Life is a cycle. Birth happens, life happens, death happens, so on and so forth. When talking about the death of someone from fashion, one may stop to think, does fashion factor into this cycle or does it have any common traits? Well, I happen to believe so.
A trend lives and dies. Fashion can sometimes be looked at as a cycle; this is certainly true. When an icon in popular culture or, in this case, in fashion, dies, the cycle of life is evident; it is resonant.
Fashion is a ubiquitous and omnipresent field that can be described as ample other things, like even a language, one that anyone can speak since it can involve from the fundamental and foundational ideas to the more complex, intricate ideals of the concepts and the spaces in which exists, which, by the way, are everywhere.
The cycle has ended for many designers, image directors, journalists, photographers, creative directors, and others in fashion. Most recently though, it has been Bill Cunningham, who documented fashion in the form of photography for the New York Times. His comprehensive photography proved indispensible to fashion. He exhibited the multifaceted, multidirectional world of fashion, as he urged for individualism and self-expression.
Many of his colleagues from the New York Times had pleasant things to say and that they will miss him. Notably, according to Jacob Bernstein at the New York Times Service, Cunningham had written in essay in 2002, highlighting fashion’s essentiality, vitality, and how it reflects our times. He said that those who favor formalwear are somewhat horrified by seeing what they see people wear on the street. Having cited many fashion icons that contributed to his attitudes and feelings, he included in his extensive 40 years in the field, nostalgic expressions of past fashion, but it was reassuring to him that fashion is timeless.
According to the writers at News.com.au, Dean Banquet, executive editor at the New York Times, Cunningham “was a hugely ethical journalist.”