The American Dream is that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement.  It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it.  It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position. (Truslow)

Although this was the first time the term was used, the ideas are built into the infrastructure of the American democratic system.  Famously in the Declaration of Independence, the American founding fathers “held certain truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”  It is this last part especially, that all men have the “unalienable right” for the “pursuit of happiness” that sets American documents apart from many others. Severing themselves from the words of John Locke who said that everyone has the right to “life, liberty, and property” (“Locke’s Views on Government”), it is the distinction of happiness that makes their Declaration decidedly American.  The New World was to be more than a land of property where lords owned land and surfs, it was to be something greater, a place where every man could hope and work for a better life. These words brought many people to our shores and that legacy continues today. 

However, what constitutes happiness has been defined by the times.  In 1845, Ireland suffered a devastating potato famine forcing many families to find new homes and many of those families came to America.  For reasons such as these, the dream for many immigrant families was simply “a chicken in every pot,” as Herbert Hoover said in his 1928 presidential campaign.  In 1946, not even twenty years later, World War II ended and the world was a different place.  Europe’s cities were virtually destroyed by years of aerial bombing, Japan was devastated by the atomic bombs, and the United States, which had only been attacked at Pearl Harbor, emerged relatively unscathed.  The factories that helped the allies to win the war by building ammunition and supplies morphed into factories for refrigerators and Cadillacs. And, when war and invasion closed the couture houses in France, America emerged as a new center for fashion creation and production (Gunn 5/1/07). This level of abundance changed the dreams of many from “a chicken in every pot” to “two cars in every garage” (qtd. in Truman).  Subsequently, the Baby Boomer generation experienced a period of massive economic growth.  Since then technological advancements have shrunk the world.  The majority of Americans have access to a personal computer and anyone with a web-cam may put himself on the internet.  America entered the Technological Age of Napster and YouTube, and where everyone, as Andy Warhol predicted, can be a celebrity for fifteen minutes. 

These technological breakthroughs have fed a new public obsession with voyeurism, and the main target of this voyeurism is celebrities.  The public has embraced them.  According to The Audit Bureau of Circulation’s 2005 report, Time magazine saw a sales dip of 3.4 % and Newsweek’s sales plummeted 14% (Smith).  Meanwhile “celebrity newsweeklies continued to post sparkling circulation increases. . .In Touch grew 49.7%. . .Us Weekly sold 989,011 copies on newsstands, while total circulation rose 23.9%. . .Star sold 879,356 copies on newsstands; total circulation jumped 20.9%. . .“ (Smith).  These periodicals are the national breeding grounds for celebrity gossip, and these statistics provide evidence of the United States’ shifting priorities and the national obsession with celebrity.

It seems that everyone wants to be famous and America’s promises of opportunity have weaned out the hard-workers from around the world.  They have come to America to pursue their dreams on America’s even playing field.  And, in times when the dreams of many seem to be fame, to be one of the chosen subjects of national gossip, what could be more American than the Reality TV show? 

Reality television is a genre invented by the producers at MTV.  Mary-Ellis Bunim and Jonathan Murray were employed by the company in 1992 to create a soap opera.  “Together they soon gave birth to the contemporary reality genre with the launch of MTV's The Real World” (Rogers, Pioneering). Their solution took seven strangers, put them in a house and videotaped the insanity that ensued.  Without the need to pay actors and writers, it proved to be a very lucrative investment. 

This genre is groundbreaking.  Much like game shows, reality shows give normal people large opportunities for money and prizes.  However, reality shows take it a step further.  Whereas game shows allow contestants one episode, reality shows offer the possibility of many for those who can survive the challenges.  More face time allows the public to get to know the players, and provides them with greater opportunities for fame and notoriety.  Furthermore, reality shows serve as a microcosm of America itself.  The Darwinian weeding out of the weakest players is entirely American, as this country has always laid claim to those who can persevere.

As the genre has matured, other networks latched onto the idea, reinventing it in many various and not so original ways.  Yet the popularity of these shows is exploding and as Lee Abbott wrote for the Magazine of the Writers Guild of America, West: “Of the top 10 shows on television, six are Reality” (Abbott).

In 2004, Harvey Weinstein, a leading Hollywood producer and cofounder of the production company Miramax, wanted to do a reality show on fashion and he approached “supermodel” Heidi Klum for ideas.   She proposed to do a competitive show about fashion designers, and the result was Project Runway.  The two of them seeking a credible backdrop approached Parsons School of Design and its director, Tim Gunn.  Now a nationally recognized fashion guru and style author, Gunn has breathed new life into the Parsons program that was still teaching how to make 1950s dresses when he arrived (Schwartz).  Becoming quite the celebrity himself, Gunn has been described as a “father-figure” (Michael Knight qtd. in Schwartz 32), and the reason other fashion show copycats, like CBS’ The Cut and WE’s Style Me, have failed is because they did not have “Gunn power” (Schwartz).

After an intense auditioning process, fourteen designers arrive at the Parsons School of Design. Tim Gunn is their mentor and would-be troop leader, and Heidi the host and judge.  Each week the designers are given assignments, like for example, to design a Grammy outfit for Access Hollywood’s Nancy Odell, and given no more than two days to complete their task.  The audience watches them design, work, and struggle to complete their garments in time for the runway show.  The models walk and the judges, headed by fashion mainstay, and as Heidi has said the “king of jet set American style” (Window Shopping, Season 2, Episode 6), Michael Kors, rate their work.  Each week a designer gets eliminated from the competition and the last three contestants get to have their own full fashion show at New York’s Fashion week.  A winner is chosen from the three finalists and he or she receives a hundred thousand dollars, a fashion spread in Elle magazine, artist representation, a car, and a mentorship with various national brands.  As Heidi says, “[It] is the chance of a lifetime” for any young designer (Intro, Season 1, Episode 1): a concrete manifestation of the truly American idea that the world of opportunity is there for the taking for whomever wishes to work for it.

Project Runway has become a huge hit for Bravo, giving the small cable network a “220% increase [in viewers] over [its] time period average” (Rogers, Bravo’s), rounding the 1.07 million mark.  It has done so by tapping into the ideals of hard work and ingenuity that many Americans still hold dear and are an inherent part of our culture. 

The difficult, seemingly unending work is one of the huge draws of the show.  The third season was shot over thirty-two straight days (Gunn 5/1/07) without any breaks.  Each episode the audience witnesses the designers go on practically no sleep for weeks on end while trying to maintain a level of creativity and innovation. Season two finalist Daniel Vosovic described it as the “iron man triathlon of fashion” (Inspiration, season 2, episode 8).  In this new age of fame obsession, the public has witnessed the divorce between fame and accomplishment.  When people have become famous for the accomplishments of their parents, the public is embracing these designers who are getting ahead in the world the old fashioned way, through their own hard work and skill.

The designers weekly show audiences a great deal of ingenuity and creativity.  Much the same way that settlers purchased the island of Manhattan for beads and trinkets and turned it into some of the most valuable property in the world, taking something small and making something valuable from it is inherently American. In the first episode of season one, audiences watched contestant Austin Scarlett make a dress out of nothing but cornhusks purchased from the local supermarket, and in season three contestants were asked to make garments out of recycled materials such as newspaper and plastic.  There is also the constant demand for creativity.  To stay in the competition you must continue to have new ideas, and unlike the sewing skills that they need to execute their garments, one can’t be taught how to be creative.  It is almost mystical in that some people seem to be creative so easily and others struggle with it.  Executive Producer Harvey Weinstein says “People are fascinated with the creative process—especially how clothes are made, I thought this could be great” (Schwartz). On Project Runway the audience gets to watch creativity at work.  They get to see what the contestants make and in turn think about what they might make under the circumstances.

This show also does well with audiences by having challenges that embrace American iconography.  In season one, the designers were asked to design an outfit for the American sportswear line and co-sponsor of the show, Banana Republic.  Season one winner, Jay McCarroll, was struggling.  The challenge was to design an outfit for the national brand while maintaining the label’s seasonal design aesthetic of American Art Deco.  McCarroll’s style, up until that point, had been very “punk-rock” and he could not come up with a design.  Then he looked up from his table and saw the photograph of the Chrysler building hung on the wall and proclaimed, “the Chrysler building is Art Deco!” (“Banana Republic”, Season 1, Episode 3).  He based his design on the sunburst pattern of the building and was a close second to win the challenge.  This was the beginning of many American-centric challenges.  Later in season one the designers had to redesign the U.S. Postal Workers’ uniform.  Season two contestants were given the assignment of designing a figure skating costume for silver medal winner and American Olympian, Sasha Cohen.  Also in season two, the designers were asked to design for the American icon, Barbie.  Making their outfits in life-size and miniature, the designers were forced to think about marketability from in the box, and what would appeal to a little girl.  Nick Verreos won, and his design was manufactured and sold with his name and picture on the outside of the box.  Finally in season three, the designers were given the ultimate all-American assignment: design the gown for Miss USA, Tara Connor, to wear for the Miss Universe Pageant.  Many designers struggled with finding the balance between high fashion and the mass appeal, over the top style typically associated with pageant gowns.  Not surprisingly, in the end it was contestants Robert Best, who had a career designing dresses for Barbie, and Kayne Gillaspie, a pageant gown designer, who teamed together and won the challenge.

However, an even more pertinent piece in the connection between Project Runway and the modern American dream is the opportunities it has provided to immigrants in this land of opportunity.  As Nina Garcia, the fashion director of Elle magazine and one of the weekly judges, so eloquently puts it, “[Project Runway is] the democratization of fashion.  It’s the H & Ms, the Targets, The Devil Wears Prada.  The timing could not be better” (Schwartz).   It is the ultimate opportunity for anyone willing to work for it, and in many cases those people have come from all over the globe to take part.

The number of foreign contestants on the show is truly staggering.  Season one had the British Vanessa Riley.  Season two had Kara Janx, from Johannesburg, South Africa, who came to the U.S. originally to pursue architecture, then switched to the much riskier fashion industry (Season 2 Bios).  Season three had Malan Breton, who was born in Taipei, Taiwan and, while growing up, lived in Hong Kong, Australia, California, Hawaii, Utah, and Georgia amongst other places (Season 3 Bios).  His indecipherable accent made him an interesting character to watch and he went on to show during fashion week despite getting eliminated relatively early on in the competition.  However, no one embodies the American tradition of immigration better than the designers Chloe Dao and Uli Herzner.

The winner of season two, Chloe Dao, reveals in the finale episode that she and her family were actually Vietnam War refugees.  Her parents and her sisters were caught trying to leave Laos and were placed in family prison for several years, where Dao was actually born, before they were able to make the crossing to America where they settled near her uncle in Houston, Texas (Finale Part One, Season 2, episode 13).  America was her refuge and Project Runway her golden opportunity. 

Season three finalist Uli Herzner experiences a similar fate.  When first introduced to Uli the audience knows her as only the German blonde whom Heidi Klum gets excited to have on the show as a fellow German immigrant.  They learn that she lives in Miami, and becomes known for her trademark print dresses.  However, it is not until she becomes a finalist that she reveals to Tim Gunn and the world that she grew up in East Germany at a time when the Cold War divided a continent and the Berlin Wall kept many from pursuing their dreams in the West. Her family had very little and so she became accustomed to making clothes for herself at a very early age. As fate would have it, this act of necessity would eventually catapult her into stardom.  Through laughter she tells Tim about how she would watch Miami Vice as a child and dream about coming to America.  When the Berlin Wall came down on November 11^th, 1989, her dream of moving to Miami was realized.  She spoke of the show and the opportunities she has had here: “it wouldn’t happen in another country” and “I think that’s why everyone comes to this country. . .because dreams can come true” (Finale Part 1, Season 3, Episode 13).

Foreign or native, this show has provided previously inconceivable opportunities to fledgling fashion designers.  Fashion is an art and an international language of its own.  As Michael Kors puts it during one of their many judging sessions: “it doesn’t matter if you’re French, German, American, Colombian, or Australian that dress simply did not work” (Couture Du Jour, Season 3, Episode 9).  This show celebrates many of the threads in the fabric of American culture; however, it also amplifies many of America’s faults.

As much as Americans like to see other Americans succeed, they also like to see them fail.  Shortly after winning, every winner of the show has had personal battles with the press.  Season one winner Jay McCarroll came under attack after his first post-Project Runway collection received criticism when New York Times writer Eric Wilson claimed that “pins were showing” (Wilson) on some of his clothes.  Chloe Dao has been criticized by some for not relocating to New York, a move that to most seems like the logical step for any designer who wishes to take their business to the next level.  Instead she has opted to stay in Houston and expand her business there.  However, neither have taken as much criticism as Season Three’s divisive winner, Jeffrey Sebelia. 

In a recent article entitled “What Happened To Jeffrey Sebelia?” in New York Magazine, writer Amy Larocca painted a very discouraging picture of the recent winner and of the show itself.  Quoting him as saying “the truth is, I’m totally broke,” she goes on to write that his mentorship was slow to start, that after paying back the loan for his Costa Nostra label, the prize money was almost gone, and that “[his line] has finally just about caught up to where it was when he left to do the show.” She compares Project Runway to other “star-making” reality shows such as American Idol, but that “celebrity sells lots of things: Cds and tabloid magazines.  It has yet to be proved that it will sell Sebelia’s $1,300 beaded sweatshirt.”  Larocca ends the article by telling a rather humiliating anecdote about Sebelia not having the three dollars to pay the parking attendant for his car.

Surprised by the article Jeffrey told Tim Gunn that Larocca grossly misquoted him and fails to mention that his collection sold out during fashion week (Gunn 5/1/07).  Furthermore, at a recent book signing in New York City, Tim Gunn, when asked about the negative press the winners have received after the show, said “The show helps them as much as they allow them to” and that first season winner, Jay McCarroll, for one “is managing [his line] beautifully” (Gunn 5/1/07).

Jay McCarroll, Chloe Dao, and Jeffrey Sebelia are embodying the American dream.  The show has helped them take their businesses to a new level despite any trials and tribulations.  Project Runway has helped them to gain the notoriety that is necessary for fashion designers to succeed on a large scale, and slowly but surely the public has been responding.  A public that is changing as quickly as the fashion trends they wear in an economic climate that is altering the course of the American dream.  One researcher who is following this changing American phenomenon is Professor of Public Policy at George Mason Univeristy, Richard Florida.  Author of the book The Rise of the Creative Class, Florida’s work “is causing a wholesale reexamination of urban policies, as cities seek companies that create jobs in creative fields” (George Mason).  In his article “The New American Dream” Richard Florida explains:

In recent history, the number of people doing creative work has exploded.  Those in creative occupations—from engineers and designers to artists and writers to higher-end planners, analysts, managers, and other ‘creative professionals’—now comprise more than thirty percent of the workforce, up from about 10 percent in 1900 and only 20 percent as recently as 1980. (Florida)

With each generation increasing numbers of Americans have been able to move away from blue collar jobs, and also increasingly more are becoming able to work in more thoughtful and creative fields.  But if this show brings to light anything, it is that most people in this country do not have the luxury of searching for work that they find fulfilling. “Behind every software engineer is a nanny or a food-service worker” (qtd. in Florida).  Florida goes on to explain this widening class issue:

Today, we have levels of income inequality not seen since the 1930s.  And the issue isn’t simply one of social justice or equitable distribution of rewards.  It is a matter of functional inequality—and creative waste.  Seventy percent of the workforce does not have the opportunity to do valuable creative work, as the favored 30 percent does.  We are not close to hitting on all cylinders. (Florida)

A schism is growing between the classes. Some are privileged enough to search for their bliss and pursue seemingly frivolous fields with unsure outcomes, while others are forced to seek out the steady paycheck. Florida explains how this can mean trouble for America’s future:

There’s nothing either natural or desirable about letting [the classes] run to extremes.  Historical evidence shows that periods of high inequality (like the 1930s) are also ones of low growth, while eras of lower inequality (like the “Great Compression” that followed World War II) are accompanied by high growth. (Florida)

However, despite this growing economic division in the classes, the move to “follow [your] bliss,” as contestant Daniel Franco said in season one, (Innovation Season 1, Episode 1), seems unstoppable.  Florida goes on:

Some say, that the American Dream has become the pursuit of material prosperity--that people work more hours to get bigger cars, fancier homes, the fruits of prosperity for their families – but have less time to enjoy their prosperity. Others say that the American Dream is beyond the grasp of the working poor who must work two jobs to ensure their family’s survival.  Yet others look toward a new American Dream with less focus on financial gain and more emphasis on living a simple, fulfilling life. (Florida)

Consequently, Project Runway has seen multiple contestants who were in other jobs, who quit them to pursue their dream of working in fashion.  Season one’s Starr Ilzhoeffer, and season two’s Kirsten Ehrig are both lawyers who, until the opportunity of the show came along, only pursued fashion in their spare time.  Marla Duran from season two, who owns her own store, commented that she thought that she had had to focus more on maintaining a business than the other designers and that perhaps was why she “[doesn’t] trust her own creative voice” (Social Distortion season 2, episode 5).  Similarly, Vincent Libretti, from season three, quit his job and cashed in his 401K to take part in the reality series.  America’s drive to work creatively is pushing people to take more risks in their work.  Florida writes that he has interviewed “countless professionals who left secure jobs for riskier new ventures, often at lower pay, not for a shot at a stock-option bonanza but for a chance to do work that excites them” (Florida).

For many this road to bliss is embodied by Project Runway.  The baby boomers have discovered financial stability through hard work and this country’s massive economic growth.  Yet this generation is searching for something more.  As Americans satisfy one dream, the next dream is bigger than the first.  Immigrants came here to feed their families, then to provide a comfortable lifestyle, and now people are searching for fulfillment.  It is no longer just about survival, but rather the quality of life.  Americans want jobs that are creatively stimulating, emotionally satisfying, and many wouldn’t mind if that came with fame. 

As the United States stumbles through its adolescence, the dreams of its people have taken a grand journey.  Project Runway has become a huge hit with audiences by tapping into the frenzy for celebrity, embracing American values and symbols, and continuing the tradition of giving opportunities to many hard-working immigrants.  It also has arrived at a time when the American appetite is changing, and there is a national hunger to work creatively.  Yet, it also points out the fickle nature of creative industries.  Americans are struggling between financial security and emotional satisfaction, and the growing division between those who have the luxury of pursuing their dreams and those who must live vicariously by watching others pursue theirs.  “Designers have become like rockstars” (Garcia qtd. in Schwartz), and the lengths to which Americans seem to be willing to go to achieve their dreams, in the great persevering American tradition, is virtually endless.  But what can Americans look forward to in their future?  As the void grows between privilege and survival, the amount of time that Americans will be willing to live their dreams through others is limited.  Never willing to sit in the back seat, Americans will fight for the attention they feel is due them and the future of which they have dreamed.  But how bright is that future?  The economic growth of the baby boomers’ generation is gone and the struggle to choose between what makes one happy and what will support one’s family is rampant.  The economy is slowing and the abundance necessary to sustain creative fields is faltering.  As the United States wages its distant war, Project Runway begs the question: how much longer will there be room in the American Dream for the frivolity of fashion.

WORKS CITED                                                  

Abbott, Lee. “Reality Check.” Magazine of the Writers Guild of America, West. 2006.

http://www.wga.org/writtenby/writtenbysub.aspx?id=2067

Florida, Richard. “The New American Dream.”  Washington Monthly.  March 2003. 

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0303.florida.html

Gunn, Tim.  “Book Signing for A Guide to Quality, Taste, and Style.”  Barnes & Noble

New York City.  1 May 2007.

Hoover, Herbert.  “1928 Presidential Campaign Slogans.”  Presidents Home Page. 

2002.  http://www.presidentsusa.net/1928slogan.html

LaRocca, Amy.  “What Happened To Jeffrey Sebelia?”  New York Magazine  26 Feb.

2007: 207-210.

Lazarus, Emma.  The New Colossus.  New York: 1883.  http://xroads.virginia.

edu/~CAP/LIBERTY/lazaruspoem.html

Locke, John.  “Locke’s Views on Government.”  Biographies. 2006. 

http://www.blupete.com/literature/biographies/locke.htm#government

Project Runway Season Bios.  9 June 2007.  Bravo TV.  http://www.bravotv.com

/Project-Runway/season/bio

Ramos, Andreas.  A Personal Account of the Fall of the Berlin Wall: The 11^th and 12^th

of November 1989. 28 March 2007.  9 June 2007. http://www.andreas.com

/berlin.html

“Richard Florida: Hirst Professor of Public Policy.”  George Mason School of Public

Policy.  George Mason Univeristy. http://policy.gmu.edu/people/florida. html

Rogers, Steve.  “Pioneering Reality TV: Producer Mary-Ellis Bunim Dead at 57.”

Reality TV World 30 Jan. 2004  http://www.realityTVworld.com/news/

 pioneering-reality-tv-producer-mary-ellis-bunim-dead-at-57-2210.php

---.  “Bravo’s Project Runway Hits Ratings High With Fourth Episode” Reality TV

World 11 Jan. 2005 http://www.realityTV world.com/news/bravo-project-

runway-hits-ratings-high-with-fourth-episode-3175.php

Schwartz, Missy.  “Design Within Reach.”  Entertainment Weekly 1 Sep. 2006: 28-

32.

Smith, Stephanie D. “ABC: Celeb Titles Enjoy Circ Gains.” Mediaweek  15 Aug. 2005.

9 June 2007.  http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_

display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001014878

Truman, Harry.  “Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in Delaware,

Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.”  Truman Library.  6 Oct. 1948.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=1975&st=&st1=

Truman

What is the American Dream? America Dreams.  20 May 2007.  

http://memory.loc.gov /learn/lessons/ 97/dream/thedream.html

Wilson, Eric.  “Are There No Expiration Dates for Designers?”  New York Times  18

Sep. 2006.