Not exactly. The old saying “history repeats itself” can be applied to fashion without fail.  Save for those unexplainable and unsettling fads (i.e. jelly shoes and acid wash denim), nearly everything in fashion can be traced to a previous trend or inspiration.  The long-sleeved mini dresses on the Azarro and Jil Sander runways? Direct 60s references. Prada looked back to the 50s with knee-length skirts and feminine hues. On countless runways, polka dots – one of the most classic prints – were given a fresh, modern spin.

While none of this is “new,” we’re definitely seeing it in a new way.

Luckily, fashionphiles like me have an advantage when it comes to tracing trends: the IMA’s very own Material World exhibition.  From crystal-encrusted Dior gowns to ornate Cambodian pieces, Material World is chock full of the clothes that started it all. Seeing the exquisite craftsmanship, rich colors, and tiny details up close means spotting fashion influences is both easy and fascinating. In particular, a feathered Chanel cape, a Tibetan regalia, Chinese imperial robe, and a two-piece Chanel suit stood out to me, and to demonstrate their timeless appeal, I compared them to Fall/Winter 2011 runways:

CHANEL FEATHERED CAPE, 1925

VALENTINO, DSQUARED, & GUCCI, FALL 2011

The 1920s was an age of excess and luxury, exuberance and joy.  This feathered, camel-colored Chanel cape exhibits all of these sentiments, with the addition of Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel’s exquisite tailoring and craftsmanship, of course. Wearing feather-adorned clothing was both an exotic new design idea and a shameless display of wealth for upper class Americans of the Roaring Twenties.  Naturally Chanel, the premiere couturier, was among the first to turn out magnificently feathered pieces.  The dense application of feathers gives the cape a soft, plush feel, yet true to form, Chanel kept the colors natural and the shape sleek and simple. Nothing too gaudy or over-the-top for the original minimalist.

Today, we’re seeing modern interpretations of the feathered trend – and not just feathered pieces, but opulent fur pieces as well.  But modern styling and shapes make all the difference in the world; take the Valentino feathered jacket, for example: ultra-naturalized feathers on a 60s-inspired swing coat, complete with cropped sleeves and a rounded collar. The juxtaposition makes an impact far greater than the original shapeless Chanel cape. Similarly, fur has held its ground as a fabric of luxury, and the past few seasons have shown a fur resurgence.  Designers are playing with different treatments of fur; think full sleeves, thick textures, even psychedelic dyes like turquoise, red and pink.

TIBETAN REGALIA for BUDDHIST ORACLE, early 1900s & CHINESE IMPERIAL ROBE, 1775-1825

DRIES VAN NOTEN, MARY KATRANTZOU, & ETRO, FALL 2011

The Tibetan tradition of the oracle’s regalia is to emphasize his connection to the spiritual world, just as the Chinese imperial robe expresses an emperor’s oneness with God. And while fashion today isn’t exactly spiritual, it’s arguable that our ability to see runway shows online connects us to the fashion gods (aka designers). Religion aside, the inspiration of Tibet and China is unmistakable on some of today’s biggest runways, including Dries Van Noten, Mary Katrantzou, and Etro, which featured looks with boldly mixed patterns, draped fabrics, ornate decoration, and metallic threads.

While the prints and fabrics on the regalia and robe were partially chosen for aesthetic reasons, they serve a greater symbolic meaning. The multi-piece regalia was made with imported silk and metallic threads to create a sense of opulence, and the three eyes on the headpiece show the oracle’s two physical eyes and his third “inner eye” that symbolizes enlightenment and wisdom.  In the modern Dries Van Noten, Kantratzou and Etro looks, the styling errs on the aesthetic side – but the bold colors, collage of mixed prints, and luxe fabrics communicate a more complex, multifaceted woman.  By rejecting convention, they project a sense of luxury and beauty in a way that mimics the glorification of the ancient Tibetan oracles and Chinese emperors.

Katrantzou referred to her fall collection as being created for a woman surrounded by beautiful things, and to do so she “pushed prints to the limit.”  Similarly, Dries Van Noten used a collage of patterns from different time periods to create a type of synoptic image. Dries also executed an extreme attention to detail, using bright snakeskin or shimmery gold threads to add subtle impact and definition to the large patterns.  Etro’s look most resembles the Asian pieces, with a tapestry-esque pattern printed on a conservative two-piece ensemble.

CHANEL 3-PIECE SUIT, 1964

MICHAEL KORS, YSL, & EMILIO PUCCI, FALL 2011

From the very beginning, Chanel emphasized elegance and polish on simple shapes, constructed womenswear with jersey fabric, and turned out innovative, striking designs for every day.  The women’s pantsuit was a premiere example of Chanel’s expert craftsmanship and thoughtful designs; what was once reserved for businessmen was now available to women who wanted a sleek, professional, and modern new look.  By using unexpected materials like brocade or boucle, Chanel was able to give women the “new uniform” of the ’20s while maintaining a sense of femininity.  This gold suit from 1964 displays the idea flawlessly: a fitted collarless jacket and slim pants becomes even more feminine when done in shimmering gold, silver, blue, and purple threads.  Luxurious details like braided edges and expensive fastenings also add to the elegant feel, while maintaining that sleek and unfussy look.

The fact that suits aren’t inherently feminine is perhaps what makes them so unexpectedly womanly, and we can certainly see this idea repeated in modern suits.  Women today still consider suits one of the most stylish ensembles (when done right, of course) and it’s those slight details that make all the difference.  In the drapey Kors suit, a deep V-neck, flowing jacket, and super-skinny pants lend some edge; YSL’s snug black suit features nautical buttons, puffed sleeves and cigarette style pants to enhance the female shape; and Pucci’s all-white look is both crisp and relaxed, for the fashion-forward, minimalist woman.  Suits are the original classic, and clearly they’re far from fading out.

Tell me more, tell me more!

Explore how designers of the 20^th century shaped the direction of avant-garde fashion by using modern construction and unexpected materials to contort, conceal, reveal or mock their wearers. Even more info here.

According to the report from the National Endowment for the Arts, there are about 29,300 professional artists in Indiana. This number is comprised of 13,000 designers; 3,300 fine artists, art directors and animators; 3,000 musicians/singers, 2,000 architects, 600 dancers/choreographers and 100 actors. These growing numbers are recognized by the local arts community.

“We saw Harrison Center sales rise, more of our artists living off their art and more community support in general,” observed Joanna Taft, Director of the Harrison Center for the Arts at 16th and Delaware.

These numbers were part of a new report from the NEA called “Artists in the Workforce: 1990-2005″. The report, considered the first nationwide profile of professional artists, is a compilation of data from the U.S. Census Bureau and other arts organizations that chart the location and impact of the country’s 2 million artists. Artists are broken up into 11 categories including actors; announcers; architects; fine artists, art directors and animators; dancers and choreographers; designers; entertainers, musicians, photographers, producers and directors; writers and authors. The report also notes gender, minority and major metro area trends:

“The time has come to insist on an obvious but overlooked fact — artists are workers. They make things and perform services, just like other workers, and these goods and services have value — not merely in lofty spiritual terms but also in dollars and cents,” the report states. “Without denying the higher purposes of the artistic vocation, this report shows that artists play an important role in America’s cultural vitality and economic prosperity.”

The nearly 2 million artists in the U.S. earn about $70 billion annually. This is an important statistic. The report considered only people who identified their primary occupation as artist for the American Community Survey (see page 138 of the report). The first observation we can make is that this is a large number and surely has an important impact on our culture. According to The New York Times article on the study:

“If every artist in America’s workforce banded together, their ranks would be double the size of the United States Army. More Americans identify their primary occupation as artist than as lawyer, doctor, police officer or farm worker.”

A significant trend found in the report shows that the majority of artists are “designers”, made up of commercial and industrial designers, fashion designers, floral designers, graphic designers, interior designers, merchandise displayers and window trimmers, and set and exhibit designers. This makes sense in our digital world and one in which designers tend to resist globalization. It’s difficult to outsource this type of work. Copy editing may be done overseas, but you don’t often see U.S. Web sites or magazines designed halfway across the globe.

And it’s interesting to see how spread out these artists are geographically. While still focused in major urban areas in New York and California, artists are taking up residence in diverse cities across the country.

“It’s the impact of a kind of decentralized electronic culture,” said NEA Chairman Dana Gioia in an article by The Associated Press. “… Artists are no longer confined to living in the three to four metropolitan media centers. You can now live in Santa Fe and email your New York agent every day.”

While the number of Indianapolis artists is on an upward trend, why is the city ranking so low on the totem pole? Indiana ranks 15th on a list of U.S. states by population. Maybe it’s because our overall workforce is much smaller relative to other metro areas. Perhaps it is because the Indianapolis community does not have as many patrons of the arts as other cities? Or in part because of Indy’s tax policies? Please give us feedback if you have any insight on Indianapolis’s low ranking in this survey and share with us your ideas to make the city a more attractive home for artists.

How does Indiana stack up to our neighbors?
(total artists as percent of state’s civilian labor force)

• Illinois: ranks 22nd
• Michigan: ranks 24th
• Ohio: ranks 34th
• Indiana: ranks 40th
• Kentucky: ranks 45th