How elitism can shape a career: Has the MET’s ‘Savage Beauty’ exhibit correctly represented the legacy of Alexander McQueen?
The highbrow world of the fashion industry can make or break an artist, even when that artist has passed on. They find themselves in a place where they need to keep an elitist mentality when analyzing a person, because if everything was written truthfully, then the so-called illusion of the “artist” will be shattered. Oftentimes, when an important figure in the artistic world is dehumanized, it means that the historian in charge with creating the archive will scrub their biography with any hint of struggle or anything that would make the artist look like an actual human person, to create this inaccessible idea of what it is to be recognized as a great innovator. In the case of Alexander McQueen, he was a queer designer who worked to defy the stereotypes of the fashion world in the 90’s and as a result of his rebellion, he faced a lot of backlash. He unfortunately passed in 2010 at the age of 40, which led to Andrew Bolton, Head Curator for the Metropolitan Museum of Art, was the first to make an exhibit and ultimately write McQueen’s history.
Here is where the problem begins: Bolton is successful in preserving McQueen’s legacy in his artistic abilities, but he shies away from depicting Lee McQueen’s meaning behind his work and his trials and tribulations in the fashion world. During his lifetime, Lee McQueen was seen as a polarizing figure as he was applauded for his innovative theatrical fashion shows, but received severe backlash for claims of misogyny in his work. Bolton’s cleansing of McQueen’s true life story is problematic because he is gatekeeping the fashion narrative from those who are perceived as “lower-class”, as if they’re not worthy of artistic acclaim.
Lee Alexander McQueen grew up in a working class home, with his father being a taxi driver and his mother being a homemaker, he was proud of his heritage and wasn’t ashamed of his financial background. Most fashion designers have access to a curated artistic education and attend such institutions such as Parsons School of Design or Antwerp Royal Academy of Fine Arts, whereas he worked on Seville Row for a few years to build up his reputation. He had a traditional apprenticeship rather than an education, because it came at no cost and he could use the scrap material he used at work for his own pieces.
He was interested in fashion as a small child, as he would spend hours of his day creating fashion sketches while accompanying his mother in the kitchen. He went on to complete his A-levels, and from there he went to work at theatrical costumiers Angels and Bermans, which was integral to his growth because it was the first time he had seen fashion being treated like a performance rather than just gowns on women. Here he learned that fashion tells a story and that it doesn’t just need to be pretty dresses on pretty people, but it can be manipulated to tell the narrative of the artist. He wanted to integrate his interest in history with his interest in design, which ultimately led him to begin his formation of performance through his designs, a way believed would tell a story to his audience rather than just have clothing with no explanation. From here he went on to attend the Central Saint Martins College of Art and design, which led him to create the collection Jack the Ripper Stalks His Victims.
His final collection at his program was entitled, “Jack the Ripper Stalks his Victims”. His collection consisted of tattered pieces with added blood splatters, and he even signed off on all his pieces by having a lock of his hair sewn into each one; inspired by the idea that prostitutes at the time would give a lock of their hair to their lover as a gift. It could be said that his ideas in this collection would sensationalize his fascination with the dark and disturbed, in which soon would be mistranslated into misogyny come the later collections.
The Highland Rape collection of 1995 was his first big showcase, which gained a lot of praise for its tailoring. However it was also the catalyst to begin McQueens negative image within the fashion press. The collection was inspired by his geneology, he claimed that the rape wasn’t in relation to a human body, but to what England had done to Scotland. The rape refrenced is in terms of the pillaging of the Scots by the English in the Jacobite risings of the 18th century. He uses disturbing imagery of models with tattered clothes and exposed privates to show that his identity as a Scot was stripped away to make way for the “United” Kingdom. If you look up the collection now you will see the words “iconic” and “fascinating” thrown around, when in reality when the collection came out there was nothing but backlash. The press had wrongly taken that idea and made the assumption that McQueen hated women. A famous slanderous example is when the British newspaper The Independent stated that, “The Emperor's new clothes: rape victims staggering in dresses clawed at the breast were a sick joke, as were knitted dresses that M&S would make better for a fraction of the price. McQueen likes to shock. To admit to not liking his Collection is to admit to being prudish. So, we admit it. He is a skilful tailor and a great showman, but why should models play abused victims? The show was an insult to women and to his talent.”.
They took his intention for the project as him using disturbing art to promote violence, when in reality that was the opposite of his objective, which was to empower women through performance and fashion. The Highland Rape Collection featured one of McQueen’s most iconic pieces, the “bumster”. The trouser was low on the body, which was his take on the low-rise jean trend at the time. His intention for the piece was simple: he found the base of the spinal column to be the most interesting part of the body, so he wanted to show it off. But alas, the media deemed it a “crude display of the derrière” and “I thought that he had gone a bit far and I think a lot of people thought that”, stated Vogue's Anna Harvey.
Despite the criticism, his work can be argued as feminist due to the intention of having models stray away from the idea of being a pretty thing in a dress. The idea of contemporary femininity lies in ideals that promote that women should be strong and hold their own ground, but they have to look pretty doing it. McQueen found the fashion of the 90’s to be overrun with overzealous femininity and he found the adorning of women of the time to be misogynistic. The 90’s was a time where mini skirts with matching tops and pastel colors dominated the fashion world, as per the works of Chanel’s Karl Lagerfeld. That highly girly look was very saturated in the 90’s with media such as the cult film Clueless’ heroine Cher Horowitz solidified the mark of the era being the Chanel mini-aesthetic. McQueen absolutely hated the idea that women had to be seen as pretty little objects, and thus was fueled to make pieces relevant to how he saw fit: strong and scary.
McQueen cites his most important muses to be his older sisters and Isabella Blow. He looks at his oldest sister as his inspiration behind his reasoning for making women a spectacle of power and to be feared, rather than making them an object of beauty. When McQueen was a child he had seen his oldest sister be abused by her former husband, which Lee also endured abuse at the hands of. He has stated before, “I was very close to my oldest sister, who was badly beaten up by her husband, and when you’re eight years old and seeing your sister strangled by her husband – who’s now dead, thank God – all you want to do is make women look stronger,”. He wanted women to be feared rather than loved, and he was known to attend high fashion shows like Chanel for what he would call, “ a good laugh”.
The charge of misogyny was repeated when he released his second collection, entitled “The Birds” in 1995. "The Birds" was inspired by Alfred Hitchcock 1963 Thriller about violent bird attacks, which was also the collection's namesake. The first theme of the collection was McQueen's usage of the idea of Destruction. He used this film as inspiration because he would watch the film as a child and he found the main character looking at risk and being placed into a foreign environment to be empowering, especially because in the end of the film the heroine reigned victorious. McQueen was near obsessed with seeing women overcome a difficult situation. The second theme of the collection was roadkill, which was inspired from a scene in the movie where everyone is fleeing to a car from the bird's attacks. “The Birds” contained pieces that were constructed out of clear PVC material, which as a result exposed the model's body for spectatorship. Fashion journalists found this move misogynistic and would claim he was objectifying women. An example of that rhetoric is when Daily Mail writer Sarah Vine had stated, “McQueen is someone who hates women. He wants to torture us with revealing clothing and unflattering shapes. McQueen was a genius all right. But however much one might admire his work, it should never detract from the fact that, like so many who thrive in the high-octane, morally ambiguous world of high fashion, he was also a monster who hated women”.
Another reason why he was often dismissed as an artist is because he often would make his collections cheaply, which is considered a capital crime within high fashion. With his limited budget he would then steal fabric from Central Saint Martins, and buy a "hideous cheap black Lemay fabric that he bought from a guy on Berwick Street". His fabric designer decided to give details to make it look like they were run over by a steamroller, which meant that the fabric was stretched out on a loom and tattered with ink. In this collection he was inspired by pallet wrap, which enabled him to create a transparent and sleeveless shift dress. McQueen would then start a trend in his later work of using cheaply-made fabrics and other materials, which instead of seeing it as cost-efficient, McQueen was again perceived as lower class for not using the finest materials.
Styling for each of the models consisted of them having sleek straight hair except at the ends which would be fluffy poufs. The makeup was pale and natural with delicate orange red lips. Many models cited that they felt free and like dangerous angels and many of them walked for free because of Alexander's low budget. An unnamed journalist had stated, “"As a feminist I had a lot of problems with McQueen's work," likening his treatment of the female form to that of the abstract expressionist artist Willem de Kooning, whose lumpy, deconstructed female nudes verge on the grotesque”, which was the opposite of his intentions. He thought that Tippi Hedren looked powerful in The Birds, as she sported a sleek tailored look as she was fighting off vengeful crows and he wanted to recreate her look. In reality this collection was a powerful homage to women and he made sure of it by having the models engage with the outfits to make sure they appear three-dimensional rather than treating them like clothing racks.
Alexander McQueen felt most himself when he was working for himself and no other person. He had the most creative control he felt as if he could portray a woman the way that he wanted to. He also would discuss his disdain for Paris Couture Fashion Week, as he believed that the popular shows made women look like clowns. He would go to shows with Isabella blow to go make fun of the models and their flouncy feminine gowns. He believed that objectification was the ultimate form of misogyny. The fashion shows he went to would portray women as a clothing hanger, rather than a person with a personality. They were just models walking in a line, and it made his blood boil. He would try his hardest to make women seem terrifying but it wasn’t well translated to the critics.
“Dante”, McQueen’s Winter 1996 show, seemed to point him in a somewhat positive direction, as this show was largely lauded in comparison to his previous accusations. The Show was staged in Christchurch, Spitalfields on March 1st, 1996. The name of the collection is taken from The Divine Comedy and the collection was based on war and peace through the years. McQueen had stated that he believes that religion has caused every war in the world, which he decided to have his collection at church. McQueen chose this specific Church because his mother had told him his distant relatives had been baptized and buried there. His mother was a genealogist, and as a result of that he was deeply fascinated by his family lineage. He was very proud of his Scottish heritage and wanted to represent it as much as he could. The set design in the church was one that was definitely a play on the theme of death, as the catwalk was shaped like a crucifix and McQueen had actual skeletons sitting in the audience as if they were spectators. It was truly a clash of cultures, as McQueen's dedicated fans and friends (considered “low-class”) would crowd outside the church, while industry officials (considered “high-class”) were seated inside.
The soundtrack to the show was a mix of rock music and rap, as well as helicopter noises from the film Apocalypse Now. McQueen would take inspiration from two very popular films at the time, Danny Boyle's Trainspotting and Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility. He was able to perfectly encapsulate the essence of both films. He would give it a delicate twist, with a grungy backstory with its Victorian influences, and featured slashed sleeve jackets, brocade admiral coats, crucifix-covered masks. He was inspired by early-Netherlandish religious paintings and Joel-Peter Witkin's 1984 portrait, titled, "Joel, New Mexico". This collection had an increased budget so the quality of the clothing went up. It included wool-trimmed coats, haute corsets, and trousers made in Italy. But of course, he would sneak into Central Saint Martins to use their printing machine, so he could make lace-like designs for the dresses. He had a friend borrow rare feathers and horns to create accessories.
The gothic collection hailed a new type of poetic artistry. He was able to communicate his varying opinions on religion and life and death through his work with various types of fabric and silhouettes. This show reached critical acclaim with Womens Wear Daily deeming him the savior of London Fashion Week. This was a career-changing show for McQueen. Dante was so popular that he even had a second show in a New York City synagogue.
McQueen had a very rocky career after Dante. On one hand, his talents were recognized and he was given the title of Givenchy’s new creative director, but on the other, he associates his time there the most degrading part of his life. He and his team were treated badly on arrival in Paris, and almost all of the shows he did under Givenchy (from 1996-2001) was seen as “misogynistic” or “fetishistic of womens pain”, no matter what he did. It seemed as if he was unable to catch a break for a majority of his shows, where the greatness of Dante seemed to be looming over everyone's heads. He would cite this as a miserable time as he was insulted upon arrival and frequently compared to his rival Dior creative director, John Galliano. Galliano was the perfect counter to McQueen. His work was feminine and lacked theatrics. Owner of Givenchy, Bernard Arnault, reportedly gave McQueen a lower budget and less of the team which amounted to McQueen hating his position there. He felt abuse at the hands of a man he did not know. He didn't want to pay that much attention to his pieces at Givenchy because he wanted to focus on his own line. He would take scrap fabrics and ideas from Givenchy with him to Alexander McQueen.
One of McQueen's most talked about shows was 2009's Horn of Plenty. McQueen would use his frequent collaborator Philip Treacy's hat making skills to create hats inspired by french aesthetics, which were delicate fascinators with mute coloring or they were flat black. The makeup used for this show was inspired by queer performance artist Leigh Bowery, with the models having overdrawn lips and a minimal face, and for hair if they were not wearing a hat, Guido Palau created sculptures on each model's head using aluminum cans and plastic wrap. This was McQueen's environmental crusade as he believed the turnover of fashion was so quick and throwaway; he didn't understand the need to create more mess. The three themes for the show were Eliza Doolittle at the flower market before she transforms into My Fair Lady, Elizabeth I, and clowns. This show took place in Paris and was one of McQueen's very last shows. He did not want to be boring, but to ignite imagination and create a spectacle. He strived to entertain rather than be generic. Radical feminist Sheila Jeffreys, in her book Beauty And Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices in the West, criticized McQueen's collections for their images of sexual violence; yet again McQueen defended himself and stated these are not misogynistic figures; they were powerful; he was celebrating women's power in a different way. His blanket criticism of misogyny sometimes even had a stem in homophobia, as Brenda Polan from the Daily Mail wrote, “They are almost always gay and it is hard not to read into their work a combination of fear for women’s bodies twinned with fascination and envy”.
When in reality he believed that a woman's dress doesn't need to be revealing to be powerful and that he wanted women to look terrifying and intimidating so they couldn’t be hurt. McQueen would have shows with covered women and not covered women, yet no matter what he did he was hailed a misogynist. It is at fault due to critics sexualizing his work, whereas he had just wanted to enjoy garments and put on a show. He would also want to feel as if he was getting back at his childhood abuser by portraying women in a powerful way.
McQueens legacy lies in his desire to empower women through alternative fashion. He used gothic styling, was resourceful with fabric, and ultimately wanted women to be seen as powerful. During his life everyone knew him as a master tailor but a controversial figure. He was a polarizing figure; his pieces ranged from critically acclaimed to largely hated, all of account of a misinterpretation of his work. He was a misunderstood artist who wanted to make a change in fashion. Alongside his claims of misogyny came fat-phobic comments about his appearance. McQueen was often criticized for his appearance, had caused critics to call him tacky and uninvolved with the fashion world, as he often sported tracksuits and sweatpants when he was closing his shows, as he was working night and day to create his pieces he just wanted to be comfortable. McQueen was someone who didn't care about his own appearance at his shows, as he wanted to spend more time on the models. He wanted to give his collections the utmost attention. When he started to please the critics, they decided to attack his “frumpy” appearance as they felt like they couldn’t go for his work. He started to wear nice designer clothing to close his shows and he lost a lot of weight. This was at McQueen's worst due to his deteriorating mental and physical health. Friends and family claimed that he started to lose himself and he was no longer being the creative person he knew, but someone that they became very worried about.
McQueen's last show was Plato's Atlantis, which was a part of the Fall 2009 collection. Plato's Atlantis consisted of pieces that were inspired by reptilian prints and technology. His inspiration for the collection was his idea that after the ice caps had melted, we would return underwater and build a futuristic utopia to inhabit. He was successful in illustrating the underwater aesthetic by having all of the dresses being short in length and using flowing material in blues and greens. It is heartbreaking that this is McQueen's last show that he attended in person because this show seems as if it has the best overwhelming response to the collection. It seems as if its innovative storyline in conjunction with his classic Savile Row tailoring was pleasing not only to the general public but to fashion critics alike. However after he had passed there was a shift in narrative people had started to see him for the artist that he was and there was no talk of misogyny. There had seemed to be a cultural shift in the viewership of his work. He was now seen as an icon and at the hands of the people who rewrote his narrative. But what warrants such a cultural shift?
As the overwhelmingly positive response of this show showcases that McQueen clearly did not die a hated man, but one who was finally being seen as the great artist he was. There were instances in the past where McQueen’s talent was clear to the critics, but if you were going off of the show notes it seems like the pattern in criticism varied from negative to positive. He was the underdog in fashion, and sometimes it appeared that the critics wanted him to know that. There's always a certain amount of criticism that goes within each fashion designer but it seems as if McQueen's attacks were personal rather than based off of his work.
McQueen's negative treatment was especially important because after his passing in 2010, it seemed as if the fashion industry wanted to erase the negative aspects of the past. What is especially odd is that after McQueen's passing, access to old show notes with negative comments or other criticisms were not as easily found as rave reviews. It seems as if McQueen became a martyr to the fashion world after they had realized they could not find a replacement. Most of the criticism of McQueen's work came from a place of elitism within the fashion world, as illustrated with the inaccessibility to find show notes for any fashion show. It appears as if the fashion institution wants to forget the harassment he had endured during his come-up, and would rather erase the past and act as if it never happened. The history of fashion and art is heavily guarded by people of higher positions who try to shape the opinion of a generation and other generations to come. Most of McQueen's posthumous history has been written by art and fashion historian Andrew Bolton. When singular voice comes into play, oftentimes we can find ourselves only looking at a linear perspective of a person's life, when in the case of McQueen it would be beneficial to view multiple perspectives.
The posthumous exhibit Savage Beauty debuted in 2011 at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, and was curated by Andrew Bolton and Harold Koda. The description of the collection describes him as a gothic romantic, identifying romanticism is a recurring element in his work. The Collection had six separate galleries which consisted of his early work to his work at Givenchy and beyond and had the overarching theme of the “The Romantic Mind”. Bolton and Koda had entitled each section in relation to romanticism, such as “Romantic Gothic and Cabinet of Curiosities”, “Romantic Nationalism”, “Romantic Exoticism”, “Romantic Primitivism”, and“Romantic Naturalism”. This is hypocritical as previously his most common criticism was the accusation of him being a misogynist, but now it seems his narrative has shifted and he is seen as a romantic person. The bumsters from the Highland Rape show were repurposed to be seen as an innovative piece rather than something that used to be regarded as misogynistic, as “showcasing his provocateur”. A lot of the notes for each individual piece are scarce from Bolton, but he tries to focus on the technical aspects of each piece by the materials and the construction rather than acknowledging the McQueen’s actual livelihood. Bolton is trying to repurpose McQueen from the previously perceived, “bad boy/poor punk” storyline, into one where he is the fallen romantic rockstar of fashion.
If you are given the task to write up the history of a beloved designer you should include everything about their life not just left pieces to make people fluttery when they see the pieces but having the truth complement each work would unlock a different emotion for the spectator. The way that Andrew Bolton wrote about McQueen was written from an institutional perspective however an incomplete one. It's one thing to write about an artist's work but when you discredit the person's experiences and what they had to face to create the work you are discrediting their piece altogether. He only writes about McQueens pieces with the intent of making them consumable fluff pieces that could be easily regurgitated to a room of investors. In terms of fashion and art history both rearing its ugly head, the case of McQueen was a situation where the negative backlash was popular to majority and if his history is being written, it should include all aspects of his life so when we look back in 50 years we see history as it is, and not for what they want it to be. Doing this further strengthens the institution of elitism that is prevalent between both fashion and art history; it boils McQueen down to a few symbols rather than showcasing his true genius. Bolton’s selective narrative hinders the legacy of McQueen because it limits what a general audience could obtain about McQueen.
In a way, it could be argued that the way Bolton is writing about McQueen objectifying the designer. Bolton focuses on McQueen’s craftsmanship, even though McQueen wanted the backstories behind this work to be known as well. He erases an entire identity due to its controversy, and plays it safe by only focusing on technical skills. He also makes McQueen one dimensional because of the way that he romantacises him. McQueen was interested in romance aesthetics and arguably had a gothic spin on most of his work, but romanticising an entire body of work can alter the perception of the piece, which leads it to lose its meaning. Bolton seems to overlook that McQueen ever received any negative backlash for his constant accusations of “misogyny”, as the exhibit and its notes are scrubbed clean of any negativity. McQueen was scrutinized for his lower class background and “habits”, which was also not mentioned past; the only thing really stated was that he “had modest beginnings”
An example of this inappropriate romanticism is the fact that the entire exhibit's theme is the “Romantic Mind”, which proves to be nearly impossible because not all of his works surround the theme of romanticism. One case in particular is “Romantic Nationalism”, and it includes pieces from the Highland Rape collection, which is deeply significant to McQueen because of the abuse he endured as a child as well as integrating his Scottish roots, whereas Bolton only focuses on McQueen's nationality. The cleansing of such figures takes away his works' meaning, and reduces it only to its construction. Construction of a piece is only so important; the artist's intention is what gives the work its life. By boiling down McQueens piece to only its romantic and theatrical elements, it strips his identity from the work.
McQueen’s legacy should reflect his personal history because he was a person who
blended his family and friends with his work. With that being said, it's important to also include the years of backlash he received while being a designer. Ignoring institutional prejudice against McQueen erases Lee’s struggle for validation amongst the fashion world, as well as discredits any meaningful implications his work may have had. Bolton’s tone is the same critical tone that is heard with most art historical analysis’, It sets in place this impossible standard for the creative field; polishing someone's life story and experiences causes the spectator to continue to believe that the art world is a place only for the beautiful and rich. This limits access for potential artists, as well as a chance for their voices and concerns to be heard. Bolton unintentionally erasing McQueens hardships is an act of elitism, considering McQueen grew up poor and had to work for everything he wanted.
Another one of Bolton’s actions I find problematic is the timing of Savage Beauty exhibition. Savage Beauty was released about a year after Lee McQueen’s passing then wouldn’t it be beneficial to do a holistic review on his work including all his influences? Especially because his work was so personal to him. When there is talk about his passing, his suicide is mentioned like they're trying to talk about how he was a poor tortured soul without really giving any context to it. McQueen's artwork is nothing without context and Bolton seems to get rid of any personal touches McQueen put on his work by repurposing it and making him out to be a
gothic prince, rather than someone who tied his ancestry and upbringing to his designs.
According to his Ted Talk it seems as if Bolton wants to focus on the theatrics of McQueen which is totally fine, but still it can be argued that an artist personal history can amplify the attributes of his work especially someone like McQueen. In the same Ted Talk, he mentions that McQueen real begins normative conditions of beauty get that isn't necessarily translated into the exhibit itself as it is more less focused on the Romantic aspect and the beautification of his work. It seems as if Bolton has made the observation that McQueen's work extends farther than what is presented on a garment, however he does not want to make the connection to humanize McQueen. Now in praise of Bolton, he was able to capture McQueen’s playfulness and dedication to his pieces in Savage Beauty. It can be argued that Bolton had just wanted to focus on the positive aspects of McQueen rather than bringing in deep traumatic experiences that the designer had, which is justified because it is a museum exhibit, however if Savage Beauty could be edited, I would include his personal history as a part of these of it because it was just so related to his work. McQueen is a great example of that because he is a fashion designer who, since his passing, has had multiple exhibits worldwide at different museums yet all of them just tend to focus on his craftsmanship rather than the contacts that he gives it through his personality.
McQueen faced backlash his entire career because of assumptions of him being a misogynist and a low class leech, however it is his personality and reminder of his own path that we see that he's in fact trying to reclaim his own existence within the body of his work. Boltons interpretation of McQueens work is because the institution in which history in fashion exists is incredibly gate-kept which is exactly what happened to McQueen during his life, and by having those same institutions trying to rewrite him as if he was always perceived as a genius and always well-liked in his career seems inappropriate when that was not the case. Elitist institutions feel as if they are not held accountable because of how they are run. They have the ability to ruin or boost your career. Typically you can say that there saturated with wealthy white people and when people see McQueen, a poor gay Scottish man is trying to break into fashion, obviously that doesn't seem to fit their mold especially for someone who wasn't traditionally educated, despite the fact that he has the chops to be apart of them.
Most of McQueen's criticisms during his lifetime seem to dive from personal aspects rather than critiquing his craftsmanship or his work; it seemed as if the majority of the backlash went to McQueen directly. Whether it be his appearance or his upbringing he would seem to be treated inappropriately by his contemporaries. Important to take note of this especially as the world is changing because these institutions must be broken down. The art world as a whole has been heavily saturated by people who have benefited from the system without even really trying and those who have to work from the ground up aren't really given the same opportunity as those who are either related to someone or have a greater privilege than other people. The reason why this is founded over time the art world will become saturated with the same thing over and over again and Innovations within our it will not be as prevalent as it used to be. If young artists despite their backgrounds are given the same opportunities as other people are maybe then we will be able to do creative work without causing that person to have such a difficult time creating it. A lot of designers have to have sparkly clean paths in the fashion world, or else it is often used against them.
McQueen will be truly missed and will always be seen as an icon in the fashion world even if he wasn't treated as such while he was still alive. Ten years after his death, his works are still seen as iconic and even though fashion has attempted to recreate McQueen’s gothic aesthetics and extravagant showmanship, there has been no successor. The only recent designer to get compared to him is Dutch designer, Iris Van Harpen, as she creates 3-D printed dresses, but not even McQueen’s current Creative Director, Sarah Burton is given that high honor.
The direction in which fashion is heading is that it is saturated with the same type of people meaning that all the collections likes are coming out within the past few years have been pretty much the same there hasn't been anything that has been deemed iconic or shocking really in terms of theatrics. It seems as if there are a lot of young designer hopefuls coming out of fashion schools or have been out of fashion school for a while that are on the rise but that is only because consumers are building a popularity for these brands not institutions themselves. If the fashion industry was more up to the patron rather than the institution then maybe we see a lot more creative work coming out as well as new voices rather than repeated patterns. There's a sense of class bias that has always been prevalent in high fashion, as even recently nepotism is becoming a huge problem.
Lee McQueen’s impact on fashion had more of an astronomical impact than he would have thought when he was still alive. If you were to look up Lee McQueen on google now, it's constantly growing reviews and most of his iconic pieces more from his previous collections such as the Horn of Pleanty and the Highland Rape, two shows that were highly critisized during his life. Sarah Burton has taken over McQueen and the same innovations are not really seen in her work even though she had worked with McQueen for a number of years before his death. Burton is just much more softer and feminine than McQueen ever was. Her strong suit also isn't really with theatrics but more with tailoring which in that context it would make sense why they chose her to take over. It seems as if Bolton's romantic take on McQueen's work had greatly influenced the line because now when we look at Sarah Burton's McQueen, it is just romantic feminine pieces with beautiful dewy skinned models, which is the exact thing McQueen tended to make fun of, and it makes it seem as if the label is selling out. There will never be another Lee Alexander McQueen, so we should respect him in his entirety, not what we think should be talked about.