Barthes
claims that there are two interconnected variables in the use of clothing (U)
relating to its purchase (P).
Here below
is the table of his theory:
- U=P no fashion
- U>P poverty
- U<P fashion
From a
communication point of view, this means that clothing assumes a value of sign
in the second and third case, but not in the first.
As in the
second case, when clothes are used much more often than they are purchased,
this indicates that people wear old, often worn-out clothes.
In this
case, clothes become the indicator that people cannot afford to buy new ones.
Clothes become a sign of poverty, an involuntary form of communication.
In such
cases, there is obviously no room for Fashion.
In the
third case, when new clothes are often purchased but not often used, this
indicates that people can afford to use clothes as signs to communicate their
wealth and refined taste to others.
In this
case, clothes become a symbol of wealth, a status symbol, a voluntary form of
communication.
Fashion has the chance to manifest in this context, either as
haute couture or as prêt-à-porter.
In the
first case, when people buy new clothes only after realizing that they need to
be changed because they have either shrunk or because they are no longer tight
enough, or because the colours have faded from too much washing, there is no
communication, but simply a form of aesthetic function that makes people decide
to change clothes.
Fashion has
narrow leeway in this context.
0 commenti:
Post a Comment