I was flipping through the latest issue of
Altered Couture magazine the other day, and after viewing the clothing inside, decided that, for me, there is a a big difference between something that has been altered, and something that has been merely embellished. And before I spill out my two-pence worth, let me state that this is just my personal opinion. I'm sure there are lots of people out there who will disagree, but hey, my blog, my thoughts.
Using the term "couture" implies that whatever altering done to the garment should be high quality, show that a lot of thought, effort, and planning went into it, and the end result looks "right." I can't define "right" but I know it when I see it (accepting that "right" for me might not be "right" for someone else). All the changes and additions come together in a cohesive way and it all just works. Even funky, which is not my thing, needs to have some rhyme or reason to the design. When done correctly, funky can be awesome (the work of
Rice at the Voodoo Cafe comes instantly to mind). When done badly, funky looks messy and chaotic or just plain silly. The same could be said of bohemian, gypsy, modern, or any other style.
And this is where my inside voice goes "Seriously?" Taking a T-shirt and roughly hand-sewing a four-inch rectangle of tea-dyed muslin to the chest, and tacking on a six-inch length of flimsy old lace, off-center, to the bottom of said shirt, does not make it altered, and calling it couture is a real stretch. Taking a thrift store camisole and sewing on a couple of crochet doilies that dangle off the side is not altered, it is embellished, and in my not-worth-much opinion, it is embellishment done for the sake of a trend, rather than with much thought. The design makes no sense, and looks as if the doilies sort of stuck to the shirt by accident. The flip side of that is, I saw examples of outstanding garments done with lace and doilies. The designs work, the colors work, and the finished garments are beautiful.
If you are going to call a piece "altered couture" then the piece really should be altered in some significant way. There were many good examples of this in the magazine, some quite simple, so being altered doesn't imply that it has to be fancy, home-dyed, or covered with embellishments. It does mean, to me, that you have changed the shape and style of the original garment into something unique.
The word "upcycled" is used a lot lately, and I would agree that almost all of the items shown in the magazine were upcycled from thrift store finds or antique shop discoveries. This fact was stated over and over again by the people whose items were pictured. With the diversity of clothing, shoes, and accessories shown, and the fact that so many of them were decorated but not really altered, I think upcycled rather than altered, would be a better definition for many of the items pictured. Is a shoe you have painted really altered, or is it decorated? Yes, you have changed its appearance, but you haven't changed its shape. It's still the same shoe, just painted a different color, or with fabric and beads glued on. They have definitely been upcycled, and many of them are fantastic, but altered?
alter: v to make or become different; change. (Oxford Pocket American Dictionary)
According to the above definition, I guess all the items in the magazine were changed to a certain extent, so in the broadest sense of the term, they
were altered. But add the word "couture" and it ups the anti to something beyond just upcycled, refurbished, or embellished. And yes, even the OPAD defines "couture" as merely "the design and manufacture of fashionable clothes = Haut couture." However, I still think it implies a higher quality of thought and design over and above a snip of muslin, a bit of old lace, or a doily hand sewn onto a thrift store T-shirt. But that's just my opinion...and you all know what that is worth, right?