As the communication profession has become ever more bureaucratic and subject to absolute rationality in times of modernity, notions of beauty and creativity have slowly been demoted to be ‘superficial’. However, as society is moving into an age of hypermodernity, a necessity for applying these notions into communication has emerged. Close observations and
interviews within the fashion industry have shown that this hypermodern means of
communication, or aesthetic translation, is dependent on the establishment of a performing network: a structure in which knowledge is constantly critiqued, analysed and reinterpreted. A second condition of aesthetic translation is the focus on change and development, through which a reflective and authentic type of communication can emerge, whilst change and ‘newness’ is continuously anticipated and forecasted. So the future of communication may, due to hypermodernity, be radically different from how we conceive of communication today.
Hypermodernity, trend-communication, aesthetics, translation, actor-network-theory (ANT), fashion industry, communication strategy.
‘Beautiful’, ‘Visual’, ‘Symbolic’; these relatively simple words so often used in colloquial speech are greatly avoided in the worlds of business and academics. There appears to be a fear for the aesthetic: the subjective judgement of taste. It describes, and in many cases prescribes, ways of being beautiful and in that create a greater meaning to these judgements (Zangwill, 2010). This may have to do with the fact that aesthetic knowledge (or knowledge about taste) has little room in the economic and rational frames of mind within the business- and academic communities. Intuitive, abstract, visual, or otherwise symbolic knowledge has no place within this frame of thought and becomes uncomfortable. ‘Beauty is unfamiliar (…), subjective, transitory, and even personal. And it can’t be measured’ (Schmitt, Simonson & Marcus, 1995: 83). It appears that all knowledge that falls outside that rational frame of mind becomes unimportant, even superficial. ‘Functional managers delegate key strategic decisions to outside specialists (…) because they feel uncomfortable dealing with “creative” decisions. Yet, at the same time, managers view “creative people” as lacking, to some degree, a strategic view of the world of business’ (Schmitt et al., 1995, p.83). Thus a divide begins to form between this ‘creative’ and ‘strategic’ or in a less problematic terminology between the
abstract and concrete types of knowledge. Within corporate industries this leads to a limited
communication between the two groups where one type of knowledge, primarily the concrete type, dominates over the other (Schmitt et al., 1995; see also Wilson, 2009). In this case society and its communications are reduced to purely rational, cognitive or objective processes within the corporate world and all aesthetic argumentation is dismissed as ‘superficial’.
The issue here is that not all parts of society operate in such a rational frame of mind. In fact, there are corners in the architecture of the social dynamic that revolve fundamentally around the so-called uncomfortable aesthetics; especially there where creative products or
services are generated. ‘Artists, artisans, craftspeople, writers, performers, entertainers,
musicians – they have been around for some time’ (Davies & Sigthorsson, 2013: ix). More so, the type of creative production that has followed from these professions has been
industrialized along the same principles of other mass-markets: they have become creative
industries (Davies & Sigthorsson, 2013; see also Entwistle, 2013 and Wilson, 2009). This
development means that creative production is no longer a separate and far-removed domain, but ever more inherent to today’s economy (and the rational businesses operating in it). As perhaps the most visible of these creative industries, the fashion industry provides a near perfect example of a very successful economic business that still revolves fundamentally around creative production. It is within this duality that aesthetic knowledge arises: it connects the creative production with the market. By defining a production as worthwhile because it is deemed ‘high-fashion’ or a ‘this season’, the particular product can move from the domain of the artist to the market and has effectively become a commercial good. There is thus an articulation of an abstract trend into a commercial idea: aesthetic translation.
However, despite the visibility of the importance of aesthetics in the world of business, the dominant perspective still remains uncomfortable with the concept. Many therefore fail to endeavour on an exploration into how aesthetic knowledge can aid business and how it may fit within the economy (Entwistle, 2013; Schmitt et al., 1995; Wilson, 2009). The
communication profession plays a crucial role in this: not only is aesthetic knowledge inherently communicative, it may provide a complete redefinition of the profession. This thesis will therefore embark upon providing some insight into the concept by attempting to answer the following question:
‘How do professionals in the fashion industry engage in aesthetic translation and how do their practices aid our understanding of the current role and future impact of
The notion of rationality as a primary means of argumentation is not merely a dominant opinion within the corporate economy, it is a dominant epistemology: modernity. This modern
paradigm is ever present in theories attempting to make inferences about and onto society
(Laermans, 1996). It is not a strange thought, often observable dynamics of society do fit within a modern perspective. Even the fashion industry does so, but to a limited extend. It seems that the modern paradigm is unable to provide an all encompassing understanding of the fashion industry. A modern paradigm presupposes an underlying dominance and priority of rationality (Inglehart, 2001). The fashion industry is at its very core a business in which luxury brands alone are responsible for a development of a $220 billion dollar global industry (Keller, 2009), which far outreach other consumer categories and is more than the sales of books, movies and music combined (Hemphill & Suk, 2009). One would thus expect
calculated and efficient decision-making processes with the end-goal of profit ever present in the mind of the decision-maker.
However this absolute rationality is often lacking at different places within the fashion industry. Especially in the ‘high-fashion’ industry, ‘designs’ are bought (and sold) by retailers for a price far above the production costs merely because a certain designer label is attached. The value of a certain item in the high-fashion industry therefore exceeds its pure, rational, economic value (Entwistle, 2009). Features such as ‘design’ and ‘vision’ are central to the products of the industry (i.e. the clothes); its value is not based on mere economic decision (i.e. the price of the fabric and hours spend creating it) but is inherently aesthetic. Although the issue becomes more complicated, the fashion industry may still fit into a rational perspective because the final profit also far exceeds profit gained by businesses at the consumer-end of the spectrum (Keller, 2009).
The irrationality of the fashion industry lies in the fact that these exceedingly large profits are not a calculated given. The consumer market in fashion is driven by ‘taste’ and ‘trends’. ‘In clothing, no matter how artfully a piece of clothing is constructed, an item does not become “high fashion” or even “this season” if it cannot be located in the top fashion stores, and be situated alongside the top fashion designers’ (Entwistle, 2009: 64). The only way these items do become ‘high fashion’ and can generate these large profits is through players in the fashion network who, often through ‘gut feeling’, decide what constitutes the following season’s trend (Entwistle, 2009). As such, a large portion of the value of a specific item is inherently aesthetic. This need for aesthetic value is also reflected in the fashion industry’s consumer market: ‘consumers are no more focused only on product characteristics; their purchase attitude is everyday more influenced by the ‘‘complete shopping experience’’ provided in the point of sale’ (Brun & Castelli, 2008. See also Porter & Claycomb, 1997; Danziger, 2006). This means that from the moment of production to the point of sale some sort of non-economic and primarily symbolic value is added to the product. This makes the fashion industry not only rather irrational as an economic system, but also an industry that reinforces its own irrationality. The industry is driven by aesthetic knowledge, which makes it an aspect of society that becomes very hard to fit within the rational modernist paradigm.
This ill-fit into a modern paradigm works into all levels of the industry. Most notably, and most relevant in the context of this work, is that communication within the industry can no longer be explained by traditionally modern models of communication. The modern school of thought, or a ‘modern way of thinking about the world and the human beings’ relationships to it’ (Sommerville, 1999: 7), stems from a long history including central philosophical works by Descartes and Kant. Both in Descartes’ Discourse on Method (1639) -and later in
strong divide is made between the subject and the world around him. This results in an argument in which modernity ‘is thus synonymous with the creation and stabilisation of boundaries and with a preoccupation with the notions of identity’ (Sommerville, 1999: 8). This strict divide between the self and others has historically proved to be rather detrimental to the other or the object. ‘These “others” have tended to be overrun and exploited as mere resources’ (Sommerville, 1999: 8). It becomes clear that the establishment of strict boundaries gives rise to hierarchy and (the abuse of) power within such a system.
This concept of power has become ever present in the modern communication model to a point where many may be called diffusion models. The theory of diffusion in relation to power states that an action or idea moves through time and space ‘through the initial force of those who have power’ (Latour, 1986: 267). This force hardly changes as it moves through space and time, and may only be slowed down when encountering resistance such as ‘lack of communication, ill will, opposition of interest groups, [or] indifference’ (Latour, 1986: 267). In other words, organizational communication is reduced to a means of expression only, in which those in power can influence a nearly passive audience or consumer market (see also Deetz, 1997). More so, it appears that diffusion is a dominant organizational means of communication to the point where some say that PR should be ‘redefined as the communicative expression of competing organizations and groups in pluralist states’ (Maloney, 2005: 554). Van Ruler and Verčič (2005) identified four main models of
communication that include the information model, and persuasion model that both revolve around rolling out notions onto a passive public. These can therefore be labelled models of diffusion. The remaining relationship model and discursive model may be considered to be two-way symmetrical (Grunig, 1992) as they take into account the public in communications; however they remain to clearly distinguish between organization and public and thus
From the diffusion models it would follow that, within the fashion industry, central notions such as ‘trend’ and ‘high-fashion’ are conceived by those in power and pushed
through the industry until it reaches a passive consumer market that cannot but desire and buy such trends. However:
‘are not organizational actors also busy in processes of sense making, attributing meaning, building networks of humans and non-humans, trying to close black boxes in order to stabilize data facts, mobilizing allies in translation processes,
and transforming the world by doing so?’ (Verhoeven, 2008: 12)
Indeed, it takes a diverse group of creative officers, buyers, stylists, magazines, bloggers and many more players in the fashion industry to communicate a trend down to consumer level (Entwistle, 2009). More so, many trends occur on an international level and can be found in various different, competing, businesses. Given these factors it becomes more and more unlikely that a single power has instigated and conceived of such a trend. More so, it does appear that clear divides and linear structures in the industry are also very limited. Therefore the notions of power and divide, and the communication models that explain it, are not quite satisfactory in explaining communication in the context of the fashion industry. The modern paradigm, and modern models of communications, may therefore be no longer relevant for it.
There is thus a need for a paradigm of sociality that allows the existence of aesthetics and aesthetic knowledge in the economy in order to create an encompassing understanding of the fashion industry. It is necessary to move away from the notion that the industry is either a completely economic, or completely creative, institution. Instead, the industry is much more personal, as Bourdieu (1984) has argued, and not a larger reflection of an institutionalized society and static communication processes as defined by the modern paradigm. The theory of
typically modern society, such as power, individualism, and market, have taken on extreme forms. ‘Is there anything that isn’t “hyper”? Is there anything now that does not reveal a modernity raised to the nth power?’ (Lipovetsky, 2005: 30). Therefore many of the previously described typically modern, or economic, aspects of the fashion industry are still present in this paradigm, but are found in an extreme form. More so, this paradigm not only allows but requires non-rational elements of social behaviour; making it compatible with fashion’s aesthetic side as well.
The hedonistic hypermodernity ‘incites everyone to satisfy their needs immediately, it stimulates their clamour for pleasure, idolizes self-fulfilment, and sets the earthly paradise of well-being, comfort and leisure on a pedestal’ (Lipovetsky, 2005: 37). This paradigm
therefore speaks of a number of things that are directly found in the fashion industry. First of all, an important aspect of hypermodernity is its constant innovation, growth and flexibility. ‘In hypermodernity, there is no longer any choice or alternative other than that of constantly developing, accelerating the movement’ (Lipovetsky, 2005: 34). Partly due to the fashion tradition and its need to be ‘original, cutting edge, fresh, leading, or hot’ (Hemphill & Suk, 2009: 1149) and due to the lack of copyright protection from the law, the fashion industry shows a nearly compulsive need for constant reinvention.
This then paves the way for hyper-narcissism and hyper-consumption; two concepts that go hand-in-hand. Hyper-narcissism explains a radical form of individualism in which a single person ‘called as never before to assert his autonomy in choosing political positions, moral values, products for consumption, and self-identificatory references’ (Charles, 2009: 393). There is no longer a sense of collectivism (albeit collective action may still occur): every aspect of life is very much centred on the individual. This then explains how society moved from a ‘capitalism of production to an economy of consumption’ (Lipovetsky, 2005: 36). Not only does the fast-moving hypermodernity cater to the needs of the individual to set
oneself apart from the masses, it also allowed for the role of the consumer to exponentially grow. The customer is no longer satisfied with the rational and objective presentation of the products, he seeks a ‘shopping experience’ (Brun & Castelli, 2008). The need for an aesthetic experience, or the idea that a consumption-experience is inherently sensation-driven, has become ever more important in a hypermodern society. So much so, that society today is a ‘society of fashion, restructured from top to bottom by the technologies of ephemerality, novelty, and permanent seduction’ (Lipovetsky, 2005: 36). More than that, in hypermodernity consumption is not a mere aspect of life, but is ‘a universe where to exist is to consume’ (Charles, 2009: 393).
The need for excess, constant reinvention and aesthetic experience that are fundamental to the dynamics of the fashion industry are void in a modern paradigm.
Hypermodernity thus offers a perspective in which the fashion industry is no longer merely an
economic institution but one in which aesthetics may, and should, take up a much larger role. This understanding is crucial because the fashion industry is driven by trends and notions of
taste (Entwistle, 2009; Bourdieu, 1984). Therefore understanding both the creative and
economic facets of the industry means understanding the aesthetics that connect the two. The exploration of aesthetic knowledge is therefore fundamental to a single understanding of the industry or even of a larger epistemology. More so, by choosing to consider the fashion industry from a hypermodern perspective its hyper-narcissism requires a focus on the individual, not on the industry at large. In other words, it is important to understand the fashion industry as a carefully constructed network between different people and their different types of (creative, economic and aesthetic) knowledge rather than as a typically modernist institutional given. This aspect of the hypermodern paradigm is called the
‘knowledge economy’ (Charles, 2009: 396): a network in which knowledge from all spheres of social life is circulating and constantly critiqued (Beck et al., 1994). Knowledge in the
fashion industry is certainly economic; it uses ‘formal mechanisms and devices, which are undoubtedly used to track and monitor sales’ (Entwistle, 2009: 129). Yet knowledge on fashion (at least within its own industry) exceeds the economic and is equally reliant on ‘incipient taste’ (Blumer, 1969) or the tacit knowledge of things not quite yet articulated or evident: trends. Within practice this knowledge is often referred to as ‘having an eye for’, putting ‘one’s finger on the pulse’, and ‘gut feeling’ (Entwistle, 2009). Therefore to view the fashion industry as a constructed network means to understand the fashion industry as a constant circulation, conflict and critique of and on aesthetic knowledge.
This means that the fashion industry is not an unmoving institution but rather a transient network that must continually evolve and reinvent itself. This is clearly seen in the output of the fashion industry (i.e. the collections for sale) which needs to be different, better, and reinvented every single season. This also applies to the network itself: it would not work if knowledge in it could not be continuously constructed, made, and re-made. In other words, the network is made up of social relations that need to be continuously performed by all the actors in the network in order for it to survive as a whole (Latour, 2005). The aesthetic knowledge that is so fundamental to the fashion industry’s dynamics is therefore not a static given: it is created and maintained by individuals within the industry who communicate and translate between the symbolic and the commercial. This means that a better understanding of the fashion industry, at least from a hypermodern perspective, hinges on a better
understanding of these individuals.
Bourdieu (1984) grouped these individuals under the label of ‘cultural intermediaries’: those engaged in ‘occupations involving presentation and representation (...) providing
symbolic goods and service’ (p.359). A number of occupations are set apart to fit into this category (e.g. marketing, public relations, fashion and more) which all to some extend can be
characterized as ‘jobs and careers [that] have not yet acquired the rigidity of the older bureaucratic professions’ (Bourdieu, 1984: 151). Yet the strength of this notion of cultural intermediaries lies not in its ability to set apart a number of occupations, but in the fact that it sets apart those workers that are in-between the creative artist and the consumer market. This approach ‘conceives of workers as intermediaries continually engaged in forming a point of connection or articulation between production and consumption’ (Negus, 2010: 503). More so, this articulation is inherently symbolic: ‘cultural intermediaries shape both use values and exchange values, and seek to manage how these values are connected with people’s lives’ (Negus, 2010: 504). Within the fashion industry this adding of symbolic value is clearly seen: no matter how artfully a piece of clothing is constructed, it does not become ‘high fashion’ or a ‘trend’ if people within the industry do not place it in top fashion stores alongside ‘hot’ fashion designers (Entwistle, 2009). The ultimate value (or the label ‘high-fashion’ or ‘trend’) is therefore not intrinsic to the product itself, but added when it passes through the fashion network. Professionals within the industry decide, from all the clothes and designers that are available each season, what constitutes a trend or gains the label ‘high-fashion’. It has even been argued that cultural intermediaries in some sense shape the product through placing it in a certain context (i.e. ‘high-fashion’ or not, ‘trend’ or not) that ultimately leads to a form of social knowledge that provides feedback to the design process (du Gay et al., 1997). There is thus tremendous power in the profession of the cultural intermediary both by shaping an economic market and by creating a certain social aesthetic knowledge.
However, there are several issues with this conceptualization. First and foremost, the notion of cultural intermediaries was placed in context of an argument of a new petite
bourgeoisie. The latter argues that society has moved into a particular hierarchy, where the
middle class has become increasingly dominant (Bourdieu, 1984). This is a problematic from a hypermodern paradigm given that in hypermodernity, arguably even in modernity itself (see
Laermans, 1996), social hierarchy is supposed to have ceased to exist. More so, in a
hypermodern society the individual takes centre stage, not the social class. Applying the term
cultural intermediary outside its original context may not be a problem except for the fact that
it is not quite able to stand on its own as such. First of all, the ‘cultural’ in cultural
intermediaries refers mainly to ‘representation, meaning, and the symbolic (...) whereas the
notion of culture as a “whole way of life” seems to be rather marginalized or forgotten’ (Negus, 2010: 504). Instead, the words ‘representation of’ and ‘providing meaning to the symbolic’ make up what in this thesis has been called the aesthetic, and as such is very much part of ‘culture’ but is not synonymous to it.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the term intermediaries is problematic outside its original context. It has been argued that an intermediary is ‘what transports meaning or force without transformation: defining its inputs is enough to define its output’ (Latour, 2005: 39). This means that an intermediary, in the strict sense of the word, would not be able to provide any additional aesthetic value to a product or design. Instead, this should be a central role to the function of the cultural intermediary as Bourdieu (1984) described it. Therefore it is more prudent to describe individuals in these functions as mediators. ‘Mediators transform, translate, distort, and modify the meaning or the elements they are supposed to carry’ (Latour, 2005: 39). Within fashion, providing an item or production with the label ‘high-fashion’ or ‘trend’ does increases the value of that item or production. More so, applying the term ‘trend’ to a style or design itself provides a particular meaning which makes these professionals individuals who constantly translate between creative production and the commercial market, and in doing so modify the notion of what is considered to be
beautiful. Within the hypermodern paradigm one can thus speak of aesthetic mediators who
occupy professions in-between production and consumption where aesthetic value is attributed to the products or designs.
The idea of a performing network and mediators that explain the dynamics of the fashion industry make this type of understanding very compatible with Bruno Latour’s actor network
theory (2005). Amongst many other things, the theory states that there is no single static
sociality (i.e. set of social rules) that organize social interaction. Instead, all facets of society and all social interaction have to be constantly constructed or performed through engagements and mediation. In other words, identities and qualities are defined in social interactions such as negotiation (Bardini, 1997), articulation (Negus, 2010) or translation (Latour, 2005). This makes the profession of the aesthetic mediator inherently communicative and does so in a radically different way than the modern diffusion models of communication. This may be better explained by Latour’s (2005) concept of translation: in this definition one of the main roles of the aesthetic mediator is found. Within the fashion industry the creative production is put into contact with the market through these aesthetic mediators, making them
indispensable in the process. Simultaneously, the network of the fashion industry is accepting of the role of the aesthetic mediator in the sense that they are legitimate actors to form
constructions of definitions and meanings (e.g. the seasonal and constant construction of what constitutes ‘trend’, ‘high-fashion’ or ‘beauty’). More so, this process ends in a situation where the individual objectives of those involved in the network (e.g. the designer and the
consumer) can be realized whilst the collective objective of conserving and reinventing the fashion industry as a whole is also accomplished.
This model of communication, translation, thus stands in stark contrast with its modern counterpart diffusion. Even though the theory speaks of an individual placing him- or herself in the centre of a certain interaction, power and influence is not exercised in this single interaction. Instead, the power of influence lies with each aesthetic mediator in the network to the extend in which there is no longer a single force but a number of people who may ‘modify
it, deflect it, betraying it, adding to it, or appropriating it’ (Latour, 1986: 267). This
communicative process therefore no longer fits into the previously mentioned communication models and moves into an entirely different model of its own: reflective communication. This type of communication management is described to be:
‘about maximizing, optimizing, or satisfying the process of meaning creating
using informational, persuasive, relational and discursive interventions to solve managerial problems by co-producing societal (public) legitimization’
(Van Ruler & Verčič, 2005: 263)
In conclusion it can be said that the observed dynamics of the fashion industry
provide an example in which the classic modern paradigm that is so dominant in society is no longer sufficient. Instead, the fashion industry is much better explained by a hypermodern paradigm that allows for the trend-driven, excessive and aesthetic side of the industry. A hypermodern understanding of not solely the fashion industry but also society at large can significantly expand the role of the communication professional in which communication is ever more a reflective translation of different types of knowledge. As such, the fashion industry provides not only an exciting window into the hypermodern society, but (true to its nature) a reinvention of the communication profession.
This research is conducted from a qualitative perspective: it seeks to understand meaning in events and, in this case, human interaction. The data gathered will be from the respondent’s point of view and within that will be very subjective. This is done on purpose because to make sense of how an individual attributes meaning to his or her own situation, it is of crucial importance to elaborate on how they view their world. In order to achieve a necessary level of validity this study will make use of sensitizing concepts to be constructed during the course of
the research; this is especially the case for concepts such as trends, aesthetics and translation. The data analysis demands a rigorous process in which these concepts are continuously tested and revised so that they make sense across the different data gathered.
Design: Within the aforementioned paradigm the following study is an exploratory
qualitative research into the process of aesthetic translation within the fashion industry and the consequential redesign of the communication profession. This study uses semi-structured interviews as the primary research approach but has also made use of participant observations within the main office of one of the largest and most acclaimed high fashion warehouses in the Netherlands. The observations served as a means of gathering context and clarity from which the interviews could be conducted and the resulting field notes make up a significant portion of the analyzed data. The remaining part of the data analyzed therefore consists of transcribed interviews and some additional notes made during these interviews. This was done to gather insight on the opinions and though-processes of these professionals which is central information with regards to answering the research question. From both these sources of data a content analysis has been made possible.
Sample::The sample consists a variety of professionals considered to work as aesthetic
mediators in the (high-) fashion industry (N=12) based on convenience sampling. This
method was chosen as the study is exploratory in nature and did not require a more rigorous method. The consideration as to which professionals fall within the aesthetic mediator category is based on the observations. As expected, these were most notably professionals working in the creative office, buying- or marketing department; or in other words individuals whose work revolved closely around trends. This means that the sample has a variety of gender, nationality, occupational, educational, cultural, and corporate background. Because of the intensity of the observational research method even such a small sample size has given
ample insight into the workings of the fashion industry, and the practice of aesthetic
translation within it. For a complete list of the sample and their specific professions please see section 1.1 of the appendix.
Investigative Technique: The techniques used to gather data from these respondents are both observations and semi-structured interviews. All professionals have been interviewed along roughly the same interview scheme, allowing for occasional clarification-questions and questions about observed behaviours that are not in the scheme. All interviews started with the question ‘what does your [respective job] entail?’ and ended with ‘how influential do you consider your work to be’. Both questions tried to both gain some contextual insight as well as to manoeuvre the respondent into thinking about his or her job from some distance. The remainder of the interview scheme was therefore quite reliant on what came up during the interview, and on what has come up in previous interviews. The questions were structured to enquire into the sensitizing concepts of trends, aesthetics and translation to gain insight into (intuitive) processes of aesthetic translation. For an oversight of questions asked please see section 1.2 of the appendix.
Data Collection: The observations and interviews have been conducted and
transcribed within the University of Amsterdam’s department of Communication Sciences as part of a master’s thesis. The author of this work was the single researcher on this study and has been trained in research methodologies as part of the master’s programme. The
observations have taken place during an ongoing internship in the main office of a high-fashion retailer (warehouse) in the Netherlands. Interviews took place with professionals either working at the company of the internship or working for other ‘high-end’ fashion companies or agencies (with the exception of one respondent, who worked at a school of arts). These took place in both private conference rooms available at the head quarters or
recorded and additional notes have been made by the interviewer. The interviews were conducted in an informal, open-ended and conversational manner and all lasted roughly one hour each. The recordings and additional notes have been put into a number of transcriptions which made up the data from which an analysis was possible.
Data Analysis: Because of the use of sensitizing concepts and the overall qualitative
nature of this study design there has been an ongoing literature review during the time of this study allowing for more materials for analysis. The gathered data has been analysed through the systematic methodology of grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Charmaz, 2006) meaning there were three levels of analysis. In the initial coding phase, or ‘open coding’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), several recurring themes and ideas were identified across the different data and categorized. These categories were then, in a second stage of coding or the ‘focused coding’ (Charmaz, 2006) or selective coding’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), compared and redistributed into an organized set of overall topics and themes (as explained in the
findings section, please find a detailed overview of relevant codes in section 1.3 of the
appendix). The final stage of coding, ‘selective coding’ (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) tied these overall themes and categories to the core theme of this research: aesthetic translation. This stage also provided an overview of relationships between categories, topics or variables (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). All coding has been done by hand due to the small sample size. Connections between the discovered categories have been crucial to furthering the understanding of the process and influence of aesthetic translation.
With regards to ensuring internal validity three measures were taking during the research phase of this study. Memo-writing (Charmaz, 2006) was an important first step in detecting biases at later stages in the coding process so that the data could be reconstructed in a more truthful manner. The second measure consisted of member checks (Guba, 1981): all interviews were summarized and send via email to the respondents so that they may comment
and correct on the data present. The final, and most prominent, measure to ensure internal validity was through extensive engagement (Guba, 1981) with subjects of study. The
internship that enabled data collection lasted throughout the analysis phase of this study. This enabled the author to continuously gauge whether the interpretations made were correct.
In order to answer the research question, especially pertaining to the first halve of the question ‘how do professionals in the fashion industry engage in aesthetic translation?’, it is pertinent to emphasize that the core category or theme of this section is the actual aesthetic translation. In other words, this section explains which conditions there are in order for the translation of creative or symbolic notions into commerciality to occur. Each condition is further explained in terms of the context in which they occur, the strategies that adhere to them and this section concludes in setting apart the overall consequences the process of aesthetic translation has (a visual overview is provided in figure 1 on page 28).
The core category of this study is the concept of aesthetic translation. As elucidated in the theoretical framework of this work, aesthetic translation pertains to the translation of abstract notions into commerciality. The observations have made clear that within the fashion industry in general, and in the retail business of warehouses in particular, this aesthetic translation is primarily found in, although not exclusive to, trend communication. This is a fairly abstract process as much of it is very subjective and contingent on the interpretation of the aesthetic mediator. However, trend communication was not considered to be abstract by those who practice it, as one respondent put it: ‘it is not abstract at all; it is rooted in observations and analysis’ (R.01, creative supervisor) as the information is taken from (visible and
lies in society and the movements that occur in politics, economics, science and the likes. The translation that occurs within the role of the aesthetic mediator is then to make use of these movements in a commercial way. Interestingly enough, three participants called this process
translation, however, words like ‘reinterpretation’ (R.05, creative supervisor) and ‘balancing’
(R.02, buyer) were also used relating to the same notion. Indeed, it appeared that all
respondents as well as many of the individuals observed considered themselves to occupy an in-between position. These respondents clearly identified notions of excitement, desire, and creativity on the one hand of their occupation, whilst ‘figures’ (R.04, buyer), sales and commerciality lay on the other side. Aesthetic translation, as such, was therefore a
fundamental part of their job and something they actively engage in on a dag-to-day basis. As the study progressed two conditions or categories central to the core concept of aesthetic
translation emerged: ‘the network’ and ‘change & development’. As these categories
continuously came to light from the data they were deemed conditional for aesthetic
translation to occur. In the remaining part of this section these two conditional categories are
further set apart to provide a closer insight into the architecture of aesthetic translation.
It has become quite clear that the fashion industry moves in a network, and that such a network is of great importance to the individuals moving in it. In observation it became clear that people took considerable care in learning each other’s names, and those of people in the industry. In the interviews that showed as well when respondents appeared to be hesitant towards calling direct colleagues, be it within the same company or in a similar function outside of it, their actual colleagues: ‘my colleagues…well, how would I call them? My friends, acquaintances’ (R.03, buyer). Ten out of twelve respondents also referred to the fashion industry as a ‘close community’ or ‘small world’. This indicates how tight knit the
industry truly is. In fact, this network is a condition without which aesthetic translation may not occur.
Creating Structure: Some context as to how this network operates can be found in the
creation of structure. Even though the network itself is remarkably tight-knit to the extend where no linear or even structured processes can take place, communications that pass
through do take shape and can even provide points of reference for players in the network that is paradoxically indicative of structure. As far as the unstructured, or rather transient, nature of the network goes all respondents were adamant that constant communication was of great importance even though three out of the four buyers mentioned that communicating with regard to the after-care was an ‘unfortunate’ (R.04), ‘time-consuming’ (R.03) or in any case ‘least favourite’ (R.02) part of their job. A similar sentiment was found amongst the creative supervisors. One stated that ‘I’d prefer to let go, but at this point the [organizational] structure won’t allow me to’ (R.01), indicating that her ideas were not finite and should be altered by other departments, but that there was not yet a way of ensuring that there would not be a complete dissociation with the initial idea and therefore constant feedback was necessary. Yet this constant communication and feedback that completely negated linear structures and logical execution of ideas also, paradoxically, provided somewhat of a framework or aesthetic
direction. The creative supervisor would provide their direct network (i.e. buying and
marketing departments) as well as the entire company (which included traditionally less creative departments such as finance and IT) with presentations with the direct aim to collectively inspire all who were present. As one creative supervisor poetically put it, she would ‘plant the seed’ (R.01) for the rest of the organization to work with, fully aware that her ideas are not yet fully crystallized or ‘too abstract to work with’ (R.09, category specialist). However some initial guidance was provided on where the company was moving not only aesthetically but as well with regard to its identity. It was up to other departments to ‘let the
seed grow’ (R.01, creative supervisor) by interpreting whatever direction was given by the creative supervisor in the context of their own network in both actual negotiations and by their own intuition.
360° View: Another point of context in which the fashion network operates is that all those moving in it, particularly those engaged in aesthetic translations, have a ‘360° view on how [their] business is’ (R.03, buyer). The Creative Supervisors both responded most passionately that they needed to continuously observe in the world around them, and constantly seek out inspiration. One respondent explained that:
‘you need to be aware of what happens in your demography, with regards to the economy, social-cultural development, technology, ecology and politics,
in order to find the trend’ (R.08, trend-researcher).
Although creative supervisors are arguably those most in touch with the observation and articulation of trends in society, they are not the only ones who engage in this 360° view. All respondents, as well as most people observed, expressed an avid preoccupation with what happened around them. Some called it inspiration, others influence, but all reported that such observation and reflection ‘never stops’ (R.04, buyer). It also became clear that such
preoccupation was not merely a character trait but a necessity for a good performance in the respective occupations of the respondents. Only by constant observation and negotiation of diverse topics as far reaching from ‘new ceramics’ (R.01, creative supervisor), ‘music festivals’ (R.03, buyer) to ‘outside the fashion shows’ (R.04, buyer) can one establish a feeling of what is going on in the network which makes one ‘aware of what’s coming up, what the next thing is’ (R.02, buyer). This is a crucial aspect of a good job performance as change and reinvention is ‘the nature of the industry’ (R.02, buyer; also R.06, trend-researcher and R.05, creative supervisor). None of the respondents, or anyone in the observations for that matter, proclaimed to have any direct influence on the considered
changes in trends and stressed that these were already there. This made this ability to be
influenced in order to notice the trends one of the most importance strategies in the arsenal of
the aesthetic mediator, especially as only after noticing the trend is one capable of playing into such movement.
A second condition that needs to be in place in order for aesthetic translation to occur is an environment in which change and development are considered to be central to the business. The business is constantly changing as per nature of the fashion industry, and the retail or warehouse industries within it. In fact, it changes so rapidly that most of the respondents have to work quite some time in advance. All buyers worked two seasons, or a year, in advance in order to get the product into the stores in time for the season. The creative supervisors worked even further in advance just so they could provide direction to the buyers before they went out on their buys. As such a certain organizational culture has advanced in which change and development have become central to both the industry and those who have to actively engage in change on a daily basis.
Reflection: The first context in which change and development occurs is in one of
abundant reflection. In order to make change happen, or in order to instigate development, constant reflection on the business is needed. Indeed, not only did respondents report to be ‘constantly on’ (R.04, buyer) with regard to making observations in their environment, these observations are directly applied in reflections upon the business. At the more commercial end of the business, in as far one can indicate such a linear structure, the members of the e-commerce team all indicated looking closely at what competing web shops were doing and adjusting the website, for which they are responsible, accordingly. In addition, in other levels of the organization the same principle applies. All departments scheduled a large amount of meetings each season, these included meetings with the affiliated brands and internal
meetings about creative direction, budget, and strategy which included participation of other departments as well. In these meetings many issues are literally negotiated that directly relate to business strategy, and ultimately to the organizational identity itself. To illustrate:
All buyers reported a similar situation, one in which an actual conversation happens in which creative decisions needed to be justified from a business perspective. Because of such
constant, visible, and desired negotiations between the creative and the commercial there is a continuous adaptation of strategy within the organization. More so, in each negotiation a
reflection on identity of the organization is always present either by the creative supervisor or
other management in the organization. Even though a warehouse buys into brands, they remain to hold high standards for their own business and its identity. ‘Maybe something is a really good brand but it is no longer a fit with [the organization], so we’ll discontinue that brand’ (R.03, buyer). In the e-commerce team such awareness of brand identity was observed to be always present as well ‘we’re supposed to be premium, so I make sure my photography and designs are premium as well’ (R.10, online designer).
Authenticity: Another pivotal part of the context in which change and development
occurs with regards to aesthetic translation is authenticity. In overwhelming agreement all respondents reported in some shape or form that in today’s society ‘marketing is a thing of the past’ (R.01, creative supervisor), ‘if you want to survive as a business you need to
communicate substance’ (R.05, trend-researcher) and ‘people need to see a story and the image that corresponds to it’ (R.04, buyer). Nine out of the twelve respondents mentioned a move of society in which organizational honesty is valued more than ever. Development of an organization was not deemed possible by ‘mere branding’ (R.05, creative supervisor) as it was
considered to be empty storytelling. Instead, the general consensus was that an organization should only on a secondary level look to play into the needs and desires of their specific target group, but should primarily focus on what is going on in society at large and find its own part to play in such movements. Staying true to one’s own identity, buying collections ‘in the DNA of the brand’ (R.03, buyer) and general substantiation of communication in terms of organizational values appeared to be key to change and development. More so, again, none of the respondents considered themselves to have absolute influence over other parties in the network, or the customer market. The trend, or in other words the new idea or change, is considered by all respondents to be already out-there in existence. The consensus amongst all respondents is that the customer will recognize and want a trend on their own merit, and will consequentially bring about change. All influence the organization has, no matter the
department one is in, is in ‘allowing [the customer] to buy into the trend’ (R.02, buyer).
New Interpretations:A final, and rather imperative, part of the change and
development context is one of new interpretations. ‘I am constantly looking for inspiration, and constantly re-interpreting that into communication themes’ (R.05, creative supervisor). As the industry moves in faster fashions, literally, so do all the aesthetic mediators involved. This has resulted in the fact that these mediators, and many more within the industry at large, work a number of seasons in advance. ‘Autumn ’14, even though it’s about to start, for us is history, it’s done’ (R.02, buyer). As such, there is a complete lack of data on which decisions can be based:
As such, a significant portion of the aesthetic mediator’s role is forecasting. Which means that intuition, or ‘gut feeling’ (R.07, buyer) becomes ever more central. Although the six
respondents who mentioned intuition were also clearly able to justify making decisions based on it. They make use of informed intuition, ‘last season’s numbers’ (R.03, buyer), ‘years of experience’ (R.01, creative supervisor), ‘knowing the market’ (R.04, buyer), ‘distinguishing between trends and hypes’ (R.02, buyer; also R.06, trend-researcher) and ‘the street’ (all respondents) are all reported sources of information that influence the aesthetic mediator in a way that aids and guides them in making, and justifying, creative decisions.
A second part of the new interpretations context is the concept of newness. ‘The first question [the assistant chairman] asks after the presentation of the new season is “how much is new?”’ (R.02, buyer). This focus on looking ahead and instigating change is inherent to the business and the market it operates in:
Because of such information flow in society it becomes pertinent to surprise the customer in order to incite desire in him or her. One respondent mentioned that one of the worst things that could happen in her occupation was for her work to be considered boring (R.03). All respondents agreed that providing a high level of excitement would increase sales: ‘I bought a crazy pair of Louboutins I knew were never going to sell, but I bought one pair and put it into the shop window because that is what brings people into the store’ (R.07, buyer). All buyers reported on having made a similar decision in driving or ‘shouting about’ (R.02, buyer) certain brands and products that excite and surprise. The creative supervisors also mentioned the importance of newness in their occupation, albeit it appeared in a slightly different form. The main goal of the creative supervisors was to excite and surprise inside the company, which had less to do with desire and more with inspiration. ‘You need to know how to inspire
even those less creative, which means you need to be even more creative and energetic in your own communication’ (R.01, creative supervisor; also R.06, trend-researcher). During observations many of these creative communications have been taken apart: presentations with loud music, videos and pictures of people and patterns talked together by the creative supervisor. Within the industry, a similar thing occurs during the fashion shows: ‘there is a certain kind of mood or atmosphere... it’s glamour but creative... it’s a show’ (R.11, magazine editor). All to the result of inspiring those aesthetic mediators within the industry, so that they may make new interpretations which turn inspiration into commercial desire.
Figure 01: a visual overview of the core concept, its conditions and their respective context and strategies
Upholding a constant balance between creativity or intuition and commerciality that is
indicative of aesthetic translation is not a recurring process in the fashion industry that merely
is or came about by chance. Engaging in aesthetic translation happens extremely deliberate in
all organizational levels, and outside of it. Businesses need to ‘go along in the hectic nature of the market’ (R.12, stylist) in order to survive. As three respondents immediately explained:
because society and the market are moving so fast, there is an ever growing need to know what is going to happen in the future, and a need to anticipate future misfortunes. Business with a strong network of aesthetic mediators, mostly identified by the appointment of a creative supervisor integrated in the organizational structure (R.06, trend-researcher), can ‘keep its credits’ (R.01, creative supervisor) and ‘maintain its position’ (R.06, trend-researcher) when times get bad. More so, the creative input from the aesthetic mediating network can greatly aid ‘storytelling’ (R.01, creative supervisor) and as such incite the desire in a consumer market which will increase not only sales but also reputation: ‘you have to create an image’ (R.04, buyer). Yet paramount to the process of aesthetic translation is that it enables constant adaptation to change which ‘ensures that you [as a business] will in the future still be relevant’ (R.06, trend researcher).
The central question of this thesis was divided in two parts in which the first halve stated (1) ‘how do professionals in the fashion industry engage in aesthetic translation’. As carefully set apart in the previous section, many strategies and several facets of the context and conditions have been found concerning aesthetic translation. As Lipovetsky (2005) has theorized, the fashion industry has moved into a state of hypermodernity: the desire for seduction and inspiration by both the consumer market and those within the industry itself on the one hand, yet the protection of the business and commerciality on the other, provide an environment in which translation between the two is continuously necessary. The way in which professionals engage in this aesthetic translation is by constructing a transient network and by prioritizing change and development within their work. By means of constant negotiation and feedback within the network, and by constant adaptation of business strategy, substantiated
inspiring and not quite yet articulated or evident notions (Entwistle, 2009) into commercial gain.
However, how these practices aid our understanding of the current role and future impact of aesthetic knowledge in society, as is the second halve of the central question in this work, is an entirely different deliberation. The integration of which respondents spoke shines some light on the current role of aesthetic knowledge. Aesthetic knowledge, and aesthetic mediators, may be accepted within the fashion industry but certainly remain to be subject to severe prejudice from outside the fashion industry. Especially with regards to the creative supervisors, who have been called trend-watchers, futurologists, forecasters and many more titles, there is no clear definition of what such a profession might entail. What has become clear is that these professionals are able to provide aesthetic guidance to establish a consistent organizational image and identity whilst enabling the organization to adapt to societal and market changes as they occur. Consequentially, businesses may not only make more money due to an enhanced image and reputation, or be able to survive in turbulent times, but also are ensured some form of future relevance. Especially the latter is of crucial importance to businesses in a hypermodern society as their organizational environment is rapidly changing. As a result of such change it is no longer enough to be occupied with the customer and target audience of the moment, but it is pivotal that businesses keep in mind the future customer and their needs or desires.
At this point in time it appears that there are very few places in which creative
supervisors uphold a high-level position within the organization and in which an aesthetically mediating network is in place. Although recently traditionally less creative organizations have taken it upon themselves to hire creative supervisors who ensure some change and
development, there remains a lack of an aesthetically mediating network. As such, the influence of the creative supervisor is very limited. Latour (2005) provides three stages of
interaction through which translation occurs. In the first stage the aesthetic mediator establishes him- or herself in-between an interaction. The second stage of translation
interessement involves the acceptance of the aesthetic mediator by others in the network
(Callon, 1986) which then leads to a third stage of enrolment in which individual and
collective objectives are simultaneously pursued (Bardini, 1997). However, a single creative supervisor without a network may never be able to fully engage in aesthetic translation because the organizational environment is still, in essence, modern: a clear divide is formed between creative decision-making and strategic decision-making (Wilson, 2009) which is, mildly put, problematic for aesthetic translation to take place as both processes of decision-making need to occur at the same time. In order to gain the benefits of aesthetic translation it is imperative that a solid network is in place in which the creative supervisor is not only accepted, and their aesthetic knowledge taken into account, but also in which all individuals in the network recognize each other’s value and actively engage in adding new information into their own work processes. The only way in which this may happen is when such a creative network is fully integrated into the business.
Not just the integrated aesthetic network is central to aesthetic translation. So is the acceptance of words such as ‘beauty’ and ‘taste’ as valid argumentation. Against all modern reasoning, these concepts are not measurable nor backed up by vast data due to the changing nature of the industry, which makes them entirely uncomfortable to many individuals in modern business (Schmitt et al., 1995). In hypermodernity, however, these concepts are central as part of a desire for seduction (Lipovetsky, 2005). Also, aesthetic translation revolves around integrating both these abstract concepts of ‘beauty’ and ‘taste’ with commerciality. As has become abundantly clear, aesthetic mediators are not merely preoccupied with notions of abstraction but constantly gauge how the business can be
However, the deep understanding that business is driven by showcasing beautiful products, and that employees may be driven and guided through aesthetically pleasing information is one that may be lacking in modern business. Therefore the notion that ‘beauty’ as such is
superficial (Schmitt et al., 1995) no longer applies in a hypermodern society and even
becomes central to hypermodern communications.
The future of aesthetic knowledge is thus dependent on whether one concurs with Lipovetsky (2005), Negus (2010) and Latour (2005) in that hypermodernity and the formation of actor-networks are inevitable. If more businesses will move into hypermodernity and appoint aesthetic mediators through whom an integrated network of aesthetic knowledge is put in place, communication as it is now known will drastically change. Traditional models of information, persuasion, relation, discourse (Ruler & Verčič, 2005) and even the two-way symmetrical model (Grunig, 1992) will be entirely reinterpreted as tools used for a more reflective communication. As aesthetic knowledge takes centre stage within the organization, strategic communication in organizations will become more inspirational and aesthetically pleasing; the image, reputation and identity of the organization will strengthen as it becomes desirable to the consumer market; and above all, knowledge will be continuously ‘modified, deflected, betrayed, added to, and appropriated’ (Latour, 1986: 267) as it passes through the network leading to knowledge that may even foresee some of the future.
As the communication profession has become ever more bureaucratic and subject to absolute rationality in these times of modernity, notions of beauty and creativity have slowly been demoted to being ‘superficial’. However as society is moving into an age of hypermodernity a necessity of applying these notions into communication has emerged. Close observations and interviews within the fashion industry have shown that this hypermodern means of
communication, or aesthetic translation, is dependent on the establishment of a performing network: a structure in which knowledge is constantly critiqued, analysed and reinterpreted. A second condition of aesthetic translation is the focus on change and development, through which a reflective and authentic type of communication can emerge, whilst change and ‘newness’ is continuously anticipated and forecasted. The future of communication may, due to hypermodernity, be radically different from how we conceive of communication today. This is the age of reflective communication: one in which models of information, persuasion and discourse may all be used, as long as it is done so in a reflective manner. As aesthetic
translation becomes the standard means of strategic communication, business may not only
remain their position and survive in the hectic hypermodernity, it may be assured that it will still be relevant in the rapidly approaching future.
Due to the exploratory nature of this research only a start has been made into mapping out the process of aesthetic translation and the role of aesthetic mediators. In order to provide some insight on the subject it was not deemed necessary to engage with (and study) a large sample size. This also had to do with the time constraints put in place by the master’s programme. Although the study was able to speak with key aesthetic mediators in the industry, there are many occupations mentioned by other respondents to be of relevance: bloggers, stylists, (more than one) magazine editor and marketing professionals unfortunately have not been able to take part in this particular study but should certainly be considered in future studies on
aesthetic translation.
As argued by Negus (2010) it would also be possible to consider traditionally less creative occupations such as accountancy or, as emerged from this research, planners as aesthetic mediators. They indeed take up an influential seat in the dynamic linking of
production with consumption. However, this study decided to exclude those occupations as it clearly defined the aesthetic mediator as one who should fundamentally add aesthetic value in his or her work process. Even though the accountant might decide which artistic products are invested in, and therefore which products make it to the consumer market, there is no
additional symbolic context attributed to the product. In fashion, only a number of professions can attribute symbolic and non-measurable labels. Future research should remain to make this distinction.
A final note needs to be made about terminology used in this paper. Because of the new field of trend-watching, and the indecisive terminology used within it, it was necessary to provide a set of labels as ‘aesthetic’ and ‘commercial’ to make a clear statement. Great care was taken in choosing the terminology, and in explaining it throughout the work. However, it may be that in future research this terminology is found to be problematic. Especially
regarding the word aesthetic. This research is fully aware that there is a passionate debate in arts, philosophy and academics about a correct interpretation of it. This study follows the definition as provided by Zangwill (2010) as it fits best with the intended definition of the term but cannot claim to have found an absolute definition of the term and realizes that it is something very much open for discussion.
This work is intended as an introduction to the world of aesthetic translation and is by no means finite or conclusive. However, it does hope to provide some inspiration into an emerging field of study. As such, aesthetic translation provides not only an exciting window into the hypermodern society, but (true to its nature) a reinvention of the communication profession.
Allen, D.E., & Anderson, P.F. (1994). "Consumption and Social Stratification: Bourdieu's Distinction". Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 21, eds. Chris T. Allen and Deborah Roedder John, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 70-74. Bardini, T. (1997). “Bridging the Gulfs: From Hypertext to Cyberspace”. Footnote 3. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(2), 1083-6101.
Barthes, R. (1984). The Fashion System. Matthew Ward & Richard Howard (Trans.). New York, USA: Hill & Wang.
Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization. Politics, tradition and
aesthetics in the modern social order. London, UK: Polity Press.
Blumer, H. (1969). “Fashion: From Class Differentiation to Collective Selection”. Sociological Quarterly, 10, 275-291.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Brun, A. & Castelli, C. (2008). ‘Supply chain strategy in the fashion industry: Developing a portfolio model depending on product, retail channel and brand’. International Journal
of Production Economics, 116, 169-181.
Callon, M. (1986). “The sociology of an actor-network”. In M. Callon, J. Law, & A. Rip (Eds.). Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology. London: Macmillan, 19-34. Charles, S. (2009). ‘For Humanism amid Hypermodernity: From a Society of Knowledge to a Critical Knowledge of Society’. Axiomathes, 19, 389-400.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative
analysis. London: SAGE Publications.
Danzinger, P. (2006). The Pop Equation: What Makes a Shop that Pops!. Chicago, USA: Dearborn Trade Publishing.
Davies, R. & Sigthorsson, G. (2013). Introducing the Creative Industries. London: Sage Publications.
Deetz, S.A. (1997). “Communication in the age of negotiation”. Journal of Communication, 47(4), 118-134.
Du Gay, P., Hall, S., Janes, L., Mackay, H., & Negus, K. (1997). Doing Cultural Studies: The
Story of the Sony Walkman. London: Sage.
Entwistle, J. (2009). The Aesthetic Economy of Fashion: markets and value in clothing and
modelling. Oxford, UK: Berg Publishers.
Grunig, J.E. (1992). Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management.
Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Guba, E.G. (1981). ‘Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Naturalistic Inquiries’. Educational Communication and Technology, 29(2), 75-91.
Hemphill, C.S. & Suk, J. (2009). ‘The Law, Culture and Economics of Fashion’. Stanford
Law Review, 61, 1147-1200.
Inglehart, R. (2001). Sociological theories of modernization. In Smelser, N. J. (Ed.), & Baltes, P.B. (Ed), International Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences (pp. 9965- 9971). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Keller, K.L. (2009). ‘Managing the growth trade-off: challenges and opportunities in luxury branding’. Journal of Brand Management, 16, 290-301.
Laermans, R. (1996). “We kunnen ons geen ander alternatief voorstellen: Luhmanns analyse van de moderne maatschappij”. Tijdschrift voor Sociologie, 17(2), 145-161.
Latour, B. (1986). “The Powers of Association” in J. Law (Ed.) Power Action and Belief:
A New Sociology of Knowledge?. The Sociological Review Monograph. London:
Routledge, 264-280.
Oxford: Oxford UP.
Lipovetsky, G. (2005). Hypermodern Times: Themes for the 21st century. Hoboken, NJ, USA:
Wiley.
Maloney, K. (2005). “Trust and Public Relations: center and edge”. Public Relations Review, 31(4), 550-555.
Negus, K. (2010). “The Work of Cultural Intermediaries and the Enduring Distance between Production and Consumption”. Cultural Studies, 16(4), 501-515.
Porter, S.S., & Claycomb, C. (1997). ‘The Influence of Brand Recognition on Retail Store Image’. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 6(6), 373-387.
Ray, L., & Sayer, A. (1999). “Introduction” in Culture and Economy after the Cultural Turn,
London: Sage Publications.
Ruler, van B. and Verčič, D. (2005). ‘Reflective communication management, future ways for Public Relations research’. International Communication Association, 29, 239- 273. Retrieved from http://195.130.87.21:8080/dspace/bitstream/123456789/534/1/Reflective20
Communication%20Management_a%20Public%20View%20on%20Public%20 Relations.pdf
Schmitt, B.H., Simonson, A., & Marcus, J. (1995). “Managing Corporate Image and Identity”. Lone Range Planning, 28(5), 82-92.
Sommerville, I. (1999). “Agency versus Identity: Actor-Network-Theory Meets Public Relations”. Corporate Communications, 4(1), 6-14.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J.M. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage Publications.
Verhoeven, P. (2008). ‘Who is in and who is out? Studying the effects of communication management on social cohesion’. Manuscript in preparation, Journal of
Communication Management, 12, 124–135.
Wilson, N. (2009). “Learning to Manage Creativity: An Occupational Hazard for the UK’s Creative Industries”. Creative Industries Journal, 2(2), p179-190.
Zangwill, N. (2010). “Aesthetic Judgement”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Judgement. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetic-judgment/
The sample consists of twelve individuals working closely with trends, and as such are constantly intermediating between abstract notions of ‘high-fashion’, ‘hot’, and ‘on-trend’ with commercial effectiveness. Based on convenience sampling most respondents were found at the same institution as the observations took place, but some were found in relevant
professions through the researcher’s network. Below is a list of the professions and an indication of the corresponding company for each of the numbered respondents.
R.01. Creative Supervisor Own company / premium warehouse
R.02. Head of Buying men’s jeans and trend Premium warehouse
R.03. Head of Buying women’s trend Premium warehouse
R.04. Head of Buying women’s sportswear &
casual
Premium warehouse
R.05. Creative Supervisor Creative Agency
R.06. Teacher & Researcher Trends School of Arts
R.07. Head of Buying High-fashion shoe store
R.08. Trend Researcher Independent Trend-agency
R.09. Category Specialist (e-commerce) Premium warehouse
R.10. Online Designer (e-commerce) Premium warehouse
R.11. Magazine Editor Creative Agency
