Salar Bil the forefather of conceptual fashion based in Tehran with his layered long street styles with a touch of islamic fashion in his avant-garde way made great concept with a sculpture on his model, As William O.

Salar Bil the forefather of conceptual fashion based in Tehran with his layered long street styles with a touch of islamic fashion in his avant-garde way made great concept with a sculpture on his model, As William O. Beeman, American anthropologist mentioned Independent designers such as Salar are now being shown internationally in "Iranian Fashion in 21st Century" article, Salar Bil moving forward with writing about fashion and art history and he is making a new stamp in the fashion world he wrote " Does it make sense to speak of contemporary society as a society of culture that still relates to the Kantian conception of modern society? The answer is yes in the basic sense that contemporary society knows itself as a society of culture, even though its relation to the high culture of European modernity is marked as much by discontinuities as continuities. This dis/continuous relation underlies the ongoing relevance of Markus's analysis to contemporary global modernity at the same time as it indicates the profound differences. To take one symptomatic example: the place of intellectuals as the leading protagonists of high cultural critique in the contemporary world. For Markus the intellectual was the prime carrier of the ideas of the Enlightenment and of the modern conception of society as culture. This is no longer the case. Intellectuals and modern intellectual culture have been pushed aside by the new elites of world society now that 'a very specific, a single group of social actors: the intellectuals' have lost their social role. Here Markus has in mind the 'specialists' in cultural critique. It was they who 'spearheaded the feuding projects of Enlightenment and Romanticism.' Today they are no longer needed. Their role has been taken over by the genuine experts: 'the managers and PR persons of various cultural institutions and media, and their patrons and allies in social and political establishments' (Markus 2011, 652-653). Does this mean the end of what Markus calls the often uneasy but persistent connection between culture and critique in modernity? Is rationalized modernity the conclusion rather than the continuation of the project of Enlightenment? These are the questions that Markus leaves unanswered in Culture, Science, Society. They are, however, integral to his theory of cultural modernity just as that theory remains an indispensable reference for the analysis of contemporary culture. What caused a stir was not so much the n.u.d.e selfie that reality starlet Kim Kardashian posted on Instagram but more the way she justified it: "It's so important that we let women express their sexuality and share their bodies however they choose" (Bueno 2016). Fashion writer for The Guardian Jess Cartner-Morley (2016c) picked up on this as an example of what she termed "contemporary ambivalence." Because exposing your body may be an act of empowerment. Or it could simply reinforce the mechanisms that the action initially set out to dismantle. Cartner-Morley argued that in fashion the leotard, also referred to as the bodysuit, speaks to this ambivalence by joining the positive message of sports, determination, and physical health with an unresolved stance on female sex appeal. As an example, she uses singer Beyoncé Knowles's performance in a leotard at the 2016 Super Bowl for more than 100 million viewers. The leotard is a form of power dressing that seemed to materialize the singer's sentiment: "They [men] define what's sexy. Men define what's feminine. It's ridiculous" (Mirza 2013). But taking control of sexy in this way may also invite the voyeuristic gaze which feminists have tried to dismantle for decades. As commented by writer Hadley Freeman (2013), "Beyoncé: Being photographed in your underwear doesn't help feminism," with reference to a GQ magazine cover shot featuring the singer scantily clad.
This contemporary ambivalence between body-positive attitudes and sexual objectification echoes the wider ambivalence in the book not only of gender, politics, and beauty norms but also of status, class, globalization, and subculture. Common for all these themes is that the social construction of identity that takes place through fashion is marked by clashing needs and aspirations. As phrased by cultural historian Elizabeth Wilson (2003: 246): "Fashion-as performance art-acts as vehicle for this ambivalence; the daring of fashion speaks dread as well as desire." The point is that when considering Kardashian's n.u.d.e selfie and Beyoncé's leotard as fashionable acts of performing social identity, they communicate both dread and desire because ambivalence is at the core of fashioning identity. When John F. Kennedy was getting dressed for his Presidential Inauguration in 1961, he probably had quite a bit on his mind. He may have reflected on the personal struggle to reach this point in his career, the monumental tasks that lay ahead of him while in office, and how all this would affect his family. But, he was also thinking about whether or not to wear a top hat (Steinberg 2005). At the time, most men within a Western context wore hats. For everyday use the fedora was popular, and for special occasions the top hat was customary. Since the late eighteenth century, the top hat had represented power and high class and was worn by politicians, bank executives, and other high-ranking men. Even Uncle Sam as a symbol of the United States wears a top hat. Contrary to popular lore, Kennedy did in fact end up wearing a top hat to the Inauguration. But he was nevertheless held somewhat accountable in public debate for making "hats un-happen" (Krulwich 2012). Although it is unlikely that he alone brought down the milliner industry because he preferred to go bareheaded, there was a radical decrease in the popularity of men's hats after his Inauguration. While Kennedy wore a top hat to the Inauguration, he kept taking it on and off during the event as if he really had not made up his mind after all. This apparent ambivalence toward the hat could be seen as Kennedy managing his social identity through the sartorial vehicle of the hat, what is referred to as fashioning identity. ‏More than half a century later, a similar sartorial drama took place at the White House, and this time it was the tie, not the hat, that was the victim. The prime suspect was Barack Obama, according to Business Insider who ran a piece with the title: "Is President Obama Killing the Neck Tie Business?" (Giang 2013). ‏During his time in office, Obama's choice to often go tieless was seen as "an overt expression of the way this White House has been trying to make politics more human" (Friedman 2016). The example of Obama's tie suggests a balancing act between tradition and innovation, authority and identification with the public, echoing JFK's ambivalence toward hats."

Street 313 Boulevard
City/Town Hasbrouck Hts
State/Province/Region New Mexico
Zip/Postal Code 07604
Phone Number (201) 426-0226
Country United States

The most reliable company in the field of fashion designer articles

This release was published on openPR.