How many times when we were children our parents told us “dress up properly, we are going to grandma” and the same thing was happening for Sunday events or for the birthday party?

When there is some special event, no matter if of joy or sadness, is common use all over the world to “dress well”.

The relevance of clothes is evident also in masterpieces in the attention reserved to details in clothes as well as in jewelries. Clothes reveal the social level, the historical moment, the culture and geographic area in the world, also the religion, it tell us the membership organization, hobbies and passions.

The way of dressing is also used as a mean of affirmation or disobedience. How many teenagers dress up in a sexy way just to make their parents mad?

Even simpler, wearing a shirt because it’s of our favorite team or even brand, or it shows our music idol, our ideology or cultural preferences? To cut a long story short that shirt is a mean to feel being part of something or to show the world who we are or pretend to be.

Some people went down in history for their way of dressing together with their lifestyle: “arbiter elegantiarum” o “elegantiae arbiter”; when using this term almost everyone thinks of Petronio, but how many will associate Petronio with the Satyricon?

It’s strange isn’t it, writing is such a noble and intelligent field while Fashion is so frivolous.

Maybe we should associate the terms frivolity and superficiality to the act of following trends (and even behind this there will probably be very interesting Because to study) not to the ability of making Fashion. By saying so I’m not referring to stylists but to whom was or is capable to inspiring  stylists (Audrey Hepburn for Givenchy or Grace Patricia Kelly for Dior), the same that happens in the music field when musicians need an inspiring Muse.

The concept of fashion icon may be considered very close to the one of design object. An object can be addressed as a design one when it has such a creativity value that remains contemporary for the time being, it never goes out of fashion (as an example – the arch lamp from Castiglione). According to Philippe Daverio (L’Arte di fare design) the reason why this happens is because of the utopic dream behind those creations.

Now, the names of Andrey Hepburn and Grace Kelly are so far away from the word dream?

What about Maria Callas or Jacqueline Kennedy?

There is also who was dressing up to make “a living piece of art “of herself: “the Divine” and “the only woman who astonished me” Gabriele D’Annunzio said of her, the Marchesa Luisa Casati.

Very different characters, ranging from the most classic icons to the most transgressive (futuristic) ones, but for all of them the way of dressing becomes such a powerful mean because of a common denominator: Personality and Vision.

It’s a simple equation, a+b+c= Fashion (we could even say Design, Art, Science, politics, Engineering…) were the terms of the equation are:

a) there is someone;

b) this someone has something to say;

c) he/she knows how to say it.

What’s so frivolous about that?

Just because the right term is Fashion?

Ridiculous!