‘Art and cultural consumption are predisposed, consciously and deliberately or not, to fulfil a social function of legitimating social differences’. (‘Distinction’, Bourdieu)
The counter culture movement of the 1960s and 1970s has become as much a fashion movement as a political one. Forty years on the key fashion trademarks of the counter culture movement are still firmly established, and are open for re-interpretation in our current social context. Florals, denim, ethnic influences, tie-dye and that ‘Woodstock’ vibrancy of colour, texture and print, get the ‘signature look’. However, when viewed, rather than as abstract fashion pieces, but in a context of an era defined by the political conscience and social rebellion of a post-war generation, these signature 70s pieces become tools to convey a political message, both now and then, and the era had lasting social, political and cultural consequences.
Politically the counter culture movement encapsulated student rebellion across the Western world: protesting against the Vietnam War; the excesses of consumerism; the establishment; intolerance and racism; global capitalism and the giant multi-national corporations; and nuclear armament, all against a backdrop of the spread of Communism and violence and suffering in the Third World. A generation, socialized in a period of affluence, was no longer so concerned with material issues, but became what has been called ‘post-materialist’, looking for individual fulfillment, quality of life and self expression. As explained in Inglehart’s Silent Revolution, in 1977: ‘for the younger cohorts, a set of “post-bourgeois” values, relating to the need for belonging and to aesthetic and intellectual needs…take top priority.’ Original counter culture members saw themselves and their own lives as a way to express political and social beliefs and so personal appearance was at the forefront of their political expression. Clothes were used to make a political statement and to express an alternative way of life and an alternative sense of fashion to that of ‘the Establishment’. Woodstock in 1969, the famous festival of music and the arts, was a platform for this disaffection from the dominant culture, and a very visual symbol of the political empowerment of the young. As captured by Eric Hobsbawn in The Age of Extremes, the State was checked by an increasingly rebellious population with much more individualistic attitudes than ever before; it was ‘the triumph of the individual over society.’
The use of exotic motifs, now iconically linked to that era, were adopted by the counter culture movement out of concern for Western exploitation of the Third World in symbols of solidarity: leather accessories and the hippy head-band in the manner of Native Americans; the caftan; the PLO-style Arab headscarf; Afghan sheepskin coats; and long scarves from India. These were all worn in a sign of unity and as political statement pieces. Second-hand clothing – a statement of living on the margins of a capitalist society and of self sufficiency, demonstrating an opposition to the wastefulness of the consumer society – was also ‘in’. Self-expression through external appearance led to free and creative stylistic additions such as customising with bleach and tie-dye, Indian inspired batik, paisley, scarves and gold jewellery, patches and ethnic inspired embroidery, drawing on national dress from, for example, Greece and Turkey. Body painting became an art form as hippies adorned themselves with psychedelic patterns across their bodies.
Haute Couture went for the hippy utopia and the street fashions de riguer were sold in boutiques in Paris, LA and London. These eclectic influences from the street movement were seen in the collections of couturiers: Pucci’s 1960s interpretation saw geometric prints in a kaleidoscope of colour; Marc Bohan at Dior showed psychedelic patterns in 1967; and Missoni ran their iconic bold bright space dyed weave patterns. Vogue too acted to make the painted psychedelic prints a high fashion trend. The national dress (which we see interpreted in Yves Saint Laurent’s Africane collection of 1967), tunics (Halston, designer to the rich and famous of society, showed tunics and matching trousers to dress America’s real woman), florals (as shown by Kenzo in the early 1970s), and peasant style blouses and skirts (as shown by Yves Saint Laurent in his Russia Collection, 1976/77, and folkloric tops shown in Jean-Paul Gaultier’s 1976 collection).There was a rush back to nature, ‘a return to paradise’, with the inclusion of flowers and natural materials, (Biba, in the late 1960s, ran cheesecloth dresses with lace trims, layered sleeves, tied backs and tied cuffs), all further enhanced by ‘barefoot and braless’, Jesus sandals and long hair. This ‘back to nature mentality’ saw the 1973 ‘beige phase’ in high end fashion. The hippy preference for baring flesh, in conjunction with the sexual liberation of the era, saw the trend for sheer blouses over bare breasts arrive on the catwalks in 1968. The hunt for unique second-hand finds, such as a velvet jacket, were too, soon enough all copied, and, using this example, velvet flared suits suddenly flooded the market. Denim, and Levi Strauss, became the uniform of the un-conformist, it united classes and helped the wearer make a philosophical, political or fashion statement.
The fashion revolution saw young creative designers responding to these new attitudes, ‘they were lively, highly individual, inventive…and greatly concerned with the creation of “image”’. Inglehart’s ‘post-materialist’ youth led to, probably for the first time, designers reacting to and interpreting their street movement. Much is written on Yves Saint Laurent who found his source of inspiration on the street and captured some of the spirit of the times. Along with the collection specifically mentioned above, he added details from the hippies eastern influences; his 1969 collection, a patchwork and mix of patterns and outfits of romantic silk and organdie, was for the sophisticated hippy. Furthermore, in 1968 he launched his Rive Gauche range ‘named after the left bank of the Seine in Paris, a favourite haunt of students, intellectuals and existentialists’ – the new in-group. Yves Saint Laurent created antiestablishment fashion at high end prices for the super rich who ‘wanted their image to be as “anti—establishment” as it was beautiful’. Couturiers Emanuel Ungaro, Pierre Cardin and Audre Courreges similarly responded to these attitudes. Biba, the first high fashion and low price point brand designed by Barbara Hulanicki, showed the classless aspirations of the time, she targeted this new generation and Biba became the epitome of a style conscious idealism. It fulfilled the 1960s commitment to ‘live fast, die young and leave a beautiful corpse’. Mary Quant’s shop, ‘Bazaar’, run with her husband, celebrated youth and fun and bohemianism. It was an upmarket alternative that drew essence from the emerging group identity of young Britain. And thus, the anti-culture found itself to be the in-culture in the oxymoron of non-conformist fashion; by adopting a stylistic alternative the movement had remained firmly imbedded in a culture defined by style, and with this, ‘anti-fashion’ became ‘official fashion’ and lost its attitude.
The new demands of the post-materialist, post-Second World War youth, looking for individual fulfillment, quality of life and self expression, led to a changing role in fashion in our society. Now in our modern society ‘celebrity’ fills a similar cultural niche as the ‘political conscience’ did in the 60s and 70s. Through association with a celebrity one attaches themselves to all their transferable connotations, such as a particular social class or attitude or lifestyle or style. Furthermore, the anti-fashion of the 60s and early 70s probably changed the way we wear clothes forever. Where previously one bought a whole outfit, the new individualistic requirement of the trend demanded one took a little bit from here, there and everywhere, ‘mass produced clothing…mixed with clothes from past decades and other cultures’.
This was more than a political movement; it was a movement of the arts. As Oscar Wilde put it: ‘the artist is the creator of beautiful things’, but ‘all art is quite useless’. The 1960s saw the young united with a common objective, whether politically motivated, interested in popular culture or naively dreaming of a life full of peace and love. Their common objective, ultimately, was their image.
Sources
John Peacock, The 1970s
John Peacock, The 1960s
Charlotte Seeling, The Century of the Designer
Alwyn W Turner, BIBA: The Biba Experience
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray, The Preface
All images by Julie Helquist
martindagucci_nude_london-anja-23386.jpg)
martindagucci_nude_london-anja-23517.jpg)
martindagucci_nude_london-anja-23253.jpg)
martindagucci_nude_CF023504.jpg)
Image thanks to Models 1
Posts
