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

[faust]

Lena, do it!

 

[PrinceOfCats]

My teddy-boy driving-instructor might have said : "Step on the gas, baby!"

 

[Lena]

done

applied arts and fine art is indeed a different story

as a designer i could never dream of doing whatever came to my mind, simply because 'ideas' had to materialise, get constructed (one is depended to 'good hands') , pay for fabrics & trimmings, take care of FIT and then of course sell my 'art' which means ...commercialising the artistic idea takes art to a totally different level.

i do art when i scketch for fun, for expression and communication of ideas and creativity. when designing for fashion/architecture/graphics etc etc, artistic feeling is certainly there, but the end 'product' is not art guys..

if it was art it was going to be in.. museums

ps:thats what makes the whole creative proceedure of fashion/architecture etc so interesting to me, the combination and perfection of both creativity and functionality

 

[metal-on-metal]

I agree with Orochian and Lena. Fashion is not a legitimate art or fine art. Though some fashion (Galliano/Balenciaga/Hussein Chalayan) goes far beyond the extent of jeans and t-shirts, fashion still remains an applied art.

 

[purplelucrezia]

But isn't it all just a means of creative expression? Everyone just voices it in a different format. For example, both Picasso and Gropius might have had the same concept in something, they felt more confident in alternative mediums.

 

[purplelucrezia]

Originally posted by chickonspeed@Mar 25th, 2004 - 4:50 pm
I agree with Orochian and Lena. Fashion is not a legitimate art or fine art. Though some fashion (Galliano/Balenciaga/Hussein Chalayan) goes far beyond the extent of jeans and t-shirts, fashion still remains an applied art.

I disagree with the idea that fashion isn't art. The work of houses like Commes des Garcons, for example, is definately a visual art in my opinion. I think it's really sad that fashion has traditionally been seen as a "lower form." Under the hand of a talented designer it surely has intergrity in it's own right.

 

[Lena]

Originally posted by purplelucrezia@Mar 25th, 2004 - 10:51 pm
But isn't it all just a means of creative expression? Everyone just voices it in a different format. For example, both Picasso and Gropius might have had the same concept in something, they felt more confident in alternative mediums.

the difference is that fashion design is not just creative expression when one needs to keep in mind functionality of 'sales' figures, those actually can take all the 'art' out of 'applied arts' if you know what i mean.

and what about mass producers of fashion (Zara etc) could you call them artists?
no way right?
design is not the same as art when its done for a commercial reason.

if one designs for the theater/dance/movies its quite more artistic,
but still one is not completly free to express whatever they like,
due to certain 'restrains' mainly the director's view on the costumes/scenography.

fashion designers can be 'artistic' for special projects like instalations or art exhibitions, but on the whole even though creativity is there , there are too many rules to follow in construction and distribution

 

[purplelucrezia]

Originally posted by Lena+Mar 25th, 2004 - 5:01 pm--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lena @ Mar 25th, 2004 - 5:01 pm)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-purplelucrezia@Mar 25th, 2004 - 10:51 pm
But isn't it all just a means of creative expression? Everyone just voices it in a different format. For example, both Picasso and Gropius might have had the same concept in something, they felt more confident in alternative mediums.

the difference is that fashion design is not just creative expression when one needs to keep in mind functionality of 'sales' figures, those actually can take all the 'art' out of 'applied arts' if you know what i mean.

and what about mass producers of fashion (Zara etc) could you call them artists?
no way right?
design is not the same as art when its done for a commercial reason.

if one designs for the theater/dance/movies its quite more artistic,
but still one is not completly free to express whatever they like,
due to certain 'restrains' mainly the director's view on the costumes/scenography.

fashion designers can be 'artistic' for special projects like instalations or art exhibitions, but on the whole even though creativity is there , there are too many rules to follow in construction and distribution [/b][/quote]
You are right in regards to more commercial brands. I do feel that many fashion designers out there are worthy of the title of artist though.

 

[Lena]

Originally posted by purplelucrezia@Mar 25th, 2004 - 10:54 pm

I disagree with the idea that fashion isn't art. The work of houses like Commes des Garcons, for example, is definately a visual art in my opinion. I think it's really sad that fashion has traditionally been seen as a "lower form." Under the hand of a talented designer it surely has intergrity in it's own right.

oh no, its not 'lower' at all , on the contrary is 'higher' when done well, because one needs to 'master' a number of different and contradicting 'down to earth' elements while remaining creative and original.
fashion design as applied art is actually more 'intriguing' or 'challeging' than fine art if you see it in depth
even at CDG, trust me they dont see their work as art, thats why they support artists so much, because they know their limits as a designer house.

art is created free of commercialism.
when picasso or clemente sit in front of an empty canvas,
they dont think about fit, costs, distributions or raw materials
and that makes a tremendous difference my dearest purplelucrezia

 

[faust]

haha, a new topic needed, "definition of art" B)

 

[Lena]

Originally posted by faust@Mar 25th, 2004 - 11:11 pm
haha, a new topic needed, "definition of art" B)

i guess we can squeeze this in here faust

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I think "applied art" is best and most apporpriate for describing fashion and architecture. I think that is the term I was trying to get at in my previous posts.

 

[sewingfairy3]

I want to be a fashion designer someday, and personally, think this question about art and not art is ridiculous and a waste of time. Anything is art, anything is not art. You need an artistic mind which is one that can follow right brain expressions but still keep in mind the left brain, including measurements. Painters need to make measurements of their canvas before painting. Architects need measurements, then they apply their artistic ideas. Fashion desingers create ideas and then make their ideas fit human bodies. It is not one or the other. It is both hand in hand. They link together, to create a tangible object. That tangible object is seen as art to those who can see it. Those who can't see it, I feel very bad for them.

 

[Erzébeth]

even when you're just doing function eg. a building aren't there many paths towards that function? could picking a certain path be artistic expression...?

 

[wyatt.]

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 agree.

art can be completely functionable. there are different levels of dedication and purpose of art.

a painting stresses other abstract ideas than a dress or a building but it's still art.

even basic things have some type of art form.

sometimes white canvases sell for millions of dollars and they are just as basic as a white tank and a cube brick building

applied art is still art!

 

[wyatt.]

Originally posted by sewingfairy3@Mar 25th, 2004 - 5:54 pm
I want to be a fashion designer someday, and personally, think this question about art and not art is ridiculous and a waste of time. Anything is art, anything is not art. You need an artistic mind which is one that can follow right brain expressions but still keep in mind the left brain, including measurements. Painters need to make measurements of their canvas before painting. Architects need measurements, then they apply their artistic ideas. Fashion desingers create ideas and then make their ideas fit human bodies. It is not one or the other. It is both hand in hand. They link together, to create a tangible object. That tangible object is seen as art to those who can see it. Those who can't see it, I feel very bad for them.

so you say acting and music aren't art?

because they are not tangible.

 

[Lena]

everything is a type of art form but everything is not art in the strict definition of the term. in my book everyone is -or could be- an artist but not everyone is/could be a fine artist without studying art in depth.

blank canvas? well, dont believe the hype loserunit

art needs craftmanship and freedome of expression
talking as a fashion designer, i insist, fashion design (like industial desing or architecture) is applied art.

excuses for being so blunt but even though creativity is everywhere and all the time, there is no question on the differences between 'everyday art or the art of living' 'fine art' and 'applied art'

 

[wyatt.]

well said.

 

[purplelucrezia]

Originally posted by Lena@Mar 25th, 2004 - 5:08 pm
art is created free of commercialism.
when picasso or clemente sit in front of an empty canvas,
they dont think about fit, costs, distributions or raw materials
and that makes a tremendous difference my dearest purplelucrezia

Artists still need to feed themselves, just like everyone else.

 

[Lena]

Originally posted by purplelucrezia+Mar 26th, 2004 - 12:49 am--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(purplelucrezia @ Mar 26th, 2004 - 12:49 am)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Lena@Mar 25th, 2004 - 5:08 pm
art is created free of commercialism.
when picasso or clemente sit in front of an empty canvas,
they dont think about fit, costs, distributions or raw materials
and that makes a tremendous difference my dearest purplelucrezia

Artists still need to feed themselves, just like everyone else. [/b][/quote]
of course they do, but they absolutely dont think about $$ or about how much a painting (etc) will sell for while they are in creative mode.
they start thinking about this 'after' not 'during'
..it makes quite some difference imHo