Curious about…Personal Uniforms.
A friend posted the photo above on her Facebook wall a couple of days ago in response to Steve Jobs’ death: I thought it was a lovely way to commemorate someone, illustrating the iconic clothes they wore. Jobs was of course famous for his uniform - the Miyake turtlenecks, the mid-fade Levis and the New Balance sneakers, and wore it every day, religiously. Got me thinking about the power of personal iconography, of the potential liberation of uniformity and the idea of how it might feel to construct an external identity that was about doing the same thing repetitively rather than changing every day.
Wikipedia talks about uniforms thus: ”Workers sometimes wear uniforms or corporate clothing of one nature or another. Workers required to wear a uniform include retailer workers, bank and post office workers, public security and health care workers, blue collar employees, personal trainers in health clubs, instructors in summer camps, lifeguards, janitors, public transit employees, towing and truck drivers, airline employees and holiday operators, and bar, restaurant and hotel employees. The use of uniforms by these organizations is often an effort in branding and developing a standard corporate image but also has important effects on the employees required to wear the uniform. However the term ‘uniform’ is misleading because employees are not always fully uniform in appearance and may not always wear attire provided by the organization, while still representing the organization in their attire. Academic work on organizational dress by Rafaeli & Pratt (1993) referred to homogeneity of dress as one dimension, and conspicuousness as a second. Employees all wearing black, for example, may appear conspicuous and thus represent the organization even though their attire is uniform only in the color of their appearance not in its features. They described struggles between employees and management about organizational dress as struggles about deeper meanings and identities that dress represents, describing dress as one of the larger set of symbols and artifacts in organizations which coalesce into a communication grammar.”
At the other end of the fashion spectrum we have North Korean leader King Jong Il’s safari-suit chic, lampooned worldwide (it is rumored to be one of the most popular Halloween costumes in recent years) and worn by him (and his impersonators) on a daily basis. Somewhere between a military uniform with its khaki, beige and grey palette (and yet unadorned with the usual pseudo-military insignia) and at the same time, definitely built for ease of wear and comfort as His Dearest Leader ages, it is not for everyone, but it is, to quote fashion journalist vernacular, his “signature look.” He is reputed to have hundreds of them in various sizes to allow for weight fluctuations, and in multiple fabric weights and textures - cotton for inside, practical polyester for visiting villages, wool and cashmere for winter. There is an unconfirmed rumour that the recent elastication is to allow for bullet-proof layers to be more easily worn underneath, as tensions rise with other nations.
Ironically, many fashion designers rely on uniforms for their own personal wear - Coco Chanel lived in her traditional Breton stripes, Halston only wore a black cashmere turtleneck and suede jeans year-round, Michael Kors only wears black T-shirts and jackets, the list goes on; presumably their way of keeping some form of personal sanctuary (and sanity) in a sea of their own designed ever-changing clothing.
What Of It? I love fashion and invest in it like a champ but have to admit I am slightly curious about the notion of wearing the same thing every day and seeing if things change. Lots of articles in the fashion press talk about having a “signature look,” but to me this takes that to the extreme - I think I wear things that suit me but I like the variations on colour, texture and proportion - I wonder if by wearing the exact same thing every day one has to allow one’s personality to exhibit different colours, textures and proportions instead?
I am Curious about uniformity and its potential to liberate other aspects of ourselves, about the space where signature ends and uniform begins, about the notion of creating personal brands, with their accompanying iconography and meaning.
Recent comments