The exhibition world is a flood with “style” and “fashion.” In the past year there have been major fashion-based exhibits held at very unlikely institutions. This new found interest in design and style marks a shift in focus within the museum world. Is there a new young breed with a more “inclusive” vision of art?

An interior shot of the Fashion DNA show.

I first encountered this inclusion of fashion in Amsterdam this past summer. The Fashion DNA show ran for a couple months in the center of the cannibus cavern. It was housed in a cathedral, the Nieuwe Kerk. This is an important detail because it venerates fashion in a most appropriate setting. It also fit extremely well with current trends in design. You might deny it right now, but 2006 was all about extravagance and indulgence. Designers played that shit out till it’s well deserved end. The show was designed by Italian architect/designer Italo Rota. Overall, it was an impressive show that was very well executed. The curation exhibited work in a historical manner organizing content in terms of desires. It thoroughly investigated the need and desire for dress. But the most striking thing about the exhibition was its backing. This was a Rijks Museum show, a national organization, that was very much about the now and vogue. But hey….it was Europe and it was in a city where design and fashion thrive.

Little did I know that in the same summer the Met had it’s own little catwalk. Anglomania was a thorough retrospective of British fashion in last quarter century. It was an exhibition that was treated with respectul, historical grace. I didn’t go so I can only trust her opinion. Again, a major institution that upholds a reputation for historical perspective holds a show leading into the now about a subject that is constantly moving in a progressive motion.

Image courtesy of style.com. This piece was also on display at MFA’s Fashion Show.

This leads me to Fashion Show, MFA’s straightforward attempt at getting on the fashion bandwagon. I give them credit for not guising it in a more self-righteous manner. The show was very upfront about its intentions. In this respect, it is the most honest of all three exhibitions. But for that reason it is the most shallow, and poorly executed. Some have praised it for its simplicity, but it all comes off as obvious and lazy. They took the latest lines from the most commonly known designers and just put them in a black room. The displays were cheap, the exhibition typography lazy, and it was painfully plain. This, I suppose, is to be expected of an institution like the MFA. Overall, it made one feel ripped off because you walked away having gained absolutely nothing. To add insult to injury, they so markedly placed a new store at the end of the exhibition with nice designer goods and taste-making books. For all its honesty, the MFA’s show was as cheap as a dishonest second-hand car salesman.

But is this sudden interest in fashion a good thing? I may argue that yes it is because it is trying to elevate design. Maybe this will mean there will be a new design consciousness being bread in America. More importantly I think it marks a change in how museums want to present themselves. As a generation that is becoming well versed in all levels of culture museums are trying to come back down to our level. The new ICA in Boston is trying to transform itself with its new building into a community-oriented institution. Nick Currie comments on how the Tate is trying to make a similar shift. If this is all true, then fashion is a topic that everyone can easily embrace and understand. But in doing so curators need to bring something new to the table. Exhibitions don’t always have to be didactic, but if it isn’t please lower the goddamn price and be true to your mission of presenting a more accessible museum show!