the commercialization of the industry dulled its potential for true evocation?
To be honest, no. Modern fashion especially with the aggressive trend cycle and the power of consumers has little room for such emotional depth in modern collections. There is such a surplus of fashion media that the consumer has had choice like never before, and companies, rather than dictating the clothing that we wear, is instead forced to keel to the ebb and flow of supply and demand. I am happy that consumers have a louder voice in the industries they participate in, but I do miss the days where fashion was viewed as a journey, a medium for self, a passion, something to be viewed and admired, rather than something that can be discarded as quickly as it is produced
Hi Rose!!
This is a fantastic post! Your reading of McQueen’s Voss as an evocative object really captures the tension between fashion as commodity and fashion as lived, affective experience. I especially appreciated how you tied the show’s disciplinary and grotesque elements to liminality and transformation, showing how McQueen manipulates objects to create both discomfort and meditation.
It also made me think about Turkle’s notion of evocative objects in relation to cultural production more broadly. McQueen’s collection isn’t just wearable clothing—it’s a provocation, a medium through which personal and societal anxieties are materialized. It made me wonder, could we extend this argument to other forms of contemporary media, like virtual reality or AI-generated art, where objects are designed to elicit specific emotional and cognitive responses? In other words, can digital objects now function as McQueen’s fashion pieces do, mediating experience, evoking reflection, and shaping perception?
Amazing post!
Hi Sam, thank you for the kind words:) I’m happy you enjoyed reading and found this post interesting.
I guess, in a technical sense, yes, virtual reality and AI-generation for creative practices can be a personal evocation and a representation of self through its materiality. But (and I must clarify that this moreso applies to AI than it does to virtual reality), these works cannot fully be considered evocative objects because the artist is not involved in every step of the process. If the artist is not controlling their movements, making every stroke or seam or note or gesture with knowing aplomb, then the object is not a full evocation of themselves. It is instead a mediation of themselves from another perspective, which in more cases than not often dulls the message they are trying to project tenfold.
This is not to say AI does not have a place in creative industries. AI can do wonders as an assistant, a companion, a simultaneous guide and pupil. But as a creator, it misses out on the intangible, intrinsic, living, breathing, quality, a quality that only humans are able to understand and infuse into the divine act of creation
Wow! Reading your analysis of Voss as an evocative object feels like stepping into a space of intersection between fashion, media theory, and archeology. The way that you frame the collection as staged ontology is so fascinating because it draws on themes of discipline, transition, and mediation. These theme also appear as forces that act upon both the viewer and the wearer. McQueen’s transforms fashion into a site of confrontation such that the body can hold the medium, message, and critique altogether. Your treatment of discipline is especially compelling. In many analyses of Voss, discipline is interpreted as a metaphor for institutional control, but you push the idea further: discipline becomes materialized in the garments themselves. Venetian glass that lacerates the body, microscope slides that threaten to shatter, a straightjacket frilled into couture (beyond being embellishments).
I’m left wondering something your analysis implicitly raises:
When a fashion collection becomes an evocative object, one that forces the viewer into confrontation, what happens to the boundary between object and person? Does the collection evoke us, or do we evoke it by bringing our own fears, desires, and discomforts into contact with its provocations?
In other words, is Voss powerful because of what McQueen embeds in it, or because it taps into something dormant within the viewer that only this medium can activate?
Either way, your essay is a beautiful analysis of McQueen’s work beyond the circuits of consumption and spectacle.