Sex sells. In high fashion though, so does the opposite.

Fashion is odd in that it serves two extremely different purposes: On the one hand, clothes should make a person look good. They should flatter the body, make a person feel sexy and attractive and give them an aesthetically pleasing appearance. But on the other end of the spectrum, fashion is an art form that should push boundaries. Clothes should be creative, original and visually interesting to make a person stand out.

I think it is difficult for designers to embrace both aspects of fashion, and maybe they shouldn’t have to. Unfortunately, designers who only focus on the latter purpose of fashion as art are criticized by outsiders as being ridiculous and impossible to wear, whereas designers who focus on making designs that appear sexy and flattering get criticized for lacking innovation and putting too much focus on the body.

The fall 2016 fashion shows in Milan have displayed a variety of types of designs so far. At Gucci on Wednesday, there was a lot going on — puffy shoulders, boxy calf-length dresses, Renaissance-inspired pieces, enormous colored furs, ruffles on ruffles — but sex appeal was not part of the equation. The collection worked from the perspective of Sarah Mower, the fashion critic who reviewed the collection for “Vogue Runway,” but the clothes were so outrageous that there is not much chance of people incorporating them into real life.

At the Versace show in Milan on Friday, models sauntered down the runway in slinky dresses, short skirts, crop tops and low necklines — Mower declared in her review, “sexiness is back at Versace.” These clothes are still fashionable, but are they less creative, relying more on the models’ sex appeal than the designs of the clothes? I don’t think so, but that is how they may be perceived and the reason that some designers choose to avoid flattering the body — they want their shows to be about the clothes.

In terms of customers of fashion — high-end consumers and everyday shoppers — there are different labels slapped on people who choose either aspect of fashion. For a dressy occasion, the girl who shows up in an edgy pantsuit is cool but trying too hard, and the other girl who shows up in a tight dress is hot but has no taste or style. It is hard to find the balance of wanting to look good without being “basic” and unstylish.

A popular blog called Man Repeller by Leandra Medine addresses the issue of “fashionable” clothes typically being unflattering and what she deems man-repelling. She writes on her blog that a man-repeller is, “she who outfits herself in a sartorially offensive mode that may result in repelling members of the opposite sex. Such garments include but are not limited to harem pants, boyfriend jeans, overalls, shoulder pads, full length jumpsuits, jewelry that resembles violent weaponry and clogs.”

Although Medine embraces her style with humor, she acknowledged in a post last December that if she feels like wearing tight clothes once in a while, that is OK because she is doing it for herself. If tight clothes are what you want to wear, if those clothes reflect your sense of style, you should not be shamed for that.

I think clothes can be figure-flattering and still push the limits of fashion, and that is what designers should strive for. Of course, it is fine for designers to hide the body if they choose to, but they need to remember that the primary functions of clothes are based on the human form. Fashion is a type of art, but it is unique in its caveat that it is displayed on the body.

With two focuses of fashion design — artistic expression and the ability to be worn and bought — a medium ground needs to be found. In the end, a tight dress does not have to be a sexy dress, and a sexy dress does not have to be unfashionable.

Jackie Homan is a sophomore magazine journalism major. You can email her at jahoman@syr.edu or follow her @jackie_homan on Twitter.

Published on February 29, 2016 at 10:19 pm