De la ejecución del elemento Preparación Preparación

Provocation

The British psychologist Edward de Bono explicitly cites intellectual or sensory provocation as a creative technique. In such cases, the characteristics of an object or

When Is Creativity? • 39

a state of affairs are altered consciously in order to generate paradoxical, unrealistic or unusual consequences. Starting out from these, an attempt is then made to produce new results. The provocative, the shocking and the radical originate in thought processes before being realised as something tangible and perceivable.

Provocation is no more than an inducement to become involved in whatever is shown. It consists of a conscious stimulus to trigger an excessive reaction, but ultimately the person provoked is responsible for this reaction himself. The aim of provocation in clothing design is a fresh perception of both vestimentary coverings and the body. A fresh perception (cf. p. 91) is provoked by means of a new covering (clothing) of the body, in a similar way to the disguise and wrapping of objects and buildings by the artist couple Christo and Jeanne-Claude, for example. The provo- cation lies in the crossing of borders and rules, on both real and intellectual levels, as well as in a deviation away from perceptual and emotional norms. Provocation can be understood only against the background of the times and local conditions. Historical examples thus call for historically competent, expert judgement.

Vestimentary provocations function on complex levels of design; through extreme overforming and /or extreme sexualisation of the body, through political-religious associations, or through a provocative presentation of clothing. However, the new is not radical or provocative or obscene a priori. Provocation develops when the ‘communicative contract’ between the clothing and the consumer is broken, result- ing in shocked rejection or euphoric acceptance. Alexander McQueen’s genius, for example, is founded on the integration of provocation that develops as a result of the wide gap between his creations and the general image people have of clothing. As a rule, his creations demand an interpretative effort from the recipient before they are accepted.

While the extreme as such—the extremely beautiful or the extremely functional—is not necessarily at all shocking, the obscene—as extreme sexualisation—seeks to vio- late shame or another elementary emotion and to shock by that means. The mere use of the word obscene (the very utterance of which is often obscene) already triggers an association with ‘the concept of shamelessness in a way that prevents the recogni- tion and definition of the truly obscene when it appears. Our speechlessness in face of the shameless is already part of its social impact’.17 _{The presentation of McQueen’s}

Spring /Summer 1996 collection, Highland Rape, and his Vulva Dress (cf. p. 55), func- tioned in the same way; the ensuing outrage surpassed all explanation.

Whereas the spectacular, including opulence and glamour, attracts the eye—that is our attention—and creates meta-stimuli, provocation affects people’s moral sensi- bility and moral codes. ‘Scandal’ and ‘propriety’ define what could be called ‘moral taste’. ‘In the vague area between the “indecent” and the “immoral”, this taste regu- lates the sense of shame. But as a medium intended to stabilise our morality, shame is even less reliable than the Ten Commandments’, publicist Roger Willemsen wrote in his essay ‘On the Obscene’.18 _{‘Obscene’ creations—Antonio Berardi’s Voodoo,}

suit made of newspaper print material for the Dior Autumn/ Winter 2000/2001 col- lection, or Vivienne Westwood’s Dressing Up collection, 1991/1992, including the leather corsage Statue of Liberty and a leather codpiece (the French braquette of the fifteenth century) sewn onto the skirt—‘according to the common definition, can be recognised by their undisguised intention to create lust, separating this lust from the creation or its techniques’.19 _{Vivienne Westwood succeeds in attenuating the pro-}

vocative by means of humorous caricature or intimations of human weakness. Some examples of this are a fig leaf sewn onto tights, the slightly slipped bustle-cushion, or a well-formed male torso embroidered onto a corsetlike (cuirass) top.

Clothing without a body exudes neither emotions nor erotic provocation (cf. p. 202). They emerge only in connection with the body—in its pose, as staging on the catwalk or in verbalisation. Feelings and attractions like eroticism are articulated less by the designer’s actual model and more from the outside, by photographers, journalists and advertising (e.g., Gucci’s advertisements in 2003), quite apart from the wearer. The designer fashion of 2006 was characterised verbally in the journals as ‘nude’, for the frequently used colour nude visualised an imaginary nudity.

Immorality is not classified negatively a priori, either in art or in fashion, as long as it is not presented in public, that is not on the street but in an art gallery or on the catwalk. So-called problems emerge when the media expand the private sphere and make public what has been offered in a closed context. ‘Extreme, utopian, even morally unacceptable positions may find representation within the art system’, Boris Groys admits.20 _{In response to the following question referring to an RAF emblem}

on T-shirts: ‘What is art’s attitude to the cannibalisation of an RAF emblem in a de- historicised Pop cosmos?’ Groys answered: ‘Both spheres communicate with each other. The Pop culture also adopts functions of modern art; it lends shape to the sup- pressed, to the forbidden.’21 _{Provocation in art resembles revolution in politics.}

Since provocation is always dependent on the attitude of the viewer, it occurs only outside the environment in which it has developed. Thus, the fashion of punks, rap- pers or goths meets with agreement or admiration among those groups themselves. Fashionable provocations from the street (as long as they are not tolerated) are disproportionately greater than those from the catwalk, since they emerge in public space and not within the exclusive context of a fashion show. Provocation may also be pure masquerade, like the dressing-up event held by youths in Tokyo’s Yoyogi Park every Sunday. One of the aims of a mask is also to provoke, of course. Since the 1980s, kids and adolescents—from chambermaids to female Nazis—have been meeting in the park for role play that offers them a means of escape from everyday life. The innovation content of all these is their being the origin of ingenuity and invention. If innovations do not emerge—as is usually the case—it is a matter of simple copying, as with those kids in Tokyo.

John Galliano’s haute couture for House of Dior is less a provocation and far more an aesthetic discourse with and about fashion; mode pour mode in the same sense as l’art pour l’art. His fashion design becomes an autonomous art form

When Is Creativity? • 41

through trans-vesti, ethnic and gender cross-dressing; these means also form the basis of masquerade and are celebrated around Galliano’s own person. Galliano himself represents the high point of his défilé (instead of or in addition to the bride), when he accepts his ovations dressed up and styled according to the collection’s theme.

By contrast to extremes, which may enjoy the justification of the extraordinary—as in ‘especially heroic’, ‘especially efficient’ or ‘especially beautiful’—exaggerations tend to lead into the corner of provocation. They lack justification within normal sensibilities and are relegated to the category of the pathological, like exaggerated perfection, for example. If the limits of social tolerance are crossed, the outcome is a provocation. However, the limits of social tolerance are subject to constant change, which is the very reason that innovative creations and thus new fashions are accepted. Constant changes in social tolerance and sanctions also determined the rejection or toleration of the dandy in the nineteenth century and the homosexual at the end of the twentieth century. In different ways, the dandy and the homosexual reject con- ventional masculine connotations; they are ‘unauthentic’ men. Both are ‘aesthetic rebels’: one due to the exaggerated accuracy (generally regarded as a quality with feminine connotations) of his fashionable appearance, the other due to his wearing of an earring (which is historically a male tradition as well),22 _{for example, which has}

now become a universal male embellishment due to a shift in the tolerance limit.