時尚也要講政治正確嗎 Should Fashion Be Politically Correct
First there was heroin chic. Then there was poverty chic. And now comes … migrant chic? It sounds too distasteful to contemplate.
先是女主角風，接下來又是飢餓風，接下來又是什麼……移民風？聽上去太沒品味，細思恐極。
Yet last week in Paris both Valentino and Junya Watanabe produced clearly African-influenced collections at a time when immigration from that continent as well as the neighboring Middle East has become the subject of controversy and existential self-questioning throughout Europe. Mr. Watanabe even held his show in the Museum of Immigration History in Paris.
然而正值來自非洲與臨近中東的難民成爲頗具爭議的話題，整個歐洲都在對此做出生死攸關的自省之際，上星期在巴黎，華倫天奴(Valentino)和渡邊淳彌(Junya Watanabe)都推出了顯然受非洲影響的時裝，渡邊淳彌的秀乾脆就放在了巴黎的移民歷史博物館舉行。
Around the same time, Norbert Baksa, a photographer, posted pictures on Instagram of a shoot he had done featuring a model wearing luxury brands against the background of a Hungarian refugee camp.
與此同期，攝影師諾伯特·巴克薩(Norbert Baksa)在Instagram上貼出一張照片，上面是一個身穿奢華品牌的模特，站在匈牙利難民營前面。
All three Fashion moments featured beautiful clothing. And all three came in for different kinds of criticism. Both Valentino and Watanabe were castigated for not using enough models of color, and the former was also taken to task for the of its show notes. Mr. Baksa sparked an even angrier response, accused of glamorizing and exploiting a global trauma.
這三個時尚時刻中都有漂亮衣服。三個活動都招來了不同的批評。華倫天奴和渡邊淳彌都被批評沒有采用更多的非白人模特，還有人批評華倫天奴的走秀說明寫得太幼稚。巴克薩引發了更加憤怒的迴應，人們抨擊他美化並且利用了這場全球性創傷。
We tend to toss around the words “fashion statement” the way we toss them on a T-shirt, but how much of a statement can fashion actually make? Increasingly, such efforts — or indeed, anything that seems to touch on a political or social issue — seem to end badly, exciting a flurry of outrage on social media (some of it legitimate, some less so) that itself becomes a story.
我們總喜歡反覆思考“時尚宣言”，還把這些宣言印在T恤上，但時裝業究竟能夠真正做出多少宣言呢？這樣的努力（或者說，任何試圖與政治社會問題沾邊的事情）似乎愈來愈傾向以糟糕的方式結局，引發社交媒體上亂哄哄的憤怒（有些憤怒是正當的，有些不那麼正當），讓這件事本身都能成爲新聞。
But what is the alternative: not to engage at all?
但如果反過來，和政治、社會一點不沾邊，那又會怎麼樣呢？
As images are shared over various platforms, decontextualized and without explanation but reaching ever more consumers with ever more diverse personal politics, this has becomes a pressing question for the industry, morally and commercially.
在不同平臺，很多被分享的圖片是沒有語境和圖片說明的，只是讓更多消費者能夠見到，他們的政見也是多種多樣，這成了時裝業目前非常緊迫的問題，不僅是在道德上，而且還影響到商業。
The risk of giving offense, and of motivations being misconstrued, is high. According to a conversation I had with the Valentino designers Maria Grazia Chiuri and Pierpaolo Piccioli before their show, they were trying to challenge their own notion of beauty with beauty from other cultures, to better understand both themselves and the world around them. Fair enough, though it probably would have been better if they hadn’t fallen into the knee-jerk trap of cornrowing their models’ hair.
冒犯別人的風險與動機被誤解的風險都很高。我曾經挺聽到華倫天奴的設計師瑪利亞·格拉齊亞·基烏里(Maria Grazia Chiuri)和皮爾保羅·皮齊奧利(Pierpaolo Piccioli)在走秀之前聊天，他們試圖引進其他文化中的美，挑戰自身對美的定義，以此更好地理解自身，也更好地理解周圍的世界。這很好，但如果他們沒有不假思索地把模特的頭髮編成小辮子，那就更好了。
The problem, said Stefano Tonchi, the editor of W, is that “images are encoded in one place for one purpose and decoded in an entirely different place, with different tools.” But while it is easy to castigate fashion for being tone-deaf, and climb on a politically correct high horse, it is possible that in the end the cause we may hurt is our own.
《W》雜誌主編斯蒂法諾·湯奇( Stefano Tonchi)說，問題是“圖像在一個地方意味着一個意思，在另一個不同的地方，用不同的工具來解釋，就有了不同的意思。”指責時裝業荒腔走板，拼命想攀上政治正確的高枝可能太過輕率，有可能到最後傷害的反而是我們自己。
“Fashion isn’t really about clothes,” Franca Sozzani, the editor of Italian Vogue, told me a few years ago when I interviewed her for the Financial Times. “It’s about life.” She was explaining her decision to publish an all-black-model issue in 2008, one featuring a photo shoot on a oil-strewn beach (after the BP disaster) in 2010, another dealing with domestic violence in 2014, and the outcries that followed. “We can’t always be writing about flowers and lace and aquamarine,” she said.
“時裝其實並不是關於衣服，而是關於生活，”意大利《Vogue》的總編弗蘭卡·索扎尼(Franca Sozzani)幾年前曾在採訪中對我說，當時我正在爲《金融時報》(Financial Times)寫一篇文章。她解釋自己如何決定在2008年發行了一期全用黑人模特的雜誌；2010年英國石油公司漏油事件之後，爲何刊登了一幅在一處被石油污染的海灘上拍攝的大照片；2014年的一期雜誌爲何討論國內暴力問題，以及其後的強烈抗議。“我們不能總寫花朵、蕾絲和海藍寶石。”
There is a long tradition in the industry of creating beautiful images of expensive finery by situating it in poverty-stricken areas. Recently Marie Claire and W showcased fashion shoots in Havana, the former in its September issue, with a model in Prada, Balmain and Givenchy posed against the backdrop of gritty street life. American Vogue took Kate Moss to Vietnam to photograph her in evening gowns in rice paddies in 1996.
這個行業有一個悠久的傳統，就是把昂貴優美的物品放在貧瘠的地方，製造出美麗的圖片。最近，《Marie Claire》和《W》都在哈瓦那拍了時裝照片，《Marie Claire》把圖片用在9月刊，是身穿普拉達、巴爾曼和紀梵希的模特，她們身後是貧困的街景。1996年，美國《Vogue》讓凱特·摩斯(Kate Moss)去越南拍照，圖中她身穿晚禮服，站在稻田之中。
Designers have likewise been using sartorial semiology as a transformative variable in collections, including Jean Paul Gaultier’s 1993 Hasidic show, Hussein Chalayan’s 1997 chador collection and John Galliano’s “homeless” Dior couture in 2000. Vivienne Westwood and Katharine Hamnett have always overtly used their work to express their convictions.
設計師用縫紉符號學作爲時裝中變革的語彙，比如讓·保羅·高緹耶(Jean Paul Gaultier)1993年的Hasidic系列、侯賽因·卡拉揚(Hussein Chalayan)1997年的罩袍系列，以及約翰·加利亞諾(John Galliano)2000年爲迪奧高定推出的“無家可歸”系列。薇薇安·韋斯特伍德(Vivienne Westwood)和凱瑟琳·哈瑪尼特(Katharine Hamnett)總是公然使用作品來表達她們自己的觀點。
Was this a frivolous response to serious problems: cultural appropriation of the worst kind? Or was it an industry’s legitimate effort to deal with real-world problems in the context of its own skill sets? Possibly a bit of both. But each time, there was protest. And each time, the clothes moved the needle of understanding a little bit.
對於那些嚴肅的問題，這是否是一個輕率的回答，是否是一種最糟糕的文化挪用？又或者是這個行業在自身能力範圍之內，對現實世界的問題所作出的正當努力？或者二者都有一點。但是每一次，抗議都會出現。每一次，“衣服”都能促進一點點理解。
Often the best fashion is about transgression. It challenges convention. At its most basic level, that’s how we got women in pants and in miniskirts, all of which horrified plenty of viewers back in the day. It is uncomfortable. Think of Rick Owens’s human backpacks. It takes risks. Otherwise, as Mr. Tonchi said, “like any art form, it becomes propaganda.” Otherwise it risks irrelevance. Otherwise it’s just clothes.
通常，最好的時裝都是關於觸動禁忌的，它挑戰着權威。在最基本的層次，女人是怎樣開始穿上褲子和迷你裙，在過去也曾經令不少旁觀者大爲恐懼。它令人不適。想一想瑞克·歐文斯(Rick Owens)搞的身背活人，它是有風險的。此外，正如湯奇所說，“和任何藝術形式一樣，時裝業也變成了操控宣傳。”否則它就要冒不爲人知的風險，否則它就僅僅是衣服而已。
The point of fashion is to reflect the world around it, a world often filled with ugliness and disharmony. Ask any museum curator why costume belongs in the institution, and the answer is that it is historical record: It reflects society at a given moment in time.
時裝的關鍵在於反映周圍的世界，一個充滿醜陋與不和諧的世界。去問問任何博物館的館長，爲什麼服裝屬於他們的收藏範疇，他們會說，服裝記載着歷史：它反映特定時期內的社會風貌。
Indeed, according to Ms. Sozzani, fashion has the ability, and the responsibility, to use its role to highlight the issues; to force them into the public conversation. In this view, not acknowledging the income disparity that is today’s reality (to take one example) is even more bizarre than using a glossy magazine as a conduit to discussion. If a magazine editorial can drive that point home in a unspoken way, why not?
如索扎尼女士所說，時裝業確實有這個能力與責任，利用自身扮演的角色，去引發人們對社會問題進行關注，迫使它們進入公衆討論。這樣看來，不承認收入差異這個當今的現實（舉個例子），甚至比使用時尚雜誌作爲討論社會問題的導體還要怪異。如果一本雜誌的主編都可以通過無言的方式把這個問題闡釋清楚，爲什麼不呢？
Fashion is often labeled escapism and, the theory goes, should provide that service to those who want to dream of gorgeousness rather than prejudice. In refusing to play that role, designers and photographers are often seen as overstepping their bounds. The assumption is that fashion can’t understand, or doesn’t understand, the implications of what it is doing.
時裝通常被人貼上“逃避現實”的標籤，而且這個理論還說，它應該爲那些華麗的夢想服務，而不是爲偏見服務。許多設計師與攝影師拒絕扮演這個角色，他們看上去經常走出自己的邊界。這種假定是，時裝並不、也沒有能力去理解自己所做的事引發什麼樣的後果。
This is exacerbated when we receive images without attached explanation. Because then it is up to us to decide whether to give the protagonist the benefit of the doubt, or to assume the worst. It’s possible that some designers are after a cheap shock and not a deeper comment. But it’s also worth examining our own rush to judgment and what lies at its core.
當我們看到沒有解釋的圖像時，就更加惡化了這種局面。因爲在這種情況下，就需要我們來解釋是否對圖片事件中的主角進行善意的懷疑，或者報以最大惡意的揣測。有可能有些設計師是想譁衆取寵。但我們自己也需要警惕自己急着下論斷的衝動，需要對事件的內核進行三思。
This is not to absolve designers and stylists and photographers (and critics) from culpability for their choices. All of us have to be aware of the new global reality in which we operate. Stakeholders need to be considered. Everybody needs to be held accountable for their own mistakes. But one of the benefits of a for-profit industry is that it can be.
這並不是說設計師、造型師、攝影師（以及評論家）就用不着對自己的選擇負責了。我們都需要了解我們自己正在應對的全球現實問題，需要考慮利益相關者。所有人都要爲自己的錯誤負責任。但是時裝業這個高利潤的行業有這樣一個好處，就是它確實有能力承擔責任。
Otherwise, what are we left with? A future lined in camel coats.
否則我們還剩下什麼？未來的一條駱駝毛大衣生產線嗎。
Not that there’s anything wrong with camels, you understand. That’s not what I meant at all …
不是說駱駝有什麼不對，你懂的，我根本就不是這個意思……
