Yeohlee Teng Lecture Review
2010.11.05
University of Michigan Taubman College of Architecture and Design
There is simultaneously too much and too little discussion of interdisciplinary design. Too much in that most discussions carefully only touch upon feigning interest and garnering inspiration from previous design work (here I will use the term precedence) while protecting the small collective fiefdoms that these disparate design elements control and harbor interest in; too little in that while the object of the discussion is good (altruistic?), the execution of the ideas is typically underdeveloped (undercooked as a friend would yell at students) and therefore a failure.
Ms. Yeohlee Teng's lecture at University of Michigan this past Friday meandered in and out of being too broad without specific, and too specific without replicable application, neither in an intentional way, instead only as a bitter afterthought which made the long dark journey back to Cleveland seem more dark and dreary.
Dear god, let me explain.
Ms. Teng's history of exploration in the fabric arts of fashion, creating “wearable structure” while exploring use of “economy”, in this term by dealing with the physical constraints of the materials (production widths of fabrics) and by minimizing waste (see Fall 2009 line), are personal ideologues successfully studied and practiced through her collections. The limits of starting out as a individual designer with limited production capability meant that her first well known piece, “Fall 1981 Black wool doeskin “one size fits all” cape”, would create a signature style playing on the terms of structure, flexibility and economy, themes that would become even more popular/fitting in a disjointed, androgynous and economically jilted society.
In fact, the process by which Ms. Teng uses to develop her pieces translates directly into a logical procession for the creation of informative architecture where each step draws from yet directly informs each previous iteration.
- understand/develop want/need
- develop theme of inspiration [flattened]
- understand material relative to theme and demands/constraints
- develop strategy for construction/assembly
- define infrastructure
- relate/restrain/celebrate movement/stance
- locate places of pause/storage (pockets)
- create identity/perception
Even the discussion of construction, the consideration of the edge condition (“magic of the cut” as Teng pontificated), the comparison of fashion as process oriented (draping vs. pattern making), the celebration of using the material to define its own shape via gravity and mass in lieu of constructed supporting structure all related to the idea of honesty of materiality evident throughout Ms. Teng's entire shown collection. While not directly relating to the idea and process of architecture there was a evident shared process of exploration.
The direct comparisons to built works began to unravel at time. The Fall 2008 collection, supposedly inspired by SANAA's New Museum (NYC 2007) and the Guggenheim inspired Spring 2002 collection (Wright, NYC 1959) lack the rigor when compared to the Spring 2007 Collection. The Spring 2007 Line drew upon work done for the Skin + Bones: Parallel Practices in Fashion and Architecture MOCA-LA exhibition as well as the Schindler House (R.M. Schindler, Hollywood 1922) which dealt with simplicity of materiality and construction through fabric selection. The format of the lecture didn't allow any exploration into the reinterpretation of the material selection from an architectural to fashion perspective, especially when it dealt with hierarchy and assembly which I felt could have been overly interesting. The same issue arrived during the explanation of reinterpreting Mies's Barcelona Pavilion, specifically the use of the seams of the clothing in relation to the exposed “X” columns of the building. There a comment comparing the act of using the distinction of column location to organize the pattern grid as the relation to the structure of the pieces and its seams but the further exploration of the work wasn't there.
To be fair the lecture did seem rushed and covered a broad stroke of work that may have been better organized if focused on a few particular lines and the process of study. This lent to quick and unfulling explanation of what the work was supposed to mean or be interpreted which left me yearning for more.
The one aspect that it seemed even Ms. Teng was wanting to discuss was the use of urban design and planning to support artist communities and business development, a topic of study I am personally highly interested in. Ms. Teng is involved in the “Made in Midtown” movement, a grassroots organization that is meant to codify and quantify the value of the garment district to protect its existence and contributions to the fabric of New York and the fashion culture as a whole. I tried to raise a question at the end of the lecture, inspired by Monica Ponce de Leonremarking that Teng is one of the few designers who is politically active*, regarding how to create a grassroots movement in a region that lacks the creative density of NYC. How can we inspire those among us who have lost the will to fight or what magic words can we utter to instill hope in the hearts of those we need by our side?
Like most of the answers during the Q+A, time constraints may have undermined any attempt at useful discussion. I was told there was hope as out of work factory makers were selling handmade bags at local stores and the prospect of urban farming could rejuvenate community. I don't want to be a farmer, I would not be that good at it and I think the idea of having to begin an alternative craft to what I love to do insulting.
Again, I blame the format of the lecture for my unsastiated hunger. I can only hope Yeohlee Teng's work continues to playfully intwine the reinterpretation of the boundaries of design and will some day accept that as fashion can be inspired by architecture, architecture may be inspired by fashion. What other way can we extrapolate on our “first shelter” (our clothing) to become more intimately comfortable in our spaces?
resources:
YEOHLEE : WORK (book website)
skin+bones gallery guide (pdf)
skin+bones review (pingmag)
*I wonder at times the issue of architecture as a political act. There is a civic will required to create good buildings and spaces. I have a concern that if architecture is not political in any means that it is pointless. I am not espousing the standards terms of politics to be in play here, there is no republican architecture or democratic architecture, but architecture is a social act, a social art and science that must have some humane disposition to be successful. If architecture does nothing to respond to the needs of the society at the time of its inception then how can it possibly succeed? Whether personal politics are evident is up to the designer, however some personal morals or mores must inadvertently make it into the work. The idea of resting ares or building efficiency or socialization or hierarchy of space all stem from our ideals that have a political basis. It may not affect how we vote (if we do) but is sure as hell affects our designs. What good do we do then, if we sit on the sidelines and are not vocal in our beliefs, especially when it directly affects our practice?
