Search News


Browse Archives

News

Fashion School Cat Fights

July 19, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Even gold-laced couture would seem cheap compared to the multi-faceted rewards that Parsons the New School for Design has received since the Bravo television network started taping episodes of its wildly popular reality show, "Project Runway," three seasons ago on the chic campus in New York City.

Not only has visibility increased -- with commercials for Parsons and the New School, the university that the former Parsons School of Design joined in 1970, interspersed throughout each program -- but so has the enrollment and quality of the fashion program overall, according to Tim Gunn, chair of the Department of Fashion Design at Parsons. He became an instant celebrity after producers with the show decided to cast him as a consultant to the aspiring contestants who battle each week with their intense sewing machine skills -- and intense personalities to match -- to become the latest fashion-forward new kid on the block.

“I’m incredibly proud to be part of it,” says Gunn, in his classic, deeply-intoned “make it work” voice. “I was a little dubious in the beginning -- I thought that our students might think it was fun, but I worried that a reality show could sell out our industry.” The next episode of the season airs tonight at 10 p.m. EDT.

 

The former dean of Parsons, Randy Swearer, who’s now a consultant on higher education issues, shared some of those initial trepidations. At one point, Swearer told Gunn that the fashion design department was “entirely too overexposed.” Gunn’s response: “This industry is entirely too overexposed.”

Still, the questions continued: “What do we want the image of our institution to be?” Swearer recalls asking Gunn. “Will the school’s image get distorted?”

Some professionals at competing institutions are still asking similar questions, while Gunn and crew laugh all the way to the bank -- of industrial sewing machines. Enrollment in the fashion department is expected to be 540 for this fall, an increase of nearly 100 percent over just a few short years ago. Officials with Parsons say that the resources are there to support the increased demand and that the fashion department is the most profitable division at The New School.

Gunn, who shares plenty of airtime with the show’s host, supermodel Heidi Klum, says that the president of one competing program has implied to industry colleagues that Parsons was second choice to that institution for hosting the show. "I knew full well" that wasn't the case, Gunn recalls with a hearty laugh. He also says that competing institutions have tried to go directly to Bravo to try to steal the program.

“There is always a kind of envy out there,” says Gunn of the institution’s competitors. “What is this industry, if not competitive?”

The buzz-loving Gunn also revels over the increased attention Parsons has received in both the world of higher education and in the fashion industry. “All you used to read about was Fashion Institute of Technology, Fashion Institute of Technology, Fashion Institute of Technology,” he says. “I was determined to leave them in our dust.”

Joanne Arbuckle, assistant chair of fashion design with the Fashion Institute of Technology, says that she’s seen "Project Runway" a few times, but doesn’t see it as anything more than entertainment. “When it boils down to it, it’s just a TV show,” she says, indicating that enrollment in her institution’s fashion programs had been increasing long before "Project Runway" ever hit the runway. About 250 enroll as freshman each year at the institution.

Arbuckle also says that the drama portrayed by dueling divas on the program neglects to highlight the “wonderful teamwork environment” of the higher education experience.

Figures gathered by the National Association of Schools of Art and Design, an accrediting body for fashion departments and institutions, indicate that fashion enrollment is at an all-time high in the U.S., and increasing numbers of non-art focused institutions are beginning fashion and design programs.

Gunn admits that there is a wave of fashion popularity – a “fashion renaissance,” he calls it – but he says that people shouldn’t deemphasize the impact that "Project Runway" is having with today’s students.

Tim Marshall, the dean of Parsons, says it’s hard to pinpoint which came first -- "Project Runway" or increased fashion school interest from students. “Yes, we were already growing before the show,” he says. “But I think there’s been an interesting ripple effect.”

Even far removed from the competitive atmosphere of New York City, academics of fashion say that the program has had an influence on many students.

“The show has helped make fashion very, very popular,” says Donna Reamy, assistant chair of the fashion department at Virginia Commonwealth University. “I think there’s always been an interest in fashion from the aspect of glamour, but now students are really interested in constructing their own designs.”

Reamy believes the program is excellent at showing the process of creating clothes is not all that easy. “Students are seeing the nitty-gritty of our industry like they never could before,” she says.

Does she wish that Heidi Klum and Tim Gunn might one day take a trip out to Virginia for a future episode of "Project Runway"? “Sure,” she laughs. “They can ‘make it work’ here anytime.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Fashion School Cat Fights

  • Posted by kim on April 30, 2009 at 7:30am EDT
  • I've found all the seasons of the show - http://file.sh/Project+Runway+torrent.html . Hope you'll enjoy watching them as I do.

  • Posted by Larry on July 19, 2006 at 7:30am EDT
  • Ah, I get it. Full-tuition folks that like clothes pay the bills at New School.

  • fashion
  • Posted by Cindy on July 19, 2006 at 8:30am EDT
  • I didn't realize that anybody actually went to school to learn how to design "clothing" that barely covers the skin, sets -- and, yes, set is the word I intend here -- on top of your pelvic bone, or lower, reveals way more than anybody decent wants to see, including rolls of flab, and for the most part looks good only on anorexic models. Rather than debating whether fashion schools are getting too much exposure, why not tell somebody in those schools that the emperor is the one with too much exposure, and that he has no clothes?

  • some anger issues?
  • Posted by anonymous on July 19, 2006 at 9:55am EDT
  • Why are the other comments disregarding that fashion is a legit art form? According to Ann Hollander's thesis, it has a lot to do with the moving of fashion from a men's art to a woman's hobby between the 1700's and 1900's. But isn’t that silly of me, to consult a scholar about something as trite as a multi billion dollar art industry?!

    Fashion school teaches the same things any art school teaches: the principles of design, refining your eye, knowing color, balance, etc.
    But then add to it the technical knowledge: how to sew, how to draft patterns (a very difficult skill that involved more math then any other art school student needs), learning to synthesize current events and trends into relevant choices, how to run a business . . . the list is endless.

    I congratulate Tim Gunn and Bravo on bringing so much positive press to one of the fashion powerhouse schools. They actually took the time to create a show that uses real working professionals instead of sexy teenagers. In the process of having a good time, they manage to raise the bar for reality TV (I don't think any contestants have had sex on air on this show, that’s a first for reality TV) and they have brought positive press to parsons. Keep up the good work, Mr. Gunn.

  • Meow
  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on July 19, 2006 at 9:55am EDT
  • So far, the cattiness is coming from reader comments. How about some civility?

  • People hate fashion
  • Posted by Larry on July 19, 2006 at 10:35am EDT
  • Hoosier Prof, The comments here have never been a bastion of civility. When people speak of Ward Churchill or anything vaguely political, it becomes a boxing match, and no amount of academic pretense will stop the matches.

    But, let me lay it on the line. A lot of people detest fashion. People think it is just a sport of hobby of spoiled girls and catty gay men. While I disagree with Cindy regarding the showing of flesh (I think it is good), she does seem to show the anger that most people bear towards this industry.

  • access to the fashion process
  • Posted by christine at MIT Media Lab on July 19, 2006 at 11:45am EDT
  • i think the kind of dirty behind-the-scenes access 'project runway' affords goes hand in hand with the rapid time-collapse of the internet. we get instant footage from olympus fashion week (live video!). new designer spreads and collections can be revealed instanteously to consumers with network access. you can pull up conversations about any dress from any given designer; plus, throw in a model's life story for good measure. granted there is a level between industry and consumer, but the immediate knowledge of change of fashion is getting more and more rapid as electronic content parallels the speed of the creative process.

    add only this the hundreds of user-created blogs, email lists, and media coverage of fashion events and shows like project runway, and you really can understand the palpable drive for consumers to get involved in the details of fashion.

    i therefore believe one strong factor to the 'fashion renaissance' is this information immediacy. to see it all transpire in front of you is undeniably seductive.

    {and tim, heidi, project runway producers: if you're reading this, thank you so much for supporting and publicizing passionate, creative, vision-driven designers!}

  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on July 19, 2006 at 11:45am EDT
  • Perhaps that is your personal experience, Larry, but I disagree with you that "everyone does it." In fact, many readers attempt to raise the tone and level of the discourse in IHE. Fortunately, anonymity does not ALWAYS breed incivility.

  • Mrh?
  • Posted by Jen on July 19, 2006 at 2:55pm EDT
  • Hi folks! I'm an entering freshman into FIT and I did look at Parsons and FIT before applying to FIT. Parsons is MEGA expensive. $45,000+ for a year, because its a private shcool. For FIT, for me, and Out of state, its $22,000 for everything including room, board, and meal plan cause its a state unviersitty. There have been bigger names coming out of Parsons, Proenza Schoeler, TOm FOrd, Badgely Mischka etc, and being from Parsons carries a lot of prestige, but FIT just seems more focused on being able to make a living out of the industry.

    Kara Saun, Daniel Vosovic and Chloe Dao have all be FIT grads. Look at the Runway designers and where they graduated from, and you can see a difference in design aesthetics.

    Whee my 2 cents.

  • of clothes and discourse
  • Posted by Larry88 on July 19, 2006 at 3:00pm EDT
  • Hoosier, I am not saying that “everyone” does it, but despite being a moderated form that is ostensible populated by academics, whenever someone’s political ox is being gored the daggers come out. This would normally be the end of the story, but there is more.

    What is a “low level” of discourse to some is rhetoric to another. For instance, if I condemn someone for not reading a text they refer to (which, I think demonstrates a complete lack of character), is this lowering the level of conversation, or must I pretend that someone, who, say, refers to a non-existent USA Patriot Act without having read it (and refuses to provide specifics) should be treated with kid gloves and their argument should be propped up as being somehow legitimate?

    Indeed, it seems that a good handful of PhDs seem quite resentful of legal arguments on legal matters, and think that anyone with a legal background is somehow lacking in character. Maybe they are right. But, under your proposed framework, such a conclusion is unacceptable.

    Or, in more general terms, what good is it to treat people with respect in an academic community who don’t conform to the most basic rules of discourse: e.g. citation, specifics, and non-conclusory statements.

    Now, I am sure that the proponents of fashion-education will take it as a personal offense if people call their a waste of time and energy, since a lot of it is purely subjective and speaks in terms of what is “pretty” or “hip.” But, to many academics (even
    soft-siders”) making pretty clothes without explaining why they are objectively pretty is a waste.

  • Yikes!
  • Posted by Theresa on July 19, 2006 at 4:05pm EDT
  • In response to some of these comments (especially the second one) I would like to point out that in the student-fashion communities the *covered-up* look is becoming increasingly more chic and desired. I live in Providence, RI and attend the Rhode Island School of Design (RISD) final fashion show at the end of each year, and have not witnessesed anything of the sort of "nakedness" that you fume about.

    I think in the general public there is also an opinion that runways show skimpy little ridiculous outfits, and though that was true in the late 90's, I wouldn't say that's true today.

  • Posted by Hoosier Prof on July 19, 2006 at 4:05pm EDT
  • Larry -- I'd be thrilled if IHE readers limited their criticisms of their peers to matters of accuracy, correct attribution and grammar. But that's not the case -- and that's not what I was referring to. So many IHE postings are laden with personal biases, prejudices, values and intolerances. These comments are not civil, in my book, and they are not the norm for academic discussion.

    So, sorry, I don't have to accept them: they waste my time as a reader, they don't advance the debate, and they are gratuitous and irrelevant, reflecting only whatever "-ism" the poster is afflicted with (sexism, racism, homophobism).

    I'm not too proud to identify my own brand of intolerance: I have a low level of tolerance for posters who cannot restrain themselves from responding to comments that they find lacking in sense, grammar or accuracy with attacks of a personal nature.

    Everyone else: I realize that both Larry and I are getting a little off-topic, but I'd be very interested in hearing from others about the difference between "civility" and "incivility" in our IHE discussions, and where we should draw the line.

  • Posted by ivy on July 20, 2006 at 8:25am EDT
  • Many of you are showing your ignorance of fashion and design education. Designers aren't all Stella McCartney or John Galliano. Somebody had to design your granny panties that are all in a bunch or your Old Navy mom jeans. Fashion design is incredibly technical. Do you know a lot of patterns and designs (ie knit designs) are drafted with Autocad? It's sad that some of you won't put away your ill-informed stereotypes and accept what fashion design really is. The skills that the majority of contestents have on PR are incredible. Would any of you have the technical skills to sew a well-tailored coat? I didn't think so.

  • Posted by Larry on July 20, 2006 at 11:00am EDT
  • Ivy, Perhaps we are all ignorant of fashion. I will say that I know that there are a lot of rank-a-file fashion-makers out there designing not-so-glamorous clothes. But, these programs don’t seem to talk about these professions at all. Whether or not we have the technical skills to make a coat is irrelevant, but I wonder if one requires a 4-year degree to do what was normally taught in an apprenticeship.

    Hoosier, I generally agree with everything that you are saying, except I have one philosophical quibble: everyone has personal biases. Many people (even in academe) are racist, sexist, and/or homophobic. Even people that claim not to be. So, I think we all have prejudices. Further, many non-anonymous academic discussions are conducted in a form where 1) everyone has the same biases and prejudices; and 2) department politics, rather than pure dignity limit personal attacks.

    Instead, a better solution is to require specifics, so that an “irrational” hatred or a bias can be easily pointed out.

  • Posted by Deschanel on July 20, 2006 at 1:20pm EDT
  • Hi everyone,

    I attended Parsons as a Fine Arts major, not fashion. But I was dazzled at the incredible hard work and immense creativity of the fashion students.

    I disagree with the "most people hate fashion' thing- one really wonderful development, I think, is that fashion has been democratized as a spectator sport. Shows like "Sex and the City" for one example, and the heightened interest, and red-carpet designs etc. have showed people that fashion can be fun, interesting, and creative. It's not the elitist thing it once was.

    I'd also like to point out that fashion is the 4th largest industry in NYC. It empoys hundreds of thousands of people, from textiles to design to manufacture to publishing to retail to advertising to photography to event planning to.. it goes on and on.

    Culturally , it has helped make NYC -and the US- a cultural player in contemporary design. It's an industry that fuses real creativity to big business. And yes, I am very pleased that it is the rare powerhouse industry where women and gay men do rule.

    One thing that annoys me- the name change from "Parsons School of Design" to semiliterate run-on of "Parsons The New School For Design" Ugh! No one asked alumni for a vote on that!

    Anyway just a few thoughts, thanks for listening.

  • Posted by Larry on July 20, 2006 at 2:25pm EDT
  • Shows like “Sex and the City” actually made a fair amount of people hate fashion even more than they did before, as they view it as a sport of the leisure classes who live lives totally divorced from theirs. I saw part of one, and hated the characters. I hated the clothes they wore. I told people never to talk about the show in my presence.
    But, to each his own.

    I don’t know what a “culture player” is. I find it somewhat strange that you think that an industry that apparently discriminates against straight men is a good thing. Maybe their voices are not being heard.

  • Project Runway and Parsons
  • Posted by Chicago area Prof on July 23, 2006 at 7:00pm EDT
  • I love Project Runway. I think that as reality shows go, this is one of the best. Instead of daring people to eat bugs for money, this program showcases talent and skill--much of which the contestants had to LEARN in an accredited degree program. For most fans of the show, the drama between contestants is a distraction from what we really enjoy--the creativity, the hard work, and the diversity of fashion points of view.
    The show does a good job of connecting a "real world" career with what might seem like a fantasy major for some. The fact that most of the contestants have education and impressive experience makes them role models for young students interested in a creative field. The folks that are self-educated are given a lot of respect, too, but a viewer can definitely see that they have had to work very hard to get where they are today. In the auditions, contestants have to show a portfolio and samples of their work, they have to answer questions articulately and with poise. On the show, they have to demonstrate knowledge of fabric, cut, design, fit, style. They are praised for their sophistication by the judges. If a designer is really wacky, they question whether this person will be able to handle the business end. All good things for students to see first hand.
    It's ironic that the show that may best promote the importance of education is a reality show/talent contest, but that is what is popular today. This show probably reaches more potential students in all degrees than any other "educational" program.
    What CSI has done for Forensic programs, Project Runway is doing for the arts. At least PR is more "realistic." Bravo!