art & fashion design ... how, when and where do they meet?...

Discussion in 'Fashion... In Depth' started by Orochian, Mar 25, 2004.

View Users: View Users
  1. Orochian

    Orochian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fashion is NOT art. It's design. Design pursues aesthetics and functionality in equal priority. Aesthetics are subjective; merits of functionality can be objectively evaluated. That's why fashion, as with graphic design and architecture, is considered a professional discipline that requires a formal education, instead of "anything goes as long as you like it".

    There clearly hasn't been a lot of thought about functionality in Dsquared's designs, in fact I don't think there's a lot of thought about anything at all. All I see is an overboard primal instinct to depict vulgar sexuality and garish conspicuousness. Call me a prude, but that's how I view them.

    Not everyone likes Jil Sander, though no one can argue that her work is the epitome of calculated, thoughtful, precise design.
     
  2. wyatt.

    wyatt. New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fashion is NOT art. It's design. Design pursues aesthetics and functionality in equal priority. Aesthetics are subjective; merits of functionality can be objectively evaluated. That's why fashion, as with graphic design and architecture, is considered a professional discipline that requires a formal education, instead of "anything goes as long as you like it".

    There clearly hasn't been a lot of thought about functionality in Dsquared's designs, in fact I don't think there's a lot of thought about anything at all. All I see is an overboard primal instinct to depict vulgar sexuality and garish conspicuousness. Call me a prude, but that's how I view them.

    Not everyone likes Jil Sander, though no one can argue that her work is the epitome of calculated, thoughtful, precise design. [/b][/quote]
    fashion is art. any type of expression is considered art. sure if may not be the fine art that you refer to as do whatever the hell you want.

    design is just as much art an oil painting.

    you can't go to a trade school and just become a great designer, it's like becoming a mechanic.

    some people just have a natural design and composition sense and that is why most design programs, or at least the better ones, not the FITs of the country, at located at acclaimed FINE art schools that offer fine art as well as more industrial.

    but don't say it's not art.
     
  3. Orochian

    Orochian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fashion is not art. There, I just said it again and apparently I'm not the only one who's holding that view.

    Art in all its forms does not have any functional perspective to it except for the pleasures, experiences, messages it provides its audience. Clothes have to fit. They have to enable and facilitate us in our daily activities. Fabrics used in clothes directly affect our physical well being. All of these, just to name a few, are the functional aspects of fashion design that simply do not concern a painter or potter or dancer.

    Design is NOT art. Practitioners of the field of architecture, myself included, would be downright insulted if someone called their works "art". And if that sounds a little extreme to outsiders, ponder on the difference between a beautiful sculpture and a brilliant building. You'll get it.
     
  4. wyatt.

    wyatt. New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    so frank gehry isn't an artist?

    or frank lloyd wright?
     
  5. Orochian

    Orochian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    0
    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).
     
  6. wyatt.

    wyatt. New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    gerhy's buildings come from sketches...DRAWINGS

    how is that not art. it's expression with an inconventional material. sure it's functional, but that's not it's only purpse.
     
  7. Orochian

    Orochian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rough architectural renderings, or "parti" as architects call them, are but a means for the designer to visualize and develop the final building, a human artifact with a clear functional aim. Certainly many of these drawings are beautiful to look at and can be considered "art", but they aren't the ultimate fruition of an architect's skills. Buildings are, and they are certainly not art.

    You can, if you want to stretch it that much, argue that through the task of producing these drawings the architect is also being an artist. I won't disagree with that. But that doesn't really have much of a point. Anyone - an scientist, a mechanic, a hilly billy - is an artist while they're producing drawings. The important point is that the practice of architecture - the discipline in which architects are trained - is design, and not art.

    I don't think I can be any more clear than that...
     
  8. Belowen

    Belowen ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    25,661
    Likes Received:
    21
    Lets try and keep it cool here guys, no need to fight when you both have good opinions :flower:
     
  9. Orochian

    Orochian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2004
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, I'm cool B)
     
  10. Belowen

    Belowen ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    25,661
    Likes Received:
    21
    Good to hear.. :kiss:
     
  11. mikeijames

    mikeijames no tom ford, no thanks.

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2003
    Messages:
    5,880
    Likes Received:
    0
    i would have to counter and say that architecture and fashion are both artistic expressions. and i counter that all art has function. if you simply need covering you don't sit down and sketch, you wrap yourself in a sheet of plastic. if you need shelter, you don't hire a well known architect, you huddle under a cardboard box. as far as the other arts...they are part of the cultural exercises we all go through. if you buy a new apartment, you don't buy art simply because it pleases you, you buy art to fill up space and to personalize your living area. it's the same with a garment. while some might just go out and buy a pair of ratty jeans, other of us go and buy something eye catching that livens our exterior. fashion design is an artistic artform. :innocent:
     
  12. PrinceOfCats

    PrinceOfCats Naturellement pulpeuse

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    10,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    We're all cool here, remember that, but that is simply a collection of statements. You do not justify why art cannot have a function...

    The painter is constrained by the nature of paint, the potter by the nature of clay and the dancer by their own physique...also they are then constrained by their own minds and by the society which has influenced their minds...the function, wearabilty, is simply an aspect that must be there just like the painter must paint with colours that they can get hold of....
     
  13. faust

    faust New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Messages:
    10,231
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am signing under this, all the way.
     
  14. Mutterlein

    Mutterlein Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,578
    Likes Received:
    4
    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.
     
  15. purplelucrezia

    purplelucrezia New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Messages:
    13,828
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're right, but I must say I prefer form over function myself. Never did like the Bauhaus... :lol:
     
  16. PrinceOfCats

    PrinceOfCats Naturellement pulpeuse

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    10,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's brutally chic...like Balenciaga possibly...
     
  17. Mutterlein

    Mutterlein Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,578
    Likes Received:
    4
    I agree with you and also why you say that, however I think in architecture, industrial design, and even fashion design there can be artistic expression. I would never refer to a well designed building as Art, but I wouldn't get rid of the idea that it COULD be refered to as art.
     
  18. sbbbjm

    sbbbjm New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    0
    but, are they innovative in the way that hedi slimane or helmut lang are creative?

    i think dsquared2 takes already instyle trends and just takes them to the extreme like the super duper low rise pants for example. they havent created anything from scratch. whereas you get lang who was totally creative when he designed those skeleton shirts, where have you seen that before? or hedi's very different skinny luster collection.

    yeah, i agree dsq2 should be a diffusion line already lol. the prices are ridiculous.

    to me its like abercrombie, but tighter, lower and sexier -- which isn't neccessarily a bad thing. just not that creative.
     
  19. Lena

    Lena etre soi-meme

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2002
    Messages:
    23,866
    Likes Received:
    0
    i agree here,
    fashion like architecture are applied arts which makes all the difference.

    i'm not too far from loserunit's comments but yes, there are thick lines between *art (for expression, communcation etc =everybody is by definition able to create art)
    *fine art (for the same reasons as above but done by someone who actually have studied art = artist) and...
    *applied art (fashion, graphics, architecture or industrial design where we deal with function, creativity and esthetics )

    if you want my opinion, applied art is the hardest of all

    plus i dont really know what all this -very interesting discussion- has to do with :blink: DSquared :sick:

    maybe we should split topics and discuss fine & applied art :unsure:

    let me know if you are interested :flower:
     
  20. purplelucrezia

    purplelucrezia New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Messages:
    13,828
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds good. How about the definition of fashion as art? What does everything think? :flower:
     

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "058526dd2635cb6818386bfd373b82a4"