You’ve probably heard about Prada’s little feather-ruffle that WWD reported a few days ago. As the story goes, Miuccia Prada was upset that the curatorial team at the Costume Institute (led by Harold Koda and Andrew Bolton) was pursuing a vision that was “too formal; they are focused on similarities, comparing feather with feather, ethnic with ethnic, but they are not taking into consideration that we are talking about two different eras, and that [Schiaparelli and I] are total opposite.” Of course, the Prada company promptly issued a statement to ArtInfo saying the comments were misinterpreted and that “Mrs. Prada confirms that she admires the total curatorial independence of the museum to the extent that they almost did not take into consideration her vision.”
I think this episode is enlightening in that it reveals the difficulty of curators in working with living artists/designers, many who have very strong egos and a particular vision in how their work should be interpreted. Complete interpretive independence is the raison d’etre of curatorial practice, even if it is not always possible. Many curators willingly choose to collaborate WITH artists/designers when including their work in exhibitions, if only to gain further clarification of a certain context, have access to their archives, or sometimes, to politically appease them (often for financial reasons). I’ve written before about the problems that can occur when curatorial independence is (or appears to be) compromised.
Now, the Elsa Schiaparelli and Miuccia Prada: On Fashion exhibit is funded by Amazon and Conde Nast, so theoretically, the CI shouldn’t necessarily have to appease Prada as a financial backer, although, of course, they don’t want to piss off the only living designer included in the exhibition. From what I’ve read, the premise of the exhibition, which is based on a series of “impossible conversations” between the two designers, sounds fascinatingly fertile. Is the real story here not about the CI being way off-base in interpreting Miuccia Prada’s work, but rather Prada herself being uncomfortable with the reality that all of her work is open to any (mis)interpretation? That while she has complete control in the design studio, on the runway and in advertising, once she lets the masses have access to her work, anything can happen? To me that is the beauty of fashion - clothing is extremely personal and can be worn and interpreted in any number of ways. Designers are not the only creative geniuses in fashion, as the rise of personal style and street-style blogs can attest. Prada, for all of her talent, cannot control how her clothing is worn, interpreted, or exhibited. What would Schiaparelli think about this lack of control? Would she have any words of advice? Perhaps a hint comes from her autobiography, Shocking Life, where she says “she will know that in spite of success, glamour and despair, the only escape is in oneself, and nobody can take that away - it is stronger than jealousy, hardship, or oppression.”
