Editors' Note: House Style

Abstract

The true mystery of world is visible, not invisible.-Oscar WildeFind out who you are and do it on purpose.- Dolly PartonHouse of Dior. House of Chanel. House of St. Laurent. House of Mizrahi. House of Labeija. House of Pendavis. House of Ninja. House of Xtravaganza. Emerging in 1970s and 1980s within underground black drag ball scene, house networks provided a critical community for queer youth of color. The ball circuit, whose history extends to Harlem drag balls of 1930s, was revitalized in 1960s by black drag queens frustrated by restrictiveness of existing drag culture. Balls were held in early morning hours in Harlem, allowing for safe passage of contestants in their finery through streets, and for participation of ballgoers who worked late hours hustling. The performances, and fashions, were legendary. The first house was created in 1972, when Crystal LaBeija, in an inspired promotional move, co-sponsored the first annual House of LaBeija ball. With a nod to glamour and patronage system of great fashion houses, drag houses instituted their own family structure, headed by mothers, and sometimes fathers, who oversaw their children, some of whom faced rejection from their biological families or their working-class African American and Latino communities. While houses were initially formed to prepare and promote their competitors in upcoming balls, they provided space for much broader, adaptable family roles, with room for members not interested in walking to offer support and companionship.The range of roles enabled by queer house culture has resulted in an ever- expanding roster of contestants and categories represented at balls. Butch queens, femme queens, butch queens in drag, (lesbian or female-tomale trans) butches, or females battle for top scores in face, model's body, luscious body, muscular body, thugrealness, banjee girl realness, executive realness, designer's delight, or European runway. Costumes might be selfcrafted, or in label-based competitions, purchased or mopped (shoplifted). The spectrum of identities performed on floor, and craft and spectacle of performances themselves, move to center stage routine labor of self-presentation. Ball culture entered mainstream consciousness, briefly, in early 1990s, in wake of Jennie Livingston's documentary Paris is Burning (1991), Malcolm McLaren's Deep in (1989), Design Industries Foundation for AIDS Love Ball (1989), and Madonna's Vogue (1990), which appropriated dance style invented by ball participants. But nuances of house society exceed its stylistic cooptation, and its socioeconomic context remains persistently unfashionable. The house communities have continued to evolve and flourish, regardless, below mainstream radar, incorporating a host of new stylistic influences and performing a critical social function.1The dynamics of house ball culture intersect in provocative ways with questions addressed by diverse works in Fashion issue of WSQ. How do we negotiate and perform identity, collectively and as individuals, via spectacle of fashion? In what ways do social and economic conditions coincide with politics of sexuality, idiosyncrasies of personal practices, and swirl of commercial images to result in broader shifts in cultural style? How can we reconcile tension between youth, innovation, and subcultural creativity, and a highly adaptable, image-hungry, global industry? When does style become part of a life philosophy, or a broader social compact? How can fashion navigate murky territory between resemblance, identification, and difference? Is it possible to actualize a new identity, or a new reality, through a rigorous regimen of selfpresentation, even in shadows of commercial fashion industry? As authors and artists who take part in this issue argue so forcefully, fashion never exists in a vacuum and is never just about clothes. …