Either/Or

            It is always nice and satisfying when a designer does something different and (relatively) new for a label. Respect for a brand’s characteristic and heritage doesn’t have to be shown by doing the same, obvious thing over and over again. As long as the creation comes in high quality—which means conceptually clear and flawlessly executed—the brand’s distinctiveness should be safe.

            Marc Jacobs clearly understands that. What he does for Louis Vuitton is never limited within the box. Perhaps there isn’t even such thing as a “Louis Vuitton” box. Jacobs’s constant reinvention for the highly recognizable brand makes it hard for anyone to freeze Louis Vuitton’s characteristics.

What is quintessentially Louis Vuitton? Jetsetters’ luggage and polished head-to-toe look? Jacobs has done much more than that, even to the extreme point where he visited Bikini Bottom and dragged SpongeBob SquarePants to Paris Fashion Week for Spring/Summer 2008. But Jacobs isn’t without principle. In 2005, he did say that he has “pinned down who the Vuitton woman is: She’s someone who loves to dress up.”[1]

And the primary rule of liking to dress up is to never be afraid of putting on new looks on ourselves. To reinvent means to undergo trial and error. Try everything. Mix them and match them until you get the perfect harmony. Who knows what stunning new look you’ll come up with at the end of every experiment.

Jacobs had probably contemplated that when he finally envisioned what he would offer to the style-hungry, status-obsessed fashionistas around the globe for Spring/Summer 2009. And his intellectual discourse resulted in a collection that got both the stylish girls and cold critics in ecstasy. After undergoing a decline in satisfaction and praise last Winter, his Louis Vuitton Spring/Summer 2009 collection propelled Jacobs to the top of his game.

As if unaffected by the depressing newspaper headlines, the models came out parading playful mini-skirts, showing off some seductive legs with their confident walk. Even if your legs aren’t as skinny as theirs, the head-turning shoes would still make you center of attention. The platform-sandals came in multiple straps, feathers, and plastic panels forming African faces that cover the wearer’s insteps. If those aren’t stunning enough, they also come in bright, multi-tone of colors.

Above the half-naked lower part of the body, the models were equipped with padded-shoulder jackets covering some see-through tops. Some got their waists cinched with obis, and not one of them came out without drop-earrings and/or plunging tribal necklaces that are, oh yes, colorful and chunky as a surefire way to make some serious statements.

Beside the mini-skirts, there were also some peek-a-boos going on the tops. Some were partially, in triangular forms, see-through on the back. Even the covered front could expose your tits under a certain intensity of light, due to its thin layer of fabric. The finale was an orange (or a hue close to it) mini-dress crunched asymmetrically, with plunging neckline on the front and strappy back that reveals much skin. Floor-sweeping dresses were never Jacobs’s playground, and this finale mini-dress, worn by Sigrid Agren, simply marks Jacobs’s territory.

The show was successful and the reviews were unanimously positive, but will the selling-floor have the same fate? LVMH won’t take “No” for an answer, not when its golden boy managed to bring the best in the midst of critical times. And to advertise the clothes, there’s only one artist who could keep up with and tame this wildly creative collection: Madonna.               

            At first I thought Madge wasn’t quite right for the part. But then I figured who else could effortlessly pull off various colors in every bit of shape and much embellishment than the Material Girl herself? Her personality, chains of controversy, and history of tireless reinvention suit this collection with the perfect pitch of synergy (or is it the collection that suits her?).

Take a close inspection at the advertisements. Tribal inspired clothes and accessories, worn by a modern mega-artist that constantly changes, at a bar that seems classic and very European. Somehow, in a way that perhaps only a genius can track, the pieces fit together. Nothing seems incoherent or out of context. And the willingness to dress-up and be youthful and energetic in tough times that the collection and advertisements suggest would surely appeal to everyone.

More than two millennia ago Socrates, via Plato’s Republic, discussed about four cardinal virtues that have “pivotal role in human flourishing”[2]: prudence (practical wisdom), courage, temperance, and justice. Socrates suggested that “a person is prudent when knowledge of how to live (wisdom) informs her reason, courageous when informed reason governs her capacity for wrath, temperate when it also governs her appetites, and just when each part performs its proper task with informed reason in control.”[3]

This Spring, for those of us who have no time or interest to contemplate philosophical ideals, Jacobs have materialized those virtues in something that one is ready to put on without having to worry about headaches (as often occur after philosophical contemplations). The various bits of style in the collection serve our appetites with temperance, and wearing those heavily accessorized looks is simply courageous. The collection is prudent in suggesting us to never lose focus on looking great though squeezed under global crash, and that is doing justice to the flourishing of our soul.

The 21^st Century depression is here, but there’s no reason for us to embody it. That sums up the Socratic ideals of cardinal virtues for our current context.

- Adhi Putra Tawakal -  

            I don’t know how many decades have passed since the fight for equality between men and women started. Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) made a mark of Feminism in history with the publication of her Vindication of The Rights of Woman in 1792, but some scholars have traced feminist ideas way back, centuries before Wollstonecraft publish what would become one of the “cookbooks” of feminine empowerment.

            What I do know is that feminists around the globe, both male and female, haven’t given up on their efforts to realize a world where men and women could be treated equally with equal respect for their rights, without any sexist prejudice contaminating their interactions. But clearly, making a global, radical cultural change isn’t as easy as 1, 2, 3.

            University academics and NGO-activists aren’t the only ones who are concerned with feminine empowerment. Artists, too, express their awareness and concern for the issue via media that they master. Even in the fashion industry, which sometimes thought to be exploitative towards women in general and discriminative towards certain race and body type, there are designers who genuinely feel the urgency of empowering women.

            Take Miuccia Prada, for example. For her PRADA Fall/Winter 2006 collection, Prada created head-to-toe looks that were clean, almost without print or any playful embellishment. The domination of black and other hues of dark color stripped the models of their innocence and cheerfulness. At that time, Prada said she was tired of being sweet, so she decided to project in her collection a woman who is politically-aware and takes social issues seriously.

            Three years later—in the face of multitude of problems like world-wide economic crisis, large-scale environmental damages, and seemingly endless political turmoil around the globe—Prada takes these issues seriously again with her Fall/Winter 2009 collection. (In between the two Fall/Winters I’ve mentioned, Prada had dazzled the fashion world with metallic turbans and micro-skirts, fairy prints on cheongsam tops, intricate laces on what could’ve been Prada’s vision of 21^st century Hausfrau, and unzipped pieces that are now taking women to an exciting age of primitivism.)

            For Fall/Winter 2009, the looks embrace similar ideas to those in 2006: feminine empowerment, expressed via monotony of dark hues, very minimal prints, and embellishments that have the faintest taste of femininity. As was the 2006 collection, the clothes look ready for boardroom meetings, courtroom dramas, and all those hardcore orgies of strategic idealism in the House of Representatives (something that rarely occur in Indonesia).

            But the 2009 look is more brutal, though. And by “brutal”, I mean brute, uncivilized. The 2006 look portrayed women who are still willing to converse, debate, and retain some patience in waiting for a political institution to morph into its desired form. Those traits are lost in the 2009 look. The models who walked down the PRADA runway got their hairs frizzed-up and their skins paled-down, picturing women who are ready to burst when faced with another moral pretense. Cannibalism was all I could think about when I first saw them on the internet. Prada had probably realized that the present days are tougher than three years ago, so the look must be stronger without any trace of fragility that others (men?) could exploit to break a woman.

            But does it really have to be so?

            When Hillary Clinton backed out of a cover photo shoot for the February 2008 issue of US Vogue over concerns she would look to feminine in designer outfits, Anna Wintour (US Vogue’s Editor-in-Chief) criticized her by saying that “the idea that a contemporary woman must look mannish in order to be taken seriously as a seeker of power is frankly dismaying. This is America, not Saudi Arabia.”[1]

            Inspired by that remark, I feel the urgency to address an important question to Prada’s 2006 and 2009 creations and to the notion of “feminine empowerment” in general: must a contemporary woman look mannish in order to be empowered and taken seriously? I suppose the answer lies within the look itself.

            What is it about mannish look (on women) that instantly grabs others’ serious attention? Is it because of the stereotype that only men are capable to function in the public sphere and so are to be taken seriously? Perhaps, but that’s still not about the clothes or why women should look mannish. A reputable politician could easily turn into a laughing stock were he be seen by his peers wearing floral-printed shirt. That example suggests that look plays vital role in determining who would be taken seriously and who would be taken as a joke. So it’s not all sexual determinism.

            I hypothesize that mannish look, which is almost always plain and simple, drives others’ attention away from the look itself (which has nothing to be focused on) to the wearer’s words (provided the speaker has crucial points to address). Whereas female clothes—with all its decorations, spectra of colors, and distracting skin-revealing cuts—traps others’ attention to the wearer’s body and much less on her words or brain (despite the other’s not being a total pervert).

            Some female power-seeker are still fashion-conscious and won’t let go of their individual, non-mannish style (and they shouldn’t). But sometimes to counterbalance the distracting effects of their clothes and accessories, these women have to become mannish. They become difficult, cold, bossy and domineering, traits that are often attributed to men. While these women’s looks keep them women, their mannish attitudes only got them labeled “bitch”.

            Given all these symptoms of male-imitation, it is important to note that PRADA’s seasonal angry women isn’t the only version of power-woman the fashion world has to offer. Donatella Versace, for instance, is universally known for creating the look of confident women who are consciously vampy and willing to use their sex appeal. That’s powerful, too. After all, the notion of “power” doesn’t always imply anything brute and straight-to-the-point. Power could be exerted smoothly, paralyzing the target until its system collapse on its own.

            If we take power to mean “an ability or capacity to yield some outcome”[2], then the answer is clear: women don’t have to look mannish to feel empowered and be taken seriously. If being empowered means being endowed with a capacity to yield some outcome, then being mannish is just one among several options. Women could be and feel empowered and able to exert influence to get what they want by dressing-up to their best. Just because one relies on one’s brain doesn’t mean one has to neglect one’s look. However, one must remain conscious of one’s autonomy, of one’s decisions, of how one presents oneself, and of one’s responsibility for the consequences of one’s own decisions.

            Every woman should have the prerogative to decide for herself whether she wants to be mannish, vampy, or something else. She should be able to decide whether she wants to attain power with her brain, her tits, or something else. Only individuals who know what would work for each of them. True empowerment comes when one could decide for oneself and be responsible, especially to oneself, for one’s decisions.

- Adhi Putra Tawakal -           

Sebagai seorang perancang yang relatif muda, Frida Giannini tidak takut untuk membuat pernyataan tegas akan visinya mengenai GUCCI. Sejak memulai debutnya melalui koleksi womenswear Spring/Summer 2006, Giannini tak ragu untuk mengambil alih kendali kreasi, secara aktual dan secara konseptual. Statusnya sebagai Creative Director GUCCI tidak sebatas “hitam di atas putih”, namun juga mewujud secara nyata dalam apa yang ia ciptakan bagi GUCCI selama 4 tahun terakhir ini.

Dengan segera Giannini keluar dari bayang-bayang Tom Ford, sang megastar-designer ikonik yang kepergiannya dari GUCCI sangat disayangkan oleh berbagai jurnalis. Dalam usaha menegaskan identitasnya, Giannini mewarnai GUCCI dengan berbagai print cerah yang memberikan para perempuan tampil segar, muda, dan mewah dalam waktu yang sama. Gaun-gaun kreasinya pun memberikan tampilan yang seksi dengan cara yang cerdas dan tidak terkesan … slutty. Semua itu kontras dengan kreasi monumental Ford yang, meminjam istilah Thakoon Panichgul, “oversexed”.

Berbeda dengan ilmuwan laboratorium, Giannini telah menyempurnakan formulanya sejak percobaan pertama. Selain permainan print dan tampilan-tampilan yang tidak mengumbar seksualitas, secara konsisten Giannini menghadirkan pilihan ready-to-wear yang actually ready to be worn tanpa perlu membuat kita berpikir “what the … How would I look good in that?!”. Dan koleksi Spring/Summer 2009 ini bukanlah pengecualian. Semua yang ditampilkan di runway September 2008 lalu, dan yang hadir di butik GUCCI favorit anda di Grand Indonesia Shopping Town, begitu masuk akal, wearable, dan dapat diadaptasikan untuk berbagai occasion.

Getaway ke Nusa Dua, gathering eksklusif orang-orang terpilih, atau sekadar kunjungan rutin ke Grand Indonesia, you name it, this collection will effortlessly fit you in. Print yang cerah untuk di pantai? Check. Gaun glamor untuk “menampar” sosialita lain? Check. Celana yang nyaman untuk hari yang sibuk? Check. Brand yang dengan setia memberikan anda tampilan distingtif? Check. Semua itu bisa anda dapatkan dari koleksi ini bersama dengan rasa aman dari going out of style.

Bila selama ini anda cukup berani untuk tampil eksentrik, jauh dari apa yang digandrungi para fashionista Jakarta, maka mungkin sikap pragmatis Giannini merupakan problem bagi anda. True, Giannini semakin berhasil mencetak personalitasnya pada citra GUCCI, namun ia melakukannya dengan cara yang relatif jauh dari resiko. Selama 4 tahun terakhir, formula Giannini untuk Spring/Summer diaplikasikan secara ketat dan cenderung predictable. Di lain pihak, kreasinya untuk Fall/Winter lebih fluktuatif, seolah ia belum menemukan formula yang tepat untuk musim fesyen yang asing di Indonesia ini.

Saya rasa sikap pragmatis Giannini tidak perlu menjadi masalah untuk kita. Pragmatisme sendiri masih dominan dalam kultur kita, termasuk dalam cara kita berbusana. Hal ini semakin mudah dimengerti, terutama di saat semua orang tersentak oleh krisis ekonomi global seperti sekarang ini. Masa resesi ini bukanlah waktu untuk bermain dengan resiko. Krisis kepercayaan terhadap segala sesuatu yang kurang memiliki prospek untuk berhasil dan bertahan sedang melanda dimana-mana. Untuk menghadapinya, kita harus selalu membuat pilihan bijak dan memastikan bahwa hasil yang kita petik adalah maksimal.

Koleksi Spring/Summer 2009 GUCCI adalah pilihan yang cerdas dengan value yang maksimal, terutama saat ini. Brand-nya memberikan anda eksklusifitas dari kaum massal, sementara koleksinya tidak membatasi ruang gerak anda pada kesempatan tertentu saja. Saat ekonomi sedang melamban, semua orang harus mengeksplorasi segala kesempatan untuk bisa hidup dengan aman dan nyaman. Every day is getting more significant, and we want to explore each day’s potentials in the most stylish manner possible. How? Jawabannya berbunyi G-U-C-C-I.

- Adhi Putra Tawakal -      

“Never be the last to leave a party. That’s for Debbies. ‘Debbies’ equals ‘desperate’”, begitu ungkap Paris Hilton di episode pertama ‘Paris Hilton’s My New BFF’, mengucap sebuah prinsip yang wajib dipegang teguh oleh mereka yang haus pesta, pergaulan, dan citra sebagai bintang paling bersinar dalam konstelasi pesta dan ajang pergaulan ibukota. Terapkan prinsip ini secara konsisten, bersama dengan “never be the first to arrive at a party”, dan anda dijamin akan tampak “penting” di mata biang pesta lainnya.

Really? Mungkin tidak. Sepasang prinsip di atas dapat menjadi bumerang bila tidak anda terapkan secara hati-hati dan tepat konteks. Bilamana anda tak bersikap cermat dan sadar timing, anda justru akan dianggap tak menghargai orang lain. Mengapa begitu? Karena anda tidak berpesta dan bergaul dengan robot, melainkan dengan manusia yang juga memiliki penilaian yang bisa berubah.

Ada beberapa motif dari kedua prinsip di atas. Saat kita menerapkan keduanya secara sadar, kita memiliki ekspektasi bahwa orang lain akan melihat dan menilai kita sebagai sosok yang sibuk. Dengan kata lain, kita ingin melahirkan anggapan bahwa kehadiran kita juga dibutuhkan oleh banyak orang lain sampai-sampai kita sulit datang tepat waktu atau berlama-lama dalam sebuah acara. Selain itu, tidak menjadi orang pertama yang hadir di sebuah perkumpulan membebaskan kita dari rasa bosan dan kesal menunggu anggota lainnya yang terlambat. Siapa yang suka menunggu? Nobody. Siapa yang suka menjadi orang yang ditunggu-tunggu? Everybody.

Lantas mengapa bertahan di sebuah pesta hingga (menjelang) akhir membuat anda terlihat desperate? Well, to put it simply, that would make you look like you had nothing else to do. It would also make you look like you had a boring, meaningless life and staying in a party for as long as possible is the only way to satisfy your thirst for entertainment. Itu yang membuat anda terlihat desperate. Citra anda pun akan semakin jatuh bila anda bertahan meskipun orang-orang yang anda kenal telah meninggalkan pesta dan anda berusaha untuk nimbrung dengan sekelompok orang asing yang tersisa.

Bila anda memang hanya peduli pada pesta, pergaulan, dan citra sebagai biang pesta maka kedua prinsip tersebut patut anda pegang teguh. Namun kualitas relasi sosial selalu rentan terhadap fluktuasi. Persepsi orang lain akan anda sebagai orang “penting” dengan lingkaran pergaulan terluas dapat luntur sebagaimana toleransi orang lain terhadap keterlambatan dan keengganan anda untuk menghabiskan waktu lebih lama di suatu acara juga memiliki batas. Bila anda terus me-nomor-dua-kan relasi anda di bawah kebutuhan untuk tampil “penting”, pada akhirnya anda justru terlihat menyepelekan para teman anda dan pihak penyelenggara pesta.

OK, kalau kita hanya bicara soal pesta di club, dimana anda berdesakan dengan complete strangers dan anda tidak berkewajiban untuk datang pada waktu tertentu, maka kita tidak punya masalah. Namun datang terlambat telah begitu membudaya di Indonesia, bahkan telah di-cap sebagai karakter orang Indonesia (oleh orang Indonesia sendiri!). Datang terlambat, dan actually menganggap bahwa itu dapat terus dimaklumi, adalah gejala seorang yang tak bisa menghargai waktu dan kepentingan orang lain. Begitu orang lain menyadari bahwa anda lebih mementingkan citra diri dan status sebagai orang-yang-ditunggu di atas quality time bersama mereka maka anda tidak akan lagi menjadi penting. Siapa yang ingin berbagi momen dengan seseorang yang menganggap momen tidak tidak penting?

Kapan waktu yang tepat untuk tiba dan meninggalkan suatu acara sangatlah relatif terhadap kepentingan kita masing-masing. Menerapkan kedua prinsip Hiltonian di atas jelas dapat melambungkan status sosial kita. But in my opinion, penerapannya tidak tepat pada segala acara atau social gathering. Menerapkan prinsip tersebut saat kita bersama orang-orang yang lebih dari sekedar stranger atau kenalan-sambil-lalu justru dapat merusak hubungan sosial. Perhatian pada citra diri tidak perlu kita abaikan, namun kita harus tahu kapan perlu mendedikasikan quality time dengan orang-orang yang sesungguhnya penting. 

- Adhi Putra Tawakal -