Achitecture and Tailoring

[Sator]

As a little continuation of the previous discussion on the relationship between the art of the tailor and architecture, my interest was peaked when I came across a mention of the comparison between pattern drafting and drafting in architecture and surveying in a discussion by Devere, 1866. Reading more about the intricacies of drafting patterns made me really appreciate just how much like the work of an architect that is.

It struck me that herein lay the problem with "designer" clothes. Fashion students go through their fashion courses without really coming to grips with how to properly draft a workable pattern. They are like some artist who comes up with a vague concept of how a building might look without the slightest clue as to whether the building would collapse on our heads or sink into the earth. Likewise, fashion "designers" have little appreciation of the fact that pattern drafting to best bring out the beauty of the extraordinarily complex intricacies of anatomical form requires considerable skill, and in-depth practical knowledge. This remains true irrespective of whether we are talking about drafting to a system of proportionate measure or bespoke styled drafting off direct measurements.

The slovenliness of modern man's dress has much to do with the fact that we have let the art and science of pattern making and cutting that had been advanced to a remarkable degree lapse into semi-obscurity.

With that here is the architect of Knize in Vienna - Adolf Loos





http://www.cutterandtailor.com/forum

[pvpatty]

Fashion students go through their fashion courses without really coming to grips with how to properly draft a workable pattern. They are like some artist who comes up with a vague concept of how a building might look without the slightest clue as to whether the building would collapse on our heads or sink into the earth. Likewise, fashion "designers" have little appreciation of the fact that pattern drafting to best bring out the beauty of the extraordinarily complex intricacies of anatomical form requires considerable skill, and in-depth practical knowledge. This remains true irrespective of whether we are talking about drafting to a system of proportionate measure or bespoke styled drafting off direct measurements.

Perhaps, Sator, the problem is more that we have created too many architects and not enough engineers? Today's fashion and design students (of whom I know a couple) are all very good at drafting, as you say, vague concepts but have little idea as to how to translate them into the physical realm (at least without masses of padding, etc). It is the architect who designs, but ultimately the engineer must assess structural integrity.

[Sator]

I am probably stretching the metaphor too much. I understood that architects are trained to varying degrees in understanding what is possible from a structural/engineering point of view. I understand that is an area of controversy with some newer architecture courses aiming to produce someone educated in both areas. These are the enlightened few.

But I am not an architect. Those better in the know might like to enlighten me!

http://www.cutterandtailor.com/forum

[storeynicholas]

I understood that architects are trained to varying degrees in understanding what is possible from a structural/engineering point of view. !

Let us hope so. They are certainly trained nowadays, as artists, in how to fling a paint pot in the public's face (Ruskin on the painter Whistler).
NJS

[pvpatty]

I am probably stretching the metaphor too much. I understood that architects are trained to varying degrees in understanding what is possible from a structural/engineering point of view. I understand that is an area of controversy with some newer architecture courses aiming to produce someone educated in both areas. These are the enlightened few.

But I am not an architect. Those better in the know might like to enlighten me!

Well, Sator, you do make a valid point. A good architect will be able to balance aesthetic and functional concerns with the basic structural ones. A bespoke artisan too must take into consideration both of these qualities.

[storeynicholas]

I am probably stretching the metaphor too much. I understood that architects are trained to varying degrees in understanding what is possible from a structural/engineering point of view. I understand that is an area of controversy with some newer architecture courses aiming to produce someone educated in both areas. These are the enlightened few.

But I am not an architect. Those better in the know might like to enlighten me!

Well, Sator, you do make a valid point. A good architect will be able to balance aesthetic and functional concerns with the basic structural ones. A bespoke artisan too must take into consideration both of these qualities.

That has made me think: it is not just structure and appearance, it's also function. And there is a perfect analogy between clothing and building.
NJS

[marcelo]

I thought the following excerpt from Thomas Carlyle’s Sartor Resartus: The Life and Opinions of Herr Teufelsdrockh might prove useful for a reflection on the nature of the relationship between cloths and architecture:

“For neither in tailoring nor in legislating does man proceed by mere
Accident, but the hand is ever guided on by mysterious operations of the
mind. In all his Modes, and habilatory endeavors, an Architectural Idea
will be found lurking; his Body and the Cloth are the site and materials
whereon and whereby his beautified edifice, of a Person, is to be built.” (Beginning of Chapter V, “THE WORLD IN CLOTHES”, p. 28 in the Oxford edition)

[speedster]

Since we haver derailed slightly from sators initial train of thought ...

I would like to add my 2c worth, here.

When one gets out of school one has a basic grasp of spacial relations, this is valid for cars, interiors, landscaping, packaging,clothing as well as architecture. With practice and interest you get a good grasp of structural aspects. But to finely tone a structure, to meet the minimal needs of structure vs budget the engineer is still better. Engenering is devided in several very specialized disciplines. The main ones are structural, electric and ventilation/water/heating (climate). The list can be continued to include 7 or so more disciplines. The Architects scope is to grasp the needs of the client and coordinate the progress and use appropriate consultants to achieve the clients goal. This would apply to a tailor to ...But there are architects that that are known for their engenering capacety. Calatrava comes to mind, I believe he has an engenering degree as well as the degree in Architecture. But as with all these professionals, one is always better served by one that is on «the same «wavelength» IOW is sort of a kindred spirit. If you understand each other the path to the goal is always shorter. Im not saying that great things cant arise from conflict ... Does not this really apply to all aspects of life?

But did Adolf LOOS draw patterns for any clothing items. I know quite a lot of his work but have no reccolection of clothing ... The architect known as Le corbusier had some thoughts on clothing and a garment is still made to this date. I find it fascinating that he was originally trained as an engraver, no wonder since born in La Chaux-de-Fonds

[marcelo]

... The architect known as Le corbusier had some thoughts on clothing ...

It sounds interesting. Have you got the relevant source on Le corbusier's thoughts on clothing? Thanks in advance!

[arch]

I have been reading this discussion with interest since I am both practicing Architect and teach the subject to undergraduate students.

Among many other aspects of the architects education, is a basic understanding of structures. However having gained such knowledge it is more often than not a case of rule of thumb and proportion. If it looks right it is right. Architects are taught to hone their skill and judgement through drawings and modelling.

It is true that the engineer must be responsible for structural integrity. However, in my experience most engineers have little regard for aesthetics, there are exceptions of course. Neither are they concerned with spatial sequences, the tactile qualities of materials, the usability of a building and the surrounding context within which the building sits. Commodity, firmness and delight, to turn a phrase.

It is similar to having a perfectly wearable and correctly styled suit, except that the particular cut does not suit the particular wearer.

Key to the study of architecture is the understanding that we learn from the architecture of the past but do not emulate it. We produce buildings and structures of our own time, not pastiches. I would be very keen to understand how this could translate satorially.

Finally, returning to the thread, Loos commented on tailoring, including Savile Row and fashions in clothing in his essays.

[marcelo]

...Loos commented on tailoring, including Savile Row and fashions in clothing in his essays.

Again, it sounds interesting... do you have by any chance the relevant sources? I am kind of obsessed with theses things. Thanks in advance!

[marcelo]

Could Adolf Loos’ thoughts on the relationship between architecture and sartorial arts be present in “Ornament and Crime” (1908)? This is a work I am not aquatinted with.

[Sator]

I have been reading this discussion with interest since I am both practicing Architect and teach the subject to undergraduate students.

Among many other aspects of the architects education, is a basic understanding of structures. However having gained such knowledge it is more often than not a case of rule of thumb and proportion. If it looks right it is right. Architects are taught to hone their skill and judgement through drawings and modelling.

Some 19th C cutting manuals go into astonishing anthropometric detail to try to determine some methodological system of cutting to mathematically based rules of proportion. Henry (Heinrich) Wampen is the most famous of these authors but Devere is also very disciplined in this regard. Devere's comparison with architecture seemed to imply that in 19th C architecture there were strict rules governing proportion (and which he was trying to emulate in his chosen discipline). Is this the case?

Pardon my ignorance of your profession.

http://www.cutterandtailor.com/forum

[arch]

In classical architecture there are strict rules governing proportion and the classical orders. Most 19th century architecture was either classical in origin or gothic.

They are based on human proportion, from which evolved the golden section. Le Corbusier used his own system of proportion Le Modulor, which was an updated version, again based on anthropomorphic data.

When I next visit the University library I shall find the book I borrowed that had essays about tailoring in and post up the reference

[marcelo]

When I next visit the University library I shall find the book I borrowed that had essays about tailoring in and post up the reference

Thanks a lot. I am looking forward to your next post.