Benedict Anderson writes in a section of Imagined Communities about Latin. How it was once used, became something for the elite, and is now a language to be read, not spoken, and is reserved for the educationally privileged. He says that “for the older Latin was not arcane because of its subject matter or style, but simply because it was written at all, I.e. because of its status as text” (1918). What is culture supposed to mean anymore anyways? If culture is meant to evolve, what good does it do to simply trickle out the elite from the mainstream? Anderson also notes Martin Luther saying “where Luther led, others quickly followed, opening the colossal religious propaganda war that raged across Europe for the next century. In this titanic ‘battle for men’s minds’, Protestantism was always fundamentally on the offensive, precisely because it knew how to make use of the expanding vernacular print-market being created by capitalism, while the Counter-Reformation defended the citadel of Latin” (1918). There is a defensiveness that comes with any progress, this is proven true.
In summarization, change is not always welcome. In fact change is typically met with resistance (I assume you know what’s coming next).
There is a specific implication that culture, in fact, is dead. All that is left is recycling of ideas and the idea of something ‘new’ is dead. Culture is recycled. There will be nothing new. Possibly one of the most accessible pieces of evidence for this is fashion. Fashion is never anything new, it is recycled and marketed as something new. Of course there is 80’s revival, 90’s grunge revival, etc. Most recently, there was a 90’s rave culture and bohemian 70’s revival. And of course, these initial fashion statements were based off of something else, and so on. Fashion is proof there is no new culture, only regurgitation of what once was new.
Oscar Wilde said that “Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.
In the movie “The Devil Wears Prada”, one of the most seminal fashion-forward movies, a seemingly frumpy Anne Hathaway is thrust into the ever-evolving world of fashion, only to soon learn she is in way over her head.
Some of the fashion pieces specifically noted is traditional French lingerie and over-the-knee black stiletto boots. Hathaway takes to these pieces quickly, and rightly so. They are popular because they are staples. While pieces of fashion, they are considered ‘hot items’ and yet are still coveted. Both pieces have been very in style, only to be replaced by something else that is seemingly shiny and new, but come back around to prove their fashionable relevance.
Meryl Streep plays the ‘devil’, the HBIC of the magazine. Adding to her power stance, she is noticeably older than everyone else. Within the world of fashion, while age may take away some relevance, it grants memories. She is old enough to remember original pieces now considered vintage, a notation I think the movie subtly makes.
Fashion happens to be a culture within itself, a huge economy in every single continent. However, the culture itself has hit a wall and has resorted to recycling and reality tv. Post-colonialism hit fashion, and it hit it hard.
Works Cited
Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.
The Devil Wears Prada. Dir. David Frankel. By Aline McKenna and Lauren Weisenberger. Perf. Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway. 20th Century Fox, 2006. Film.
Fight for Your Right Revisited. Dir. Adam Yauch. Perf. Elijah Wood, Seth Rogan, and Danny McBride. Hulu. 2011. Web.
No comments:
Post a Comment