Philip Treacy: Rose Bertin of the 21st Century?

Rose Bertin was a small but pivotal cog in precipitating the end of the French Monarchy.

She was more than a fashion designer; she was the fashion designer. She exclusively served the wealthiest and highest nobility; her most prominent client was Marie Antoinette, first as Dauphine (crown princess by marriage) and then as Queen of France. A creation by Rose Bertin--a single outfit--was likely to cost upwards of twenty times the annual income of an ordinary working class Frenchman.

The Queen's obsession with fashion, her reliance on Bertin as confidante, as well as the continual grinding-in-the-face irritation of the flamboyant excess and appalling expenditure in her closet contributed a good deal to the snapping of the social bond between monarchs and subjects. With that final vestige of social restraint evaporated, the agitation of the revolutionaries, the sans-culottes, found a fertile hotbed in the Parisian masses, and the Bastille was breached, and the rest is history.

Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia that describes a little of what Rose Bertin did for her clients, in the way of fashion:



Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the latest highly-publicized oeuvres of M. Treacy:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef01538e3404bb970b-600wi


Please let me enter a caveat here: I do not have passionate feelings about abolishing the British monarchy. Indeed, until quite recently I had a mildly affectionate feeling for the institution as it has evolved, and an appreciation for its intangible value to British society as well as its modest tangible value as tourist attraction. Really, I had nothing personal against the royals. Still don't. I can even muster a mild compassion for the exigencies of a life so privacy-deprived and choice-restricted. I doubt even the vast wealth and social (not political) power of the family can't entirely compensate for the lack of freedom.

And none of that is changed by the ridiculous fashion-excess-fest of last Friday. I don't think the royals, per se, are in any danger, really. They are but a manifestation (and a comparatively minor one) of a symptom of the worsening disease affecting not just Britain, but the industrialized democracies of Europe and the Americas.

But that ailment is very much the same as the ailment that troubled France in the eighteenth century: The concentration of wealth and economic power into the hands of a tiny minority who not only ignored the well-being of the rest of society, but actively exploited them and exacerbated the exploitation by obscene displays of excess.

It took decades for the social fabric to fray and disintegrate to the point where the tumbrils carried their loads to the foot of the scaffold, and Mme la Guillotine whittled the size of the privileged class back down to where the rest of society could support it again.

And that's all I'm going to say about that.

historically,
Bright

What to think.

There's a lot of labor that goes into creating any fashion - including traditional fashion - especially as it has developed in Europe.

After the end of the monarchy in France - other monied people stepped into their place to take advantage of trained coiffuires, seamstresses, tailors, etc.

So do you dislike those jobs to go along w/ the people who wear them?

And I say that as someone who isn't getting this whole argument.

There are people all over Europe, America and who work in detailed, labor intensive crafts who are getting slammed along with their clientele.

I'm not getting it.

I see little if any analogy between Marie+ and current-day British 'royalty.'

for, except for philanthropy. And truth be told, the everyday style of the uber wealthy "old money" in GB especailly is very subdued- dody and ragged actually. They just have this abberant thing about hats. I think it;s odd and nothing more.
Everybody;s got their something.

Music, art, fashion, entertainment, and all kinds of crafts are important at all levels of the economic spectrum and in all segments of society. And one of the things that a somewhat-regulated free market system does best is to provide support for art, crafts, entertainment, etc., by enabling individuals to provide rewards and promote the development of artists and craftspeople. Highly controlled economies are generally less effective in that department.

And one of the legitimate functions of a privileged leisure class is the reward and promotion of arts and crafts that don't necessarily have "mass appeal" but nevertheless offer important insights and enrichment for society.

Perhaps I expressed myself poorly, but the point I was trying to make is that when the distribution of wealth becomes so grotesquely inequitable and is accompanied by two things: a) A breakdown in the system of moral and ethical parameters that tie obligation and responsibility to the privilege conveyed by wealth; and b) Social reinforcement for the display of excess; you have a recipe for social upheaval.

As I explicitly mentioned, I'm not picking on the royals per se. I'm not even ragging on poor Beatrice and her sister in particular. Merely, I'm noting that when the level (and to some extent, the styles) of display socially acceptable or even desirable or required among the highly-privileged wealth holders becomes severely displaced from the sensibilities of a majority that is already feeling increasing levels of exploitation and oppression by those wealth holders, the display itself becomes an issue. And may even become a precipitant or force for social change.

But I didn't want to sound too pendantic, or to belabor the point too explicitly.

I guess I should stick to pedantry.

futilely,
Bright

I only point out that every culture produces a traditional craftsmanship that
Exceeds certainly my pay heck.

But deserves every consideration to preserve - and not just for itself.
And some how your critique has managed to include that.

This question becomes more pointed in an age where everything is more and more the same.

There's something wrong in this critique - I'm not saying I know exactly what it is - but the person who knows how to craft exquisite beading or crafting beautiful hats isn't to be excoriated - but admired.

You may not like the CHOICE of an individual client - but I'm grateful there is one.

It is about the disconnection between craftsmanship and display.

Alas that I failed to make that clear.

finally,
Bright

He's a hatmaker, she was a couturier and trendsetter

These items are technical & tradition heavy things to produce.

Phillip T. is a wonderful milliner but not in the same league with what she did. what Rose Bertin did was create entire looks that the entire world copied and envied.

No doubt the aristocrats like Marie A. and her fat husband didn't get it either. Right up till the end. Then they got it. Queen Elizabeth's husband, a doddering old wackjob, said something to the effect his dearest wish was to be reincarnated as a deadly virus and wipe out half the human population.. presumably so his aristocrat buddies could then have more animals to hunt and kill and more territory on which to do it. Nice folks, eh? Oh, but they like hats, and that, what, puts a few dozen people to work? Meanwhile our own aristocrats offload all our manufacturing and put MILLIONS out of work. If you're so concerned about people having jobs why don't I hear you screaming about the MILLIONS of Americans put out on the street? Because most of them don't make hats, or what? Only hat makers to the super-duper-rich count anymore?