The morning of our interview, I took a half day from school to give him a call in the quiet of my sewing room. We spent an hour just chatting away (and by "chatting", I mean me sounding like a blubbering idiot and Tim sounding, well, Tim-tastic). I was only able to share with you a small glimpse of the interview in the article. Today, I thought I'd share our chat in it's entirety. Enjoy!
Tim Gunn: I love your work!
Cassie Stephens: Oh, thank you, that’s very kind of you.
TG: I couldn’t be more sincere. I love it that it’s very
innovative. You’re marrying art and design and it’s very believable. Usually
when I see work that falls into that category, which can be rather broad, it
looks so forced and contrived and silly that it’s just so unbelievable. I’m a
big fan.
CS: Thank you so much. I have a feeling that I’d be the
first one to get the “costume-y” comment.
TG: (laughs) Don’t be too sure!
CS: Oh, no, you’ve not seen the rest of my work! But thank
you so much, that means a tremendous amount to me.
TG: Well, you’re more than welcome, I’m just happy you are
making this work and presenting it to the world.
CS: Ok, I was just curious, where did you get your amazing
sense of style?
TG: Oh, well, actually, you flatter me. It’s been a long and
very winding road, to be perfectly honest. And the style that I will say that I
have embraced now is entirely attributable to a costume designer by the name of
Rita Ryack. In fact, I think she’s been nominated for several Oscars -- she may
even have won. When I was doing the Smurfs movie in 2009, Rita was the
costumer. And she said to me, we had a talk on the phone before I arrived on
the set, “Oh, what are you talking about, I would never dream of telling you
how to dress, you’re Tim Gunn! Just bring your own clothes and we’ll figure
things out.” So that’s what I did and we taped for a day. I got home at about
10 o’clock that night and when I got home, my phone rang and it was Rita. She
said, “I just looked at today’s rushes and your clothes aren’t good enough.”
CS: Oh my! I can’t believe someone would have the nerve to
say that to Tim Gunn!
TG: I don’t know that I’ve ever told this story. And I was
aghast and I didn’t think, I said, “Well, this is what I have.” And I’ll be
blunt with you, it was all Banana Republic. I’m a huge fan of the brand and
it’s affordable. I was a pauper teacher for most of my life and I’m used to
working with a budget. So Rita said, “I’m going to go shopping in the morning,
meet me at the tailor at Midtown in the afternoon and we’ll make it work,” as I
say.
So I arrived at the tailor, I was taken into the dressing
room and before I even tried things on, I was looking at the price tags and I
came out of the dressing room and I said to Rita, holding up the price tag,
“This suit is $4000, I’m not going to wear this!” She said, “Put it on.” She
was very dictatorial and I was looking at a shirt that was $450 and this was
more than my suit cost! And we had a battle. My objections primarily being
about cost but also she was doing this crazy pattern mixing with me and I said,
“I really don’t want to be your dress up doll! I like who I am.” And she was a
steamroller: “Try it on. Try it on. You don’t have to wear it, try it on.” And
the other thing that she did to me and it’s something that I have done to
myself but would never wear them, she jabbed a pocket square into the breast
pocket of my jacket. I said, “That’s it, I cannot do this.” She said, “What are
you talking about?!” and I told her, I said, “I own a dozen pocket squares
because I actually like them and I like how they look on other people.” And
I’ve done many experiments with this. I’ll put the suit on my bed, I’ll put the
pocket square in and I’ll think, you know that looks pretty good! Then I’ll put
on the jacket, look in the mirror and think, “You look like an ass.”
I said, “I feel crazy enough with all of these patterns.” At
any rate, I broke through a wall, suddenly, I loved what she’d done, I loved
the new me. I was no longer in solids and neutrals. But then the problem was,
the only way to replicate this was to go shopping at Bergdorfs and Saks and
Barney’s and spend a fortune on clothes. And I’m always supplying my own
wardrobe, with the exception of the Smurfs movie because she didn’t like my
clothes but, um, I’m responsible for everything that I wear. So I would feel
physically ill. To me, I loved the clothes but I was spending a fortune.
So about two and a half years ago, there was an article in
the New York Times about a brand new store opening here in New York called, it
has a horrible, horrible, horrible name but it’s a great brand. It’s called
SuitSupply, one word. It’s out of the Netherlands so I think that it is
something of a riff on English. It’s been a popular brand in Europe for years.
It has 40 stores in Europe. New York was the first non-European outpost. I went
in with a lot of cynicism and disbelief, to be honest and I was blown away.
These suits are about $500 and they were equivalent to what I was spending
$5000 on, I couldn’t believe it. And I’ve never been back to Bergdorfs,
Barney’s or Saks since. So it’s Rita Ryack responsible for my, I’ll call it my
ascension.
CS: I noticed when you all were in Rome, you had on a very
spiffy suit. It was a plaid with a vest
underneath and I thought, “Wow, look at Tim!”
TM: Oh, thank you. I will say SuitSupply has been so
wonderfully supportive. And they have offered repeatedly to provide wardrobe
for Runway and I have repeatedly declined because, I’ll tell you, I don’t like
free stuff. There’s something about it that just bugs me and I feel beholden
and I don’t want to feel that way. I’d much rather talk enthusiastically about
a brand and not have people later find out, “Oh, well, they’re giving him
clothes!” No, they’re not.
CS: That’s very interesting. I think most people would
assume that your clothes were bought for you.
TM: Exactly! But I can’t do that. Whenever anyone offers to
give me something, whatever it may be, some item of apparel I always say,
“Look, I have great respect for the brand” if I do, otherwise I wouldn’t say
anything, “but, no thank you. I’ll go buy it myself.”
CS: So, if I send you a Campbell’s soup can suit, you’re
going to reject that?
TM: (laughs) Well, we have a different relationship. Now
whether I would wear it or not is another matter.
CS: I was doing a little bit of research. And you have been
an actor, a voice actor, you’re an author, a fashion consultant, a TV
personality, I mean, you’ve done it all, it seems. What do you feel like is
your proudest accomplishment?
TM: Oh, my proudest accomplishment without hesitation is
repositioning the fashion department at Parsons. It was the most difficult
challenge I’ve ever been presented with and it’s what I’m proudest of.
CS: I read that took you 29 years, is that right?
TM: 24 of them at Parsons. And the last 7 and a half I was
chair of the fashion program. But the reason it was such an incredible
challenge was because it was much more than examining a curriculum and saying,
“Gee, this hasn’t changed in 50 years, let’s change it.” There was pedagogy
attached to how the curricular content was delivered and the whole place was a
mess. And I never dreamed it was such a mess when I received the assignment. I
knew it was going to be a challenge I just didn’t know how great a challenge
but that’s what I’m proudest of, honestly. And I wouldn’t have the courage to
do it today. I just wouldn’t.
CS: It was that difficult of an undertaking?
TG: It was. And what propelled me forward the entire time
was, “What’s best for the students?” And that was the question I constantly
asked myself. Because the faculty, not all of them but way too many of them,
their response to any probing that I did about content was, “This is the way
it’s always been.” I know that! But why are we doing it today and why is it
relevant to this industry today? So at any rate, that is definitely what I’m
proudest of.
CS: When I was reading about that, it made it sound like,
well you did, you completely revamped the curriculum, you breathed new life
into it. What do you feel like were some of the most important changes? I ask
because as art teachers, we are always looking at our curriculum and trying to
figure out what’s best for the students.
TG: I’ll tell you, I’ve been on a number of curriculum
review committees for other design schools. So it’s been interesting, I’ve been
on the other side of the process as well where I’m not looking at my own
program, I’m looking at the program of other schools, other people, really. The
biggest change was taking away from the program what I thought was the jewel in
the crown. It was a program called the designer critic program. It was founded
at Parsons in 1948. Many other schools copied it, in fact, many schools still
engage in it. And what it was was a program that brought in top tier designers
and had them work with small groups of students where the outside designer is
the master and students are the apprentice. And when I took over the fashion
program in 2000, those people included Donna Karan and Marc Jacobs, Tom Ford, I
mean really illustrious names and they’re also alumni. So they had been through
the program, they had loyalties to it and I was looking at this thing,
thinking, initially, proudly, “This is so great, this such a wonderful opportunity.”
And then I realized it was infantilizing the students and didn’t really care
about who they were creatively.
CS: So maybe they were just copying? Or trying to mimic the
style of those they were learning from?
TG: Well, they were not involved in the decision making for
what they were actually making. They make one garment a semester so they would
work with a different designer critic each semester and we had 10 different
designers a semester in a class of 70. So each designer would work with 7. I’ll
give you an example: there were several stages of this process. And I’ll use
Donna, unfortunately, I’m going to use her as a bad example and she’s not,
she’s actually one of the strongest critics we ever had, in my view. So Donna
would come in and present concepts. And say, “This is the theme, this is the
direction I want this to go in, so do illustrations and technical flats and
I’ll be back in a week.” They do that, she comes back, she looks at the
drawings and there will be 40 – 50 from each student. She’s not mixing and
matching across students, but within one student’s body of work, she says,
“Okay, we’ll take this jacket, we’ll put it with this pant and with this top.
We’ll do this and we’ll do that.” And the student’s basically a cypher. So the
student’s not involved in any of this decision-making. Then the next phase is
the muslin proto-type. So she says, “l’ll be back in two weeks and I’ll review
the muslins.” We have the muslins on the models and Donna would sit there with
a pair of scissors and cut it up! She’ll alter the proportions, she’ll be
pinning the arm and shoulder in a different way, and there’s no dialog as to
why. Why is this happening? There’s no dialog at all! So, then new muslins are
made and it’s time for fabric selection. Rather than sending the students to
Mood, the designers would bring in fabric! Now, let me add another dimension to
this, since you’re a teacher, you’ll appreciate this, the other dimension was
the instructors and the most adept students sewed all the final garments.
Cassie, the place was hemorrhaging! And I thought I cannot
do this again. Oh and there’s a whole other aspect to this designer critic
thing which had to do with waiting. So, I’ll go back to Donna. Donna was coming
in to look at the muslins and her office calls and says, “Donna is tied up
Moulin, doing fabric research and she can’t come in for another 10 days.” So,
nothing could happen. The faculty had no authority over the designs, the
students certainly had no authority, so everyone just waits. And I thought this
is repugnant! Not only is this a waste of everyone’s time, it’s a terrible
waste of the student’s talent! And, 10 percent of the faculty and all of the
administration that I inherited, their refrain whenever I would say that the
students weren’t challenged, how this was a waste of their time, they’re so
much more capable, their refrain was always, “No, they’re not. They’re a bunch
of dummies.” Can you imagine? And I would say, “What motivates you to get up in
the morning and come in here if you really believe they are a bunch of
dummies?” So I’m horrified by that and the students had just been undervalued.
I had very long-winded responses to these sorts of things.
CS: That’s fascinating. I would have never imaged that any
college teaches, what I would imagine, teaches creativity and growth and
creating from one’s own ideas was run like that. And for so many years.
TG: I know! Well, I wrote a manifesto that was for the dean
and I thought, you know what? The faculty needs to read this. It was 7 – 10
pages long. It was a state of the state of the union, basically. And, among the
things that I said was, this is not a design school. This is a dress making
program. And that all has to change. By repositioning with this collection, it
was really an acknowledgment of how much the American fashion industry has
changed. At the time the designer critic program was founded, leading a fashion
program, you were not going to go out and start your own line. You were going
to work for another designer. So this was the correct thing to, it was
responsible. But by the time we hit the 90’s, it was a dusty old dinosaur. I
wasn’t interested in the students merely get a job, I wanted them to lead the
industry. You need to be lofty when you are in education, you need to think
high and lofty. And I’ll add, when I took the designer critic program away, the
industry went crazy with rage.
CS: Were all the fashion schools run in a similar manner?
TG: No. Not at all. But there were so many alumni in the
industry that thought I was bashing their alma mater and taking away the core
of their own studies. And, well, I was (laughs)! But it needed to be done! It’s
fashion! With any design education, it
has to change and this program had not changed in 50 years. The following fall,
which happened to be 2001, I was summoned to the dean’s office and there were
four designer critics with the dean. And I thought, “Oh, God.” So the dean and,
god bless him, said, “I summoned Tim because I wanted him to hear me tell you
that this is a big experiment and we’re going to see where it takes us. If it’s
a disaster, we can go back to the designer critic program or we can try
something else, but I stand behind him on this.” And I thought, bless you,
dean! There were decenters throughout that entire year about this new program.
And then when we had our senior fashion show, they came up to me and they said,
“We never thought the students were capable of this, it was phenomenal, and
never go back.” So once they saw, they believed.
CS: That’s amazing. So much of our curriculum changes a lot.
A lot of it when I was in school, in the late 90’s was teaching the children
about artists who are no longer alive and then having them replicate or copy
that work. And that sound similar to what you are saying except we are
educating children. But it’s the same kind of concept. Since, that’s changed.
Now I think it’s important to teach art history, but I had a student ask me
before, “Are all the artists dead?” And I thought, oh my goodness, what have I done?
TG: My hats off to you, Cassie, you are also listening to
your students. And synthesizing what they have to say and making judgements,
“Well, do I make some alterations here or do I not?” When I stepped into the
fashion program at Parsons, you’ll love this, there was no fashion history.
Why? The response was we don’t want the students to be influenced. What do you
mean, “Not be influenced”?! Good design is cultural, historic and it’s
economical and policital. What do you mean? So I put in place a three semester
fashion history that was required of every student. I mean, everyone had to
take it. And it transformed things in the department. It gave the students and
understanding of their own place in this greater rubric of discovery. When you
tell the history of fashion, in any design field, you are telling world history
in a matter of speaking because it is relevant to society and culture and
historic events.
CS: I just cannot believe what an undertaking Parsons was. I
can understand why that was your proudest accomplishment.
TG: And I’ll tell you, there was great consternation even on
the student end. When we had our first fashion show with the new program, in
the past, since each student made one garment a semester, there would be 140
looks walking the runway. If you rehearse, you could have a show in 30 minutes
but that’s still a long show. And suddenly, we had over 500 looks. You can’t
have a show with 500 looks, that’s preposterous! So there was editing that was
not done by me it was done by an outside jury. So when I posted what was in and
what was out, the students and the faculty went berserk that they wrote a
petition to the dean demanding my resignation. There was all this placating to
do. I wasn’t apologizing, I was explaining. You’re living in a delusional
world. This is not the world operates. The following year, they were even more
organized and prepared. Hell with going to the dean, they went to the
president. They went to Women’s Wear Daily and went to the main fashion editor
and talked about me. About how awful this whole thing is and how it’s got to
change and the editor, being a responsible journalist, called me and we had a
long talk. The irony was, the day that the story was published, was the day of
the second year of this new iteration and it was on the cover. I got through it
all.
TG: Yes. Absolutely. And it’s helped transform this
industry.
CS: One thing that I admire about you, and I’ve only been
able to see it on Project Runway, of course, is the way you talk to those
designers in such a way that you are candid, you’re sincere but you are never
hurtful. How is that done? Where did you learn that skill?
TG: I had some bad experiences and I learned from them.
Consequently, it’s more second nature to me now but for a number of years,
before I would say anything to a students, I would play it through in my head
and think, “How would I react if these words were presented to me?” If you are
perceived as being harsh, meanspirited or unhelpful, the student shuts down
like a garage door and discredits you and doesn’t allow you back in. Then
you’ve lost someone. And, as a teacher, that’s the worst thing that could
possibly happen, to lose a student. So I’ve learned through trial and error. In
my experience, the two most difficult students in class are the weakest and the
strongest. Because you have a responsibility to the weakest and hopefully they
will ascend, and you have a responsibility to the strongest. When I inherited
the fashion program at Parsons, the strongest students were sample hands to the
weaker students. And I was like, “Wait a minute, no! This is not acceptable.”
So we had the faculty making clothes and these strong students making clothes
for other students? Absolutely not, they need to be pushed further. I say that
because for students to present fabulous work, I have a responsibility to them
to push them to take their work further. Instead of just saying, “Oh this is
great, keep doing it.” When I make the rounds on Project Runway, when we begin
with 16 designers, one round takes 4 ½ to 5 hours.
CS: So you spend about 30 minutes chatting with each one
about their design?
TG: Well, it’s closer to 20 minutes because then we have to
reposition cameras, everyone needs to move. I’d love to be able to navigate the
room seamlessly, just naturally. Once I land at a designers table, it’s all me
but before then, we are all starting to reposition, the director is looking at
everything on the monitor. So it’s about 5-7 minutes between each critic so it
takes a long time. If you watch the show, you think I’m with a designer for 30
seconds.
CS: So who are the hardest students to teach?
TG: I always tell my students that the worst characteristic
anyone can possess is stubbornness. Because it doesn’t allow you to let
anything in and you must. You’ve got to be a sponge. And it’s everyone’s
downfall, even on Project Runway. Stubbornness gets them nowhere.
The first year in the collections at Parsons, there were 14
students who completely illinated from the show. When I met with the students,
I said to those 14, I want you to know about the decision making here. I said,
collectively, between the 14 of you, it wasn’t that the designs were bad,
although sometimes they were; it wasn’t that the execution was poor, although
sometimes it was; it wasn’t that the installation was bad but sometimes it was.
There’s one common denominator between the 14 of you and it was stubbornness.
You would let nothing in, you wouldn’t budge, you would not let go of your
idea, you wouldn’t even examine it critically and objectively from afar; you
were stubborn! And it’s come back to bite you.
CS: That being said, who is an ideal student for you? I
guess one that is a sponge.
TG: One that who would have intense curiosity about the
world one who is tenacious in horning their craft, one who is equally tenacious
about excellence and one who can look at their work critically and objectively,
that’s the ideal. And that’s certainly where I have always tried to push my
students.
CS: I think that has to be taught. If you wait around for a
sponge to come, you are going to be waiting a long time. So instilling that in
students is very difficult. Do you have advice on how to do that?
TG: In my experiences, that first day of class when I am
attempting to access a class, I raise the bar beyond the grasp of what I feel
is the highest student among them. Because if you place the bar of expectation
in a place that is really attainable, that’s as far as the students will go. If
you raise it well over their heads, they are going to exceed even their own
expectations of even themselves. That’s the barometric gage, that’s the
benchmark. That’s been my guide through all my many years of teaching and it’s
worked for me.
Speaking for us, I mean, we are teaching a class about
creativity. What I find so wonderful about what we do, is that the answer isn’t
in the back of the book. It’s all about them, the students, really.
What I find is that when a student gets it, they understand
what’s really at the core of this creative process, it helps them in their
other studies. It unshackles them, it’s liberating.
And there you have it, friends! My interview with Tim Gunn. What can I say? This interview speaks to the amazing teacher and person that is this man. I'm so thankful to him for agreeing to this interview and, of course, to Nancy Walkup of SchoolArts Magazine for asking me to chat with him. I hope you enjoyed reading as much as I enjoyed the interview!
