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
24-10-2006
  166
front row
 
esquire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Gender: homme
Posts: 443
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.

Karl.. your premisses would be useful it if hasn't often suffering of sophism

Well, following Duchamp :

"It is necessary to arrive at selecting an object with the idea of not being impressed by this object on the basis of enjoyment of any order. However, it is difficult to select an object that absolutely does not interest you, not only on the day on which you select it, and which does not have any chance of becoming attractive or beautiful and which is neither pleasant to look at nor particularly ugly"

I suppose that with this affirmation he is considering that it doens't need to attract at any form to be art. Therefore the viewer's opinion is ignored, the readymade should mean by itself.

your "pile of sand" could be seen as Duchamp's "50cc of Paris Air" or Tracey Emin's "My Bed" , Following Duchamp theories again - whatever the "artist" produces/organize is "object of art", therefore art. This is suitable and accepted by art galleries and museum until nowadays

Sand itself isn't art, Duchamp touching and making a pile of it ( chosing quantities, qualities, the way it is displayed, etc... ) is because he is an Artist / doesn't matter if you react or not!. But now what makes him being considered as an Artist is another long story....

The discourse of emotional expections of the viewer to be art is old, and often applied for Academism movement ... Art has moved from this concept by specialized opinion a long, long time ago... get yourself updated.

__________________
“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
  167
fashion icon
 
Mutterlein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 3,406
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.
anomalies*

I make a clear distinction with this because in contemporary art, with the advent of new media, it's no longer standard pedagogy in art schools to train artists in the mode of: making work then selling work to collectors, galleries, or patrons. Instead you have a new format for a career of an artist which is rooted in academic institutions, gallery residencies, and grant writing. Most fine art programs now require classes on grant writing for graduation. It's also a standard to go on to graduate school. It's totally different semantics. A this point I simply agree to disagree.


Last edited by Mutterlein; 24-10-2006 at 10:19 AM.
  Reply With Quote
24-10-2006
  168
botanizing on the asphalt
 
laika's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: nyc
Gender: femme
Posts: 1,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire
Karl.. your premisses would be useful it if hasn't often suffering of sophism

Well, following Duchamp :

"It is necessary to arrive at selecting an object with the idea of not being impressed by this object on the basis of enjoyment of any order. However, it is difficult to select an object that absolutely does not interest you, not only on the day on which you select it, and which does not have any chance of becoming attractive or beautiful and which is neither pleasant to look at nor particularly ugly"

I suppose that with this affirmation he is considering that it doens't need to attract at any form to be art. Therefore the viewer's opinion is ignored, the readymade should mean by itself.

your "pile of sand" could be seen as Duchamp's "50cc of Paris Air" or Tracey Emin's "My Bed" , Following Duchamp theories again - whatever the "artist" produces/organize is "object of art", therefore art. This is suitable and accepted by art galleries and museum until nowadays

Sand itself isn't art, Duchamp touching and making a pile of it ( chosing quantities, qualities, the way it is displayed, etc... ) is because he is an Artist / doesn't matter if you react or not!. But now what makes him being considered as an Artist is another long story....

The discourse of emotional expections of the viewer to be art is old, and often applied for Academism movement ... Art has moved from this concept by specialized opinion a long, long time ago... get yourself updated.
Very good post.
So, just to be clear: You are saying that calling something "Art" is purely a matter of convention, bestowed by the museum, the gallery, or the socially understood role of the Artist.
I agree fully that this level of convention exists, but I find it an extremely limited (and rather depressing) definition. Also, there is a level of irony in Duchamp that you aren't acknowledging here. He is critiquing the convention of art by giving it this definition, no?

*And let's please avoid making this thread into personal attacks--this is a great discussion, and I don't want it to get shut down.

__________________
....I mean the ephemeral, the fugitive, the contingent, the half of art whose other half is the eternal and the immutable."

Last edited by laika; 24-10-2006 at 10:34 AM.
  Reply With Quote
24-10-2006
  169
rising star
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: a shadow gallery
Posts: 140
I feel compelled to apologise in advance for my pomposity... but I for one laughed when Tracey Emin had her work destroyed in a warehouse fire.

The lack of sympathy and general indifference (even bemusement!) greeting the news was a more eloquent indictment of her work then anything I could manage : )

  Reply With Quote
24-10-2006
  170
front row
 
esquire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Gender: homme
Posts: 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5AvenueMarceau
.
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.
Hi 5,

I get your point, but your argument is invalid, as to constitute a "object of art" its almost necessarily should be made/organized by an ARTIST ( with rare exceptions mainly in ART BRUT movement ) - What makes Mona Lisa being a object of art isn't your link with her hair, the mischief smile or even a fact that it is has being painted onto a wood panel , but just because who painted, in this case Da Vince is considered by a number of formal rules and conventions as an ARTIST. It isn't abstract , and doesn't depends on mine or yours appreciation to be ART.

Also, I've being envolved in many debates of Mona Lisa, and I personally like the topic, and i have an interesteresting theory to share with you.

I don't know if you have seen it live, but its a unusually small for a painting of its time (1503 -1506) , just measures 31x21 inches, and uses a regular technique of sfumato onto wood.

Perhaps is the most famous painting in the world ( but not the most expensive) and there is a reason for it fame.

Some Art Historians speculates that in the 20's, the interest of the masses for Fine Arts , Grandeur, Travel, High Fashion, Publications etc.. and all "refined" aspects of life has become high popular and with the advent of photography because Mona Lisa was small and could " fit " easily to the regular photo frame without being croped, it has become a major target for publishers and photographers of it time, generating them an imense editoral around it --- Then Fame - Then Reputation etc... and all things associated with it. Her "smile" just become point of discussion for the media later on....

Before 20's it was extremely admired as well, but just by the creme de la creme of the art world and it wasn't at all a popular subject....

__________________
“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 11:23 AM.
  Reply With Quote
24-10-2006
  171
front row
 
esquire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Gender: homme
Posts: 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karl.Popper
I feel compelled to apologise in advance for my pomposity... but I for one laughed when Tracey Emin had her work destroyed in a warehouse fire.

The lack of sympathy and general indifference (even bemusement!) greeting the news was a more eloquent indictment of her work then anything I could manage : )
Hi Karl,

I'm not a big fan of her aesthetics neither... and knowing Mr Saatchi trajetories & reputation in the marketing / advertising world before he became a museum/gallery owner, to be sincere with you I personally think the fire accident was a quite obvious...

as simple as that - like gold or diamonds, whatever is rarer worth more..

well, just a insane thought of mine.

__________________
“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
  172
trendsetter
 
zamb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: new york
Gender: homme
Posts: 1,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoDeLwAnaBe
how do schools teach patternmaking is there any good softwares anyone knows-help will be greatly appreciated

there are many good softwares for patternmaking, but if you dont know the fundamental principles of making patterns (the principles of fit and garment construction and the ability to make them manually), it becomes difficult to use the software.
what are you interested in doing? basic patterns for personal items, or complicated patterns for designer clothing and collections?
understanding this , will better enable me to help you.
Also, can you please PM me, as i dont think this thread is suitable for this kind of discussion

  Reply With Quote
24-10-2006
  173
front row
 
esquire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Gender: homme
Posts: 443
Quote:
Originally Posted by laika
Very good post.
So, just to be clear: You are saying that calling something "Art" is purely a matter of convention, bestowed by the museum, the gallery, or the socially understood role of the Artist.
I agree fully that this level of convention exists, but I find it an extremely limited (and rather depressing) definition. Also, there is a level of irony in Duchamp that you aren't acknowledging here. He is critiquing the convention of art by giving it this definition, no?

Hi Laika,

As any other group of laws to define and categorize everything in life, from exact sciences, aesthetics, philosophy, animal kingdom to art , when it is accepted and take in practice by a considerable number of social members, then it constitute a convetion - and should stand as "ideal form of representation" until someone argue & prove it wrong and irrelevant.


If just one social member, with his personal opinions or small group reacts against and it doens't affect or change the general opinion of the whole or major part of the same group we should consider it as "anarchic form of representation" which also could be interesting, but not necessarily "valid" as a commom ( meaning regular) virtue.

In the "art" case as you mention above, Duchamp arguments/theories still remains as the last "ideal form of representation" for the social members of the "art world", therefore it should be respected and taken in consideration when it is discussed, as it represents the most coherent and accepted group of rules nowadays.

It could change,of course, and probably will - but its irrelevant until a new set of rules actually stands by itself.

I personally think that the Duchamp group of laws/ argument is still the most interesting . modern and relevant, as it disassociate ART from skilled Craft ( like Academism), giving the Creators a more wide choice of expression rather than holding well a set of brushes....

sorry for my rough english, i'm not natural english speaker.

__________________
“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 12:50 PM.
  Reply With Quote
24-10-2006
  174
botanizing on the asphalt
 
laika's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: nyc
Gender: femme
Posts: 1,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire
Hi Laika,

As any other group of laws to define and categorize everything in life, from exact sciences, aesthetics, philosophy, animal kingdom to art , when it is accepted and take in practice by a considerable number of social members, then it constitute a convetion - and should stand as "ideal form of representation" until someone argue & prove it wrong and irrelevant.


If just one social member, with his personal opinions or small group reacts against and it doens't affect or change the general opinion of the whole or major part of the same group we should consider it as "anarchic form of representation" which also could be interesting, but not necessarily "valid" as a commom ( meaning regular) virtue.

In the "art" case as you mention above, Duchamp arguments/theories still remains as the last "ideal form of representation" for the social members of the "art world", therefore it should be respected and taken in consideration when it is discussed, as it represents the most coherent and accepted group of rules nowadays.

It could change,of course, and probably will - but its irrelevant until a new set of rules actually stands by itself.

I personally think that the Duchamp group of laws/ argument is still the most interesting . modern and relevant, as it disassociate ART from skilled Craft ( like Academism), giving the Creators a more wide choice of expression rather than holding well a set of brushes....

sorry for my rough english, i'm not natural english speaker.
Social conventions are extremely pervasive and powerful things indeed, which is why we need to continually question them. If we reduce art to convention alone, we deny it of all its power. It's exactly the things that escape this kind of reduction (in art, fashion etc) that are most interesting, imo. Bring on the anarchist representations!

I can see that your thinking is right in line with Duchamp, who himself defied convention with his readymades (before they became convention, of course :p). I also find him very interesting, but problematic.

I won't go on about it too much but it's exactly what you said--"he disassociated art from skilled craft," that bothers me. It's not that I mind the two categories being separated--I don't ascribe much importance to categories, other than as conventions. But I think Duchamp was a rather snobby aristocrat--a dandy even-- who wanted more than anything to disassociate art from work. Hence the chess playing.....

BTW, no need to apologize for your english--you are very clear, actually.
Especially compared to the convuluted jumble I just posted.

__________________
....I mean the ephemeral, the fugitive, the contingent, the half of art whose other half is the eternal and the immutable."
  Reply With Quote
06-11-2006
  175
PopWillEatItself
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Gender: femme
Posts: 1,450
Can fashion ever be art?
Although I did search it over with no results, I find it strange that there isn't a thread on this already.... If so, please feel free to remove this...

Pretty as a picture



It's useful. Sometimes it's even beautiful. But can fashion ever be art?

Hadley Freeman
Monday November 6, 2006
The Guardian



In 1936, the fashion designer Elsa Schiaparelli slapped a surrealist lobster by Salvador Dalí on to one of her dresses and pronounced it a work of art. It caused a sensation - and has had people chewing over the question of whether fashion can be art ever since. Seventy years on, the consensus seems to be that it can, and the lobster has triumphed.

This year, there are more fashion exhibitions opening around the world than ever before. The Victoria and Albert Museum in London is currently showcasing Christian Lacroix's oeuvre as part of its Fashion in Motion series. The Balenciaga retrospective on show at the Musée des Arts Decoratifs in Paris has been one of the city's most popular exhibitions this summer, perhaps because the brand's designer, Nicholas Ghesquière, has managed to stay true to the label's original, mid-20th-century look, while cleverly updating it for the likes of fans such as Chloë Sevigny. Meanwhile, the Giorgio Armani behemoth, which has only just finished its six-year world tour, appears to have taken tips from the designer's new best mate, Bono, when it comes to international appearances, costs and publicity. Even Kylie Minogue's wardrobe is getting an exhibition next year, at the V&A, with the dungarees she wore to fix the Robinsons' car in Neighbours cited as "cultural icons".

All these dusty rooms filled with po-faced, albeit impeccably dressed mannequins would suggest the debate is won: fashion is art and the greatest designers are up there with Picasso and Warhol. But do clothes really belong in a museum? On the one hand, fashion pretty much fulfils two of the chief requirements of a good piece of art - exceptional technical skill and the evocation of a certain period; on these grounds, it seems perfectly reasonable for modern clothes to be displayed in galleries. In fact, some designers are best seen this way: Hussein Chalayan's clothes, for instance, which put more emphasis on technique than practicalities. The collection he showed in Paris last month was a case in point, featuring dresses with hemlines that mechanically rose up and down.

Yet applauding a designer for making a clever dress smacks of giving a standing ovation to a plumber who knows how to tweak your pipes. Why the fuss? For my money, fashion earns its place in a museum only when the clothes are put in their proper context. Recent retrospectives of Gianni Versace and Vivienne Westwood at the V&A put the emphasis on the craft rather than their historical moment - and this in spite of the fact that both designers are identified with particular eras, the 80s and the 70s respectively, and played as big a part as any artist in the shaping of each decade's aesthetic.

In this respect, at least, the Anglomania exhibition that opened in New York this spring was probably the most successful museum fashion show ever. A celebration of British designers past and present, it put every piece of clothing in context and showed how British designers have simultaneously followed and rebelled against tradition. Frocks were shown alongside paintings by Gainsborough and Reynolds, whose 18th-century subjects often looked as if they had been dressed by Vivienne Westwood, only without the safety pins and ripped-up Union flags.

The worlds of fashion and art are increasingly intertwined. Whether it's Sam Taylor-Wood trumpeting her love of Alexander McQueen, or Burberry providing the sponsorship for the David Hockney exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery, the two are incapable of keeping their hands off each other - like Kate Moss and self-described "blood-artist" Pete Doherty. In 2005, Hussein Chalayan showed a short film starring Tilda Swinton at the Venice Biennale, while Karl Lagerfeld owns a particularly self-important art book and magazine shop in Paris called 7L. Miuccia Prada is considered a major player in the art world since setting up the Fondazione Prada, which has become a respected collector of art.

The mutual appeal is obvious. But it doesn't make fashion art, and it's when designers start striving for artistic credibility that a toxic cloud of tedium descends. The best way to cure a shopping addiction is to go to a Bond Street shop with an in-store "art display", full of shopping assistants dressed in funereal black, barking on about this season's "concept".

In her 1954 autobiography, Elsa Schiaparelli sighed happily: "One felt supported and understood [in the art world] beyond the crude and boring reality of merely making dresses to sell." And there we have it, the very point that makes one's eyes roll to the heavens. Of course fashion has an aesthetic side, but without its practical purpose it serves absolutely no point whatsoever. For a designer to make, say, a dress that pays beautiful homage to Mark Rothko's stripes but is worn by no one because few wish to look like a blue and purple Michelin man, is about as annoying as a doctor who can't make you feel better but can make amazing shapes with his stethoscope. Making clothes for people to wear may be "crude and boring", but it is, as Schiaparelli concedes, "reality".

This is not to say that designers should make black trousers and plain polonecks, and nothing else. As anyone who has ever grappled with a pussy bow or struggled to keep the fringes on their boots out of a puddle knows, it is a rare garment that is made solely with functionality in mind, and it would be a far duller world if that were the case. What designers shouldn't do, however, is allow the concept of practicality, or any thought for the potential wearer, to sail out the window. Nor should they use the label of "art" as self-justification. It's a mark of insecurity, an attempt to give gravity to a profession they feel it might otherwise lack. As Bella Freud, a designer who can make better claims than most to have experience of both worlds, says: "Whenever people talk about fashion as art, it suggests that fashion is not good enough unless it is art. Clothes are so good on their own and they have a function. When people start talking about them as art, it just makes them boring." Similarly, Karl Lagerfeld, who seems to siphon his artistic pretensions away from his fashion and into his bookshop, complained in an article in ArtReview in 2003: "If you are an artist, you do your job; you don't have to turn to another department to be taken seriously. It is like an excuse - that fashion is nothing . . . Fashion people have complexes they shouldn't have."

But if the fashion world looks to art for added elitism, art - or at least, the gallery world - looks to fashion for mass appeal. When asked about the art world's interest in fashion, Marc Rappolt and Skye Sherwin, the editor and deputy editor of ArtReview, bluntly tick off the reasons: "Money, sponsorship, popular appeal. Art currently wants, more than anything else, to be part of popular culture. Fashion wants more than anything else to be taken seriously. Each thinks it gets what it really wants in this kind of exchange. Unfortunately, as with many blind dates, both parties come away looking a little foolish."

Perhaps they just go too far in trying to justify their presence in one another's worlds. Fashion can be beautiful, but ultimately it should be useful - which is why the only practical form of fashion-as-art I've ever seen was a set of oven mitts in a museum giftshop printed with images of Keith Haring cartoons.

"Fashion is not art, but like art it reflects a moment, an emotion or an attitude," says Christopher Bailey, creative director of Burberry. It's when exhibitions of fashion respond to this that they are most interesting. But when a designer aims at immortality, at becoming part of some enduring aesthetic moment, all you are left with is an odd-looking dress with a clumsy lobster on it.


When fashion meets art

The highs

Louis Vuitton's collaboration with Takashi Murakami, 2003
By combining Murakami's Japanese style with Vuitton's logomania, Marc Jacobs, the brand's creative director, managed to give his bags greater appeal among the label-lovers, including Paris Hilton.

Louis Vuitton's collaboration with Julie Verhoeven, 2002
How do you make a brand associated with shameless excess appeal to a younger, cooler crowd? Louis Vuitton covered its flashy bags with trendy artist Julie Verhoeven's dreamscapes.

Hussein Chalayan's electronic dresses
Not one for the office, but very beautiful. Chalayan closed his show last month with a series of dresses that electronically rose and fell, before disappearing entirely into the model's hat, leaving her naked.

The lows

Stella McCartney's Jeff Koons dresses, 2006
It's all very well to show off your cred by shacking up with one of the 20th-century greats. It's quite another to expect people to pay to wear unimaginative reproductions of his work on their tummies.

Marc Jacobs' Rachel Feinstein collection, 2004
US artist Rachel Feinstein is a fashion icon because she dresses like no one else. And that, funnily, is because few people want to look like a surreal librarian. Not even Gisele can carry off the high-waisted pencil skirt with pussy-bow blouse look.

Jean-Charles de Castelbajac's cartoon dresses, 2006 While de Castelbajac's cartoon-splashed clothes may have looked revolutionary in the 70s, Snoopy jumpers and Mickey Mouse dresses now look like something you could buy at a fairground. Mainly because you can.

From Guardian.co.uk

  Reply With Quote
06-11-2006
  176
front row
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Gender: homme
Posts: 255
By all means. I am too lazy to elaborate, I will later. In summary, though, I am a heterosexual guy. Therefore, one would assume that I have no interest in women's clothes, just for the mere reason that I cannot wear them.

The problem is, though, I really do have an interest in women's clothes. Ok, fine, I often look at fashion shows just for the purpose of gawking at the models, but even more often, the colors, the architecture, the texture of the clothes, along with the styling, make-up of the models and the music, lighting and mood of the runway just give me the chills.

The explanation?

Well, I just have an immense appreciation of art in all of its forms. Fashion (especially fashion shows) is a synthesis of many art forms. Nobody can convince me that fashion shows are not multimedia art installations. You have the clothes, the models, the runway - visual art, their walk and even mild acting along with the runway music - performing art. Not to mention the creative process happening well before the runway: idea, sketch, craft... So, yeah, fashion is art.

  Reply With Quote
06-11-2006
  177
windowshopping
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Gender: homme
Posts: 22
I have a lot of thoughts on this, but really quick, going along with what KI egoiste has said about fashion shows, maybe we could consider fashion shows (with the combination of music, spectacle, performance, setting) as some type of performance art. But maybe the clothes themselves, outside of the context of the show and once they become functional products, they are no longer art.
This is just an idea though, maybe fashion can be art no matter what the context, but this would be one way to divide the functional and artistic aspects of fashion.

Fashion certainly has all the trappings of an art form. And there are plently of art forms that are functional and serve a purpose as fashion does. But I think the point of the article was: fashion loses its meaning without it's purpose, while other artforms (while they may be functional) have meaning whether or not they serve some practical purpose (art for art's sake).

I'm not totally sold on this idea, there are good arguments both for and against fashion being art, so it's sort of grey for me.


Last edited by casem83; 06-11-2006 at 01:36 AM.
  Reply With Quote
06-11-2006
  178
V.I.P.
 
kanita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: on the stairway to a void
Gender: femme
Posts: 4,922
Fashion, the art of making clothing, and expressing through clothing is art.

  Reply With Quote
06-11-2006
  179
scenester
 
jefei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: London
Gender: homme
Posts: 99
What is art?

it depends.... there aren't any definition...

  Reply With Quote
06-11-2006
  180
front row
 
songbird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Gender: femme
Posts: 226
Quote:
Originally posted by kan-i-ta
Fashion, the art of making clothing, and expressing through clothing is art.
Exactly. Just like music and dance is a form of art. It's not limited to painting, drawing, sculpting etc etc.. and it shouldn't be.

  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 01:31 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.