Recently, there has been a shift in attitude among some feminists towards the practice of cosmetic surgery away from that of outright rejection. Kathy Davis, for instance, offers a guarded `defence' of the practice as a strategy that enables women to exercise a degree of control over their lives in circumstances where there are very few other opportunities for self-realization. Others, such as Kathryn Morgan, Anne Balsamo and Orlan, though highly critical of the current practice of cosmetic surgery, go even (...) further than Davis in advocating its redeployment as a tool to subvert the dominant patriarchal ideals of feminine beauty. In this article I critically appraise this `rehabilitation' of cosmetic surgery, arguing, in the case of Davis, that she leaves unchallenged the social structures of inequality responsible for women's dissatisfaction with their bodies. The proposal to use cosmetic surgery as a tool of political critique is equally problematic insofar as it shares with the cosmetic industry its instrumentalization of the body as mere matter, which is almost infinitely transformable, and also effaces the economic inequalities within which such body transformations occur. (shrink)

This article involves a critical examination of the recent paradigm shift in the appraisal of women's dress. Whereas in the past, female fashion was criticized primarily in terms of its impractical and restrictive nature and more `functional' and `natural' modes of dress were advocated, in recent times the legitimacy of the notion of `functional' or `natural' dress has been challenged. As theorists such as Wilson, Sawchuck and Hollander have pointed out, to assume that there is a `natural' mode of dress (...) which reflects the body `as it really is' wrongly presupposes that the body pre-exists culture when in fact it is always inescapably encoded by cultural norms. However, as is argued in the article, while recent theorists have revealed the naivete of the functionalist paradigm upon which previous critiques of fashion have been premised, their alternative conception of liberatory dress as that which highlights the constructed nature of the body is equally as problematic insofar as it leaves unchallenged the reduction of self-identity to image which the advertising and fashion industries now endorse and promote. In championing the idea of dress as a parodic play in which the body of the wearer is denaturalized, postmodern theories of fashion display an unwitting complicity with our contemporary culture of the spectacle which privileges the cult of appearance over all other sources of identity formation. (shrink)

Ever since the time of Hegel, there has been a growing philosophization of art in which artists increasingly make works where visual/formal concerns are supplanted by philosophical questions concerning the definition of art itself. At the same time, however, an equally vociferous defence of art against its subsumption by philosophy has been made by theorists such as Nietzsche, Sontag and Barthes who have sought to rescue the sensuous immediacy of art from the abstractness of philosophical thought by advocating a more (...) spontaneous and less rationalistic response to works of art. While it may seem paradoxical that two such diametrically opposing conceptualizations of the relation between art and philosophy should coexist, it is argued that they are in fact two sides of the one coin and reflect the fundamentally contradictory nature of the project of art in modernity. Furthermore, both conceptualizations are one-sided insofar as they fail to grasp the essentially antinomous nature of the relationship between the two in which art is inescapably dependent upon philosophy at the same time as it is irreducible to it. (shrink)

While ornament during the period of modernism was much maligned as inessential, superficial, deceptive and irrational, it has been rehabilitated by a number of feminist theorists in recent times such as Norma Broude and Naomi Schor. In their defence of ornament, these theorists have exposed the derogation of the feminine implicit in the devaluation of ornament, which has traditionally been conceived as a feminine domain. Yet this feminist espousal of ornament largely fails to challenge the modernist conception of ornament as (...) decorative embellishment devoid of meaning, differing from it only by giving ornament a positive rather than a negative valuation. Consequently, its defence of ornament as a re-assertion of the legitimacy of the feminine ultimately perpetuates rather than undermines stereotypical associations of the feminine with the sensuous, the superficial and the irrational. A more thoroughgoing challenge would question the way in which ornament was defined during the period of modernism, recognizing its role as a carrier of meaning. (shrink)

A prominent feature of contemporary fashion has been the mainstreaming of ‘pauperist’ style in which motifs of poverty such as worn materials and frayed hems are deliberately sought after as a new form of glamour. What began as an act of rebellion amongst youth subcultures of the 1960s and ’70s has now become a widespread phenomenon. As will be argued in this paper, poverty chic has become a new form of status distinction that disavows its extravagance. Whereas in the past, (...) superior social status was often indicated through ostentatious dress, now a ‘humbler’ sartorial style is preferred in an era marked by financial, political and environmental crises. The popularity of pauperist style today lies in the fact that it assuages the anxieties provoked by these crises through its conversion of poverty into an aesthetic style. (shrink)