First, I really enjoy reading this article and be surprised how fashion design and interaction design can be combined together using the same thought. But only one concern that makes me really frustrated is, why the reading don’t have any image what kind of dress they talked about? Such as when the reading mentioned about Delta Air uniform (P.213), how can I know how it looks like? Also this reading mostly talked about dressing in 1970s which it is very hard for me to imagine dressing at that time. Also in my view, the reading focus on western dress so I have cultural difference problem to understand this too. Basically, I have imagination of “factory dressing” and “power dressing” in my mind but because there’s no description or example, I’m pretty sure what I’m thinking might be different than other people. And that’s hard for me to critique too. How can I critique which dress produces professional’s look or worker’s look if I didn’t see that dress?
Interaction Culture: The Class Blog
Official Class Blog of "I590: Interaction Culture" (Indiana University School of Informatics)
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 28, 2013 at 3:50 pm
guozhang
I feel in this reading “power dressing” provides expectations/mental models/frameworks, not specific examples. When we say “professional dressing”, although we all have different “pictures” in our minds, the core (expectations) may be the same (e.g., no one will expect shorts or sandals). When people watch Les Misérables, even they did not know anything about the story before, they may think “this is a factory girl” when they see Fantine. This is more likely a categorial term rather than a term referring to specific entities.
February 28, 2013 at 4:41 pm
jeffreybardzell
I agree, Wishaya, that it would have been helpful had this article included photographs of working class women’s uniforms, 80s “power suits,” and men’s suits side-by side, ideally with a concrete analysis of their forms (e.g., shoulder pads, lapels, tailoring, colors, patterns, textures, buttons, and so on).
It is possible (I don’t actually know for sure) that when this was first published that it had images. I have noticed that sometimes when papers are republished subsequently that sometimes the images are removed, presumably for copyright reasons.
A quick Google Image search using the terms “power dressing 1980s” will at least give you a very good visual idea of what she is talking about, but yeah, I wish there were a more visual analysis included in this paper.
February 28, 2013 at 4:42 pm
jeffreybardzell
LOL this is awesome. https://www.google.com/search?q=power+dressing+1980s&hl=en&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS507US507&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=2M4vUfWCDO6PyAHl9IDgDg&ved=0CDEQsAQ&biw=1545&bih=1264#imgrc=lLcBC-OG13ugQM%3A%3BP2oZxdWrO2_JaM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fimg1.etsystatic.com%252F000%252F0%252F6362637%252Fil_fullxfull.255864049.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.etsy.com%252Flisting%252F77417027%252F1980s-loose-fitting-feminine-power%3B938%3B1500
February 28, 2013 at 6:25 pm
Wishaya P.
guozhang, I agree that the reading focus on categorial term more than specific term but what I think is people in 80s might understand this “category” different than us, for example, does our image of “professional looks” exists in the past 80s? I don’t think they know which dress looks professional and that’s why Molloy published a manual for dressing and that’s why they designed “power dressing”. So this is the reason why I need pictures, just for trying to understand fashion thinking at that time.
Jeff, thank you for clarification and example! that image really looks different than my imagination of “professional”, but reasonable if we think they design to add more men’s looks in that suit.
February 28, 2013 at 8:19 pm
Rayne Zhou
I agree that the reading should better have some pictures because I personally would have been more interested in this reading if it provides some pictures for me, compared with the typography reading we did before. I nearly Google the picture myself but I was lazy….
March 3, 2013 at 11:49 am
ydreyban
I think a problem with the writing was that it was pretty obviously biased towards a “Western” audience. We’ve been talking a lot about signs and semiotics and this reading was vague for anyone outside of the intended readership (European, particularly British, and Americans). He even discusses cliches of the 80s from film and TV because for us, the look was so ubiquitous that if you grew up in the culture you can conjure up your own image of “power dressing” and similarly the “1950s airline stewardess”, hell there was even that stupid show Pan Am recently that I think failed that was intended to pander to an older audience that remembered those times. I think for women, like my girlfriend’s mom, it was nostalgic because it was a reminder of a different time but there was obviously a lot of implied patriarchy even just in the outfit itself.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ocIBKlinkFM/TqycAjk7igI/AAAAAAAACmE/pCW25kMna-g/s1600/Pan+Am+Uniform.JPG
I think Jeff’s done a pretty decent job in providing readings that have either been totally alienating to everyone, or a topic that few of us have a shared understanding of so it makes that thing clearer. Here, they may have just as well said “You know what I mean?” every few sentences since it’s clear that many of the non-American students don’t have a shared cultural understanding of this phenomenon and it sounds pretty euphemistic unless you do since the signs wouldn’t mean anything.
March 3, 2013 at 4:53 pm
Katie O'Donnell
This might be useful for seeing the evolution of women’s work clothing: http://excelle.monster.com/news/articles/5278-womens-work-wardrobes-through-the-decades?print=true