When Elsa Schiaparelli burst upon the fashion scene with a knitted sweater and a l'oeil bow incorporated into the deisgn she was consciously echoing the surrealistic artists delight in things not being what they first appear to be.
Coco Chanel simplified the shape of women's clothes to a sqaure cardigan and rectangular skirt - This was a cubist concept - geometic simplicity to give a line of strength and force.
Dress designers have alwyas been aware of what is happening in the arts and have always been able to use the discoveries and ideas of the artist to help them solve design problems and create clothes which are new, inventive and reflective of their time.
Our perception of colour and shape, as we view all aspects of design in our daily lives, comes from the experiments of the artists who, without realizing it, push forward our visual awareness. The process is simple. It begins with publics outrage (like that of McQueens fashion collection called 'Highland rape' which represented the exploits of women, and pushed the boundries like few had done before) and uncomprehending shock at the unfamiliar. This is followed by commercial design exploitation of the artist's vision. From this comes visual familiarity witht he new imagery and, finally, public acceptance. So develpoments in colour, pattern and texture reflect the major movements in the fine arts.
In the first twenty years of the 20th century the art world was turned upside down by many different schools. In the frist decade Matisse and a group of friendsthat included Derain, Vlaminck, and Rouault found themselves being labelled 'Fauves' - The wild beasts - because of their dramatic breaking of previously held rules about colour. Grass was no longer relied upon to be green: blue or red were equally acceptable to the Fauves. In the same decade fashion's Fauve, Paul Poiret, began to manace the cosy hegemony of Worth and other designers. He was excited by the power of colour in the same intense way as the 'wild beasts' of art. Fauvism was the song of pure colour. It was not a school and it had no theory, manifesto, or programme. It burst onto the art world at the 1905 Salon d'automne, where the work of Matisse and his followers was shown. Its liberating effect cannot be over estimated. Two years later, the Cezanne retrospective at the Salon, together with the growing interest in african sculpture and primitive art, stimulated Braque, Picasso, Gris, and Derain towards their experiments with the simplification of form which led to cubism.
The following movement was begun in Munich in 1911 by Walter Gropius, who believed in the virtues of modern, clean and radical approach to deisgn, based on simplicity and craftsmanship. In many ways Gropius followed the teachings of William Morris and what he offered to the fashion world was the concept of suitability of purpose in design and a rigorous simplicity of line and decoration. The Bauhaus approach was scientific: an object which functioned effciently, was automatically successful and also beautiful. The Bauhaus continued this philosophy of destroying the barriers between artist and artisan and affirming a faith in good design at all levels of life. Its effect on all aspects of design throughout the 1920s and 1930s was considerable and is still evident. It created a purer approach to design which resulted in the streamlined, 'machine-turned' hardness of the 1920s fashion stereostype.
Art and fashion probabley held hands closest in the 1930s, when Schiaparelli was creating clothes directly influences by the surrealist thinking of her friend Salvador Dali and using prints designed bu Dufy, and Berard. Although by no means the greatest surrealist, Dali was the most influential in the field of fashion. His humourous conceits, almost metaphysical often lent a nightmare quality of illogicality to his paintings - watches melted and people's bodies consisted of drawers. His sense of humour, his ability to shock and his irreverance appealed enormously to Schiaparelli who also had these characteristics. Together they worked closely to amuse and delight the fashionable, designing fabrics, clothes and accessories which gave free rein to their love of trompe l'oeil.
The 1940s were dominated by the Wolrd War II and its aftermath saw fashion frozen for over half the decade. At the same time, however, attitudes changed dramtically. These changed attitudes were to effect fashion permanately from the 1950s onwards but, before they did, the most amazing development in the history of 20th century of fashion took place. After the austerity of the war, Dior's 'New Look', launched in 1947, singing like a lark. It was one of couture's greatest moments, but, at the same time, possibly its silliest. The look required corsets and padding and it made women once more subsevient to their clothes. It was successful because of its timing. Bringing back prettiness and femininity, as it did a much needed salve to their wounds. Launched at any other time, it would not have had half the impact it did. Dior's name become on of only two or three known throughout the world, as familiar as those of Hitler and Churchill.
It was not until the late 1950s that modern art began to reassert its influence on fashion and other minor parts with the spin-off from Op Art. Op Art, a movement which was strongest in great Britain and United States, delighted in the optical effects caused by paint laid in thin circles or lines to a totally abstract pattern. The results were shimmering 'movements' on the canvas as the viwer's eye tried to adjust to what it saw. The influence of this movement on designers was considerable. Not only did it effect colour and pattern in the design of material, but more broadly, it changed attitudes to what could or could not be done with pattern generally. Stripes, polka dots and waving lines could now be used altogether in the same outfit.
The final point to note is that of the enormous influence exerted, through the young, by pop music as an inspiration and force in fashion. It has rivalled the painterly movements and the Hollywood films of earlier decades. Until the advent of World War II, art and fashion were closely linked. Designers responded to and reflected the advanced thinking of painters and sculptors. By the end of the 1950s the place of art as a major influence on fashion had been usurped by popular music and the 'pop culture' it spawned. The disaffection of youth, which reached its most extreme form with the Punk culture of the late 1970s and early 1980s, began with the new, bold sounds, the erotic dance movements and the super-charged sexiness of the pop singers. Suddenly, the young realized that, although thier parents and society generally might disapprove of the suggestive gyrations of Presley and Jagger, they were powerless to do anything about them. From this revelation came the iconoclasm of the Sex Pistols who, twenty years later, personified the feeling that the young could, and would, make their own rules.
It was a part of youth's rejection of the grown-up world as culturally irrelevant. With the new music went new attitudes to clothes and sexuality. The fashion story of the late 1950s and the 1960s was a reflection of the power of Jimi Hendrix, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones. 
The 1970s saw the young turn their back on 'designed' clothes more than ever. They took their inspiration from two major sources; war and work. Nazi-style unifroms, black leather, bondage, chains, and tattoos all became popular. Alongside the uniform-cult youngens, walked the denim freaks, who, male or female, tried to look like American long-distance truck drivers. England always guarenteed to go over the top with a suspect look - produced punks. The streets of most major cities were awash with waif-like, pale adolescents with spiky hair, looking like animated drawings by Schiele, an artist of whom one in a thousand of them might of heard of. (Right) As the 1980s unfold, the signs are that the confusion of the previous two decades will continue. Women are now perfectly secure in their right to reject, their ability to choose and their power to control their appearance. Subservience to the fashion dictators has gone with it, prehaps, the concept of fashion altogether. No longer do fashion stories really exist: the twice yearly parading of new styles has less and less relevance to all but the most specialized coterie. What, if anything, has been lost?
