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
05-05-2004
  76
no tom ford, no thanks.
 
mikeijames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: closer than you think.
Gender: homme
Posts: 5,900
Quote:
Originally posted by Orochian@May 5th, 2004 - 1:29 am
As I've said about 97 times, the need for function is, among many other things, what seperates design from art.
there's a friend of mine who has one of those plasma tv's mounted in a frame and he has monet's water lilies displayed in it...the lillies (and clouds and water) slightly move throughout the day and stuff but it serves no other purpose than to sit in his foyer in a frame and play that video over and over....the television CLEARLY has to serve a purpose, a function as you like to quote, but i cannot rightfully call that concept strictly design...in my mind, that idea is nothing if not artful (and yes, clearly ostentatious, but that aside)

__________________
everything is never quite enough.
  Reply With Quote
 
05-05-2004
  77
V.I.P.
 
faust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York City
Posts: 10,312
Quote:
Originally posted by mikeijames+May 5th, 2004 - 8:01 am--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mikeijames @ May 5th, 2004 - 8:01 am)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Orochian@May 5th, 2004 - 1:29 am
As I've said about 97 times, the need for function is, among many other things, what seperates design from art.
there's a friend of mine who has one of those plasma tv's mounted in a frame and he has monet's water lilies displayed in it...the lillies (and clouds and water) slightly move throughout the day and stuff but it serves no other purpose than to sit in his foyer in a frame and play that video over and over....the television CLEARLY has to serve a purpose, a function as you like to quote, but i cannot rightfully call that concept strictly design...in my mind, that idea is nothing if not artful (and yes, clearly ostentatious, but that aside) [/b][/quote]
Funny.

I would like to separte the distinction further. I think that both design and art serve functions. However, design's primary function (but not the only one) is utilitarian, while art's primary function (but not the only one) is emotional. Clearly, if art had no function, it would have no place is society (I hope I am not just tangling up in definitions here). Anyway, there is something that underlies both. I recommend everyone reading "Zen and the Art of Motrocycle Maintenance" by Robert Pirsig - he outlines the division between form and function and than unites the two perfectly.

  Reply With Quote
05-05-2004
  78
offline.
 
Luna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: the world
Gender: femme
Posts: 9,821
Quote:
Originally posted by Mutterlein+May 5th, 2004 - 1:20 am--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mutterlein @ May 5th, 2004 - 1:20 am)</div><div class='quotemain'>
Quote:
Originally posted by luna@May 4th, 2004 - 11:24 pm
<!--QuoteBegin-Mutterlein
Quote:
@Mar 25th, 2004 - 3:15 pm
Design is purposeful, systematic, and creative

Art is creative, tends more towards self-expression, and does not serve a specific purpose like design does.


There is no reason why a certain piece cannot fufill BOTH of those terms. When John Galliano, Frank Lloyd Wright, Karim Rashid, or Philpe Starcke created anything in their particular design fields they did so with a backing ideology. Sure their pieces were functional, designed through a systematic process, but they were instilled with some creatvie self-expression. Frank Lloyd Wright had ideas, political and social ideas that can be seen in his architecture. Is that not artistic expression? Galliano designes clothes, but if fashion did not have any artistic expression we would all be wearing gray burlap sacks. Karim Rashid and Philpe Starcke are two of the world's biggest industrial designers and yes they have a guiding artistic process as well as a systematic and function geared process in their work.

Design and Art do in fact serve different purposes but many times you have designers who can fufill both.

I am not going to call a parking sign designed by a graphic designer artwork nor am I going to call an abstract sculpture a piece of functional design. But fine art is not limited to paintings and sculptures and design is not limited to function and ergonomics.


the bauhaus is a prime example of this.

I disagree. Though you have good points, I feel that art is found in everything. From a relief on the side of a building, to the textile design of a woman's skirt.

If Art is a form of expression, then designers express what they want through their collections.

I've two degrees from FIT... one in fine arts and one in accessories design... I've been to both spectrums of FIT (except the horrid FMM program )..

Designers are artists... artists are designers... they are both creating something from their own mind trying to present a message towards others.

just my 2 cents.
I agree with you to a certain extent. However most fine artists are not fufllling a purposeful and functional need when they create artwork. And I really do fail to see the artisitic merit in a parking sign or electonic equipment instructions. [/b][/quote]
Someone had to come up with the right color, picture and shape for that parking sign. And artists try to make people think through their work.. It's not like you go to a gallery, look at some sculpture and walk away with nothing... Either you liked it, or you loved it.. or it touched you in some way... I think that's purpose enough.

__________________
...and I will be strong even when it all goes wrong.

  Reply With Quote
05-05-2004
  79
offline.
 
Luna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: the world
Gender: femme
Posts: 9,821
Quote:
Originally posted by Orochian+May 5th, 2004 - 1:29 am--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Orochian @ May 5th, 2004 - 1:29 am)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-luna@May 4th, 2004 - 11:45 pm
hehe.. i was just saying this to wyatt.

Function in clothing(not fashion) is a jumpsuit that a janitor wears to mop the floor, function is a speedo for a swimmer...

FASHION is artistically designed clothes.

PS.. there's a "fashion art" class at my school... i know it exists.. I took it, and loved it.
So you're saying function isn't even a component in fashion design? I cannot disagree more. I'm sure designers like Helmut Lang, Neil Barrett, and Jil Sander would also have something to say against that.

The very fact that it's called fashion *design*, and not fashion "art", indicates a functional element in the craft of fashion. Your school, for whatever erroneous or unfortunate reason, chose to call it the latter, but there's still no denying that it's known to the majority of people as "fashion design".

As I've said about 97 times, the need for function is, among many other things, what seperates design from art.

To say that art is found in everything, while romantic, isn't very constructive. Again, grossly generalizing the term "art" is simply going to make it even more of a cliche, and detracts meaning from what is genuinely artful. [/b][/quote]
Soooo... When I see tons of gorgeous fashion drawings.. they aren't art? Both the drawings and the final product are very much art.. just a different medium from clay, paint, charcoal, or pencil.

__________________
...and I will be strong even when it all goes wrong.

  Reply With Quote
05-05-2004
  80
fashion icon
 
Mutterlein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Gender: femme
Posts: 3,383
Quote:
Originally posted by luna@May 5th, 2004 - 10:21 am

Someone had to come up with the right color, picture and shape for that parking sign. And artists try to make people think through their work.. It's not like you go to a gallery, look at some sculpture and walk away with nothing... Either you liked it, or you loved it.. or it touched you in some way... I think that's purpose enough.
Just because something is visual and creatvie does not make it art. A parking sign is not art. And just because something takes thought does not make it design. A chrome inflatable rabbit by jeff koons is not design.

  Reply With Quote
05-05-2004
  81
offline.
 
Luna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: the world
Gender: femme
Posts: 9,821
Quote:
Originally posted by Mutterlein+May 5th, 2004 - 1:11 pm--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mutterlein @ May 5th, 2004 - 1:11 pm)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-luna@May 5th, 2004 - 10:21 am

Someone had to come up with the right color, picture and shape for that parking sign. * And artists try to make people think through their work.. It's not like you go to a gallery, look at some sculpture and walk away with nothing... Either you liked it, or you loved it.. or it touched you in some way... I think that's purpose enough.
Just because something is visual and creatvie does not make it art. A parking sign is not art. And just because something takes thought does not make it design. A chrome inflatable rabbit by jeff koons is not design. [/b][/quote]
You have your opinions.. I have mine.

de·sign

To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent: design a good excuse for not attending the conference.
To formulate a plan for; devise: designed a marketing strategy for the new product.

To create or execute in an artistic manner.

art

Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty.
The study of these activities.
The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.


A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.

Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation.

arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
Artful contrivance; cunning.

__________________
...and I will be strong even when it all goes wrong.

  Reply With Quote
05-05-2004
  82
front row
 
Orochian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 432
Quote:
Originally posted by mikeijames+May 5th, 2004 - 8:01 am--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mikeijames @ May 5th, 2004 - 8:01 am)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Orochian@May 5th, 2004 - 1:29 am
As I've said about 97 times, the need for function is, among many other things, what seperates design from art.
there's a friend of mine who has one of those plasma tv's mounted in a frame and he has monet's water lilies displayed in it...the lillies (and clouds and water) slightly move throughout the day and stuff but it serves no other purpose than to sit in his foyer in a frame and play that video over and over....the television CLEARLY has to serve a purpose, a function as you like to quote, but i cannot rightfully call that concept strictly design...in my mind, that idea is nothing if not artful (and yes, clearly ostentatious, but that aside) [/b][/quote]
You're completely blurring things here.

Whatever bizarre and pretentious arrangment you described is an art installation utilizing a mechanical, functional device, in this case a TV. That does NOT make it a practice in industrial or product design.

  Reply With Quote
05-05-2004
  83
front row
 
Orochian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 432
Quote:
Originally posted by luna+May 5th, 2004 - 10:24 am--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(luna @ May 5th, 2004 - 10:24 am)</div><div class='quotemain'>
Quote:
Originally posted by Orochian@May 5th, 2004 - 1:29 am
<!--QuoteBegin-luna
Quote:
@May 4th, 2004 - 11:45 pm
hehe.. i was just saying this to wyatt.

Function in clothing(not fashion) is a jumpsuit that a janitor wears to mop the floor, function is a speedo for a swimmer...

FASHION is artistically designed clothes.

PS.. there's a "fashion art" class at my school... i know it exists.. I took it, and loved it.

So you're saying function isn't even a component in fashion design? I cannot disagree more. I'm sure designers like Helmut Lang, Neil Barrett, and Jil Sander would also have something to say against that.

The very fact that it's called fashion *design*, and not fashion "art", indicates a functional element in the craft of fashion. Your school, for whatever erroneous or unfortunate reason, chose to call it the latter, but there's still no denying that it's known to the majority of people as "fashion design".

As I've said about 97 times, the need for function is, among many other things, what seperates design from art.

To say that art is found in everything, while romantic, isn't very constructive. Again, grossly generalizing the term "art" is simply going to make it even more of a cliche, and detracts meaning from what is genuinely artful.
Soooo... When I see tons of gorgeous fashion drawings.. they aren't art? Both the drawings and the final product are very much art.. just a different medium from clay, paint, charcoal, or pencil. [/b][/quote]
Here we go again. Go back a few pages to read the discussion on architectural drawings and architecture.

Drawings are art. Period. But these are drawings that are made as part of the creative process that ultimately leads to a functional product, be it a piece of clothing or a building. They are not the main focus, nor the final product, in the craft of fashion design and architecture.

Don't blur the lines between blatantly seperate issues.

  Reply With Quote
05-05-2004
  84
offline.
 
Luna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: the world
Gender: femme
Posts: 9,821
Quote:
Originally posted by Orochian+May 5th, 2004 - 2:37 pm--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Orochian @ May 5th, 2004 - 2:37 pm)</div><div class='quotemain'>
Quote:
Originally posted by luna@May 5th, 2004 - 10:24 am
Quote:
Originally posted by Orochian@May 5th, 2004 - 1:29 am
<!--QuoteBegin-luna
Quote:
Quote:
@May 4th, 2004 - 11:45 pm
hehe.. i was just saying this to wyatt.

Function in clothing(not fashion) is a jumpsuit that a janitor wears to mop the floor, function is a speedo for a swimmer...

FASHION is artistically designed clothes.

PS.. there's a "fashion art" class at my school... i know it exists.. I took it, and loved it.

So you're saying function isn't even a component in fashion design? I cannot disagree more. I'm sure designers like Helmut Lang, Neil Barrett, and Jil Sander would also have something to say against that.

The very fact that it's called fashion *design*, and not fashion "art", indicates a functional element in the craft of fashion. Your school, for whatever erroneous or unfortunate reason, chose to call it the latter, but there's still no denying that it's known to the majority of people as "fashion design".

As I've said about 97 times, the need for function is, among many other things, what seperates design from art.

To say that art is found in everything, while romantic, isn't very constructive. Again, grossly generalizing the term "art" is simply going to make it even more of a cliche, and detracts meaning from what is genuinely artful.

Soooo... When I see tons of gorgeous fashion drawings.. they aren't art? Both the drawings and the final product are very much art.. just a different medium from clay, paint, charcoal, or pencil.
Here we go again. Go back a few pages to read the discussion on architectural drawings and architecture.

Drawings are art. Period. But these are drawings that are made as part of the creative process that ultimately leads to a functional product, be it a piece of clothing or a building. They are not the main focus, nor the final product, in the craft of fashion design and architecture.

Don't blur the lines between blatantly seperate issues. [/b][/quote]
Like I said in my post, everyone has their own opinion.. You can't get aggravated because people do not have the same opinion as you.

There's no reason to get nasty.

As for this thread, I'm done posting. You have your opinion, some people agree with it.. I have mine... some people agree with it.


__________________
...and I will be strong even when it all goes wrong.

  Reply With Quote
05-05-2004
  85
slightly dizzy
 
tott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Gender: homme
Posts: 4,261
Well, well...

This discussion is sort of hopeless. The line between art and design is a very blurry one, can we agree on that?

Practically anything can be art, depending on what the artist visioned, and/or how the public percieves it.

Everything is designed, in the sense that someone decided how something should look/feel/work. Maybe not in a clever, philosophical manner, but still.

__________________
What a strange power there is in clothing. Isaac Bashevis Singer
  Reply With Quote
05-05-2004
  86
no tom ford, no thanks.
 
mikeijames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: closer than you think.
Gender: homme
Posts: 5,900
Quote:
Originally posted by Orochian@May 5th, 2004 - 2:30 pm

Whatever bizarre and pretentious arrangment you described is an art installation utilizing a mechanical, functional device, in this case a TV. That does NOT make it a practice in industrial or product design.
this is exactly my point....the same friend has in one of his bathrooms three shower heads all fashioned in the shape of lion's heads...are these "art installations" or bc they do actually serve a purpose (i.e. shooting out water to clean his guests should they happen to be dirty), they are strictly design. he clearly could have gone utilitarian and made them minimalist pipes potruding from the ceiling, but he chose very intricate lions' heads...where is the line drawn for you?

__________________
everything is never quite enough.
  Reply With Quote
05-05-2004
  87
front row
 
Orochian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 432
Quote:
Originally posted by mikeijames+May 5th, 2004 - 6:25 pm--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mikeijames @ May 5th, 2004 - 6:25 pm)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Orochian@May 5th, 2004 - 2:30 pm

Whatever bizarre and pretentious arrangment you described is an art installation utilizing a mechanical, functional device, in this case a TV.* That does NOT make it a practice in industrial or product design.
this is exactly my point....the same friend has in one of his bathrooms three shower heads all fashioned in the shape of lion's heads...are these "art installations" or bc they do actually serve a purpose (i.e. shooting out water to clean his guests should they happen to be dirty), they are strictly design. he clearly could have gone utilitarian and made them minimalist pipes potruding from the ceiling, but he chose very intricate lions' heads...where is the line drawn for you? [/b][/quote]
The line, for anyone trained in design and/or architecture, should be pretty clear. The fixtures you described are a superficial, ornamental practice in scultpure with referential cues. In architectural terms, it'd be the eqivalent of someone tacking on classical external features to a standard-issue Victorian suburban house.

The shape of the lion's heads have no bearing whatsoever to the fuction of the shower heads. They're there strictly as a superficial ornament; something added on, rather than integral to the construction of the hardware. That's *not* design.

Genuine design in this case, would've been a shower head shaped and constructed to achieve an aim deemed to be desirable for such a fixture. Say, an optimal and even distribution of water. A flip through any issue of Wallpaper would provide countless ingenuous proposals to achieve this aim.

These are solutions integral to the raison d'etre of the shower head. They achieve a constructive, practical goal, rather than just sit there and look a certain way. On a purely aesthetic level, their shapes are authentic and original, produced through a conscious design process, instead of taken directly from records or surveys of classical mouldings and motifs, which is very likely the case of those lion shower heads you described.

  Reply With Quote
05-05-2004
  88
backstage pass
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 961
Quote:
Originally posted by Orochian@Mar 25th, 2004 - 12:49 am
They sure as hell aren't. They're brilliant architects.

Well, Wright is. I'm not a fan of Gehry (who, coincidentally, is yet another overhyped Canadian export alongside the Caten twins).
Sorry but I haven't bothered to read all the posts...

Many architects argue that form precedes function so one could argue that architecture is art based on that argument.

  Reply With Quote
05-05-2004
  89
front row
 
Orochian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 432
Quote:
Originally posted by banana+May 5th, 2004 - 11:36 pm--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(banana @ May 5th, 2004 - 11:36 pm)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Orochian@Mar 25th, 2004 - 12:49 am
They sure as hell aren't. They're brilliant architects.

Well, Wright is. I'm not a fan of Gehry (who, coincidentally, is yet another overhyped Canadian export alongside the Caten twins).
Sorry but I haven't bothered to read all the posts...

Many architects argue that form precedes function so one could argue that architecture is art based on that argument. [/b][/quote]
May I ask who're those architects? Because I'm rather sure that through my 7+ years of formal education in architecture I've never heard of any self-respecting architect making such a claim.

Even the postmodernists, whose movement has since dropped dead with such a resounding thud, wouldn't go as far as saying form precedes function, but merely that the modernist movement has placed too much of an emphasis on stark functionalism, resulting in a cold, detached breed of architecture. Stating that form is of a higher priority than function in architecture goes against *everything* that has to do with architecture as a professional discipline.

  Reply With Quote
06-05-2004
  90
backstage pass
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 961
Aldo Rossi- Architecture of the city. I don't really feel like looking for my book right now but maybe tomorrow.

Also, Frank Lloyd Wright's prairie houses weren't extremely functional. His clients would often complain about the roofs leaking and his response was "move the dining room table".

  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 01:34 PM.
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.