My creative process is really exploring ideas that I’m interested in at the time. And then intensive research, which can become literal research or abstract in terms of just form, or texture and shape. And then I build on a woman three dimensionally with fabric, and form, and textures, and sewing techniques that I build in my studio. And then I work with my team on sort of building that up into a collection. I treat it in acts in a very theatrical way in terms of the sequence of our collection and our show, and where it starts and where it begins, or does it go in reverse or backwards. It’s like cooking a meal. It’s so varied. I often find my inspiration through play.
Gene Kelly. ‘Cause he persevered, and he was. . . he had no fear..
Before . . . Well there’s certain pieces before clothing. There’s the snake goddess, sort of page 4 of Gardner’s our history book. And you know, there’s great clothing and _______ paintings, _______ paintings. And there’s . . . Of actual designers, which is only about 150 year old idea – fashion designer – I really have an incredible admiration for designer Madeline Vionet. And then it goes to Crystal Balenciaga. I mean so from there, we’re going from really fluid, foreign, sort of the invention of glamour, of looking at goddess-like women into sort of goddess forms, because they’re just totally constructed simplicity. And from . . . And then they became quite abstract. They’re large gestures of personality in the clothing, where Vionet was about bringing out the character of the woman. Then from there, I go to Issey Miyaki, and then to Yohji Yamamoto, Yves St. Laurent. He sort of . . . Yves St. Laurent created modern fashion – the idea of what a collection should feel like about haute couture versus ready to wear; and the formula of what a fashion show should look like and being in touch with the culture – brining street clothing into high fashion. He was, you know . . . I like the dreamers. Then I go to John _______, who sort of revitalized romanticism and dreaming. And fashion, besides the utilitarian part of it, is not a necessity for people. I mean it is a thrill of life. It’s not something necessarily necessary in order to live in any way. It’s an art form. It has patronage. It has financial signifiers attached to it. So you know, I like the designers who sort of surpassed that, or make fun of that, or have that humor – or just great sculptors _________.
Well I think it’s an amazing time in fashion. We’re at a transition moment, which usually happens after the turning of the century. You know, I think, you know puppies, babies, and you know, plastic surgery are the new fashion.
Discuss
George Lawson on October 28, 2008, 1:31 PM
I am not a scientist or mathematician but have been very interested to read and hear the various theories circulating regarding the existence of other dimensions beyond the three we are familiar with.
I have only been able to try and conceive what these may be like by analysing what we understand about the existing known dimensions and how they relate to one another, and what could reasonably be extrapolated to other higher dimensions.
I have used conventional models of the existing dimensions:-
%u2022 0 Point (infinitely small)
%u2022 1 Line (infinitely long, narrow & thin)
%u2022 2 Sheet (infinitely long, wide and thin)
%u2022 3 Cube (infinitely long, wide and deep)
Comparing 0 and 1 dimensions we can see that within a 1 dimensional world there could be an infinite number of 0 dimensional points.
Comparing 1 and 2 dimensions we can see that within a 2 dimensional world there could be an infinite number of 1 dimensional lines.
Comparing 2 and 3 dimensions we can see that within a 3 dimensional world there could be an infinite number of 2 dimensional sheets.
It would therefore not be unreasonable to suggest that if there is a fourth dimension, possibly time, then there are potentially an infinite number of three dimensional worlds within it.
When mathematicians and physicists talk of 11 dimensions or more I am unsure as to whether they are talking of true separate dimensions, or instances of 3 dimensional worlds?
One of the conclusions from Einstein%u2019s theory of relativity is that mass, through gravity, can bend space & time.
If there are multiple 3 dimensional worlds within the fourth dimension of time, then
since we do not as a matter of course see other dimensions then there are three possible conclusions, either :-
%u2022 There are no other 3 dimensional worlds
%u2022 The adjacent 3 dimensional worlds are sufficiently well separated that distortions in ours does not cause them to coincide.
%u2022 That as mass distorts space & time in our world it also distorts other adjacent three dimensional worlds, bending them away such that they don%u2019t coincide.
The first of these possibilities would open the question as to what did exist in the rest of time, if it is a dimension.
The second would open the question as to what existed in the boundaries between dimensions, and what these constituted.
The third possibility is by far the most interesting, opening up a possible explanation as to why gravity appears to be far weaker in our dimension than we would expect. If it has to bend multiple other dimensions out of the way then this could be where its energy is really going. Distorting multiple 3D dimensions would absorb considerably more energy than distorting a single dimension.
This explanation may also lead to another line of thought around the nature of %u2018Black Holes%u2019. The excessive mass/gravitational pull of these objects may be due to the coincidence of mass in other adjacent dimensions combining with an existing mass in our dimension to create a massive distortion.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register