How to Join
the Fashion Spot / Front Row / Fashion... In Depth
FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Rules Links Mobile How to Join
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
23-10-2006
  151
front row
 
esquire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Gender: homme
Posts: 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutterlein
edit on that

Ok, I see what you are saying and I agree..kind of. There is commercial instution in the art world that enables artists to become quite wealthy. But it's still a different creature than fashion. You don't have to make profit in order to be a practicing successful artist, many don't. Grants and residencies offer assitance to those whose work can't be sold off. But the fashion world doesn't have grants and residencies, or museum partronage, or monogram sales, corporate comissions, or the oppurtunity to sell your sketches and documentation when what you make is clothes. It's not a pre-condition to be industrious in art, it is in fashion. It's entirely different demands and intent. Who doesn't like making money, but a designer has different kinds of pressure to deal with and utilizes totally different systems and devices.
I agree with you when you well separates ART from FASHION - it reasons, it commercial intentions etc. etc.. its clearly different fileds , and this is ipsum factum.

But i'll put in doubts your other affirmations like:

fashion world doesn't have grants and residencies - But fashion world have Prizes/Awards , which works in the same way, giving young or talented fashion designer the opportunity to follow their thoughts - like: CFDA/Vogue Awards, Fashion Fringe, Fashion Forward, Swarovski Award, and several others, practically every country that has an strong fashion industry will have those incentive prizes- it will reverse for the industry itself somehow anyway.

or corporate comissions - i would consider Mr Pugh for HSBC Bank or Pucci and several others designers who has done aviation uniforms, or even Viktor & Rolf for H&M as corporate commissions...

or the oppurtunity to sell your sketches and documentation when what you make is clothes- Roland Mouret sold recently through e-bay all his patterns - In early 80's Lagerfeld has sold lots of personal sketches in Christie's auction..

Its unusual, but i have noticed things somehow could cross over. Them personally I would avoid make statements which could scape trough the rules.

__________________
I'm not that interested in fashion... When someone says that lime-green is the new black for this season, you just want to tell them to get a life. Bruce Oldfield

Last edited by esquire; 23-10-2006 at 09:23 PM.
  Reply With Quote
 
24-10-2006
  152
front row
 
5AvenueMarceau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Gender: femme
Posts: 394
Grrrr, I just had a huge long message and accidently pressed back. Perhaps its for the best, I'm sure it will be much more succint now!

Although I'm not a fan, I think we ought to give Pugh and designers like him more credit. I do agree that designers must take into account their audiences, but I feel it is relevant that these audiences can be hugely different. I'm sure Pugh's collection wasn't made up for sale in the quantity that Mcqueen's was, or even as much as more 'arty' designers such as Comme de Garcon, or new designers such as Sinha-stanic. I'm sure he knows that this collection won't generate profit by selling the pieces as day or even evening wear, such conventional ways of making profit just don't work for padded leotards with arm bands. What Pugh is selling is Pugh; the clothes can be put into editorials, the collection creates a sensation, his name gets put on a t-shirt etc..., all of which bulk up his name and grant him publicity. It is then he gets signed up for things like HSBC and it is then he makes profit. But again, its more publicity and so the circle continues...

I think it is also very early in Pugh's career to bring him into such a discussion, I think his progression is already evident. His first collection was even more gimmicky than this. Perhaps his designs will become as genius as those of such designers as Yohji or Rei. I say genius because, personally, my favourite type of fashion is that which is as thought-provoking and emotional as art should be, but also has function. Margiela's latest couture line is a perfect example, not only were they beautiful, thoughful clothes, but they were adressing a problem in society.

Which leads to my next point. I think we're being to specific and that the real question is art vs design. The main consensus I'm getting from these last couple of pages is that the main difference is that one functions and/or makes profit and the other doesn't. So, if you have a stain on the wall and you hang something so definately classified as art as a Monet painting over it to hide it thus giving it a practical function, does Monet therefore become a designer and his work not art? Of course not, because it wasn't Monet's intention that his work should be used to cover a stain. His work was meant to capture an emotion, but if it can do both the job of art and the job of design, it's doubly satisfying. Why can't something be art and design? Look at art deco.

Finally, and my tuppence (or two pence) will be done, the reason I am not a fan of Pugh is because this amount of thought is not evident in his work. I think art can be absolutely anything, but that what classifies it as art is a thought or emotion captured, leading to an evocation of that emotion or a provoking of the thought when it is showed. For me, the difference between good and bad art is how fresh the thought or relatable the emotion - for Marcel Duchamp to call an urinal art was fantastic in 1914, but when you think about how long that was and how some art students are still doing similar things, is when you realise how staid it is to call an urinal art if the artist had shown a new urinal today. This is why I don't like Pugh, although you could argue his work was not staid for provoking such discussions as this, I feel that these discussions are not new and all of those other designers who provoked them before were clever enough to have some other substance to their work (usually wearable clothing, profit or innovation) and/or have developed into fantastic designers, something I still hope for Pugh to do.

Jesus, that was a bit long (and even less succint). I'm off to hide...


Last edited by 5AvenueMarceau; 24-10-2006 at 05:23 AM.
  Reply With Quote
24-10-2006
  153
fashion icon
 
MUXU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: LDN
Gender: femme
Posts: 3,060
fashion design to me is like modern art but with a function(like in the renaissance)..therefore..fashion design is art

i dont see why design cant be art since even in paintings..there are alot of design principals
art orginally was a function...'artists' would paint specific images from the bible to make the church easier at telling a story...to them...being able to tell the story is just as important as being able to wear the fashion designs of today

fashion design..or any design is art...it's applied art but it still is an art form

  Reply With Quote
24-10-2006
  154
front row
 
esquire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Gender: homme
Posts: 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5AvenueMarceau
but if it can do both the job of art and the job of design, it's doubly satisfying. Why can't something be art and design? Look at art deco.

but that what classifies it as art is a thought or emotion captured, leading to an evocation of that emotion or a provoking of the thought when it is showed.
I understand what you saying and I must agree with most of it , however I wouldn't bring in this rethoric the example of Art Deco, as many influencing movements have political or philosphical roots or intentions, Art Deco was purely decorative, therefore as the proper name says decorative art and nothing else. The purpose behind these design tactics was a desire to solve issues with labour divison in the art industry and set a new form of French decorative art - Also it is always associated with MASS PRODUCTION (an this is the reason that this style has "died" after some time - as start to smell an idea of faux luxury for wealthy costumers) - The same doesn't happens with Monet or Michelangelo as example, them giving us a clue that ART should not depend on being consumed as a product form by socitey to exist, Fashion does.

Also i think that your definiton that ART needs to create emotion are also just one side of the game and doesn't necessarily apply as a general rule, because "emotion" or "tought" are attributes related to the viewer perspective - and we can not deny that Mona Lisa is art, and some of my friends are indiferent to it... unless you classify "indiference" as emotion , but them everything is art, and isn't .. ART always should be related with the intentions of creator not the viewer.

Its a huge difference btw ART / ARTISTIC EXPRESSION / CRAFTS

__________________
I'm not that interested in fashion... When someone says that lime-green is the new black for this season, you just want to tell them to get a life. Bruce Oldfield
  Reply With Quote
24-10-2006
  155
front row
 
esquire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Gender: homme
Posts: 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUXU
fashion design..or any design is art...it's applied art but it still is an art form
Everything that contains the word "DESIGN" are automatically related with industrial process oriented.

DESIGN ISN'T NECESSARILY ART , as John or Mary could attend to a Design school for 5 years and design chairs, or tables, or clothes, without being ARTISTS,

ART as it stands ( i would say, everything after 15th century / ITALY , when the word ARTIST was born) depends on the creator intentions.. before that, like: vase painting, hieroglyphs or even pyramid construction - the same as shoemaking or weaving fabrics should be considered CRAFT or ANCIENT ART (which is craft based anyway) .

__________________
I'm not that interested in fashion... When someone says that lime-green is the new black for this season, you just want to tell them to get a life. Bruce Oldfield

Last edited by esquire; 24-10-2006 at 06:57 AM.
  Reply With Quote
24-10-2006
  156
rising star
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: a shadow gallery
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire
ART always should be related with the intentions of creator not the viewer.
So if I "intend" for a pile of sand to be art, it is art, regardless of the aesthetic response of people?

That's like saying if I "intend" for the sound of a jackhammer to be music, it is music, regardless of the fact that every one else considers it an intolerable din. In other words, quite nonsensical.

  Reply With Quote
24-10-2006
  157
rising star
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: a shadow gallery
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by laika
As abstract categories, I believe that Art and fashion can be distinguished, on the very basis that you provide in your post. As a category, Art has long been defined (at least in the "West") by its lack of function.
A Greek vase has no function? Lattices in Gothic architecture have no function? An ornate candlelabra has no function? A Greek temple, altar-piece, or Church frescos have no function? Functionality is not a basis for defining art at all. There is functional and non-functional art - and if anything, it is FUNCTION that has primacy for it precedes the idea that art is 'art for arts sake' by at least a millennia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by laika
A work of art is traditionally understood as being autonomous from a user (or wearer, in this case). This is not its only qualification, but I would assert that it is a basic one.
Incorrect, and basically mistaken. Rather, a work of art is art by virtue of the fact that our enjoyment of it is autonomous of its function, or its original purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by laika
However, abstract definitions (like the one above) are continually called into question by objects that confound them.
You don't say...

In other words, countless examples in the history of art contradict it. Next.

  Reply With Quote
24-10-2006
  158
botanizing on the asphalt
 
laika's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: nyc
Gender: femme
Posts: 1,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl.Popper
So if I "intend" for a pile of sand to be art, it is art, regardless of the aesthetic response of people?

That's like saying if I "intend" for the sound of a jackhammer to be music, it is music, regardless of the fact that every one else considers it an intolerable din. In other words, quite nonsensical.
Esquire, I have to agree with Karl on this point, at least in part. I would add that we can't jdistinguish an object as "Art" based on the intentions of its creator, because, in many cases, we have no way of knowing those intentions, except through social convention.
For example, it is frequently assumed that anything found in an Art Museum is Art. Yet there are many objects--for example, Congolese nail fetishes and Ancient Greek vases :p -- that were created for entirely different purposes. Personally, I do not agree with imposing the label of Art on such objects; but I recognize that social institutions play a major role in making them accepted as such.

__________________
....I mean the ephemeral, the fugitive, the contingent, the half of art whose other half is the eternal and the immutable."
  Reply With Quote
24-10-2006
  159
rising star
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: a shadow gallery
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by purplelucrezia
Just to go with the literary example, Dickens was apparently paid by the word. And yet he is still regarded today as one of the greatest authors. Perhaps one day some of the genuises of the design world will be seen in the same light.
Very good! A pertinent example that goes some way in dispelling the silly myth that what is commercial is necessarily non-art, or bad, or somehow inauthentic in a way (even if it can be). Pure balderdash...


Last edited by Karl.Popper; 24-10-2006 at 07:54 AM.
  Reply With Quote
24-10-2006
  160
botanizing on the asphalt
 
laika's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: nyc
Gender: femme
Posts: 1,566
Karl, I'm afraid you are missing the point of my post, which was to distinguish between the category of Art, as historically constructed by Art Historians, Sociologists, etc.
And Objects, which are contructed by their producers/creators. I said very clearly that I find the category useless (did you read that part?). I was simply presenting functionality as a historically influencial qualification.
"Enjoyment," as you put it, is another highly influencial qualification, which I find equally subjective and problematic.
And I certainly never said that vases, candelabras, and lattices have no function. PLEASE read my posts before you attack them!

__________________
....I mean the ephemeral, the fugitive, the contingent, the half of art whose other half is the eternal and the immutable."
  Reply With Quote
24-10-2006
  161
rising star
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: a shadow gallery
Posts: 140
Laika, I did read it, and was objecting to what you claim was a 'category' thus defined. The pre-eminent art historian of the 20th century, the derided Gombrich, certainly never suggests that non-functionality was a defining quality of art. Indeed, he quite says the opposite. And for obvious reasons.

  Reply With Quote
24-10-2006
  162
botanizing on the asphalt
 
laika's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: nyc
Gender: femme
Posts: 1,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl.Popper
Laika, I did read it, and was objecting to what you claim was a 'category' thus defined. The pre-eminent art historian of the 20th century, the derided Gombrich, certainly never suggests that non-functionality was a defining quality of art. Indeed, he quite says the opposite. And for obvious reasons.
No, he didn't define it as such. But other preeminent scholars (in other fields) have, and so I take it to be a historically significant--if currently irrelevant--factor. I completely understand your objection to the definition--I agree with it in many ways. I just think it's important, in trying to define art, to incorporate perspectives from diverse modes of thought. Anthropology and philosophy are as relevant to this discussion as Art History.
BTW, I have read and I respect both Gombrich and his critics. I didn't mean to deride him before. I was simply pointing out that his is not the only "Story of Art." :p

__________________
....I mean the ephemeral, the fugitive, the contingent, the half of art whose other half is the eternal and the immutable."
  Reply With Quote
24-10-2006
  163
fashion icon
 
Mutterlein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 3,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire
I agree with you when you well separates ART from FASHION - it reasons, it commercial intentions etc. etc.. its clearly different fileds , and this is ipsum factum.

But i'll put in doubts your other affirmations like:

fashion world doesn't have grants and residencies - But fashion world have Prizes/Awards , which works in the same way, giving young or talented fashion designer the opportunity to follow their thoughts - like: CFDA/Vogue Awards, Fashion Fringe, Fashion Forward, Swarovski Award, and several others, practically every country that has an strong fashion industry will have those incentive prizes- it will reverse for the industry itself somehow anyway.

or corporate comissions - i would consider Mr Pugh for HSBC Bank or Pucci and several others designers who has done aviation uniforms, or even Viktor & Rolf for H&M as corporate commissions...

or the oppurtunity to sell your sketches and documentation when what you make is clothes- Roland Mouret sold recently through e-bay all his patterns - In early 80's Lagerfeld has sold lots of personal sketches in Christie's auction..

Its unusual, but i have noticed things somehow could cross over. Them personally I would avoid make statements which could scape trough the rules.
All of those instances are anomlies, there are exceptions to every rule. You can use unusual anecdotes to argue any point. It's not the ideal or normal mode of working if you are a designer.

  Reply With Quote
24-10-2006
  164
front row
 
5AvenueMarceau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Gender: femme
Posts: 394
I'm afraid I have to almost entirely agree with Mr. Popper's points, no matter how pompously they were put across! In fact, alot of his points were what I was trying to say, just said with more eloquence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire
Also i think that your definiton that ART needs to create emotion are also just one side of the game and doesn't necessarily apply as a general rule, because "emotion" or "tought" are attributes related to the viewer perspective - and we can not deny that Mona Lisa is art, and some of my friends are indiferent to it... unless you classify "indiference" as emotion , but them everything is art, and isn't .. ART always should be related with the intentions of creator not the viewer.
Although I would defend my example of art deco, I feel that my using it was backed on something less tangible than a good knowledge of art and design history (something I am quite definately lacking in comparison to you and Karl.Popper) and I ought not to wade out of my depth in such terms. However, I will call your example of the Mona Lisa into question. Not that it was used entirely in the wrong place but that it is actually much better suited an example to the point Iwas trying to make! :p
I never said that art must evoke emotion or provoke thought in all people, but that, for me, to affect even just a few was all it needed to do to be defined as art. Mona Lisa has inspired feeling in thousands through thought and feeling, which, I feel, are in fact linked in this painting. For an obvious and simple example - her smile evokes an emotion, which in turn provokes the thought in us of what she is thinking.
I totally disagree that art should be read with the intention of the artist or that this intention is of primary importance (although I'm not quite sure if that is what you meant). I think that why art has been such a longlasting form of enjoyment is actually because of the opposite, because it is the viewer's interpretation that makes whatever emotion portrayed relatable or that takes a detail and turns it into thought.
This also leads to the one opinion of Karl.Popper's that I don't quite agree with; if an artist takes a pile of sand and calls it art, it can be so. If the sand represented some type of emotion or was put in a gallery to make people think and the artist did absolutely sincerely believe it would do such things (and wasn't just taking the piss out of art critics - although that would be quite a funny intention now come to think of it), it could be called art. However it would be bad art if no-one could take anything from the pile, if it didn't make them think or feel something. And if the one thing they could take from itwas the question of 'is this art?' and the debate we are having now, a pile of sand is still bad art because Marcel Duchamp did it almost a hundred years ago.

  Reply With Quote
24-10-2006
  165
front row
 
5AvenueMarceau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Gender: femme
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutterlein
All of those instances are anomlies, there are exceptions to every rule. You can use unusual anecdotes to argue any point. It's not the ideal or normal mode of working if you are a designer.
I agree. All of the examples are also actually examples of unusual ways of making profit, excepting the Fashion fringe etc... which are ways of getting onto your feet, to start making a profit. In which case, Esquire has fueled the other side of the argument.

  Reply With Quote
Reply
Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Tags
art, design, fashion, meet
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"


 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:31 AM.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
TheFashionSpot.com is a property of TotallyHer Media, LLC, an Evolve Media LLC company. 2014 All rights reserved.