{"id":13370,"date":"2013-03-26T09:00:11","date_gmt":"2013-03-26T09:00:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.badreputation.org.uk\/?p=13370"},"modified":"2013-03-27T09:19:26","modified_gmt":"2013-03-27T09:19:26","slug":"guest-post-lingerie-women-and-eroticism-a-brief-study-of-the-21st-century-agent-provocateur-woman-part-12","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/badreputation.org.uk\/2013\/03\/26\/guest-post-lingerie-women-and-eroticism-a-brief-study-of-the-21st-century-agent-provocateur-woman-part-12\/","title":{"rendered":"[Guest Post] Lingerie, Women and Eroticism: A Brief Study of the 21st Century Agent Provocateur Woman (Part 1\/2)"},"content":{"rendered":"
In 1971, Vivienne Westwood and Malcolm McLaren set up \u2018Let it
Rock\u2019, their first King\u2019s Road boutique. Their son Joseph
Corr\u00e9 followed in his parents\u2019 footsteps and opened a shop
in London with his wife Serena Rees in 1994. Named Agent Provocateur<\/strong><\/a>, the unusual boutique bridged a
gap between the erotic lingerie sold in Soho\u2019s sex shops and
the respectable prettiness of the established quality brands sold
in department stores.<\/p>\n
Corr\u00e9 and Rees saw the brand as a vehicle for their
creativity and their ideas about women and femininity. In 1995,
they began a search for a woman who \u2018would represent the
concepts behind the clothes, model new designs, and be a
spokesperson at upcoming events\u2019. They saw the face of
their brand as \u2018charming, glamorous, curvy, independent and
intelligent\u2019 (see Agent Provocateur: A Celebration of
Femininity<\/strong><\/a>).<\/p>\n
The finalists of their competition were used as part of a
publicity stunt at London Fashion Week, staging a
demonstration against bland passionless fashion that drew
the attention of the assembled press. After a decadent Miss
Agent Provocateur Party had been held, where the winner was
announced, Corr\u00e9 and Rees realised that a single woman
couldn\u2019t represent their brand\u2019s values as the
concept was too diverse. Every woman has the potential to
become an agent provocateur.
Corr\u00e9 and Rees have since divorced, and in 2007, Agent
Provocateur was purchased by 3i Group<\/a>. This gradually led to a
significant change in how the Agent Provocateur woman was
represented in the brand\u2019s advertising campaigns. The
brochure to showcase the Spring\/Summer 2008 collection
retained a lot of the ethos of Corr\u00e9 and Rees\u2019
original vision. It has a cover designed to look like an
invitation to an exclusive party, featuring the text
\u2018you are cordially invited to attend a very private
affair [\u2026] Bring a blindfold and an open mind!\u2019.
Each image inside forms part of a digitally-created montage,
with the pages containing small parts of the panoramic
whole, unfolding to reveal one uninterrupted tableau.<\/p>\n
The models are depicted as attendees of the party and are
engaging in activities of a sexual nature. Nothing
pornographic is depicted, merely hints of erotic and light
BDSM play. Most of the party guests are women, clothed in
Agent Provocateur lingerie and swimwear, but there are also
a number of men in the image. The women take both dominant
and submissive roles, whilst the men are purely
submissive.<\/p>\n
Product information about the lingerie sets featured, such
as name and price, is listed on the back of the image. With
this choice of layout, it could be argued that the images
are designed to be enjoyed first, and to be informative
second.<\/p>\n
By contrast, the Autumn\/Winter 2012 collection is presented
in a brochure containing separate images for each named set
of lingerie, with the product details directly underneath
each photograph. The theme of the collection is
\u2018Wilhelmina: Show Your True Self\u2019 and the
associated campaign focuses on a woman in Victorian London
whose inner sensuality is revealed by a backstreet
photographer\u2019s magical camera.<\/p>\n
Each image contains between one and three female models,
with little or no interaction between them. The women are
not engaged in any activity other than modelling the
clothing for the viewer, and are, as such, passive subjects
of the gaze. Hair and make up is consistent throughout and
maintains the look of a catwalk show, where the models are
presented as a homogenous entity \u2013 a representation of
how the brand\u2019s woman should physically embody that
season\u2019s look.<\/p>\n
Each model\u2019s ‘true self’ appears to be no
different from the others. This presents us with a single
type of Agent Provocateur woman, as opposed to the idea that
she is present in all women, as Corr\u00e9 envisioned
seventeen years previously.<\/p>\n
It has often been suggested that the female body in lingerie
is more erotic than the nude female body. Roland Barthes<\/a> touches on this in his
essay on striptease, published in Mythologies<\/strong><\/a>:<\/p>\n
Woman is desexualized at the very moment when she is
stripped naked. We may therefore say that we are
dealing in a sense with a spectacle based on fear, or
rather on the pretence of fear, as if eroticism here
went no further than a sort of delicious terror, whose
ritual signs have only to be announced to evoke at
once the idea of sex and its
conjuration.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
At the very heart of the original concept of the Agent
Provocateur brand, when it was founded by Corr\u00e9
and Rees, was the idea of lingerie as a ritual sign
which evoked the idea of sex. Although they sought to
design underwear which referenced socially acceptable
quality French lingerie, eroticism was very much a
part of Agent Provocateur\u2019s core values. They
made the brand accessible to women who would not
normally venture into sex shops to purchase erotic
lingerie.<\/p>\n
It could be argued that Corr\u00e9 and Rees were also
responding to dominant discourse on sexuality and
gender when they set up Agent Provocateur in the
1990s. In The History of Sexuality Volume 1<\/strong><\/a>,
Michel Foucault analyses changes in discourse on
sexuality and argues that discourse is a productive
force; for example, leading to definitions of
\u201cnormal\u201d and \u201cother\u201d. He also
looks at the concept of docile bodies versus active
agency, discussing reverse discourse as an
empowering method of countering the dominant
discourse.<\/p>\n
There is little doubt that Agent Provocateur
\u2013 whose name refers to an undercover agent
employed to provoke suspects to commit illegal
punishable acts \u2013 originally sought to engage
in a reverse discourse on female sexuality. In The History of Sexuality Volume
2<\/strong><\/a>, Foucault delves further and
discusses what he calls \u2018techniques of the
self\u2019, emphasising the role of practices
and instruments in generating a sense of
self.<\/p>\n
Clothing is very much a \u2018technique of the
self\u2019. People use their clothes to
transform, change and project a chosen image
on a daily basis. Although society still often
restricts the individual\u2019s choice of
outerwear, unseen underwear<\/a> offers
the wearer a sense of agency. Lingerie is
considered by many to be an instrument in
generating a sense of self, and it is worth
considering here that the self is also shaped
by gender.<\/p>\n
It is widely understood that gender is a
cultural construction that is shaped by
discursive forces. One of the main issues
considered by Judith Butler is the
performativity of gender. Gender is not a
performance \u2013 as that suggests the
performer returns to a more genuine self once
they leave the stage \u2013 but it is
performative, as we are all constantly putting
on an act. Lingerie is but one aspect of the
act of femininity.<\/p>\n
Because there is neither an
\u201cessence\u201d that gender expresses or
externalizes nor an objective ideal to which
gender aspires, and because gender is not a
fact, the various acts of gender create the
idea of gender, and without those acts,
there would be no gender at all.<\/p>\n
–
Judith
Butler<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Therefore, what could possibly be more
\u201cwomanly\u201d than dressing
oneself up in Agent Provocateur
lingerie? In Gender Trouble<\/strong><\/a>, Butler
explores the spaces of resistance to
dominant discourses. Like Foucault,
and with reference to his work, she
asks how we can go beyond the
boundaries imposed on us by discourse,
and explores the concept of agency.
Gender and identity are more of a
\u201cdoing\u201d than a
\u201cbecoming\u201d, and are
constantly shaped by discourse. Like
any woman, the Agent Provocateur
woman\u2019s identity is fluid. She is
constantly made and remade by the
forces around her.<\/p>\n
\n<\/a><\/p>\n
\n