PicoBlog

Last Friday, 17th March, would have been Alexander McQueen’s 54th birthday. He committed suicide when I was in my first year at university—I remember the news breaking whilst being at an afters. My best friend ordered copious amounts of booze from an unlicensed late night delivery ‘service’ (it was a random bloke with a car—in 2010, Gorillas did not exist), and insisted everyone raise a toast. Whilst I didn’t have the desire to become a designer myself, McQueen was a huge reason as to why I had gone to fashion school. In my third year, I went on to write my dissertation about his work, choosing to explore the idea of whether or not he was a misogynist, as he had so often been branded by the press in his early years. With the 13th anniversary of his death in February, followed by his birthday last week, I felt inspired to revisit this piece of writing. Now practically a fossil, it’s from a time where you had to print out your work to physically hand it in—what a concept! 

I’ve hung onto it for so many years because the research process of spending hours in the library–reading theory books, meticulously examining his collections, and watching every McQueen interview available on video and the internet–is truly one of my happiest memories (the writing process, not so much). So, how does this essay stand up almost 11 years later? Whilst I undoubtedly overused quotes, and the language isn’t as inclusive as it could be when it comes to gender and sexuality (apologies in advance), plenty still feels relevant today.

I’ve picked out some excerpts, but have left out sections such as ‘Early Shows’, ‘The Nineties’ and ‘The McQueen Woman’ because so much has been written about these over the years (also, I don’t have a digital file of this saved anywhere, so had to type everything out manually). ‘Sexuality’ and ‘The McQueen Man’ felt far more interesting to revisit, especially with such a long period of hindsight. Just to be crystal clear, I never felt like McQueen was a misogynist. I was however keen to examine: the power of shock value, how true artistry can co-exist with commerce and sales, gender roles and gender within fashion, sexuality, who empowering dressing is really for , and the male versus the female gaze. Ambitious, yes, and whilst I’m not quite sure I pulled off a succinct observation, would that have even been possible? Let me know your thoughts…

Introduction

This essay sets out to clarify that McQueen was not in fact a misogynist, but that he truly believed that there was “more to life than fashion” (McQueen on Fashion Television, 2010), and that he tried to deal with many of life’s issues by using fashion as his chosen tool of expression. 

Being a master of tailoring and structure, his garments fitted the body like a second skin and were often made to look constricting. When finished off with bondage style straps and masks, this gave off the impression of a highly sexualised, yet subdued, woman. However, much of McQueen’s misogynist accusations came from his infamous runway shows, and the scenarios in which he placed his models. For his Spring/Summer 2000 show ‘Eye’, models were suspended over a floor filled with spikes. In his Spring/Summer 1994 ‘Nihilism’, he showcased the infamous ‘bumster’ trousers, leaving little to the imagination with models splattered in blood and dirt. Autumn/Winter 1995 he showcased ‘Highland Rape’, remembered as his most controversial show, with models wearing explicitly torn and tattered garments that insinuated attack. These are but a few examples of McQueen’s flirtation with drama that are further explored in this study. It also goes on to discover how McQueen grew as a designer over time—the longer he worked in the industry and the more established he became, he lost some of the initial anger and rawness with which he had when first entering the fashion world. 

“The question of why gay men should be so interested in creating clothes for women, who are not their sexual partners, or probably the focus of their erotic imaginations, is an important one” Sheila Jeffreys

Sexuality

Whilst McQueen started his career designing for a female market, he was a gay man who likely harboured no sexual desires for women. Scholar and professor Sheila Jeffreys makes the point that: “The question of why gay men should be so interested in creating clothes for women, who are not their sexual partners, or probably the focus of their erotic imaginations, is an important one”. McQueen’s sexuality should be addressed, as being gay and designing clothes for women does not omit one from being a misogynist or having misogynistic tendencies. Despite the “out gay designers who came to prominence in the 1980s and 1990s, Gaultier, McQueen and Ford, all have publicly masculine personas…but that public masculinity does not signify that their conflicts over gender and sexuality are resolved” (Jeffreys, 2005). McQueen says he was aware of his sexual orientation when he was six years old. However, it was not until he was eighteen that he came out to his family. Having grown up in a working class environment, he feared how his family, especially his father and older brother would react. Speaking about his sexuality and his parents in an interview, McQueen said: “No, they haven’t always been cool about it. My father was a London taxi driver, he would come home at night and say ‘God, I nearly ran over a bloody queer last night in Soho’”. Jeffreys observes that: “Gay men develop an identification with ‘femininity’ as a result of being shut out of, and often badly persecuted and harassed by masculine society”. Here she is saying that gay men, who are not considered masculine by their straight male counterparts, form an allegiance with all things feminine because it is the binary opposite to their persecutors. However, Jeffreys believes that: “This femininity has not got a great deal to do with the lives of women. It is this gay designed version of femininity, I suggest, that male gay designers project onto women. With it they project that hatred and terror of the ‘feminine’ within themselves”. This is an interesting take on gay designers as a whole, as well as McQueen’s work. Despite McQueen having a strong ‘publicly masculine persona’, we have no real idea of how homosexuality affected him, if it did at all (2023 author’s note: given the aforementioned interview about his father, and the later emergence that McQueen was HIV positive, this feels inaccurate). It is however easy to apply Bergler’s theory that: “Gay fashion designers project their unalleviated hatred and fear onto women through cruel fashions'' to McQueen’s styling on a visual level. 

Breasts exposed, with legs and arms shackled to a metal frame, this image from McQueen’s 1997 show ‘La Poupee’ could clearly evoke ‘cruelty’ and ‘hatred’. McQueen spoke out about being labelled as a misogynist in the early realms of his career, saying: “A lot of my friends are strong lesbians, and I design with them in mind. If anyone’s going to say my shows are out of order or anti-women it’s going to be them, not some dainty housewife sitting in the front row. You can’t please everyone when you design” (McQueen, 1995, cited in Evans, 2003). However, Jeffreys makes the valid point that: “There is no reason why misogyny is automatically lessened if employed on the bodies of lesbians, or designed for lesbians”. Just because McQueen used homosexual models and was a homosexual himself, doesn’t excuse or offer validation for designs that could easily be interpreted as ‘cruel’ or ‘fearful’.

McQueen felt his mission was to empower and protect women, which is explored in the following chapter ‘The McQueen Woman’. But in the above Figure 8, it’s not obvious to see the portrayal of a modern, emancipated femme fatale. “It is hard to know how this expresses the McQueen philosophy of showing strong, sexually aggressive women since it would be quite hard to be sexually anything but dead in such a costume” (Jeffreys, 2005). Here it may be apt to present writer Colin McDowell’s theory: “At the beginning of the twenty-first century it is clear that, to keep the interest of the world, a designer must do more than merely create fashion”. This was McQueen’s first collection after signing with the Gucci Group and relocating to Paris. There must have been pressure on McQueen to impress his new investors and a Parisian audience—sending an impaled model down the runway was sure to keep tongues wagging and media interest at a high. It does not necessarily represent an intense hatred towards women, but more likely a demonstration of “the fashionable world–which includes most of us now–clamours for gossip as it always has” (McDowell, 2003). 

“At the beginning of the twenty-first century it is clear that, to keep the interest of the world, a designer must do more than merely create fashion” Colin McDowell

Jeffrey’s further criticises male, gay fashion designers at large for enforcing the high heeled shoe which she describes as “an instrument of torture for women”. She highlights a quote from the designer Tom Ford: “‘Do you know the thing about baboons?’ He asks. ‘Female baboons, when they’re sexually aroused, walk around on their tiptoes.’ He pauses. ‘Men find women in high heels incredibly sexy.’” However, Ford, like McQueen, is gay. This insinuates that, since he is gaining no sexual excitement out of sending his models down the runway in towering heels, he is doing so to exercise his inner torment and insecurities. Jeffreys then criticises John Galliano’s 2003 collection ‘Hardcore Romance’ for the seven inch platform heels which “caused one model to fall to her knees, and three near misses”. For McQueen’s Spring Summer 2010 collection ‘Plato's Atlantis’ he sent models down the runway in 12 inch ‘Armadillo’ shoes and 10 inch ‘Monster’ stilettos. The shoes made headlines around the world, and long-time McQueen models Abbey Lee Kershaw, Natasha Poly and Sasha Pivovarova refused to wear the precarious pairs and were therefore cut from the show. This clearly highlights the sexologist Havelock Ellis’ theory that: “[in discussion of foot fetishism] The woman herself is regarded as a comparatively unimportant appendage to her feet or her boots”. In his show notes, McQueen wrote that the melted and twisted plastic of the shoes were meant to evoke a post-nuclear-apocalyptic landscape after the ecological meltdown of the planet. However, Jeffreys would view that the shoes are serving the purpose of making women “immediately recognisable as they walk with difficulty on their toes in public places…high heels enable women to complement the male sex role of masculinity, in which men look sturdy and have both feet on the ground, with clear evidence of female fragility”. However, the aesthetic of McQueen’s shoes are likely to be considered grotesque by the male gaze, which goes hand in hand with Caroline Evans’ theory that: “McQueen’s woman was…dressing if not actually to repel or disgust, at least to keep men at a distance” which is explored further in the next chapter.

“McQueen’s woman was…dressing if not actually to repel or disgust, at least to keep men at a distance” Caroline Evans

The McQueen Man

A vastly overlooked area of McQueen as a designer is his menswear collections. A possible reason for this could be: “There is a tendency to underplay if not deny the phenomenon of men’s fashion” (Craik, 1993). So much of the focus was, and still is, placed on his womenswear, that the controversial elements which were carried over into his menswear designs are not often recognised. Professor Jennifer Craik offers the explanation that “most studies of contemporary fashion emphasise female fashion and marginalise attention to male dress” (Craik, 1993) in terms of why scarcely anything has been written theory-wise when it comes to McQueen’s menswear line. Craik writes that, in general, “men’s fashion relates to, but is distinct from, the codes of women’s fashion.” However, in McQueen’s designs there are nearly always similar traits between both collections of the same season. Andrew Bolton said McQueen would “truss women up in garments that obliterated their features” but McQueen did this to his male models too. 

McQueen often used masks or garments that constricted or obscured the face during his womenswear shows but it was an aspect that he carried over to feature in his menswear as well. In this sense, misogyny seems a doubtful explanation, as McQueen isn’t subduing his female models simply because they are female. Bolton offers the justification that “he did really want the audience to focus more on the artistry of the clothes, rather than the identity of the model”. Another aspect of McQueen’s design for which he was often criticised was how overtly sexual they were, and thus, must be intentionally degrading to the women who wore them. However, the images below highlight once again the parallels between McQueen’s designs for men and women, reinforcing the idea that McQueen did not design out of misogynistic tendencies, but instead to highlight “the way he slits and stabs at fabric to explore all the erogenous zones of the body” (Isabella Blow, 1996 cited in Evans, 2003). 

Film was another way in which McQueen explored the male form and sexuality. A strong example is his 2002 film for Nick Knight’s SHOWstudio, entitled ‘The Bridegroom Stripped Bare’, a reference to the Duchamp artwork ‘The Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, Even’. Destabilising both the work of his competitors as well as the traditionally prominent role of the man, the film shows McQueen slowly altering the outfit of a male model wearing a suit by Yohji Yamamoto, a shirt by Jean Paul Gaultier, and a tie by Hugo Boss (all male run labels). He cuts away at the suit whilst it’s on the model, before proceeding to cast his middle in tape, resembling a Japanese kimono (a McQueen trademark), ropes wooden blocks to the model’s feet, douses him in white paint, binds the model’s hands, fashions him a veil, paints black tears running down his white face, and gags the model with a tie. The final product is much like a man turned into a repressed and bound bride. 

The social commentary for this short film could be endless. The SHOWstudio website states: “A project that challenged each other to devise an act of transformation that held personal significance for them, inspired by the continual metamorphic potential of fashion imagery”. However, it’s obvious from McQueen’s work he liked to toy with the idea of gender, amongst other things. Evans goes as far to suggest: “McQueen’s runway suggested a world without men, not because men were absent from it (they were not) but because it was a world in which gender was unsettled by women who were both hyper feminine and yet in some respects, terrifying male”. In this film, the man could be seen as being portrayed as ‘terrifyingly’ female. McQueen relished in unsettling an audience. “I just use things that people want to hide in their head…things about war, religion, sex, things that we all think about but don’t want to bring to the forefront. But I do, and I force them to watch it.” 

There will probably never be a time when it will be socially acceptable, or safe even, for a woman to go out with her breasts or genitals exposed, with her face consumed by a brace style mask or obnoxiously oversized hat, in staggering 12 inch heels—but is that not the fantasy of fashion?

Conclusion

“The cruelty inherent in McQueen’s representations of women was part of the designer’s wider vision of the cruelty of the world, and although his view was undoubtedly bleak, it was not misogynistic” (Evans, 2003). After a thorough exploration of McQueen’s work, from his early nineties controversial start, up until his final 2010 collection which was widely considered his finest, this quote from Evans seems to offer the most suitable of explanations as to why McQueen was ever labelled with the title of a misogynist. For somebody who drew his creative influence from such a wide variety of sources, including a range of cultures, films, art, and life experience, to narrow McQueen’s work into the box of simply misogynistic would be to serve an injustice to someone who was so highly imaginative. There is indeed “light and dark” in all of us, in everything, and whilst McQueen often indulged his dark side, the light that seldom shone through was undeniable. If McQueen felt deeply uncomfortable in the presence of women, he surely would not have valued his relationships with Isabella Blow, his mother Joyce, and countless others. 

After delving into his work, it seems prominent that “McQueen always started every collection with a clear idea or concept for the runway presentation before the fashion” (Bolton, 2011). In this sense it would be almost impossible to prove that he was a misogynist hell bent on inflicting cruelty on women through his own insecurities as a gay man. It seems much more probable that: “The designer as superstar stands transformed into the designer as a showman, ringmaster to a hectic, eclectic mix of period inspirations and styles, shaken up by the designer’s imagination and spilled out as a kaleidoscopic cornucopia of ideas in which the setting is equally as important as the fashions being shown” (McDowell, 2003). McQueen was a true master of his craft, but it is fair to consider that whilst on the catwalk his creations were shown in the finest and most glamorous of lights, on the street for the everyday woman it may not have been the same story. There will probably never be a time when it will be socially acceptable, or safe even, for a woman to go out with her breasts or genitals exposed, with her face consumed by a brace style mask or obnoxiously oversized hat, in staggering 12 inch heels—but is that not the fantasy of fashion? Colin McDowell predicted in 2003 that: “Increasingly, designers prefer to use their catwalks to tell us how to think. It is surely only a question of time before the great modern art collections begin to include examples of the work of fashion designers as proof of current artistic thought. Then the rupture between clothes to be worn and clothes to be seen will be complete”. The fact that the archive of McQueen’s work was shown in New York’s prestigious Metropolitan Museum of Art last May under the title ‘Savage Beauty’ would suggest McDowell’s forecast was prescient.  

ncG1vNJzZmiqlZeypK%2FAo5innZieua160q6ZrKyRmLhvr86mZqlnnZ7AsLPYp7BmmZ6Zeq6v0K6cnqY%3D