Letters to the Editor
The Scarecrow
Published Letters: 1 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Sellout? I think not.
[Read the article: Conversations: Tim Gunn]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The notion that Gunn is a sellout for his involvement in his new show seems a silly one especially from one who praises Gunn's persona as an artist or a teacher.
Gunn's approach to fashion has always seemed eminently rhetorical. He seems to recognize that clothing communicates a message and that you are in control of the message that is being sent. He seems interested in the idea that women may be unaware of what messages that they send with their clothing and may want to control the message being sent in a more thoughtful and critical manner.
I often think that with our desire as Americans to look past the superficial by indoctrinating ourselves with the idea that you "shouldn't judge a book by its cover" that we have done ourselves some disservice. While I certainly understand that we want ourselves to not judge others by things they can't control (biological features), we have really grown lax in acknowledging that clothing and styling choices are both symbolic and communicative. The reality is that people do often judge people on appearance. Making choices about self presentation is representational of who you are--not solely, but at least in part.
For example, we have become to some degree a nation of slobs. Though, slovenliness is not necessarily my real concern. It is that people don't consider whether they are or want to be sending a message of slovenliness or not. To be frank, if casualness or punk rock or elegance or sloppiness is your thing, groovy. If you like that message, embrace it. If what you wear tells a story to others about yourself that you do not want told, though, perhaps, you need to consider another look in order to tell your own version of the story more clearly.
I think that in some sense that is what Tim is after. He seems interested in not choosing what others should look like or wear (witness his horror at stretch pants in the first episode but his willingness to see if they work for his "client" anyway) but making them aware of who they are and how their clothes facilitate the message of who they are.
In this regard, I recall my own experience as a TA in graduate school, teaching in jeans and T-shirts with a pony tail hanging to the middle of my back. I liked my look, and I was more than comfortable with it. Near the end of my grad school tenure, I received a comment on a student evaluation from a student that I initially just wanted to blow off as a sour grapes response from a student who received a lower than expected grade. The response was: "Get a haircut."
After receiving my PhD and beginning my job hunt, I began to consider the student's statement in a slightly different manner and curiously decided to take the student's advice (honestly, while I suspect that the "advice" was really more of an insult than a suggestion, nevertheless, I still treated it as a suggestion because it may have inadvertantly been a bit of good advice for me personally). So, I cut my hair. I realized that I really wanted to send a different message than the one that I had been sending and that I preferred a style that sent a message better suited to my own classroom persona.
So, I lost the hair for the sake of the message and began dressing more professionally. I now wear suits when I teach. Both choices actually help me better control another message that I don't have much control over (the fact that I look very young, which often sends a message of inexperience to students in a university--conversely, youth can make you "cool," however, I was comfortable being "cool" in my attitude and sending a more experienced look with my dress).
Again, I am not saying that everyone should wear suits and have their heads shorn. If you want to be a punk rock teacher, knock yourself out. Your anti-authoritarian message is a reasonable enough one if that is the philosophy you want to espouse (and, frankly, despite my suits, my mouth can be awfully punk rock--it is kind of fun to play the look against the words at times).
I guess that I'm with Tim, "Own your look." But, along with that comes ownership of your message.
My real criticism of Tim's new show is not its philosophy but actually in its structure, which seems to mimic the "makeover formula" a bit too much. One particular element of the show strikes me as counterproductive to his goals.
Instead of "cleaning out the closet" as most makeover shows do prior to the shopping excursion (in order to "tough love" folks into the stylish look that the show deems appropriate for them), I wonder if it would be more "pedagogically" sound for Tim and Veronica to have contestants do so after they shop and get advice from these style gurus.
It might allow for a more personal and critical examination of the subject's wardrobe to consider their style after they have learned some self awareness rather than attempt to "unlearn" their behavior before they have been awakened to some legitimate rhetorical strategies in self presentation.
Oh, one other criticism of the less pedagogical element of the show--the sappy life coach. In the first episode, he tells the subject that she needs to understand that "you can control the presentation; you can't control the perception." That notion seems counter to Tim's own philosophy. The whole point of controlling the presentation is to give you some control of others' perceptions of you.
While it is not possible to absolutely control perception (it is an art), you can certainly control it to some degree through good choices in self presentation. Indeed, that is the art of rhetoric itself (be the message written, spoken, or worn).