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

[Orochian]

Originally posted by xclusive@Nov 30th, 2003 - 10:49 am
isn't Fashion like art where people who creative have the freedom to do whatever they want?..and then whoever likes it - likes it..they obvi kno how to design it's just that some people don't like their clothes but it's like that for all designers. give me 1 name that 100% of people think is amazing

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.

 

[wyatt.]

Originally posted by Orochian+Mar 25th, 2004 - 12:25 am--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Orochian @ Mar 25th, 2004 - 12:25 am)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-xclusive@Nov 30th, 2003 - 10:49 am
isn't Fashion like art where people who creative have the freedom to do whatever they want?..and then whoever likes it - likes it..they obvi kno how to design it's just that some people don't like their clothes but it's like that for all designers. give me 1 name that 100% of people think is amazing

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.

 

[Orochian]

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.

 

[wyatt.]

so frank gehry isn't an artist?

or frank lloyd wright?

 

[Orochian]

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).

 

[wyatt.]

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.

 

[Orochian]

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...

 

[Belowen]

Lets try and keep it cool here guys, no need to fight when you both have good opinions

 

[Orochian]

Hey, I'm cool B)

 

[Belowen]

Good to hear..

 

[mikeijames]

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.

 

[PrinceOfCats]

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.

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....

 

[faust]

Originally posted by mikeijames@Mar 25th, 2004 - 2:28 pm
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.

I am signing under this, all the way.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

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.

 

[purplelucrezia]

You're right, but I must say I prefer form over function myself. Never did like the Bauhaus...

 

[PrinceOfCats]

It's brutally chic...like Balenciaga possibly...

 

[Deleted member 7575]

Originally posted by Orochian@Mar 25th, 2004 - 12:42 am
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.

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.

 

[sbbbjm]

Originally posted by Glam@Dec 29th, 2003 - 12:57 pm
i am 99% silent but this time shud notice that imo DSQUARED are really innovative and yes sometimes trashy but really cool and unique, they bring us fresh new ideas.

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.

 

[Lena]

Originally posted by Orochian@Mar 25th, 2004 - 6:42 am
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.

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 DSquared

maybe we should split topics and discuss fine & applied art

let me know if you are interested

 

[purplelucrezia]

Originally posted by Lena@Mar 25th, 2004 - 4:21 pm
plus i dont really know what all this -very interesting discussion- has to do with DSquared

maybe we should split topics and discuss fine & applied art

let me know if you are interested

Sounds good. How about the definition of fashion as art? What does everything think?