Thesis: The Ugly Truth

Feb 2

Written By Isabella Elisa Miceli

Isabella Miceli

Gago, Carlos

Thesis Dissertation

8 December 2024

The Ugly Truth: Introduction

Abstract

This thesis examines and explains the use of the word ugly and its connotations within the fashion industry in comparison with its use in the outer world. In particular, focusing on the divide between its positive associations in contrast to its negative. These two parts are divided, labelled, and explained in tandem through a mixture of peer reviewed journals studying how ugliness is perceived, both in marketing and scientific contexts (respectively), as well as by gathering an extensive archive of articles detailing ugliness in art and fashion, demonstrating cultural reception to ugliness during different periods in time. Ultimately, this thesis seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of ugliness for those who create and consume visual media, so that they may be more aware of their own unconscious understanding of what is ugly and what is not.

Introduction

Ugliness is not just an observation, it’s a feeling (Rasche et al., 2024; Synnott, 2018). A sensation so strong that the very sight can trigger repulsion, disgust, and even incite urges of violence (Küplen, 2015). There is, however, an exception, or, as to be unpacked in this thesis, a perceived exception; that is the fashion industry. While ugliness is rejected and avoided in the outer world, its label is sought after and viewed in an overall desirable light within the fashion industry (Ferri, 2022; Abraham, 2022), and has even become synonymous with authenticity and creativity in a market plagued with perceptions of the contrary (Thomas, 2022).

In a period of immense economic decline within the luxury industry, one of the few outliers has been Miuccia Prada who is not only maintaining her brand’s status, but has seen an increase in relevance and sales (Park, 2024; Sanderson, 2024; Tong 2024); and with her, the now-coveted ugly chic movement. While fashion has embraced this concept, it has simultaneously embraced AI and social media; digital tools that have been proven to demote persons deemed unattractive in their algorithms: a recent lawsuit against Tiktok revealed that the app adapted its algorithm to “reduce the visibility of people it deemed not very attractive” (Allyn, et al., 2024).

Associated in religion and philosophy with evilness: as declared by the Basil of Caesarea, “Satan appears … as the misanthrōpos, the hater of humanity…he is the hater of beauty” (Jan Pelikan et al., 2024) and in eastern religions through the form of shaitans “exceptionally ugly creatures:” Ugliness is hardwired within the brain to generate an avoidance-motivated emotional response. A study titled Ugliness Judgments Alert us to Cues of Pathogen Presence found that ugly human faces, ugly animals, and (to a lesser extent) ugly buildings, elicit feelings of disgust…and may even activate the behavioral immune system, altering [subjects] to stimuli that pose pathogen as a pathogen risk. The same study found that those deemed ugly are more likely to be viewed with contempt and distrust, even resulting in a higher conviction rate (Klebl et al., 2021). It cannot be understated the negative and dangerous effects of being labelled an ugly person in the world (Kershaw, 2008).

And yet, ugliness in luxury fashion is overwhelmingly viewed in a positive light: associated with honesty, authenticity, and elevated taste (Milano Ferri, 2022). But fashion is made of people, so how can this be? How could an entire industry reject the natural, unconscious impulses of human nature? This thesis seeks to prove through a textual and discourse-based analysis that this rejection does not exist, but in fact an alternative definition does. An exploration of the two definitions sharing the word ugliness.

And why does this matter? Because ugliness is often an unconscious notion, which can be easily used and manipulated to uphold the existing status quo (Przybylo, Rodriguez, 2018). By labelling what we already find aesthetically acceptable as “ugly,” we relinquish any responsibility we have to examine ourselves: what we are choosing to accept as beautiful, and what we are choosing to find ugly by omission.

These definitions can be distinguished by a concrete set of differing characteristics with little overlap which for clarity, in this paper, will be separated as such:

Classified Ugliness: the ugliness that has already been defined in the dictionary. It’s the ugliness that is referred to by the culture at large. It’s an adaptation of the word ugly, defined as “1a offensive to the sight: hideous. 1b offensive or unpleasant to any sense. 2 morally offensive or objectionable. 3a likely to cause inconvenience or discomfort 3b surly, quarrelsome. 4 frightful, dire”. Synonyms include: hideous, disgusting, vile, awful, unaesthetic, and distasteful (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, “Ugly”).

Valued Ugliness: this is the ugliness that can be commodified. It has aesthetic and cultural value, and is seen in a positive light. It can be natural or manufactured, and, importantly, must be acknowledged as ugly to hold its status. Oftentimes, in the context of fashion, it is a recycling of previous mainstream standards and trends, or in reference to “ugly” art already established to be of a certain value.

Together, we will review a brief history of how valued ugliness entered the fashion world, and highlight particular moments of prominence. In parallel, we will periodically check in with the classified ugliness for comparison. We will conclude with the present day and examine these forms of ugly in the digital age of social media and AI. While we look at the past, our research will focus on archives from museums, fashion publications, and art reviews with a heavy reliance on peer-reviewed journals measuring marketing and consumer behavior.

Methodology and Context

Through examining scientific studies on reactions to ugliness, as well as literary and fashion archives using the word in regard to art and fashion, we will separate the two definitions of the word ugly, demonstrating the separate meanings of valued ugliness and classified ugliness. In parallel, we will turn to archival journals, and coverage of the world at large to demonstrate the experience and oftentimes dangerous consequences (Klebl et al., 2021) of classified ugliness, an ugliness that often goes undefined (Little, Jones, and DeBruine, 2011; Tsuda, 2023; Lan et al., 2021).

The lack of distinction between the two of which allows for the relinquishing of responsibility by the luxury fashion industry to diversify and to examine who and what are truly deemed ugly in our society, and why. For the reader to understand why this matters, we will demonstrate as well, the risks, and dangers (Kershaw, 2008; Lan et al., 2021) of unacknowledged ugliness, that is, classified ugliness (which does not have representation and/or praised in the fashion world) through examining archives of historic propaganda, as well as contemporary situations.

The most appropriate suite of research is qualitative, as the value of ugliness is not often measured by numbers. Through observation of trends (comparing the reaction to the same garment as it is labelled mainstream, or later “ugly chic”), and social attitudes, supported by the statistics of revenue of brands labelled ugly-chic, we will show the existence of valued ugliness.

Weakness that should be acknowledged within this research is that we have no scientific studies within this thesis of the brain's activity in response to examples of what we have labelled ugly within the fashion world outside of a social signalling context, and the “ugliness” that is being studied has no one universal definition besides a general consensus among researchers that it is just generally agreed upon sensation (Langlios et al. 2000), and is often described as a sensation that is just naturally known (Yarosh, 2019; Tsuda, 2023). For this reason, we are comparing cultural attitudes, reviews, and brand success to measure reception in comparison to the responses elicited within the aforementioned studies.

In summary, this thesis will present secondary sources of mostly qualitative merit to support its argument. In the understanding of ugliness as it relates to fashion, shows reviewed as stunts for shock value will not be included in the research (Williams, 2023). Where there are gaps due to a lack of historical recording, clarity, or authorial bias, compensation will be made through the inclusion of a diverse range of sources, from peer-reviewed journals in marketing and medicine, to art reviews, books, and magazines.

Research and Analysis

In understanding and defining the two different meanings of the word ugly (valued and classified), we can look at the people and subjects that the terms have been applied to throughout history, beginning in the 20th century, and compare what reactions were elicited within and outside of the fashion industry in tandem. This analysis is based on research conducted through qualitative research, both in archives demonstrating cultural attitudes from the periods discussed, as well as modern-day reflections through magazines and journals. This is in addition to the aforementioned foundation of scientific journals depicting what the brain’s and body’s reaction is to ugliness, and preferences towards beauty.

Overwhelmingly, in contemporary reviews of fashion collections, and interviews with fashion professionals, ugliness is regarded in a generally positive light, synonymous with authenticity and innovation (Cesareo, Townsend and Pavlov, 2022). In parallel, not one study found and presented in this thesis demonstrated any positive reception of participants when presented with “ugly” subject material, and moreso, found instead intense negative responses of disgust and similar internal cues that we may have to a virus (Klebl et al., 2020). Obesity, skin problems, sickness, poor hygiene, and what are perceived as “overly large” or “overly small” facial features are all characteristics generally regarded as ugly (Yarosh, 2019).

[1] Classified Ugliness; What It Is and How We React To It

Beginning with the brain and body’s response to ugliness, virtually every experiment conducted on the subject demonstrates that the presentation of “ugly” subject matter elicits strong negative reactions in humans and that when surveyed, participants tended to hold tantamount views on what constitutes something ugly and something beautiful (Langlios et al. 2000). As found by a study in 2019, “A meta-analysis, covering 919 studies and over 15,000 observers, reported that people agree, both within cultures and across cultures, who is attractive and who is not” (Yarosh, 2019). As written by Ryan P. Doran; philosopher and cognitive scientists in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Barcelona, and the Department of Psychology at the University of Cambridge; in his explanation of the unification of disgust and ugliness as two entities that are inseparable, “a range of studies that do not rely on people recalling things that disgust them, and so will not be as biased towards reflecting the most obvious and normatively acceptable elicitors, reveal that disgust is felt towards a greater range of entities, including: what might be termed 'merely anomalous' entities such as obese people…slightly unattractive people who do not show signs of occurrent or historic disease… people with 'disfigurements' such as birthmarks…ugly plants…ugly architecture…people from outgroups, including racial outgroups.”

A group of studies conducted by Paul Rozin and April E Fallon for the American Psychology Association explain disgust and its sensations as “a sense of oral incorporation of something offensive, and of the need to orally expel...and psychological representations of the object that is perceived to be the cause of disgust as contaminating...Disgust is thought to have evolved from the distaste response to defend us from toxins and physical contaminants…as well as moral, social and spiritual contamination (Rozin et al. 2008).” The School of Psychological Sciences at the University of Melbourne found, “the presence (vs. absence) of disease cues were found to elicit ugliness judgments suggesting that … ugliness may activate the behavioral immune system, alerting us to stimuli that pose pathogen risk.”

A strong example of this sense of ugliness being used in a harmful way has been in propaganda. During the 1930s the Nazis used various imagery and depictions of Jews as the epitome of ugliness and uncleanness, equivalent to “vermin, rats, and parasites,” (Criado, 2022; Berenbaum, 2019) to gather public support and justify what they deemed a “cleansing,” while holding up the Arian look as the ideal. (Criado, 2022; Berenbaum, 2019). Years later, this tactic can be seen again in the perpetuation of the genocide in Gaza. One of many examples: In Israeli textbooks, Arabs are portrayed, if mentioned at all, in the form of negative stereotypes. An exploration into depictions of Arabs in Israeli textbooks and media by scholars at the University of Tel-Aviv concluded, “The descriptions of [Arabs] transmit to students two major themes. One is the theme of the Arab as primitive, inferior, backward, and ignorant, in comparison to the Jews…characteristics such as brutality, untrustworthiness, cruelty, fanaticism, treacherousness and aggressiveness appear. [School textbooks] provide graphic descriptions of Arab pogroms, murders, riots and attacks, and explain them in simplistic terms, that reinforce the stereotype of primitivism and ignorance… Positive stereotyping is rare. Some books do refer to positive characteristics, mostly within a particular ethnocentric framework, that is to say whenever Arabs help Jews or acknowledge their superiority” (Bar Tal, 2005). After October of 2023, when the genocide began, a viral trend began on TikTok of Isrealis coating themselves in dirt, drawing on unibrows and blackened teeth, and dressing in fake hijabs as they pretended to be Palestinians, some clips even included props such as pretend babies with Xs drawn over the eyes (Al Jezeera, 2023; Middle East Monitor, 2023). This in tandem with the Israeli Army’s active use of social media including captions below videos of soldiers repeatedly including “#HotGuy[Girl]Shit” and “#Supermodel” (Lee, 2021; Seavon, 2021).

“Ugliness or unsightliness is much more than a quality or property of one’s appearance. In Western contexts and histories especially, ugliness has long functioned as a social category that demarcates one’s rights and access to social, cultural, and political spaces. People who are unsightly are framed as

not only unworthy of being seen or of having eyes set upon them, but they then become the target of interventions to curb the possibility of their causing aversion and discomfort in others” (Rodriguez and Przybylo, 2018).

With this understanding of what is ugliness, what subject matter triggers the sensation of ugliness, and what that sensation is; in a concrete way, we can better begin to compare fashion’s perception of ugliness to compare if they are really of one definition.

[2] Valued Ugliness In the Luxury Fashion Industry:

Through the gathering of peer-reviewed research journals of consumer behavior as well as observational research of “ugliness” as it appears in fashion journalism, we have found that the term “ugliness” is overwhelmingly associated with positive connotations, not only by the perspective of luxury insiders and participants, but the general population as well. This embrace of valued ugliness is also reflected in profits (Abraham, 2022). While the fashion industry has been in the midst of financial turmoil (Park, 2024; Sanderson, 2024), ugly luxury has seen consistent marketability in the past ten years.

Important context for the reader is the establishment of the entrance of “ugliness” as a positive term within the fashion industry. Beginning with the surrealist movement (Ades, 2022), followed by the abstract expressionist movement (both largely labelled ugly at the time of their conception), fashion began to embrace “ugliness” as it began to be commodified in art (Pop, 2014). An early example can be seen in the surrealist movement, where African artifacts were being considered valued ugliness, whereas the culture at large (in the West) had considered them classified ugliness (Umberto Eco, 2011; Waldon L, 2021). With the framework of commodification established by the art world, the fashion industry began to accept the concept in stages, and began to champion the term even later (Henderson, 2015). An early example being Elsa Schiaparelli and her partnership with surrealist artists such as Salvator Dalí (Ambrosio, 2018), later followed suit by designer Yves Saint Laurent who enforced this bridge with odes to Piet Mondrian and Pablo Picasso (Wedman Alfaro, 2023): all of whom were initially criticized for their “ugly,” albeit lack of aesthetic composition before becoming esteemed. In the 1990s the term ugly chic was coined, exploding in popularity as it became popular with designers such as Miuccia Prada (Mahlich, 2010; Fury, 2014) and Rei Kawakubo (Thomas and Abraham, 2022).

If we look at the United States during this rise of the term ugliness being used with a positive connotation in art, we can observe concordantly the presence of the “Ugly Law,” a law existing throughout the US and England, banning "any person, who is diseased, maimed, mutilated or deformed in any way, so as to be an unsightly or disgusting object, to expose himself or herself to public view." (Schweik, 2010).

Another foundation that must be established is the understanding of the characteristics that tend to be concurrent with the term “ugly” within the fashion world in contrast to that of the world at large. In the case of Miuccia Prada and Rei Kawakubo, we can see the repeated re-introduction of styles and silhouettes that were previously the mainstream (Shrimpton, 2016; Reddy, 2019). In the case of Prada’s S/S 1996 collection, she displays several blouses and pencil skirts that bear resemblance to those which would have been accepted as mainstream in the 1970s (Reddy, 2019), as case point her use of “avocado greens, [and] sludge browns…that hadn’t been considered attractive since the seventies” (Vogue Runway, 1995). As for Rei Kawakubo, Comme des Garçons’ “Body Meets Dress, Dress Meets Body,” commonly referred to as “Lumps and Bumps,” runway show of S/S 1997 uses many of the same body modifications and silhouettes that would have been the norm from the sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen-hundreds. One example being the popular robe à la polonaise as explained by Professor Michele Majer of the Bard Graduate Center, “Although informal styles were the order of the day in the 1770s, understructure was still necessary to give them—and the female body itself—the correct shape. Small panniers or pocket hoops (a pair of small hoops worn over each hip) replaced the large panniers that had created the distinctive female silhouette since the 1720s. In addition to these, cork-filled supports, called “rumps,” were also worn.” (Majer, 2021). A theme of valued ugliness is often the recycling of previously mainstream beauty standards, that is, the declaration of acceptance of something we once already accepted. Both collections have been upheld as iconic examples of ugly chic at its most acclaimed (Palais Galliera | Musée de la mode de la Ville de Paris, 1997; Paton, 2023).

The period in which Alessandro Michele was creative director of Gucci was widely praised, with critics calling attention to his particular uniqueness and Guccification- a term referring to [his] style often “characterized as "ugly," with undeniably strong selling power” (Bobila, 2019). Designs, like Miuccia Prada before, that were “notably vintage” with exaggerated proportions resembling times before. (Bobila, 2019; Friedman, 2022). In his seven years as creative director, revenue at Gucci almost tripled from €3.9bn in 2015 to €9.7bn in 2021 (Dowling, 2022). Heidi Slimane has been another quiet participant of the ugly chic movement, as his Spring/Summer 2015 show was reviewed, “[Hedi Slimane’s] ability to sell clothes that are almost exact replicas of vintage finds is unparalleled. You rush to buy his pieces, not because they are the best, but because the person who wears them on the catwalk looks incredibly fascinating and you want to achieve that” (Flaccavento, 2015). An observation when researching the trend of valued ugliness in fashion is the sheer number of times it is mentioned simultaneously with the words: innovation, new, cutting-edge, revolution, elite: all in the same sentence as describing every item in the collection as reminiscent of vintage silhouettes and fabrics.

Research conducted by the Academy of Marketing Science in 2021 found through a series of five studies measuring consumer behavior that “consumers recognize a distinctively ugly aesthetic as a signal of luxury (H1, Studies 1–4). Moreover, while generally consumers choose beauty and avoid ugliness, when from a luxury brand distinctive ugliness is at least as likely to be chosen as its attractive counterparts (H2a, Studies 2–4), and this choice is driven by the ability of distinctively ugly luxury products to signal luxury (H2b, Studies 3a, replication of 3a, 3b). Study 4 identifies a boundary condition; when a logo is prominently displayed, there is no boost in choice likelihood among distinctively ugly luxury products (H3), further supporting that the value of this aesthetic comes, at least in part, from its ability to signal. Ultimately, the value of signaling luxury is great enough to overcome the cost of forgone beauty. Finally, Study 5 provides supportive evidence from the supply side; while generally, brands put a price premium on beauty, luxury brands price distinctively ugly products equally to distinctively attractive ones…However, fourth, we also identify a context where ugliness, a cue that is almost universally negative, is in fact positive” (Cesareo, Townsend and Pavlov, 2022). The overwhelming findings of this study are that consumers, including those who are not luxury consumers, equate ugliness in a luxury context as a status signaler and elevated taste and refined knowledge of luxury fashion. Furthermore, more value is put on this signaling than the makeup of the item itself. In conclusion, “We identify the key benefit distinctive ugliness offers to consumers: this aesthetic signals luxury. This means that, for a large portion of the luxury market, the signaling benefit of a luxury good is more important than attractiveness” (Cesareo, Townsend and Pavlov, 2022). This is supported by the previous research conducted by Harvard Business School which concluded in their 2014 journal The Red Sneakers Effect: Inferring Status and Competence from Signals of Nonconformity, “individuals judge others as having to have higher competence and social status when they don't follow the conventional norm in a social group (Bellezza, Gino and Keinan, 2014),” however, this signaling is lost when “a specific nonconforming behavior is perceived as unintentional, it will no longer be associated with status, competence, and autonomy” (Bellezza, Gino and Keinan, 2014).

In the differentiating between classified ugliness and valued ugliness, one key divider is the element of choice and intention. Classified ugliness cannot be chosen as it is often decided for us by a combination of unconscious preference and social conditioning. Following the notion that when a subject or behavior is nonconforming unintentionally it loses its value, this sets a clear barrier between luxury fashion’s definition of ugliness (valued ugliness) and ugliness in the world at large (classified ugliness), as classified ugliness can rarely hold this position whereas valued ugliness always does.

[2] Fashion, Ugliness, and Artificial Intelligence:

Few industries have embraced AI as quickly and completely as the luxury fashion industry. From designs and campaigns to fashion marketing and journalism, AI has become a presence in every faction of the luxury fashion industry (Yola Mzizi, 2024; Bain, 2024). Publication, Business of Fashion, reports “Publicis, one of the world’s largest advertising and communications agencies, has pledged to invest 300 million euros ($327 million) in AI over the next three years. Another advertising giant, WPP, announced a partnership with Google Cloud in April that it said would allow its clients “to create brand- and product-specific content using gen AI, to gain deeper insights into their target audiences, to accurately predict and explain content effectiveness, and to optimise campaigns with ongoing adaptive processes” (Bain, 2024). As ugliness continues to be coveted within the luxury fashion landscape, it’s worth comparing its role within the digital realm, particularly in AI its the algorithms, the very same that determine what gets visibility and what gets demoted (Bain, 2024).

As explained by American journalist, Kyle Chayka in his book “Filterword,” a text exploring the history of algorithms and their impact, “under algorithmic feeds, the popular becomes more popular, and the obscure becomes even less visible… The absence of attention inevitably raises the question of what the feed will promote, tacitly encouraging safer choices, urging conformity. Who receives a promotion is also a problem…the possibilities that we perceive for ourselves- our modes of expression and creation- now exist within the structures of digital platforms.” This means that whatever the consumer is shown more, they will learn to prefer. In the context of fashion and visual marketing, the repercussions of this could have a positive or negative impact depending on how the industry moves forward. However, if no precautions are taken, it will further create an enforcement (and possibly a regression) of the pre-existing status quo: who gets seen as beautiful, seen at all, and who doesn’t. In late 2023, Business of Fashion reported, “Generative AI adds its own risks, like perpetuating negative stereotypes or erasing different groups just by not including them. One issue with some image generators is that they can default to a white man for just about any prompt, positive or negative” (Bain, 2023; Preston, 2021): this one year prior to a lawsuit revealing that the app Tiktok adapted its algorithm to “reduce the visibility of people it deemed not very attractive” (Allyn, et al., 2024). Across the internet, websites claiming to rate attractiveness through AI can be found with titles including, “Am I Ugly? Ask AI to find out” (Nyckle, 2025). In regards to its process, one site writes, “By analyzing various facial features and proportions, the test generates a score that reflects the perceived attractiveness based on predefined standards.These standards are typically derived from extensive datasets that include numerous faces labeled with attractiveness ratings by human judges” (Alonso, 2024).

Using OpenAI, in response to prompts asking for the creation of both beautiful and ugly people, of the forty generations received, all subjects were white with the exception of two images. One of which was the prompt “models in ugly clothes” which depicted five avatars; three white women and two black men, all dressed in metallic-rubbery outfits resembling those of a 1990s Barbie. The second image coming from the similar prompts “fashion models in ugly clothes” which depicted a white male avatar and a black female avatar again in neon rubber clothing, this time resembling contemporary streetwear. Of the forty prompts and 126 avatars created, only three were not white and one was not thin (prompt: ugly woman in beautiful clothes).

Open AI Left to Right: prompt Ideal Woman, prompt Group of Models, prompt Ugly Woman

Referring back to the National Library of Medicine, a study conducted in 2011 studying facial attractiveness through evolutionary-based research found, “Averageness refers to how closely a face resembles the majority of other faces within a population; non-average faces have more extreme characteristics than the average of a population…Familiarity, when not paired with aversive stimuli, is thought to be rewarding, and indeed there are obvious benefits to avoiding the unfamiliar. This can then help explain why exposure may cause increases in preference” (Little, Jones and DeBruine, 2011).

Conclusion

By reviewing a mixture of science and culture-based sources, this thesis has thoroughly analyzed and explained the two meanings of the word ugliness, and their differing connotations, reactions, and impact. In our exploration into classified ugliness, we found a strong link between external cultural influences on subjects’ perception of what is ugly; however, we found that the sensation of ugliness is often a sensation that subjects generally agreed upon without the capacity to explain why. The intensity of the sensation was also examined, as we found its relation to disgust- both unconsciously and physically- much more connected than originally expected. In the matter of valued ugliness, we found cultural signalling played a significant role in its positive reception, as well as patterns of what garments and shows were labelled ugly or not; a major theme being mainstream silhouettes and trends of the past. In conclusion, we examined fashion, ugliness, and AI, and the potential risks algorithms may pose going forward (Orwat, 2020), particularly in the regression of the diversification of what’s considered beautiful or ugly. Despite limitations reached, such as conflicting reports of what is considered ugly within the fashion industry, and the potential risk of biases unnamed, this thesis surveys enough sources ranging from enough types of research (scientific, literary, cultural), that any significant knowledge gaps have been counteracted. Building on this exploration, I advise further discussion about ugliness in the visual communication of luxury fashion- in particular about what ugliness is left unacknowledged- and urge consumers and creators alike to question what they find ugly and why.

References

Abrams, H. (1999). The Museum of Modern Art: Distributed MoMA. [online] Available at: https://assets.moma.org/documents/moma_catalogue_226_300198614.pdf.

Ades, D. (2022). Surrealism, but Not as You Know It – Tate Etc. [online] Tate. Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/tate-etc/issue-54-spring-2022/surrealism-not-you-know-it.

Al Jezeera (2023). Israeli video trend mocks Palestinians’ suffering | Al Jazeera Newsfeed. [online] www.youtube.com. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QihoBuGRVwU.

Allyn, B., Goodman, S. and Kerr, D. (2024). Inside the TikTok documents: Stripping Teens and Boosting ‘attractive’ People. [online] NPR. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/12/g-s1-28040/teens-tiktok-addiction-lawsuit-investigation-documents.

Ambrosio, D.D. (2018). Non solo moda. La storia pazzesca di eccessi e trasgressioni tra Elsa Schiaparelli e Salvador Dalì. [online] ELLE. Available at: https://www.elle.com/it/magazine/storie-di-donne/a25651167/elsa-schiaparelli-e-salvador-dali-storia/.

Andrei Pop and Mechtild Widrich (2016). Ugliness : the non-beautiful in art and theory. London ; New York: I.B. Tauris.

AnOther (2018). The Yves Saint Laurent Show Where Art and Fashion Collided. [online] AnOther. Available at: https://www.anothermag.com/fashion-beauty/10534/the-yves-saint-laurent-show-where-art-and-fashion-collided.

Bain, M. (2024a). The Big Money in AI Might Be for Marketing. [online] The Business of Fashion. Available at: https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/technology/the-big-money-in-ai-might-be-for-marketing/.

Bar-Tal D, Teichman Y. Stereotypes and Prejudice in Conflict: Representations of Arabs in Israeli Jewish Society. Cambridge University Press; 2005.

Bellezza, S., Gino, F. and Keinan, A. (2014). The Red Sneakers Effect: Inferring Status and Competence from Signals of Nonconformity. J Consum Res, [online] 41(1), pp.35–54. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/674870.

Berenbaum, M. (2019). Holocaust - From Kristallnacht to the ‘final solution’. In: Encyclopædia Britannica. [online] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/event/Holocaust/From-Kristallnacht-to-the-final-solution.

Bobila, M. (2019). Say Goodbye to Gucci’s ‘Guccification’ Come Spring 2020. [online] Fashionista. Available at: https://fashionista.com/2019/09/gucci-spring-2020-review.

Brand, E.S., Ruiz, R.A. and Padilla, A.M. (1974). Ethnic identification and preference: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 81(11), pp.860–890. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037266.

Brown, S. (2009). Extreme Beauty: Pushing the Envelope. [online] Vogue | The Complete Archive. Available at: https://archive.vogue.com/article/2009/9/extreme-beauty-pushing-the-envelope [Accessed 17 Jan. 2025].

Cazzato V., Siega S., Urgesi C. What women like: Influence of motion and form on aesthetic body perception. Front. Psychol. 2012;3:235. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00235.

Cesareo, L., Townsend, C. and Pavlov, E. (2022). Hideous but worth it: Distinctive ugliness as a signal of luxury. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 51. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00913-3.

Cook, G. (2017). Ugly Fashion Is Big Business. [online] The Business of Fashion. Available at: https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/retail/ugly-fashion-is-big-business/.

Criado, M.Á. (2022). How Nazi propaganda dehumanized Jews to facilitate the Holocaust. [online] EL PAÍS English Edition. Available at: https://english.elpais.com/society/2022-12-04/how-nazi-propaganda-dehumanized-jews-to-facilitate-the-holocaust.html.

da Cunha Brandão, A.M.P. and Barbedo, H.E.M. (2022). Going (in)conspicuous: antecedents and moderators of luxury consumption. Journal of Marketing Analytics. doi:https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-022-00157-8.

Doran, R.P. (2022). Ugliness Is in the Gut of the Beholder. Ergo an Open Access Journal of Philosophy, 9(0). doi:https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.2261.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2022). Bias in algorithms - Artificial intelligence and discrimination. [online] Available at: https://fra.europa.eu/it/publication/2022/bias-algorithm [Accessed 17 Jan. 2025].

Ewen, L. (2024a). Luxury spending hits one of its worst years since the Great Recession. [online] Fashion Dive. Available at: https://www.fashiondive.com/news/bain-luxury-spending-flat-worst-2024/733451/.

Ewen, L. (2024b). Prada Group revenue challenges luxury slowdown narrative. [online] Fashion Dive. Available at: https://www.fashiondive.com/news/prada-miumiu-q3-2024-earnings-increase/731503/.

Ferri, D.F.M. (2022). Nella moda il cattivo gusto è provocazione intellettuale. [online] Harper’s BAZAAR. Available at: https://www.harpersbazaar.com/it/moda/tendenze/a40089621/ugly-chic-moda-cos-e/.

Franklin, H. (2019). 1880-1889 | Fashion History Timeline. [online] Fitnyc.edu. Available at: https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1880-1889/.

Friedman, V. (2022). I Will Miss Alessandro Michele’s Freaky, Geeky Gucci. The New York Times. [online] 30 Nov. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/30/style/alessandro-michele-gucci.html.

Fury, A. (2014). Essay: Miuccia Prada - The Master of ‘Ugly’. [online] www.showstudio.com. Available at: https://www.showstudio.com/projects/ugly/essay-alexander-fury.

Henderson, G.E. (2015). Ugliness : a cultural history. London: Reaktion Books.

IBM Data and AI Team (2023). AI Bias Examples | IBM. [online] Ibm.com. Available at: https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/shedding-light-on-ai-bias-with-real-world-examples.

Jones, Geoffrey. “Blonde and Blue-Eyed? Globalizing Beauty, c.1945-c.1980.” The Economic History Review, vol. 61, no. 1, 2008, pp. 125–54. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40057559. Accessed 19 Jan. 2025.

Kershaw, S. (2008). Decoding the subtle injustices of ugliness. The New York Times. [online] 3 Oct. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/arts/04iht-ugly.1.17465003.html.

Klebl, C., Greenaway, K.H., Rhee, J.J. and Bastian, B. (2020). Ugliness Judgments Alert us to Cues of Pathogen Presence. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(5), p.194855062093165. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620931655.

Langlois J., Rubenstein A., Larson A., Hallam M., Smoot M. Maxim or Myths of Beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol. Bull. 2000;126:390–423. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390

Lan, M., Peng, M., Zhao, X., Li, H. and Yang, J. (2021). Neural processing of the physical attractiveness stereotype: Ugliness is bad vs. beauty is good. Neuropsychologia, 155(33713669.), p.107824. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.107824.

Lee, L.R., Natasha Phang (2021). How the IDF is turning TikTok into its latest propaganda tool. [online] Shado Magazine. Available at: https://shado-mag.com/opinion/how-the-idf-is-turning-tiktok-into-its-latest-propaganda-tool/.

Little, A.C., Jones, B.C. and DeBruine, L.M. (2011). Facial attractiveness: evolutionary based research. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, [online] 366(1571), pp.1638–1659. doi:https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0404.

Mahlich, H. (2010). All In Bad Taste: Why Does Miuccia Prada’s ‘Ugly’ Still Bite? | SHOWstudio. [online] www.showstudio.com. Available at: https://www.showstudio.com/news/all-in-bad-taste-why-does-miuccia-pradas-ugly-still-bite.

Majer, M. (2021). 1770-1779 | Fashion History Timeline. [online] fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu. Available at: https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1770-1779/.

Middle East Monitor (2023). Israelis mock Palestinian tragedy on TikTok. [online] Middle East Monitor. Available at: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231204-israelis-mock-palestinian-tragedy-on-tiktok/.

Nyckel. (2021). Nyckel. [online] Available at: https://www.nyckel.com/pretrained-classifiers/am-i-ugly/ [Accessed 17 Jan. 2025].

Orwat, C. (2020). Risks of Discrimination through the Use of Algorithms. [online] Available at: https://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/EN/homepage/_documents/download_diskr_risiken_verwendung_von_algorithmen.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1.

Park, A. (2024a). Luxury Fashion Is Struggling In The First Half Of 2024—Here’s Why. [online] Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciapark/2024/07/17/designer-fashion-houses-are-struggling-in-the-first-half-of-2024-heres-why/.

Park, A. (2024b). Prada Sees Double Digit Growth In First Half—Joining Hermès As An Outlier Of The Luxury Slowdown. [online] Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciapark/2024/07/30/prada-sees-double-digit-growth-in-first-half-joining-herms-as-an-outlier-of-the-luxury-slowdown/.

Paton, E. (2023). Why 1997 Was Fashion’s ‘It’ Year. The New York Times. [online] 1 Mar. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/01/style/fashion-1997-exhibition-palais-galleria-paris.html.

Pietro Sarasso, Gianni Francesetti and Schoeller, F. (2023). Editorial: Possible applications of neuroaesthetics to normal and pathological behaviour. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 17(37521683). doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2023.1225308.

Preston, A.M. (2021). Taking On Tech: Social Media’s Anti-Blackness And Algorithmic Aggression In The Absence Of Accountability. [online] Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestheculture/2021/08/09/taking-on-tech-social-medias-anti-blackness-and-algorithmic-aggression-in-the-absence-of-accountability/.

Rasche, S.E., Beyh, A., Paolini, M. and Zeki, S. (2024). Neural correlates of the experience of ugliness. The European journal of neuroscience, [online] 60(7), pp.5671–5679. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ejn.16517.

Rhodes, G. (2006). The Evolutionary Psychology of Facial Beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), pp.199–226. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190208.

Rodriguez, S. and Przybylo, E. (2018). On the Politics of Ugliness. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76783-3.

SANDERSON, R. (2024). The Strategy Behind Miu Miu’s Explosive Growth. [online] The Business of Fashion. Available at: https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/luxury/strategy-miu-miu-explosive-growth-ceo-prada/.

Schweik, S.M. (2010). The ugly laws : disability in public. New York: New York University Press ; Chesham.

Seavon, F. (2021). Israeli military’s TikTok attempt to make propaganda cool. [online] www.aljazeera.com. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/1/idfs-tiktok-and-its-attempt-to-make-propaganda-cool.

Shrimpton, J. (2016). Victorian fashion. Oxford: Shire Publications.

Spencer, S. and Crow, P.A. (1999). Christianity | Definition, Origin, History, Beliefs, Symbols, Types, & Facts. [online] Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/Satan-and-the-origin-of-evil#ref301011 [Accessed 12 Dec. 2024].

The (1979). Saint Laurent Styles: A Return to Reality. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/1979/10/17/archives/saint-laurent-styles-a-return-to-reality-saint-laurent-styles-a.html [Accessed 12 Dec. 2024].

Thomas, T. and Abraham, D. (2022). Ugly is the New Pretty: Motivations Behind the Acceptance of Ugly Fashion Trends. Advances in consumer research. Association for Consumer Research (U.S.), [online] 50, pp.24–27. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373555207_Ugly_is_the_New_Pretty_Motivations_Behind_the_Acceptance_of_Ugly_Fashion_Trends.

Thomsen, T.U., Holmqvist, J., von Wallpach, S., Hemetsberger, A. and Belk, R.W. (2020). Conceptualizing unconventional luxury. Journal of Business Research, 116, pp.441–445. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.058.

Tong, R. (2024). Prada Group reports significant growth in nine-month update - APLF Limited. [online] APLF Limited. Available at: https://www.aplf.com/2024/11/06/prada-group-reports-significant-growth-in-nine-month-update/ [Accessed 12 Dec. 2024].

Tsuda, S. (2023). J. Colin McQuillan (ed.), Baumgarten’s Aesthetics: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2021. Pp. viii + 364. ISBN 9781538146255 (hbk) £100.00. Kantian Review, [online] 28(2), pp.321–324. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/s1369415423000067.

Tsukiura, T. and Cabeza, R. (2011). Shared brain activity for aesthetic and moral judgments: implications for the Beauty-is-Good stereotype. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, [online] 6(1), pp.138–148. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq025.

Umberto Eco (2011). On ugliness. New York: Rizzoli.

Umberto Eco and Alastair Mcewan (2010). On beauty. London: Maclehose.

Victoria and Albert Museum. “History of Fashion, 1900 – 1970.” Accessed January 17, 2025. http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/h/history-of-fashion-1900-1970/.

Walden, L. (2021). Africa in the Surrealist Imaginary: Photographs of Sculpture in Minotaure and Documents . Visual Anthropology, 34(3), 185–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/08949468.2021.1908110

Wedman Alfaro, A. (2023). Yves Saint Laurent: When Fashion Meets Art - the Metropolitan Museum of Art. [online] Metmuseum.org. Available at: https://www.metmuseum.org/perspectives/yves-saint-laurent.

Williams, R. (2024a). How Prada Group Is Defying the Downturn. [online] The Business of Fashion. Available at: https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/luxury/prada-group-q3-2024-results-defies-downturn/.

Williams, R. (2024b). Miu Miu Revenues Double In First Half, Extending Industry-Beating Run. [online] The Business of Fashion. Available at: https://www.businessoffashion.com/news/luxury/miu-miu-revenues-double-in-first-half-bucking-luxury-slowdown/.

Yarosh, D. (2019). Perception and Deception: Human Beauty and the Brain. Behavioral Sciences, [online] 9(4), p.34. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/bs9040034.

Yola Mzizi (2024). Fashion’s AI Dilemma Is Getting Worse. [online] The Business of Fashion. Available at: https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/technology/fashion-ai-dilemma-is-getting-worse/.

Zanette, M.C., Pueschel, J. and Touzani, M. (2022). Re-arranging dressing practices: The role of objects in spreading ugly luxury. Journal of Business Research, 145, pp.784–800. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.02.087.

Bibliography

Abrams, H. (1999). The Museum of Modern Art: Distributed MoMA. [online] Available at: https://assets.moma.org/documents/moma_catalogue_226_300198614.pdf.

Acosta, G.P. (2023). The Uglification of Fashion: Social Media and Maximalism Today | Arts | The Harvard Crimson. [online] www.thecrimson.com. Available at: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/10/31/ugly-fashion-uglification-maximalism-tiktok-article/.

Ades, D. (2022). Surrealism, but Not as You Know It – Tate Etc. [online] Tate. Available at: https://www.tate.org.uk/tate-etc/issue-54-spring-2022/surrealism-not-you-know-it.

Al Jazeera (2023). Israeli video trend mocks Palestinians’ suffering | Al Jazeera Newsfeed. [online] www.youtube.com. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QihoBuGRVwU.

Andrei Pop and Mechtild Widrich (2016). Ugliness : the non-beautiful in art and theory. London ; New York: I.B. Tauris.

Ario Mezzolani (2024). From Prada’s Ugly Chic to Tiktok Cringe Chic. [online] Lampoon Magazine. Available at: https://lampoonmagazine.com/article/2024/02/27/from-pradas-ugly-chic-to-tiktok-cringe-chic/.

Bain, M. (2024b). The Big Money in AI Might Be for Marketing. [online] The Business of Fashion. Available at: https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/technology/the-big-money-in-ai-might-be-for-marketing/.

Baker, Naomi. Plain Ugly: The Unattractive Body in Early Modern Culture. Manchester University Press, 2010. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv6p50z. Accessed 17 Jan. 2025.

Bar-Tal D, Teichman Y. Stereotypes and Prejudice in Conflict: Representations of Arabs in Israeli Jewish Society. Cambridge University Press; 2005.

Biddle, J.E. and Hamermesh, D.S. (1998). Beauty, productivity, and discrimination: Lawyers’ looks and lucre. Journal of Labor Economics, [online] 16(1), pp.172–201. Available at: https://www.proquest.com/docview/204632768?sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals.

Blizek, W. and Berlyne, D.E. (1973). Aesthetics and Psychobiology. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 31(4), p.553. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/429334.

Bobila, M. (2019). Say Goodbye to Gucci’s ‘Guccification’ Come Spring 2020. [online] Fashionista. Available at: https://fashionista.com/2019/09/gucci-spring-2020-review.

Borgesius, F.Z. (2018). Discrimination, artificial intelligence, and algorithmic decision-making. [online] Available at: https://rm.coe.int/discrimination-artificial-intelligence-and-algorithmic-decision-making/1680925d73.

Brand, E.S., Ruiz, R.A. and Padilla, A.M. (1974). Ethnic identification and preference: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 81(11), pp.860–890. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037266.

Campbell, C., Sands, S., McFerran, B. and Mavrommatis, A. (2023). Diversity representation in advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. [online] doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-023-00994-8.

Cazzato V., Siega S., Urgesi C. What women like: Influence of motion and form on aesthetic body perception. Front. Psychol. 2012;3:235. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00235.

Christies.com. (2022). Yves Saint Laurent drawings and collages by the iconic French designer. [online] Available at: https://www.christies.com/en/stories/yves-saint-laurent-sketches-and-collages-67db36c0d53a4420a8906c481bcce715.

Cook, G. (2017). Ugly Fashion Is Big Business. [online] The Business of Fashion. Available at: https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/retail/ugly-fashion-is-big-business/.

Danziger, P.N. (2024). $387 Billion Luxury Market Remains Turbulent. Here Are The Bright Spots. [online] Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanziger/2024/02/19/387-billion-luxury-market-remain-turbulent-here-are-the-bright-spots/.

Dazed (2021). Five times Prada made ugly, sexy. [online] Dazed. Available at: https://www.dazeddigital.com/fashion/article/52026/1/miuccia-prada-ugly-sexy-fashion-big-pants-socks-sandals-aw21-show-raf-simons [Accessed 10 Dec. 2024].

Dazed (2022). ‘Real, raw, honest’: How Nan Goldin inspired a generation of photographers. [online] Dazed. Available at: https://www.dazeddigital.com/art-photography/article/55751/1/real-raw-honest-how-nan-goldin-inspired-a-generation-of-photographers.

Dietrich, P. and Knieper, T. (2021). (Neuro)Aesthetics: Beauty, ugliness, and ethics. PsyCh Journal, 11(5). doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.478.

Dimitrov, D. and Kroumpouzos, G. (2023). Beauty Perception: a Historic and Contemporary Review. Clinics in Dermatology, [online] 41(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2023.02.006.

Doran, R.P. (2022). Ugliness Is in the Gut of the Beholder. Ergo an Open Access Journal of Philosophy, 9(0). doi:https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.2261.

Doreen Bolger Burke and New, A. (1986). In Pursuit of Beauty. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Ewen, L. (2024b). Prada Group revenue challenges luxury slowdown narrative. [online] Fashion Dive. Available at: https://www.fashiondive.com/news/prada-miumiu-q3-2024-earnings-increase/731503/.

fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu. (2018). cage crinoline | Fashion History Timeline. [online] Available at: https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/cage-crinoline/.

Franklin, H. (2019). 1880-1889 | Fashion History Timeline. [online] Fitnyc.edu. Available at: https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1880-1889/.

Fury, A. (2014). Essay: Miuccia Prada - The Master of ‘Ugly’. [online] www.showstudio.com. Available at: https://www.showstudio.com/projects/ugly/essay-alexander-fury.

Fury, A. (2016). These Two Guys Are Changing How We Think About Fashion (Published 2016). The New York Times. [online] 11 Apr. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/t-magazine/gucci-alessandro-michele-balenciaga-vetements-demna-gvasalia.html.

Gagosian (2018). Georg Baselitz | Gagosian. [online] Gagosian. Available at: https://gagosian.com/artists/georg-baselitz/.

Givhan, R. (2018). Why is ugly fashion in right now? [online] Washington Post. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/gender-identity/why-is-ugly-fashion-in-right-now/ [Accessed 10 Dec. 2024].

Gnoli, S. (2024). Niki de Saint Phalle, non solo artista, anche icona di stile. [online] Vogue Italia. Available at: https://www.vogue.it/article/niki-de-saint-phalle [Accessed 17 Jan. 2025].

Heimann, E. (2014). Trinity College Trinity College Digital Repository Senior Theses and Projects Student Works Spring 2014 Jackson Pollock: The Critical Reception. [online] Available at: https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1409&context=theses.

Hendersen, G.E. (2016). The history of ugliness shows that there is no such thing | Aeon Ideas. [online] Aeon. Available at: https://aeon.co/ideas/the-history-of-ugliness-shows-that-there-is-no-such-thing.

Henderson, G.E. (2015). Ugliness : a cultural history. London: Reaktion Books.

Hooks, B. (1993). From the Archives: Altars of Sacrifice, Re-membering Basquiat. [online] ARTnews.com. Available at: https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/features/from-the-archives-altars-of-sacrifice-re-membering-basquiat-63242/.

IBM Data and AI Team (2023). AI Bias Examples | IBM. [online] Ibm.com. Available at: https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/shedding-light-on-ai-bias-with-real-world-examples.

Jerrentrup, M.T. (2021). Ugly on the internet: from #authenticity to #selflove. Visual Studies, pp.1–16. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586x.2021.1884993.

Kandel, E. (2012). The Biological Response to Beauty and Ugliness in Art [Excerpt]. [online] Scientific American. Available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/age-of-insight-excerpt/.

Kelleher, K. (2018). Ugliness Is Underrated: In Defense of Ugly Paintings. [online] The Paris Review. Available at: https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2018/07/31/ugliness-is-underrated-in-defense-of-ugly-paintings/.

Kershaw, S. (2008). Decoding the subtle injustices of ugliness. The New York Times. [online] 3 Oct. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/arts/04iht-ugly.1.17465003.html.

Kimmelman, M. (1998). ART REVIEW; How Even Pollock’s Failures Enhance His Triumphs. The New York Times. [online] 30 Oct. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/30/arts/art-review-how-even-pollock-s-failures-enhance-his-triumphs.html.

Koda, H. (2011). Extreme beauty : the body transformed ; [published in conjunction with the Exhibition ‘Extreme Beauty: the Body Transformed’ held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art from December 6, 2001, through March 3, 2002]. New Haven ; London Yale University Press New York The Metropolitan Museum Of Art.

KüplenM. (2015). Beauty, ugliness and the free play of imagination : an approach to Kant’s aesthetics. Cham: Springer.

Langlois J., Rubenstein A., Larson A., Hallam M., Smoot M. Maxim or Myths of Beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol. Bull. 2000;126:390–423. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.3.390

LIPSON, K. (1993). Basquiat Retrospective: Well-Earned or Hype? : Art: Four years after his death, a Whitney show raises questio. [online] Los Angeles Times. Available at: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-01-23-ca-1493-story.html [Accessed 12 Dec. 2024].

Majer, M. (2020). 1700-1709 | Fashion History Timeline. [online] fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu. Available at: https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1700-1709/.

Majer, M. (2021). 1770-1779 | Fashion History Timeline. [online] fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu. Available at: https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1770-1779/.

Malauna Andel Crivens (2000). What color is attractive? A look at the relationships between skin tone preference, self-esteem, and ethnic identity attitudes. [online] 60. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/34517722_What_color_is_attractive_A_look_at_the_relationships_between_skin_tone_preference_self-esteem_and_ethnic_identity_attitudes.

Metmuseum.org. (2019). Poiret: King of Fashion. [online] Available at: https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2007/poiret.

.Miller G. Spent: Sex, Evolution, and Consumer Behavior. Penguin Group; New York, NY, USA: 2009. [Google Scholar]

Nast, C. (2023). Miuccia Prada and Raf Simons talk fashion, art, business — and their futures. [online] Vogue Business. Available at: https://www.voguebusiness.com/fashion/miuccia-prada-and-raf-simons-talk-fashion-art-business-and-their-futures.

Nathan, S. (2020). Beauty and the Biased: How Algorithms Perpetuate Body Dysmorphia. [online] MEDUSA. Available at: https://medusacreatives.com/2020/10/09/beauty-and-the-biased-how-algorithms-perpetuate-body-dysmorphia/.

Nyckel. (2021). Nyckel. [online] Available at: https://www.nyckel.com/pretrained-classifiers/am-i-ugly/ [Accessed 17 Jan. 2025].

Palais Galliera | Musée de la mode de la Ville de Paris. (1997). 1997 FASHION BIG BANG*. [online] Available at: https://www.palaisgalliera.paris.fr/fr/expositions/1997-fashion-big-bang.

Priya Bhonsle, Soni, N. and Mohan, C. (2024). FASHION IN THE DIGITAL AGE: SOCIAL MEDIA MARKETING’S INFLUENCE ON THE APPAREL MARKET. ShodhKosh Journal of Visual and Performing Arts, [online] 5(6). doi:https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhkosh.v5.i6.2024.2113.

Reddy, K. (2019). 1970-1979 . [online] Fashion History Timeline. Available at: https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1970-1979/.

Rhodes, G. (2006). The Evolutionary Psychology of Facial Beauty. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), pp.199–226. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190208.

Rodriguez, S. and Przybylo, E. (2018). On the Politics of Ugliness. Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76783-3.

Ronchi, G. (2020). The importance of ‘ugliness’. [online] www.domusweb.it. Available at: https://www.domusweb.it/en/art/2020/09/09/the-importance-of-ugliness.html.

Rose, B. (1982). Ugly? The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Neo-Expressionism Challenges Abstract Art. [online] pp.370–371. Available at: https://archive.vogue.com/article/1982/3/ugly-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-neo-expressionism-challenges-abstract-art [Accessed 9 Dec. 2024].

Rossi, F. (2019). Why an AI recruiter can be as biased as the humans that built it - The Times & The Sunday Times. [online] The Times & The Sunday Times. Available at: https://www.thetimes.com/static/ai-bias-job-hunting-ibm-recruitment-sexism-discrimination/?id=21336839644&gad_source=1 [Accessed 17 Jan. 2025].

s.r.o, R. (2020). English Version | Ugly is the new Pretty. [online] Vogue.pt. Available at: https://www.vogue.pt/english-version-fashion-imperfections-november-issue.

Salmon, C. (2012). Kate Moss : the making of an icon. New York: Harper Design.

Schweik, S.M. (2010). The ugly laws : disability in public. New York: New York University Press ; Chesham.

Shrimpton, J. (2016). Victorian fashion. Oxford: Shire Publications.

Steele, V. (2014). Interview: Valerie Steele on ‘Ugly’ Fashion | SHOWstudio. [online] Showstudio.com. Available at: https://www.showstudio.com/projects/ugly/interview_valerie_steele [Accessed 10 Dec. 2024].

Umberto Eco (2011). On ugliness. New York: Rizzoli.

Umberto Eco and Alastair Mcewan (2010). On beauty. London: Maclehose.

V&A (2024). V&A · From the Collections. [online] Victoria and Albert Museum. Available at: https://www.vam.ac.uk/collections?type=featured.

Verley, T. (2024). The Social Construction of the Art Brut Market. Biens Symboliques / Symbolic Goods, 14(4528). doi:https://doi.org/10.4000/12bhg.

Victoria and Albert Museum. “History of Fashion, 1900 – 1970.” Accessed January 17, 2025. http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/h/history-of-fashion-1900-1970/.

Vogue | The Complete Archive. (1952). Controversial Painter: Dubuffet. [online] Available at: https://archive.vogue.com/article/1952/5/controversial-painter-dubuffet.

Walden, L. (2021). Africa in the Surrealist Imaginary: Photographs of Sculpture in Minotaure and Documents . Visual Anthropology, 34(3), 185–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/08949468.2021.1908110

Wallace, C. (2014). Constructing Rick Owens’ Creative Bubble. [online] The Business of Fashion. Available at: https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/news-analysis/constructing-rick-owens-creative-bubble/.

Williams, R. (2023). What’s the Value of Viral Fashion? [online] The Business of Fashion. Available at: https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/luxury/whats-the-value-of-viral-fashion/.

www.artkhade.com. (2015). Artkhade. [online] Available at: https://www.artkhade.com/en/articles/639/a-deep-affinity-surrealism-and-tribal-art.

www.gordonparksfoundation.org. (n.d.). Doll Test, 1947 - Photography Archive - The Gordon Parks Foundation. [online] Available at: https://www.gordonparksfoundation.org/gordon-parks/photography-archive/doll-test-19472.

Yarosh, D. (2019). Perception and Deception: Human Beauty and the Brain. Behavioral Sciences, [online] 9(4), p.34. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/bs9040034.

Isabella Elisa Miceli

Thesis: The Ugly Truth

Redefining The Working Woman

Isabella Miceli