Would you buy/collect fashion as art?

[Boomer]

^ Yes, I know what you mean...I have a silk Ralph Lauren sweater in a beautiful plaid that I think I wore once at Christmas- but I keep it out sometimes just because it is so beautiful...

 

[LeBonChic]

In my opinion there is quite a difference.

A painting or a sculpture is made specifically to be exhibited and hung for people to see. Clothing is made to be worn. I honestly think that no designer is designing their garments with the idea that someone will hang them on their wall or exhibit them on a doll in their house. They create what they create with the vision of it being worn by someone.

I can understand that someone can view certain garments to be the same as art, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the purpose of that art. A painting is made to be hung, so yes you can buy art and do other things with it, one can use a giant painting as a carpet or they can use it as a window shade.. it can do all that, but really will anyone be able to perceive the art in it's most perfect form of beauty, namely perfectly lit hanging on the wall.. no, because it's on the floor or in front of the window or where ever.
And isn't it the same with clothing.. you can hang it on the wall, put it on a mannequin or just make a lampshade out of it for all I care, but will it ever display the same beauty that the designer intended it to do, namely when being worn by someone as a form or presentation, no, it will never do that.. It won't move, won't live as it should if not on a person.

(of course the exceptions are the vintage items from centuries ago that are preserved in the best way possible.. we're only lucky to be able to still appreciate those)

Clothing USED to be made to be worn. Designers do make wearable clothes but I dont think it's their first priority. The first priority is creativity, what comes to mind first is not "ok so how are they going to wear it to the street?", designers care about conveying the concepts, showing the techniques or even making their creations serve to revive an era. I think the only kind of person that designers are afraid of not choosing their clothes to hang on someone else is the person who realizes editorials

And your point of displaying fashion in movement is partly correct. Seeing clothes in movement is seeing pictures as a whole. But high fashion's value also lies in craftsmanship which is most obviously clarified when the garments are viewed closely (how it's structured/embroidered/sewed..., what it's made of) . Why I would buy fashion as art is not because I can see the whole piece on my body but because I can see its details in my hand

 

[ChristianThomas]

Clothing USED to be made to be worn. Designers do make wearable clothes but I dont think it's their first priority. The first priority is creativity, what comes to mind first is not "ok so how are they going to wear it to the street?", designers care about conveying the concepts, showing the techniques or even making their creations serve to revive an era. I think the only kind of person that designers are afraid of not choosing their clothes to hang on someone else is the person who realizes editorials

And your point of displaying fashion in movement is partly correct. Seeing clothes in movement is seeing pictures as a whole. But high fashion's value also lies in craftsmanship which is most obviously clarified when the garments are viewed closely (how it's structured/embroidered/sewed..., what it's made of) . Why I would buy fashion as art is not because I can see the whole piece on my body but because I can see its details in my hand

What you say doesn't make sense.. of course designers create their designs to be worn, that's the function of the garments. I never said that they create them to be worn on the street or in any daily life situation, but even with the most extravagant outbursts of creativity by couturiers I believe that they create it to display it on someone, not something.

And seriously clothes not being made to be worn?.. Really?.. We're at a height of consumerism, practically everything in the world is made to be bought, used and replaced. If anything things are especially design to be bought and worn in these days, why else the growing amount of collections, the silly little celebrity lines and all.
Of course there is the Haute Couture which is still made for the craft and creativity, but that doesn't mean it's not made to be worn?.. Clothes, Haute Couture or not are made to contain a body, in whatever situation it's put.. that's why pretty much all the editorials contain models wearing the clothing, that's why look books from designers usually feature the clothing on a model.

(and yes as I said before there are the designers that go all out mad and create something that is hardly wearable, or not wearable at all, where the garment would be more towards let's say a sculpture than clothing)

 

[gius]

in the textile field you'll often find designers using clothing as a base to show their work off. it's not always about wearability.. in fact i meet quite a few who were trained that way first and are yearning now for a change of pace. they want to focus more on ideas, messages. or they just want to have fun, to have the freedom to create, without the usual restraints. as you said all that matters is the designer's intention

i've seen some amazing clothes made out of vegetables, chocolate, metal parts and wire etc...

 

[mimo]

I couldn't buy fashion as art. Whats the point of having such a beautifully crafted dress if its just going to be there collecting dust? After all, the clothes become the wear. In the case of vintage pieces, I love to wear them even more because of that. Someone wore it before me and now I get to wear it. I guess in the end, I think clothing are made to be worn and loved.

 

[farou7a]

^ A lot of people will agree with me when I say fashion is wearable art but the ones that look fabulous and you cant see yourself wearing are still worth buying - especially when you know its one of a kind.

Those are things what people refer to 'a great find'..

 

[kandacesiobhan]

Making clothes that are not intended to be worn but seen, like a painting or a sculpture, is one thing but I think buying thousands of dollars/pounds worth of shoes and dresses and accessories you'll never wear is such a waste. For me, fashion is primarily about expression and interaction.
A £2,000 dress gathering dust in your closet isn't expression, I don't even know what that is because I've never experienced a desire to simply collect clothes, I always buy them with the intention of wearing them. I guess I would describe collecting clothes as art the worst kind of self-indulgence. People collect paintings and sculptures, but those were made to be seen. Most clothes are supposed to be worn. If a person collects clothes - clothes that are works of art not made to be worn - with the intention of putting them on display however, would be completely different.

I just find the idea of personal collections of clothes that will never be worn a bit weird, to be honest, and greedy. I feel as though it's like buying the copyright to a popular song just so that no one else can hear it. :\

 

[daniellat]

I suppose i would...i love fashion and i know all the work that goes into making a garment even if its not artsy...But on the other hand i dont think just the feeling of having something fab stored in a closet is good enough to collect clothes or anything else actually. I have bought an enormous amount of shoes and bags etc that end up gathering dust at the very corner of my closet but when bought they were intended to be worn, im not sure i could go on and buy something I know its only going to sit in my closet, because where else could I put it?

 

[gius]

I would buy them to study technique, but I do like them as an art piece also, an example of good design.. It's the reason I hold on to my own works I've made in sewing lessons, which I can't all wear. Another reason being also sentimentality. I already have a collection (cut fabric mostly).

 

[ChiStreetStyle]

I like what kandacesiobhan said about fashion as a form of "expression and interaction." I have never heard fashion described so simply and yet so perfectly. I completely agree - even when wearing clothing inside the house, you are still interacting with your own perception of who you are. By not wearing clothing or pieces that you buy, I almost feel like you've relegated them to a sort of death. If you have beautiful things that you don't feel comfortable wearing out of the house, then be sure to wear them inside. I often play dress up with a pair of $900 pair of 5 inch Louboutins. I have owned them for over 3 years but only worn them out of the house twice. I cannot walk in them. I love to slip them on sometimes, just to feel them on my feet. I positively adore them. They are a very rare pair of Laponos in beige leather (not patent), and only 3 pairs (a 6, 7, and 8) were sent to the U.S.A. I own the 7. I feel like I own a treasured piece of fashion, as the SA at the Louboutin boutique in Chelsea told me that it was the original 7 model for the production of the Lapono shoe. Even with a very delicate, priceless shoe I am still sure to wear them from time to time, even if just for 15 mins. To not wear them, EVER, would be like considering them dead. And fashion is all about being alive and creative and energetic. Not about letting things collect dust on a shelf.

 

[MUXU]

if i have the money i probably would. to be honest, i feel like i have grown to a certain stage where i prefer to dress more simple and to the point but display a gorgeous piece of clothing as a decorative element for a room.

and if would collect, i wouldnt collect vintage though, i definitely would collect designers of now.

 

[MsCrow]

Until quite recently I would have agreed with the sentiment that clothes must be worn and to not do so relegates them to a certain death. I collect particular designers and no matter how delicate some items are, they still get worn carefully and with great joy. My collection, I joke, is my pension but all pieces were bought as an expression of the designer and a reflection of me.

A few months ago I bought two pieces which I know I cannot wear. They are design prototypes so developed as ideas on the dressmakers dummy. One is a leather jacket in cream and has paper patterns and trim stitched, glued or taped over it and despite the fact it is a prototype, it still has the most beautiful silk lining, mostly stitched, sometimes glued. The jacket has pins stuck in it, ruching parts which made it to the end design, it has red marker pen showing greater curvature to the edges. The jacket is a mess.

The other piece is a black satin dress with overly accentuated circle cut mutton leg sleeves which reach around the back like stunted wings. It has the severest seaming which changes the a-line front to straight with wear to create the most enormous free moving 'bustle' at the back. It is lined and has red alteration stitching; the neck is an unfinished funnel which slices down to the bust in a raw edge of an idea. The dress is almost wearable, I just need to shrink a little to do so.

I was in a quandary when I was deciding whether to buy these pieces. They are part of fashion history and the ideas they spawned can be referenced to the catwalk collection, sometimes as several pieces. But they cannot be worn which is rather against my philosophy about collecting clothes. In particular the jacket needs to restoration work before another paper pattern falls off. I bought them because they are a moment of an idea, the crystallisation of some thought processes of the designer which culminate in the prototype on the dummy. I know that the person I bought them off wasn't looking after them and didn't perceive their worth as art pieces and their museum quality. They will eventually be displayed when we get a larger house, possibly loaned out to a fashion school so others can see the design in progress. I bought them because I love them and that, really, was my only justification.

 

[Crying Diamonds]

I have a small rail of clothes in my room at home that I keep just to refer back to - I bought them originally to wear but now they don't fit and I keep them almost as good examples of clothing. I buy them all in charity shops. There's a Gucci blazer that, before I went to study fashion design, I hadn't noticed how finely made it was, or how incredibly fine the fabric was or the tiny detail of the 'Gucci' name being embossed on the edges of the buttons.
I'd like to say I collect fine tailoring as a hobby, but I still do it to wear, not for the joy of owning it; I still wear my Corneliani cashmere blazer that, though it is officially too big for me it is still very slimming, whereas the somewhat dated beige houndstooth Ermeneglido Zegna cashmere blazer is kept for posterity

In my opinion, clothes are made to be worn. For me, slipping on a wonderful garment is like hanging a painting on the wall - it's immediately in its element, it was made to be there and therefore, it is happy to be there.

 

[Boomer]

^ So, if one of us went into a vintage store and found a real Coco Chanel piece from the 1920s, that was not realistically wearable, would we not want it because we couldn't wear it out to a party?

 

[Crying Diamonds]

^..I think you're taking what I said a bit too literally; I was talking about new clothes really. Thinking about old clothes I'd happily covet some original Balenciaga, please.

 

[gius]

^..I think you're taking what I said a bit too literally; I was talking about new clothes really. Thinking about old clothes I'd happily covet some original Balenciaga, please.

But aren't charity clothes old clothes?



MsCrow,I share the same sentiments for 'works in progress' I think it's just a matter of what are people really after. Some could be called rather 'pragmatic', so for fashion it's natural for them to want to wear it. It's not enough to have it for its beauty, it must be practical. My main concern is rather something intangible: in the realm of thoughts, feelings, ideas (which sometimes passes through the appearance of the object, but not always evident --I always have to justify what I collect, for some people). It gives life depth and meaning. But of course it's nicer to have both sides, it's just that sometimes I'm drawn to women's wear which I can't wear for obvious reasons.I really like your post

I bought them because they are a moment of an idea, the crystallisation of some thought processes of the designer which culminate in the prototype on the dummy.

Most of what I've collected actually never had a price to begin with. I was fortunate to be invited to some showrooms, ateliers etc and in spending time with the people, they give me whatever I'm fascinated by.. and without asking, mind you XD. I also like to collect random remnants of things (ie cutting grandmother's curtains), although not quite fashion and designed, but still somewhere in the same category...
I would definitely not like to go the "shopping" route.. There was a documentary on the child artist Marla Olmstead, and a perfect example of that type of collector near the end of the film--if anyone's interested. I buy, but I don't go out with the intention of buying. I want to live life and have stories entwined together with what I collect on the way. Souvenirs

 

[Crying Diamonds]

But aren't charity clothes old clothes?

No, contrary to popular belief, most charity shop clothes have been donated to the shop by people who don't want them anymore, therefore remaining wearable and often very new.

 

[gius]

Very new as in what? The design is old.

In my opinion, clothes are made to be worn. For me, slipping on a wonderful garment is like hanging a painting on the wall - it's immediately in its element, it was made to be there and therefore, it is happy to be there.

If you're going to say one thing, but mean another, you should put both points across in your post.
I think Boomer has posed a good question to think about.

So, if one of us went into a vintage store and found a real Coco Chanel piece from the 1920s, that was not realistically wearable, would we not want it because we couldn't wear it out to a party?

 

[Crying Diamonds]

What is it that is so difficult to understand? I think that clothes are made to be worn and not displayed, obviously if it's verging on an antique it's not going to be worn.
Is a bit of common sense too much to ask?

 

[gius]

If you are going to mean antique, then you should say antique. That is common sense. Of course "old" can mean more than one thing. It is a general term