Visual Semiotics of Feminine Fashion: A Concise Analysis

Abstract

In the paper, the structure, composition and properties of feminine vestimentary fashion as a visual symbolic system, are studied. It is found out that the system of female fashion cannot be deduced as a simple derivative of the costume design either in synchronic or diachronic (historical) aspect. The methodology used in the work includes techniques and methods of semiotic analysis proposed by R. Barthes, Prince N. Trubetzkoy, L. Hjelmslev, A. Martinet and Ch. Peirce. It is shewn that throughout the history the semiotic potential of fashion has always been unevenly distributed between the two genders. The man has always considered clothing exclusively as an object of use and necessity, while on the basis of the costume design, the woman was able to create a complex visual semiotic system of fashion completely separate and unrelated to the costume design directly. The real clothing, conditioned by its goals and purposes, does not mean anything. Women's fashion, by contrast, means and represents, encodes and transposes the meanings and denotes and connotes the signifiers. Feminine fashion simulates symbolic and social reality and builds a new world of the imaginary, drawing horizons of appearances and expanding the semantic foundations of the phaenomenology of clothing. In general, female fashion system is as complex as the real clothes are simple. Even in the extreme case of nudity, female nakedness transforms to a semiotic system. An approach to the classification of visual signs of women's fashion is proposed, according to which these signs with respect to mobility can be a) static, b) dynamic and c) static-dynamic. According to the message of meaning aimed at the recipient, the signs can be divided into: i) semantic signs, ii) signs-ciphers, which, in turn, are divided into ii, α) purely cryptographic signs and ii, β) simulacra, and iii) signs-imperatives. It is revealed that the semiotic chains built by women's fashion can be of four levels: 0) the level of expediency, 1) main denotative level, 2) level of symbolic ritual tradition (level of initial connotation of meanings), 3) level of fashion mythology (an aggregate of many levels of subsequent connotation of meanings).

MORPHOLOGY OF THE CURRENT ISLAMIC COLLEGE OUTFIT (Semiotic Study on the Shift of Student Clothing Standards at UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya)

“…39 Fashion is a social semiotic system, whereas clothing simply refers to social phenomena. 40 In clothing, there is a symbol system used as a field for individual expression (self). Meanwhile, the concept of hijab (the covering) as part of clothing or fashion has become an antagonistic discourse on issues of femininity, especially discourse surrounding the female body.…”

“…8 Beyond clothing, there is a multi-articulation of oneself which is seen as a scheme of individual semiosis and is directly proportional to the horizon of insight, ideological choices and variations in identity that a person proclaims. The question we raise is 'what variety of clothing and fashion shifts that (2016), 20 Al-Mahadin (2013), 21 Hendariningrum & Prabowo (2019), 22 Khairunnisa (2014), 23 Owyong (2009), 24 Sharov (2019), 25 etc. However, there is highly minimum research on student dress codes or fashion, especially on PTKI, particularly with using a semiotic approach.…”

Gender Settings in City Design

“…A little later, interest in the so-called "female design" began to emerge, presenting women designers as author of projects [6]. And finally, at present, this issue is increasingly being raised in connection with the constant interest in duality in design [7], the influence of gender as a social factor in architectural shaping [8][9][10], self-determination [11], identity [12], as well as the development of feminism in modern society [13].…”