mikeijames
no tom ford, no thanks.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2003
- Messages
- 5,879
- Reaction score
- 6
i think one thing that is lacking in this discussion (or perhaps i just read through previous posts too quickly) is the constructed nature of the line between the fine arts and the baser arts (applied art, et. al). in earlier times the line was quite clear and while artists and patrons of the day worked hard to move the line, it was still clear that painted squirrels running around in painted boxes would not qualify.
i think that art comes from a moment of transendence (sp?) in a way, it comes from inspiration that allows the artist in whatever medium to create without the obstructions of the logical or the predicted. what schools do (and many art schools teach their painters to paint with the same technical attention as architects) is teach their students an artistic, but realistic, vocabulary with which to express those ideas. i say that fashion is an art form not because it lacks function, but because i can admire a swatch of Lesage beading for hours just as I would gaze endlessly into a Monet. I can be moved by the architectural details in a Parisian cathedral as much as I can be moved by a Rodin.
i think what's important is to understand exactly who is it that creates these lines between what we call the fine arts and everything else. i think such an investigation would reveal that a lot of classism and elitism comes into play and not much talk of the actual artistic nature. when people first started writing novels, the elite said that novel-writing was not a legitimate form of artistic expression because it depended on other economic factors (being publishable, having an audience) in order to survive. now we all recognize that a few pages of Hemmingway can stand up next to Wordsworth anyday.
fashion is the same way. in twenty years we will not blink when we see some works by our modern day artists (we even do now with Viktor and Rolf) stand up next to some of the old masters. the lines between the fine arts and the applied are lines we as a society set.
i think that art comes from a moment of transendence (sp?) in a way, it comes from inspiration that allows the artist in whatever medium to create without the obstructions of the logical or the predicted. what schools do (and many art schools teach their painters to paint with the same technical attention as architects) is teach their students an artistic, but realistic, vocabulary with which to express those ideas. i say that fashion is an art form not because it lacks function, but because i can admire a swatch of Lesage beading for hours just as I would gaze endlessly into a Monet. I can be moved by the architectural details in a Parisian cathedral as much as I can be moved by a Rodin.
i think what's important is to understand exactly who is it that creates these lines between what we call the fine arts and everything else. i think such an investigation would reveal that a lot of classism and elitism comes into play and not much talk of the actual artistic nature. when people first started writing novels, the elite said that novel-writing was not a legitimate form of artistic expression because it depended on other economic factors (being publishable, having an audience) in order to survive. now we all recognize that a few pages of Hemmingway can stand up next to Wordsworth anyday.
fashion is the same way. in twenty years we will not blink when we see some works by our modern day artists (we even do now with Viktor and Rolf) stand up next to some of the old masters. the lines between the fine arts and the applied are lines we as a society set.