Loïc Prigent gave us his vision of the history of French fashion, “the real one”

BOOK – Aside from the “chirp” and other little phrases heard on the benches of Fashion Week. After two previous books on the backstage of fashion hailed for their hilarious nature, Loïc Prigent returned to bookstores on Thursday October 9 with a new essay, this time with a historical focus, on this flashy environment that he adores as much as he hates it.

Baptized A thousand billion ribbonsits history of fashion (the “ true », according to the subtitle of the book) published by Grasset editions looks back on a founding century, the 19th, with a question as its starting point. Why is Yves Saint Laurent credited with the invention of ready-to-wear and more specifically pants for women?

Birth of department stores, creation of the Singer sewing machine and emergence of trends… Without losing the sarcasm of his YouTube videos, the journalist lays chapter after chapter the foundations of this industry, symbol of French luxury. Biting in its descriptions, the book sometimes lacks a little context. We wanted to explore several of the key points discussed with its author.

HuffPost: The subtitle of the book raises questions. Could there be a false history of fashion?

Loïc Prigent: (laughs) No, the idea was more to be true, in the sense of sticking to a relative everyday fashion. I preferred to delve into newspaper archives, like The Gaul, Le Figaro and other titles that have now disappeared, only in certain history books to see what we really wore on February 12, 1863, for example. And I discovered lots of things there.

Like the crinoline? You have decided to dedicate the first chapter of the book to this fabric, which once made it possible to give fullness to a petticoat. For what ?

The object is not only crazy, it returned to the fashion shows, notably at Balenciaga, in 2020. Its artistic director, Demna Gvaslia, took up this notion of large volume and power, suggesting that a garment of power would be a garment that would take up the most space. I don’t know if it’s a piece of clothing or a lifestyle. It’s ultimately a state of mind.

Also, it is one of the first garments to have been produced on a large scale, that is to say tens of millions of copies. We really have industrial traces of this structure and the impact it had on layers of society.

Still, it looked like hell to wear. Nobody ever revolted?

There was no female rebellion, but rather a male rebellion, according to misogynistic caricatures in the press. Among women, I rather found stories which told that some, initially unhappy, quickly got used to it. Initially, the crinoline was a practical garment, because it was less heavy than the previous style of dress and because it caused less damage to the legs through friction. That’s the funny thing about fashion. When it appears, we always say to ourselves that it makes sense.

There are paradoxes in the history of fashion. How is it that men’s fashion was so austere in the 19th century when a century earlier, it was wigs and high heels at the king’s court?

There are theorists who say it was to let women shine. In the evening, that was the idea anyway. Afterwards, wouldn’t men have been taken by a sudden sense of practicality? At the time of the Industrial Revolution, we started to work. And the rentiers, those who wore ribbons and heels, are disappearing little by little.

You also mention the impact of emerging tourism in the appearance of new trends in France, but little that of colonialism. What was the effect of French imperialism on fashion?

We saw the arrival of certain patterns in French clothing at the time of the Napoleonic campaigns, particularly after the expeditions carried out in Egypt. There was clearly aesthetic looting which was valued, in the sense of enrichment and decorative language.

Cultural appropriation is not new. Neither is the race for trends. Isn’t it?

It is said that every Sunday at the races, you had to shine with 200,000 lights. A thousand wasn’t enough. We had to surpass, improve, go one step further on the outfits that were successful the previous week. The ultimate privilege was having your dress made on Saturday for Sunday. That way, we were sure to have the latest dress. We always say that it’s current fashion that has these faults, but no. We are the victims of ancestral behavior.

What vestiges of the past do you still observe today?

The scheduling of collections, consisting of presenting them six months in advance as established by Worth in the 19th century, is similar. The presence of the Russian and American aristocracy, who come to Paris to listen to the Gospel, too. We see it with Fashion Week today: frivolity is the same.

And the evils of the world are still visible in fashion. What Fast Fashion does today is what we did back in the day when we brought in cotton from the American slave plantations of the time. We consume knowing that there is possibly a form of slavery involved in the manufacturing of what we are going to wear. We know it and it saddens us, but we get used to it very quickly.

Does fashion follow the general movement of society, as you write?

My naivety believes so. In any case, France has an economic interest in fashion being seen as the most formidable in the eyes of the whole world.

Also see on HuffPost :