Class and creativity in fashion education: A comparison of the pedagogies of making and design at British technical schools and art and design schools, 1870s‐1950s

IF 0.3 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY International Journal of Fashion Studies Pub Date : 2021-10-01 DOI:10.1386/infs_00049_1
Bethan Bide
{"title":"Class and creativity in fashion education: A comparison of the pedagogies of making and design at British technical schools and art and design schools, 1870s‐1950s","authors":"Bethan Bide","doi":"10.1386/infs_00049_1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Discourses of creativity play a crucial role in shaping cultural perceptions of what constitutes creative labour, who performs it and where it is located. This article explores the historical role that businesses, policy-makers and education providers played as co-producers of discourses\n about creativity in British fashion and textile design education. Beginning with the emergence of new vocational courses for textile design and manufacture in the 1870s, it traces how the language used to describe conceptions of creativity evolved in relation to educational provision for textiles,\n dressmaking and, later, fashion over the first half of the twentieth century. During this period, creativity became associated with labour related to designing fashion and textile goods ‐ such as illustration ‐ rather than the labour of making them. This shift resulted from the\n establishment of fashion and textile design as respected courses within art and design schools, which backed the ideal of a professional designer. It was implemented at the expense of, and with the effect of undermining the creative labour of staff and students in vocational trade schools.\n As a result, this article challenges the idea that the development of fashion and textile design courses in art and design schools democratized the creative labour of design in the British fashion industry by opening opportunities for the middle-classes. Rather, it finds that discourses around\n creative labour worked to exclude the creativity of the predominantly working-class students at technical schools, with long-term implications for the relationship between socio-economic status and access to the creative industries.","PeriodicalId":42103,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Fashion Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Fashion Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1386/infs_00049_1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Discourses of creativity play a crucial role in shaping cultural perceptions of what constitutes creative labour, who performs it and where it is located. This article explores the historical role that businesses, policy-makers and education providers played as co-producers of discourses about creativity in British fashion and textile design education. Beginning with the emergence of new vocational courses for textile design and manufacture in the 1870s, it traces how the language used to describe conceptions of creativity evolved in relation to educational provision for textiles, dressmaking and, later, fashion over the first half of the twentieth century. During this period, creativity became associated with labour related to designing fashion and textile goods ‐ such as illustration ‐ rather than the labour of making them. This shift resulted from the establishment of fashion and textile design as respected courses within art and design schools, which backed the ideal of a professional designer. It was implemented at the expense of, and with the effect of undermining the creative labour of staff and students in vocational trade schools. As a result, this article challenges the idea that the development of fashion and textile design courses in art and design schools democratized the creative labour of design in the British fashion industry by opening opportunities for the middle-classes. Rather, it finds that discourses around creative labour worked to exclude the creativity of the predominantly working-class students at technical schools, with long-term implications for the relationship between socio-economic status and access to the creative industries.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
时尚教育中的阶级和创造力:19世纪70年代至50年代英国技术学校和艺术设计学校制作和设计教学法的比较
创造性话语在塑造文化观念方面发挥着至关重要的作用,即什么是创造性劳动,谁来执行创造性劳动,创造性劳动位于哪里。本文探讨了企业、决策者和教育提供者在英国时装和纺织品设计教育中作为创意话语的共同生产者所扮演的历史角色。从19世纪70年代出现的新的纺织设计和制造职业课程开始,它追溯了20世纪上半叶,用于描述创造力概念的语言是如何与纺织、服装制作以及后来的时尚教育相关联地演变的。在这一时期,创造力与设计时尚和纺织品(如插图)相关的劳动联系在一起,而不是与制造它们的劳动联系起来。这种转变源于时装和纺织品设计作为艺术和设计学校中受人尊敬的课程的建立,这支持了专业设计师的理想。它的实施是以牺牲职业贸易学校教职员工和学生的创造性劳动为代价的。因此,这篇文章挑战了这样一种观点,即艺术和设计学校时装和纺织品设计课程的发展通过为中产阶级提供机会,使英国时装行业的设计创意劳动民主化。相反,研究发现,围绕创造性劳动的讨论排除了技工学校以工人阶级为主的学生的创造力,对社会经济地位和进入创造性产业之间的关系产生了长期影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Fashion Studies
International Journal of Fashion Studies HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
25.00%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Material ambiguities of losing a parent: Time, clothing and grief during terminal illness Reclaiming tradition, fashioning citizenship: Ankara in contemporary Brazilian Afrocentric fashion Decolonial fashion ethnography: ‘Before Yesterday’ method Moda Negra, past and present I Africanize São Paulo
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1