Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rach2jlc
On the other hand, one must also see that a designer ought to be somewhat "pure" with their art. When I say "pure" I mean simply that he/she keeps focused most clearly on DESIGNING what he/she feels or what his/her mind sees as the best design that he/she can do. To be honest, when a designer becomes too focused on responsibility issues, or social issues, or any type of issue NOT related to fashion, the design itself suffers. It is no longer purely the designer's mind's (or heart's) vision of design but is instead mixed with a lot of conceptual or so-called "important" issues. The reason is that focusing on such issues is certainly important in its own right, but important issues don't necessarily make for GOOD fashion.
|
Do you really think that design suffers when a designer focuses on issues such as animal rights and body image? Design suffers when a designer becomes too focused on boosting sales and makes his/her collection too commercial. Similarly, design suffers because so many designers sell to conglomerates. But I hardly think design suffers if a designer decides not to use fur in their collection.
I think it's obvious that designers hold responsibility for what message they send to the public. It's naïve to think they don't. Who then would bear the responsibility for violating animal rights or sending other morally debatable messages. In the same way every consumer is responsible for their decisions- whether or not to buy fur/leather, whether or not to support the views of a designer such as Galliano (about women, use of exoticism etc).