A wall that scribes the synopsis of the exhibition.

The exhibition Items: Is Fashion Modern? at the Museum of Modern Art takes viewers on a journey to explore the profound impact clothing pieces had on history and how they continue to play a pivotal role in society today. This is not the first time the MoMA has dedicated an exhibition to clothes. In 1944, Bernard Rudofsky curated the exhibition Are Clothes Modern? to prove to people how widely accepted attires should be deemed “useless, impractical, irrational, harmful and unbeautiful” (MoMA Press Release, 1). Rudofsky goes from questioning the practice of cutting fabric for dresses to criticizing the evolution of human’s feet due to the symmetry and shape of shoes. Rudofsky wanted his viewers to leave the exhibition questioning the legitimacy of their own clothing items. Overall, Rudofsky provided a critical scope of everyday clothing choices through his exhibition. On the other hand, Paola Antonelli and Michelle Millar Fisher – curators of Items: Is Fashion Modern? – demonstrates the correlation between aspects of our society: culture, politics, and technology to clothing items of the past, present and future.

The exhibition showcases up to 111 items of clothing and accessories. This explains why it fills the entire sixth floor of the museum. The floor was not only filled with pieces but also people. The exhibition was packed with teenagers, adults and older people. It was a lively environment where people of all age groups were enjoying the showcase, regardless of the age difference. One would assume that because the exhibition is about clothes and accessories the space would be overwhelming with vibrant colors. On the contrary, the backdrop of each walls was either black or white. This made each of the pieces stand out. For example, behind the lineup of the five ‘little black dresses’ was a white sheer curtain. Due to the contrasting color of the background, viewers were able to see the details of the pattern and texture of the dresses.

The use of technology was consistent throughout the exhibition and is worth talking about. The curators included informative texts on the walls and on plaques under each piece but also had pictures, diagrams and videos on digital screen. There were videos on many of these screens including, a woman teaching the different ways to drape a sari, the expression of turtlenecks on individuals and even an interactive screen that allowed viewers to design their own sweater! Lastly, it cannot be ignored how some of the accessories were displayed at the exhibition. The Revlon ‘Fire and Ice Red Lipstick’ was presented in a glass box along with the Chanel №5 perfume bottle. By displaying these simple materials in that style gave it value and significance. This does not mean that the pieces not in glass cases are not as important such as the flip-flops or the Rolex Watch. However, having that variation of displaying some items in cases while keeping other ones out made the exhibition as a whole more interesting. The curators did an exceptional job of using such a vast space to showcase some of the greatest fashion pieces.

A major component of this exhibition was to shed light on how fashion intertwines with major aspects in society. The exhibition would have been incomplete had they not addressed cultural appropriation. The controversy of cultural appropriation is revolved around non-Africans exploiting African culture and calling it ‘fashion,’ although at points in history, women of color was labelled ‘ghetto’ for expressing the same culture. This exploitation of culture was expressed in the exhibition through the door-knocker earrings. The statement earring which vary in shapes – round, oval or door knocker gained popularity during the 1980’s hip hop era to reflect the urban, working – class of African Americans. In the exhibition, the bamboo door-knocker earrings simply rested on a black velvet earring stand, resembling what one would find at a department store. However, it represents the social and cultural impurity that existed in the late 1900’s and continues to be prevalent today. Another pivotal item of the exhibition was the red Champion hoodie. The red hoodie hung alone on a black wall to symbolize the injustice that is apparent against the black community. The politics of the hoodie goes even deeper. In 2012, Treyvon Martin was fatally shot and killed by Florida neighborhood watch volunteer, George Zimmerman. Zimmerman’s suspicion rose due to Martin’s clothing choice – a hoodie. The red hoodie brings awareness to the race-based violence and injustice which is an essential message to spread especially in the recent political climate. The future of fashion is heavily emphasized in the exhibition. The protection of the environment will pave the road to the future of clothes. The exhibition introduced a graphic t-shirt made using animal – free leather. An issue that often gets pushed to the sideline is animal cruelty. Millions of cows, pigs, goats and sheep are skinned yearly for the leather industry. The graphic t-shirt is part of the ‘biocouture’ movement to reduce and maybe even replace the use of the environment to make stylish clothes in the near future. This should be the future of the clothing industry. The door knocker earrings, the hoodie and the graphic t-shirt are just some examples, amongst the 111 pieces, that prove that history, culture and technology play significant roles in shaping the past, present and future of the fashion realm.

An exhibition dedicated to fashion is bound to have missteps. Many pieces showcased at the exhibition seemed out of place. A pair of Adidas Superstars in a glass case near an intricate graphic patterned jumpsuit. The salwar kameez, originated from South Asia, next to two pairs of Capri pants from Italy. Many items did not go hand in hand. One can understand the significance of each item individually. However, the question arises as to why such polar opposite items were placed together? Were the curators trying to infuse cultures through different articles of clothing? This was not made clear. Furthermore, the exhibition highlighted the evolvement of fashion over the years, however it did not showcase a smartphone. Whether the IPhone or the Galaxy, the smartphone is the number one accessory of the 21st century. We take it everywhere we go, we accessorize it with accessories (phone cases), and we use it daily to capture images of our outfits. The exhibition just felt incomplete without it. Regardless, it is an exhibition worth viewing. Every person can resonate with at least one piece from the 111 showcased pieces. One question still remains unanswered. Is fashion modern? Everyone who views the exhibition would answer the question differently. Fashion is timeless- there are no limitation on when or how a style can be brought back. Fashion is not modern, rather it is enriched by history, culture and expression- that continue to play a key role in shaping our society.