Lorenzo piccoli

Tailoring has dictated and established the role and the depiction of men (and masculinity) for decades in the fashion world. Furthermore, the establishment of tailoring as the standard for the male wardrobe actively contributed to shape the socio-cultural male iconography (Flügel, 1930).
‘Kineticut’ aims to create a new interpretation of tailoring based on unconventional techniques that can provide a wider range of movement. Movement is the primary outcome alongside the depiction of male muscularity. The final outcomes represent a visual oxymoron: the stativity and apparent solidity of a sculptural sartorial outcome. This portrays the male anatomical figure and works as a façade for hidden kinetic features across a wide range of movement.

The desire to develop a new interpretation of the suit originated by understanding the relevance of movement and the representation of the anatomical features within tailoring.

To understand the impact of tailoring on the depiction of the male body, it is fundamental to understand how tailoring found its modern canons.

According to psychologist John Carl Flügel (1930), the rise of tailoring originated from a phenomenon defined by him as the ‘Great Male Renunciation’. Flügel theorised that by the end of the 18th century, men actively and collectively decided to renounce fashion, believing it to be a merely frivolous subject. Rather, they chose to conform and find in the ‘three-piece suit’ (blazer, vest, and trousers) the perfect ‘uniform’ to become homogenous. Rocamora and Smelik summarise Flügel’s theory by stating: “this uniformity of masculine dress served to eschew the body and emphasise the mind and character as the heart of healthy, ‘normal’ masculinity” (2015, p. 50).

Tailoring aims to emphasize the male body through its subtlety, fully relying on the construction of the garments. It accentuates canonically socially praised body features and hides the less appreciated and undesired flaws. Shoulders, for example, commonly regarded as a male sexually attractive anatomical feature, are emphasised through the use of pads (Gibson, 2006). The entire construction of a blazer is finalised to create a ‘V’ shape on the upper body, usually socially and canonically associated as an ideal body shape.

The suit, according to Entwistle (2000), does not merely cover the body and emphasize body features, but adds and increases ‘masculinity’. Entwistle’s theory can be further emphasized by Craik’ s studies (1994) regarding the role of gender within fashion and vice-versa. She states: “there is no men’s fashion; […] men dress for fit and comfort rather than for style” (1994, p. 177). Consequently, the lack of development within menswear and tailoring can also be explained as a vicious cycle of self-denial from which men themselves cannot escape out of fear of losing masculinity.

Several academics’ statements, including Maneker (2002), Engel (2004), Flussers (2001) and others, claim that there might be only one correct way to dress a man and to ‘be a man’ (Bowstead, 2018). Ultimately, their theory finds its embodiment in the sartorial forms, which, due to their timeless nature, affirms an unchanging male identity. Said identity would be symbolised by the suit, which would be the incarnation of Victorian values that would have generated the socio-culturally accepted and followed canons of ‘masculinity’.

This collective thesis was supported by the data collected from the interviews I conducted on a range of subjects (grouped into three macro-categories: ‘causal wearers’, ‘tailoring-aficionados’ and ‘workers’). According to the data, within the motivations for wearing suits, the most common answers could be summarised into:

- to feel better, due to the image that the wearer instantly portrays (status, elegance, masculinity, etc.)
- it is an all-purpose staple, thanks to its potentially vast adaptability (special events, casual scenarios, workplace, etc.)

What emerges from the tailoring research and the data of the interviews, is that the utility of the suit defines the socially accepted depiction of masculinity.

According to the different studies, the depiction of the male features and the relevance of movement within sartorial norm are fundamental. The first changes in tailoring were theorized by Futurists.
Futurism was established in 1909 as a cultural movement aimed at improving the mentality of an anachronistic society. Its founder, Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, among the major elements of the manifesto, suggested: “Why should we look back, if we want to break through the mysterious doors of the impossible?” (cited in Danchev, 2001, p. 5).

Movement and dynamism represented key terms in the Futurist vocabulary, due to the technological development and improvement, that was meant to take society to the future. Male fashion was included within the wide range of subjects that were meant to be affected and improved by the Futurists, following the ‘Futurist Manifesto of Men’s clothing’ (Balla, 1913, cited in Danchev, 2001). Umberto Boccioni, one of the key figures within the movement, created the ‘Anti-neutral’ suit, described inside the ‘Futurist Manifesto Anti-Neutral Clothing’ (1914, cited in Dachev, 2001), aimed to fully deconstruct, and alter the well-established canons that shaped tailoring and consequently menswear. Solid design shapes and ‘dead’ colours were to be replaced with unconventional cuts and bright colours. Suits would be the incarnation of the joy of life and the desire to progress (Boccioni, 1914).

Futurism represented a pivotal point within my research as it reiterated the importance of dynamism and movement, contrasted with the rigidity of tailoring. It also established the original idea for the development of the project: the concept of a suit that does not limit the range of movement as it contiguously presents an apparent rigid structure.

The design methodology originated by analysing plate armours, which became pivotal within the development of the research. Armours are intended to cover the majority of the body, through the usage of solid and resistant materials, usually metals (iron, steel, etc.), for protection. The analysis of the construction of armourial limbs represented a key point in the design process of the interaction of the new suit and articulations.
Moreover, the process has been supported by anatomical muscular analysis, translating anatomical elements (abs, pectorals, trapezius, etc.) into design and construction features.
Ultimately, the designs want to emphasise the anatomical features through the exaggerated geometrical depiction of the anatomical features themselves.
The geometrical depiction of the anatomy has been influenced by Futurism, alongside another artistic movements that emerged in the 1920’s. These used the 7th art as one of the main mediums of expression: German Expressionism.
The significant of the artistic movement is to be found in the depiction of reality, often presenting unpleasant distorted and intimidating scenarios, reiterated by sharp geometrical shapes and the use of shadows. The Expressionist interpretations of reality have been combined with hostile architecture to further accentuate the depiction of the male body. By making the body apparent, it becomes ‘unacceptable’, due to the violation of social constructs regarding the accepted menswear canons. Consequently, it becomes intimidating, through the inclusion of sharp and pointy elements.
Furthermore, analysis of expressionist cinematography also defined the approach used when creating the collection’ s visual identity.