Musings: The Monster Question - Anna Wintour

Recently, I read “Monster Culture” by Jerome Cohen. In his essay, Cohen presents a method of reading cultures from the monsters they engender. In other words, Cohen claims to be able to analyze a culture by exploring the people, things, characteristics, etc., that the culture doesn’t accept or paints as monstrous.

Since being exposed to this method, I’ve found myself looking at everything from popular music to amusement parks as derivatives for such exposure. Yet, as the dominant image representing today’s fashion industry, Anna Wintour kept popping into my head. The Editor-In-Chief of Vogue is often depicted as condescending and materialistic. I’ve even seen her referenced as an “egotistical skank.” However, most of these claims come from the people who are not a part of or do not agree with what the fashion industry promotes.

Boy George, Michael Jackson, David Bowie, Eleonora Bose and Jenny Shimizu, along with Anna, are all successful models, fashion designers or fashion icons partially due to their androgynous and fashionable styles. However, to those who do not take part in fashion, these people are often ridiculed as weird and monstrous.

What does it mean for Anna to be seen as a monster by our culture?

I know, what a question. And although I often wonder why I harp on such possibly frivolous questions, sometimes you just have to put your thoughts out there! As a result, here is my calculated answer to the monster question…

As Cohen writes, “We see the damage that the monster wreaks, the material remains … but the monster itself turns immaterial and vanishes, to reappear someplace else.”

I see Anna as the monster that eludes such capture. Isn’t it funny that with each season a new fashion trend comes and goes, one which is only unique for those who are able to indulge in it first? By the time the masses see or accept such new trends, Anna has already moved on to another trend.

Although our culture views materialistic accumulation as more greedy than realistic, we still practice what we deplore. If we didn’t, Anna (the monster) would not feel the need to “reappear” in the form of a new trend in order to sustain her freedom and originality. Our culture frowns upon materialism, yet at the same time values self-image and obsesses upon style.

It also seems that a culture only depicts a monster as such because it envies the freedom that the monster is able to experience. Many people do not have either the financial freedom or spunk to express themselves through fashion as much as Anna does. Anna, the monster who has more money and connections, is viewed enviously by those who may not have the money or confidence to pull off the perfect, four figure jacket that they saw her wearing in a magazine. The person probably does not need a jacket so expensive, of course. It’s the fashionable, expensive, and confident image that Anna embodies by wearing the jacket that espouses our culture’s desire.

The avoidance of categorization is also a uniform characteristic of monsters. The monster does not fall into a certain mold and, therefore, no one can truly understand them. As cited before, Boy George, Jenny Shimizu and the like are able to stick out in the fashion world due to their androgynous nature. Is Boy George a boy or girl? If he is a boy, why is he wearing a skirt? The same goes for Jenny Shimizu. Why is her hair so short? Why does she wear ties? Answers to these questions are often demanded by our culture, which, when not given a sufficient answer, labels such characters as freaks and monsters. As Cohen would put it, this androgynous monster is “a form suspended between forms that threatens to smash distinctions.”

I think that Anna’s depiction as a monster can be attributed to her less feminine personality and actions; yet, I also believe Anna is unconsciously the way she is in an effort to fit the bill for the normal image of a person in a power position. This relationship exposes our culture’s negative view of powerful women. Anna’s depiction as a monster also exposes the tug-of-war relationship our culture has when it comes to materialism and practicality.

- Deaton

To reply to this post: Info@NightjarCreative.com