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

[Hana_N]

Fashion is a commercial art.

Sure the designers express themselves through the clothes they make, but in the end it has to sell.

 

[mariemaud]

every artist need to sell
money doesn't prevent from art and art doesn't prevent from money;
the good deal imo is to havecommercial things that sell in a way and other more personal things where you can really and honestly express yourself
to me fashion is art no less than othe established forms of art

 

[Hana_N]

^ I agree, an artist does need to sell.

What I meant was, in comparison with the more "traditionel" artforms like painting, there is no corporation standing behind the artist pushing for something to be sold in the same way as fashion.

 

[adorefaith]

I think the point of the article was: fashion loses its meaning without it's purpose, while other artforms (while they may be functional) have meaning whether or not they serve some practical purpose (art for art's sake).

but does it?...
who says fashion loses its meaning without it's purpose?....
how can we judge that?...
couldnt it have several functions?.....and still exist as 'art', and indeed art for art's sake, beyond its use as a functional item?....

we take clothes and stick them on mannequins and put them in museums...
we analyse them, recognise their design, acknowledge their importance, their impact, and their aesthetic value....
and they give some (not all) a sense of pleasure, and of appreciation....
couldnt we say this is ART?....

 

[mariemaud]

^^
Sure
know what you mean and it can be so bad sometimes when commercial takes it all
but in painting for exemple you also have the pression of gallerists, of fair organizers... Commercial buzz may be not as big than in fashion industry but the rules are the same with trends, big sellers, outsiders, "commercial artists"...
but it's an established game now and the best way to avoid it is to know the rules properly not to follow them but to pass by them

 

[kanita]

Art is something that is made with love, if an designer designs out of love, design it is art, if money is the ambition it is not art.

 

[kissmesweet]

Right. ^^ Well put. Art is about expressing your moods/feelings and yourself and fashion does that so well, so yes fashion would be an art without a doubt. If it isn't... then what are we all doing here on tFS?

 

[sfashiondesigner]

when life is an art then why not fashion

yeah i probably love your note ..
it's one of the best treads,pls add Yves saint laurent inspired work of Moddrain...
keep coming yaar.. :-heart:
apreciate u

 

[belletrist]

If you think that fashion is a form of art, then there is a problem
Art has nothing to do with "beautiful", "nice" "love", "pasionne", etc
Art is about meaning. And suffering (yes, suffering, don't tell me Galliano is suffering and that's why he designs dresses)
And elitism, also, Tarkovski said it. He also said his suffering was so intense so he HAD to make films (an obligation)
Art has nothing to do with money. When is was almost paralized, renoir was still painting.
Picasso was billionnaire very young, he didn't retire
Some people were KILLED or had to change theiur country (Soljenitsyne) because of what they were saying in their books...
So art and fashion...

 

[mariemaud]

If I had to agree with you I'd say art is a big lie and doesn't exist !

 

[Goya]

Fashion cannot equal to art IMHO. Art ist about expressing and sharing, it has in most cases nothing to do with money or profit. But fashion in contrast deals a lot with commercial things, the top priority for almost every brand is to make money. If a designer only pursue what he really want in an art sense and not considering the market, the brand may not last long. But I agree that in the process of create a collection, there might be something creative, something experimental, something conceptional, but still, this kind of something cannot be called art.

 

[belletrist]

Mariemaud, although I admit than in a certain way, you may be right, I would like to add a few things

The association between art and business is quite new, or have taken a new form in the last decades. Before, that was either you were starving (Dostoïeski) or else you were rich (Goethe) but because you were admired by intelligent people (either way, you didn't have to sacrifice your talent to be popular).
The pop music (as opposed as the classical music) was something new: for the first time people starting to SELL things to people (happily, some artist are not in this way of acting, some are not totally and mix their talent with some... don't know... money-willing?)
That's the same with cinema, and as this art is really new, you can feel the difference. I don't know if you love "artistic" cinema (which is not a problem I mean... that's one of the few arts that are very demanding with the people who try to get interested in), but there is a HUGE difference, between Steven Spielberg, and some artists like Tarkovski or Godard (both were really cruel with Spielberg, which is not useful actually...some of his films are great).
I still believe that popular cinema, popular music, etc cannot be called art (there's no popular painting because everyone pretend to love famous things - Picasso Warhol etc - without understanding their work).
However, since I become interested in fashion, I learned that some designers are a little bit more than simple dress makers, some have a vision (Rick Owens, Margiela maybe, etc etc) and you buy more than a piece of fabric. And although I love McQueen, his "themed" collections are not art because he is just inspired by music/whatever, and doesn't create anything.
Overall, the more than fashion do, is that this summer, skirts will be shorts, and skinny pants will be hype on guys. Which is sad, because even if they can't create actual art, some can do better. (and the others just stop with this trends-crap-things *how ridiculous is the concept or trend, which CAN'T be decided by a few designers, and change every seasons, but truly depends on the society you are living in* and make beautiful, quality clothing...)

 

[mariemaud]

really appreciate your efforts to explain and get understood
seems interestin, I don't totally agreewith you but it's all the more interestin coz I have to make an effort to get understood too, which leads me to clear things in my mind
1st question
the problem you are evoquin is that pop culture can make people follow things without any reflexion etc... totally agree but...
is the "intelligentsia" you're talking about more trustable?
I mean the problem both with pop culture and with elitist culture is that things are not made for people to have a lot of reflexion
if you talk about painting for exemple with someone, it often happen he/she is even not able to say anything about what he/she sees, coz he/she is sure in advance going to say nasty/silly things
to me elitism can keep away many people from reflexion
dunno if you know what I mean...

 

[babyladybones]

Fashion is a creation and creating things is art. The fabrics and embellishments are the designer's medium.

 

[ultramarine]

There IS a HUGE thread about this somewhere in the forum ... the bottomline after pages and pages of discussion was ... clothes is to be worn ... its functional, has a purpose, they're just not art ... sorry ... but after all that I read on that thread -which I cud search but Im lazy- I was convinced ...

 

[Karl.Popper]

Rollocks. Stained glass windows are functional. So they're not art?

 

[Karl.Popper]

Art has nothing to do with "beautiful", "nice" "love", "pasionne", etc
Art is about meaning. And suffering (yes, suffering, don't tell me Galliano is suffering and that's why he designs dresses)
And elitism, also, Tarkovski said it. He also said his suffering was so intense so he HAD to make films (an obligation)

lol you're propagating the myth of the "suffering" artist. It's a romanticised cliche and no more. No more necessary in art than a beret and a shredded ear. The Chinese calligrapher or painter had a calm, technical approach to calligraphy. Durer never "suffered" sketching a rabbit or a clump of grass, unless you think such mundane subjects require the artist to be miserable before he can render them. A talented composer like Bach improvised elegant, complex fugues and canons without agonising over them, much less suffering over every note. In sum, suffering is overrated.

The world of art and music is replete with examples that says rollocks to the overinflated idea of suffering and artistry.

I think it's just a ridiculous modern conceit.

 

[Karl.Popper]

The association between art and business is quite new, or have taken a new form in the last decades. Before, that was either you were starving (Dostoïeski) or else you were rich (Goethe) but because you were admired by intelligent people (either way, you didn't have to sacrifice your talent to be popular).

It isn't new at all. Artists' workshops thrived on commerce and commissions during the Renaissance.

The pop music (as opposed as the classical music) was something new: for the first time people starting to SELL things to people . . . I still believe that popular cinema, popular music, etc cannot be called art).

Again, not new at all. What we know as "classical" music today WAS the popular music of its day. Why should something be art or not by virtue of whether it was popular or not? That's just silly.

The idea that art has always been cut off from commerce, or that classical music was never popular is just historical myopia at its most shortsighted.

 

[ultramarine]

Found the original thread ..

http://www.thefashionspot.com/forums/f60/art-fashion-design-3955.html?highlight=fashion

MODS! PLEASE MERGE!!!!!!

 

[jml2]

art doesn't have a rigourous definition, so all we can do is answer it based on whatever our preferred definition is. The discussion won't go anywhere unless it is only to hear different opinions. I think generally people imagine art to be something without function though, except to provoke emotional or intellectual responses.