Signals and Abstraction through Clothing

by Morgan Jones - June, 2022

When we design clothing we are often attempting to embody and convey a certain state of being. We may be aiming to help the wearer feel and portray confidence, sexiness, intellectuality, an artistic nature etc. These states of being are communicated through their own unique signals.

Signals can, and do, change over time, however, at any given moment their contemporary existence is easily and instantly understood for the most part. Take for example power dressing in the 1980s. Slick wide shouldered tailoring was seen to be an embodiment of monetary, and societal, success. The wide shoulder a signal for dominance, power, confidence, and boldness. The slick tailoring a signal for being up to date, business minded, and part of a capitalist society. These signals work together harmoniously, their message is congruent. Each complements the other and simultaneously communicates to us the wearer's ethics, personality, lifestyle, ambitions, and status.

We should note contrasting signals can also coexist. The result is more challenging, likely to be created from a deliberately conceptual standpoint. The pairing of sex appeal with modesty, seriousness with fun, comfort with physical inhibition, would all be examples of this.

Now that we’ve established what signals in clothing are we can ask, is the use of signals as discussed an abstraction of various states of being? Is the wide shouldered power suit an abstraction of monetary success? I would argue that it is not. Rather, I would posit it is a means of communication and a true abstraction through clothing would seek to explore our perception of a subject on a philosophical, experienced, intellectual, or spiritual, level. Signals communicate, but they don’t explore. In combination they can challenge, but they are bound by codes, where true abstraction is not.

Continuing our example of 1980s Power Dressing… to create a true abstraction of monetary success, one would have to detach from historic and present notions of how this may embody itself in society visually, discharging current codes, and seeking to create a conceptual representation of monetary success in the form of a garment that is based on how the designer uniquely perceives the topic. This contrasts with attempting to communicate the wearer’s monetary success, which would ultimately be best achieved through signals which rely predominantly on established visual language.

The garment resulting from a truly abstractive creative process may have little, if nothing, in common visually or structurally with the current and historical visual language found in clothing which pertains to the explored subject.

Regardless of individuals’ personal beliefs throughout society, the signals of monetary success in the 1980s were well known and widely understood. If truly abstractive outfits were created this ease of interpretation would not hold true for all. Rather, it would be a far more fluid presentation to be read in a wider variety of ways depending on the individual observer.

To illustrate the point, monetary success for one designer may be an incredibly soulless topic lacking love. For another, it may be the epitome of a happy state of being. Imagine how different the work produced by these two designers would be if tasked with producing a garment that represents how they feel about monetary success, rather than being asked to create a garment which conveys it.

It seems to me that clothing as we generally know it, even when thematic and conceptual, is not truly an abstraction. Rather, it is a means of visual communication based on understood, and ever changing, signals.

Thanks for reading

Morgan